Forcing Catholic Morality on everyone

[meltzerboy]

Hi, Meltzerboy,

Everything in your post hinges on definitions. If you paint with the borad brush, you simply miss the details that make up the entire logical argument. Let’s take a look at what we have here…

I would say this generalized statement is partially true. Everything depends just what change we are talking about, the rate of change one is considering and its overall impact. For example.
The ‘fall’ of the Roman Empire took about 400 years, Gutenberg’s printing press in about 1450 was one of the great forces in the spread of the Protestant Revolt in less than 100 years, the Arab conquest from Syria in 637 to North Africa in 665 took about 28 years, the US Atomic Bomb of August 1945 was copied and detonated in August 1949, and let’s not forget the impact of consumer technology with Apple sells 1,000,000 iPhones 4S in less than 24 hours. From this brief review of historical milestones no one could pedict either the next change or the rate at which any change will be accomplished. And, of course, not all changes succeed.

Sounds nice. Unfortunately,while this may make sense in the unlikely event that a nun would strap on a suicide vest or hijack an airplane to fly into a building - how does one not use government to enforce the safety of others when their view of Islam requires that they kill as many non-believers as possible? These suicide advocates have sincere convictions - and I do not think anyone doubts their sincerity. They are not crazy but ‘true believers’ who have been manipulated by others who are not interested in suicide for themselves. Your statement does not have a universal application - and what it misses may cost you your own life.

There really is a difference between a therapeutic abortion (e.g., ectopic pregnancy that will kill the mother unless emergency surgery is initiated) and elective abortion (e.g., the standard ‘for the life and heatlh…blah, blah,balh’ that now means for any reason including one not liking the gender of the offspring one is carrying). To lump these two together misses an important detail.

Honest, Meltzerboy, this is a real mismash of ideas only related by you do not want government regulation in anything. This is similar to what ‘Farmer’ Jefferson wanted in theory before he bacame the 3rd US President. I hate to say it, but, you really need to just look around and see what is happening specifically with the Obama Administration’s full court press aginst human life, individual conscience, homosexual behavior, embryonic stem cell reserch and the President’s uniquie ability for just outright lying to the American People about just what he will do. The good news is that have just 343 days remaining until we the voters can make a real change in who sits in the Oval Office

I really do not see it that way… and yes, even though you denied it, I do think that the term ‘Strawman’ is a good characterization. You know the Founding Fathers not only believed in a Creator (God!) but that He gave us rights that man can not take away from us. These Founders were also realists - and they knew that a society must have rules that work - so this unique arrangement of ‘checks and balances’ was developed as an experiment - no one else had this! This ultimately means that none of us can do everything we want.

God bless

Tom, my mishmash of ideas, as you put it, does have a common theme, which is that government stay out of religion as much as possible. And if you’re talking about strawmen, the example you give about the Islamic suicide terrorists seems to me to qualify as one. Of course the government cannot tolerate danger and harm to the life and property of its citizens. The convictions of these “true believers” must be weighed against the right to life, liberty, and property of the people. That is why I oppose a theocratic government, which would by definition not ensure the liberty or even life of those citizens who oppose the religious convictions of the ruling party.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

So far I see nothing in Mr Smith’s writing new. I see echoes of the same thoughts in the writings of Dawkins and Sagan and others…

I don’t see how Smith’s imagination theory contradicts our beliefs. I don’t think God gave man a conscience that defies all natural, human reason. In fact, I believe that many of the big issues of our day would be solved if people looked at all sides of the issue (the implications and effects of what those behaviors produce in society…), that is, used that imagination that Smith believes our morality stems from. It is sometimes due to misinformation, but usually due to man’s selfishness that he will not even endeavor to look at the entire issue, b/c doing so would reveal the grossness of the behavior he wishes to engage in.

It would do our present society a lot of good if it would use this imagination exercise fairly, but the fact is that many, if not most, do not. If it did so, abortion would not exist. But I suppose that is b/c it is difficult to image being a 9-month old baby about to leave the womb before its life is brutally snuffed out.

