Church and State

[Liberalsaved]

T.A.Stobie:

So you want to outlaw all references to God by anyone anywhere in the country as sought by the ACLU (interpretation based on their actions)

I think he actually went to the extreme OTHER end, and I happen to agree. The nation being a nation under any one’s personal God is not an acceptable way to govern.

 

[Liberalsaved]

buffalo:

The state cannot influence religion, but religion should influence the state. We, the people…

So, in other words, you want to put your morals into government so that others have to follow them, but you don’t think others should be able to govern your morals.

I’m so glad that isn’t the case.

 

[michaelmac]

Hi All, whats wrong with trying to (name removed by moderator)ut morality into government and the church, when neither seem to know what morality is ,or Christianity yours michaelmac

 

[Liberalsaved]

michaelmac:

Hi All, whats wrong with trying to (name removed by moderator)ut morality into government and the church, when neither seem to know what morality is ,or Christianity yours michaelmac

Only the fact that Government in this country exists to maintain peace and not to govern morals.

 

[buffalo]

Liberalsaved:

So, in other words, you want to put your morals into government so that others have to follow them, but you don’t think others should be able to govern your morals.

I’m so glad that isn’t the case.

Exactly, that’s what the Legislative branch is for, to make laws. You live under laws that were made and influenced by religious beliefs.

And I think the Catholic morals are the ones we should champion and elect legislators that support this position.

Others have governed my morals. Say for example the Supreme Court of the US even though that is not their domain.

 

[buffalo]

Liberalsaved:

Only the fact that Government in this country exists to maintain peace and not to govern morals.

Without laws people degenerate to lawlessness and anarchy. Good laws and high morals keep peace.

 

[BillP]

buffalo:

Others have governed my morals. Say for example the Supreme Court of the US even though that is not their domain.

In what way has SCOTUS governed your morals?

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion - Have you been forced to have an abortion?

Griswold v. Connecticut legalized access to contraceptives - Have you been forced to contracept?

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas made sodomy betweeen consenting adults legal - Have you been forced to engage in sodomy.

As far as I can tell no one has imposed their morals on anyone. They have simply protected the rights of people who disagree with our moral sensabilities.

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas

 

[ChrisR246]

buffalo:

Without laws people degenerate to lawlessness and anarchy.

Some might degenerate into into the barbaric type activities I think you intend. OTOH, I believe many/most people can get along just fine with each other without government. Certainly it means taking on more responsibility for themselves, but they are capable of it.

buffalo:

Good laws and high morals keep peace.

As long as you are obeying the laws and morals. Having government agents with automatic weapons kick down your door in the middle of the night because you committed a “victimless crime” is probably not peaceful.

buffalo:

And I think the Catholic morals are the ones we should champion and elect legislators that support this position.

Understand that if you are going to ask those legislators to enshrine Catholic morals, that you are also asking the police to enforce them and that, ultimately is done with violence.

 

[BillP]

buffalo:

Mine of course! The point is that the religious values of the people influence the public debate and should.

We have let the secular religion influence the public debate for some time now.

Absolutely! But that “secular religion” (which I’m not sure is an accurate charaterization but thats a discussion for another time) represents, at the moment, the consensus among Americans (check the numbers on abortion, birth control and same sex Civil Unions). If you wish to educate the people and change that consensus that’s fine. But simply trying to legislate because you can’t persuade is a) antithetical to our governing principals b) resultws in the government having too much power and c) ineffective.

buffalo:

The country was founded on Catholic principles (even though most of the founders were Protestant the values are mostly Catholic) and to remain so, Christians must influence the government.

Could you elucidate this point a bit. My understanding was the the founding fathers were stridently anti-Catholic. Perhaps I was mis-informed. Which “Catholic principals” was the country founded upon?

 

[buffalo]

BillP:

In what way has SCOTUS governed your morals?

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion - Have you been forced to have an abortion?

Griswold v. Connecticut legalized access to contraceptives - Have you been forced to contracept?

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas made sodomy betweeen consenting adults legal - Have you been forced to engage in sodomy.

As far as I can tell no one has imposed their morals on anyone. They have simply protected the rights of people who disagree with our moral sensabilities.

Lawrence and Garner v. Texas

We can start here:

By passing a law reagrding my voluntary offering of health insurance I now have to provide contraceptive coverage even though my morals are against it.

 

[BillP]

buffalo:

We can start here:

By passing a law reagrding my voluntary offering of health insurance I now have to provide contraceptive coverage even though my morals are against it.

I don’t believe ANY law requires you to offer health insurance.

If you’re against health insurance offering contraceptives simply pay your folks extra to get their own and discontinue you’re company plan.

Are you also against EEOC laws? Should you legally be able to exclude Blacks, Asians, Women, Muslims etc from the ranks of your employees?

 

[buffalo]

BillP:

Absolutely! But that “secular religion” (which I’m not sure is an accurate charaterization but thats a discussion for another time) represents, at the moment, the consensus among Americans (check the numbers on abortion, birth control and Same Sex civil Unioins). If you wish to educate the people and change that consensus that’s fine. But simply trying to legislate because you can’t persuade is a) antithetical to our governing principals b) resultws in the government having too much power and c) ineffective.

Could you elucidate this point a bit. My understanding was the the founding fathers were stridently anti-Catholic. Perhaps I was mis-informed. Which “Catholic principals” was the country founded upon?

Maybe we have an misunderstanding about legislate. We elect lawmakers to pass laws. These should represent the will of the people.

The founders were very anti-Catholic. However, they were Christian. Most of the morality they carried forward from their Catholic roots. (even though they might not have known it.)

 

[buffalo]

BillP:

I don’t believe ANY law requires you to offer health insurance.