I also guess it has slipped the mind of Smith and his followers that God could have given us the use of our minds and imaginations to decipher what is good and what is bad?

God does not expect us to drop all reason and natural sense when it comes to anything He has revealed. Faith does not defy reason or any other human experience. So when science comes up with a “natural explanation” for those things once unknown, instead of saying "see, we don’t need God - it’s just “natural”!), expand that thinking further and ask yourself the critical question: But where did THAT come from?

This reminds me of Hawking’s famous, public dismissal of the possibility for the existence of God. He claimed that there is no need for a god, b/c we have gravity. We have “the laws of nature”. Yes we do Mr Hawking, but WHERE DO THE LAWS OF NATURE COME FROM?

We are constantly discovering a world we never could have imagined. The world of physics challenges everything we have ever thought about reality. It’s almost humorous to call something “natural” when we look at the strange reality we are uncovering, b/c much of it is mind-blowing, inconceivable, and very difficult to believe - yet it is real. Heck, maybe the most evolved beings on this planet are those who are mystics, or intuitive people - what “normal” people consider bizarre or fake (b/c they don’t experience it themselves or can’t explain it [yet]).

Anyway, just my thoughts on what I’ve read so far. If I’m missing something crucial let me know and I’ll try to pick up on the reading again.

 

[Gift_from_God]

It works both ways. Muslims may also believe they have a duty to share their Truth. What some CAF Catholics seem to think is that the world revolves around their religion. It doesn’t.

Some of your wording I think I disagree with, but I understand and agree with your point. I believe I have the truth, a Jewish person believes he has the truth, and you, an atheist, probably believe you have the truth.

For the good of the Church’s reputation actually, it is best for it to be removed from the realm of politics as much as it possibly can be. It still has a right to speak its mind, and its opinion should definitely be factored in the political decision making-process as they are a stakeholder in a community just as much as anyone else.

The problem comes when the Church becomes a political force unto itself, and its unfortunate that many CAF Catholics advocate for that. If they knew anything about history, they would know the destructive path that ultimately leads to.

Some people on CAF have tried to tell me who I can and can’t vote for because of a personal opinion their Bishop holds. I think any Catholic scholar will tell you that an opinion does not mean it is a universal truth

 

[Elizabeth502]

What some CAF Catholics seem to think is that the world revolves around their religion. It doesn’t.

Even the Vatican doesn’t believe that, so why should it matter in the long run what particular members of a Church might believe? The weight that they believe and don’t believe their Faith carries in the larger scheme of the general population has nothing to do with the privilege, the constitutional right, to represent that Faith publicly, nor does it relate to the moral mandate to consider the Catholic perspective in secular decision-making. (“Faithful Citizenship.”) Knowing with conviction a universal truth is not the same thing as a lack of realism about globally shared and globally different beliefs. It neither justifies greater representation of Catholicism in the public square (than all other religions) nor reduces it.

No one follows a mainstream religion (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, etc) without believing that it contains the fullness of truth. They can’t. Otherwise they would convert to a different religion.

Which is why such other followers will, and should, influence civil decision-making. The fact that Catholics may be especially interested in doing so by no means diminishes the ability or the will of competing believers to do likewise.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What has become clear to me, and to some other CAF’ers who have corresponded with me about this, is that the impulse to open threads like these and have these discussions questioning the legitimacy of a public religious viewpoint (as opposed to one restricted to Friday night, Saturday morning, or Sunday, or one spoken of privately or ‘in the closet’), are some essential reservations about “doing religion” (for want of a better phrase).

However, objectively speaking, a Faith not lived – or a faith restricted by government power, or a faith which undergoes self-imposition on the part of the believer – has little value. In fact, both Christianity (not just Catholicism) and Judaism are at their core religions of action. To behave like a Christian on Sunday, but a pagan, agnostic, or atheist on the other 6 days of the week is not only hypocritical, it calls into question the very basis and depth of the believer’s faith. And I have yet to meet a Jew who believes that Judaism is best restricted to Friday night or Saturday morning. Action and activism all but define Judaism.