If you’re against health insurance offering contraceptives simply pay your folks extra to get their own and discontinue you’re company plan.

Are you also against EEOC laws? Should you legally be able to exclude Blacks, Asians, Women, Muslims etc from the ranks of your employees?

That’s right. Offering health ins is optional. Bu if I offer it then I have to offer contraceptive coverage. Interesting.

Why do we need EEOC laws in the first place? ( I am not against them however.) But that is a case of legislating morality.

 

[ChrisR246]

BillP:

I don’t believe ANY law requires you to offer health insurance.

I believe CA, and possibly others, require that if you do offer Health Insurance it must include contraception.

BillP:

re against health insurance offering contraceptives simply pay your folks extra to get their own and discontinue you’re company plan.

But that seems like an imposition of morality - the employer is willing to provide what they feel is proper health care and the state is mandating that they provide the extra.

BillP:

Are you also against EEOC laws?

I am. Limiting my ability to discriminate is an imposition of morality.

BillP:

Should you legally be able to exclude Blacks, Asians, Women, Muslims etc from the ranks of your employees?

Yes, as the business is my property, to do with as I see fit. Furthermore, I have a right to associate with only those I wish to.

 

[BillP]

buffalo:

Maybe we have an misunderstanding about legislate. We elect lawmakers to pass laws. These should represent the will of the people.

I agree and right now the will of the people is at variance with Catholic morality in as much as it permits abortion (under certain circumstances), ABC, sodomy between consensual adults and same sex Civil Unions.

Unfortunately, many people whose moral agenda doesn’t agree with that consensus are trying to get their version of morality codified by deception, misrepresentation and when all else fails by force majeure by stacking SCOTUS with social/religious conservatives who they believe will supplant the Constitution of the US with their own religious sensibilities.

Personally, I think those folks should be careful about sowing the wind as the anti-Catholic whirlwind they reap would make the days of the Know-Nothings and Nativist political movements in this country look like a walk in the park. And set back Catholics in public service a hbundred years or so.

buffalo:

The founders were very anti-Catholic. However, they were Christian. Most of the morality they carried forward from their Catholic roots. (even though they might not have known it.)

I’m sorry, I still don’t understand what “Catholic principals” the foudning fathers based the country on. Could you give me a few examples?

My understanding was, at that point in time,+ the Church was totally oppposed to democratically based governments. The Church was also diametrically oppposed to religious liberty and in favor of Catholicism being the “State Religion” for all states. The justification for these positions was that the Church believed all political power flowed from God through the Catholic Church, i.e. “The Divine Right of Kings”.

So you can see my puzzlement at the asssertion that the founding fathers arranegd the country on “Catholic Principals”.

 

[BillP]

ChrisR246:

But that seems like an imposition of morality -… Limiting my ability to discriminate is an imposition of morality.

buffalo:

…that is a case of legislating morality.

I don’t have a problem with legislating morality per se. I have a problem legislating moral issues against society’s consensus.

We live in a democratic society. We’ve decided that our form of government is that the majority rules while respecting the rights of those who disagree.

Some Catholics show very little respect for the rights of non-Catholics to live their lives as they see fit. Kind of an “error has no rights” viewpoint. I have a problem with that. Mostly because I’ve studied societies that didn’t respect the rights of it’s minorities.

As Catholics we represent only 24% of Americans and have no right to impose our beliefs, moral sense or values on society at large. Why do you think Catholics have been the subject of so much discrimination throught the history of the US and Great Britain? It’s because we are seen as having divided loyalties.

And as long as we put the imposition of Catholic values and morals on non-Catholics above the protections afforded non-Catholics by the Constitution of the US we do have divided loyalties.

 

[buffalo]

BillP:

I agree and right now the will of the people is at variance with Catholic morality in as much as it permits abortion (under certain circumstances), ABC, sodomy between consensual adults and same sex Civil Unions.

Unfortunately, many people whose moral agenda doesn’t agree with that consensus are trying to get their version of morality codified by deception, misrepresentation and when all else fails by force majeure by stacking SCOTUS with social/religious conservatives who they believe will supplant the Constitution of the US with their own religious sensibilities.

Personally, I think those folks should be careful about sowing the wind as the anti-Catholic whirlwind they reap would make the days of the Know-Nothings and Nativist political movements in this country look like a walk in the park. And set back Catholics in public service a hbundred years or so.

I’m sorry, I still don’t understand what “Catholic principals” the foudning fathers based the country on. Could you give me a few examples?

My understanding was, at that point in time,+ the Church was totally oppposed to democratically based governments. The Church was also diametrically oppposed to religious liberty and in favor of Catholicism being the “State Religion” for all states. The justification for these positions was that the Church believed all political power flowed from God through the Catholic Church, i.e. “The Divine Right of Kings”.

So you can see my puzzlement at the asssertion that the founding fathers arranegd the country on “Catholic Principals”.

Back then Catholics could not even get elected. Now they can and do.

 

[BillP]

buffalo:

Back then Catholics could not even get elected. Now they can and do.

Not for long if they behave as the Church demands.

Did you have something for me to read on the “Catholic Principals” of the founding fathers?

 

[ChrisR246]

BillP:

I don’t have a problem with legislating morality per se. I have a problem legislating moral issues against society’s consensus.

Inalienable rights are exactly that, regardless of what consensus society comes to about them. The freedom to dispose of my property as I see fit is a corrollary to self ownership and therefore an inalienable right.

 

[BillP]

ChrisR246:

Inalienable rights are exactly that, regardless of what consensus society comes to about them. The freedom to dispose of my property as I see fit is a corrollary to self ownership and therefore an inalienable right.

Huh? What “inalienable rights” are you referring to?