There are five possible operative subtexts of this thread, and many like it. For the OP’s question even to be asked, and to be affirmatively responded to, requires one of these 5 underlying assumptions to be operative in the questioner’s or responder’s mind.

(1) Such posters privately or publicly, whether Catholic or not, would prefer constitutional restrictions on all religions. (Riders to the First Amendment of the US Constitution)

(2) Such posters privately or publicly, whether Catholic or not, would prefer constitutional restrictions on Catholicism only.

(3) Such posters privately or publicly would prefer constitutional restrictions relative to the level of moral conviction of the individual exercising that free speech, or the level of conviction of that citizen’s religious body. (i.e., Lukewarm believers are welcome to register their legislative desires, subject to vigilant self-appointed overseers, whereas zealous believers should be uninvited to do likewise).

(4) Such posters, if Catholic, are not in favor of formal restrictions, but will use any medium necessary to shame their fellow Catholics from exercising beliefs beyond Church buildings. It would never occur to these Catholics to persuade, let alone shame, believers of different religions to keep silent. Only Catholics need keep silent. Only Catholics have a reduced legitimacy in the public square. The method of these posters is to try to persuade Catholics to abandon all public influence voluntarily, while merely implying that there is no inherent constitutional right for a Catholic to apply Catholic principles to decision-making.

(5) Such Catholic posters are not seriously interested in legislating un-morality or free speech restrictions, but feel highly ambivalent about their own membership in a religion which proclaims a legitimate application of morality to law, even though all civil law and criminal law proceed in some sense from morality. They regret their Catholic identity at least on some level, and think the correct social thing to do is to “pass” in society with as much religious anonymity as possible, perhaps even going so far as to deny one’s religion even in private (which is btw a mortal sin), or to communicate a lack of commitment to religion. Those of this group who are most ambivalent also suggest that other Catholics become invisible.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

What has become clear to me, and to some other CAF’ers who have corresponded with me about this, is that the impulse to open threads like these and have these discussions questioning the legitimacy of a public religious viewpoint (as opposed to one restricted to Friday night, Saturday morning, or Sunday, or one spoken of privately or ‘in the closet’), are some essential reservations about “doing religion” (for want of a better phrase).

However, objectively speaking, a Faith not lived – or a faith restricted by government power, or a faith which undergoes self-imposition on the part of the believer – has little value. In fact, both Christianity (not just Catholicism) and Judaism are at their core religions of action. To behave like a Christian on Sunday, but a pagan, agnostic, or atheist on the other 6 days of the week is not only hypocritical, it calls into question the very basis and depth of the believer’s faith. And I have yet to meet a Jew who believes that Judaism is best restricted to Friday night or Saturday morning. Action and activism all but define Judaism.

There are five possible operative subtexts of this thread, and many like it. For the OP’s question even to be asked, and to be affirmatively responded to, requires one of these 5 underlying assumptions to be operative in the questioner’s or responder’s mind.

(1) Such posters privately or publicly, whether Catholic or not, would prefer constitutional restrictions on all religions. (Riders to the First Amendment of the US Constitution)

(2) Such posters privately or publicly, whether Catholic or not, would prefer constitutional restrictions on Catholicism only.

(3) Such posters privately or publicly would prefer constitutional restrictions relative to the level of moral conviction of the individual exercising that free speech, or the level of conviction of that citizen’s religious body. (i.e., Lukewarm believers are welcome to register their legislative desires, subject to vigilant self-appointed overseers, whereas zealous believers should be uninvited to do likewise).

(4) Such posters, if Catholic, are not in favor of formal restrictions, but will use any medium necessary to shame their fellow Catholics from exercising beliefs beyond Church buildings. It would never occur to these Catholics to persuade, let alone shame, believers of different religions to keep silent. Only Catholics need keep silent. Only Catholics have a reduced legitimacy in the public square. The method of these posters is to try to persuade Catholics to abandon all public influence voluntarily, while merely implying that there is no inherent constitutional right for a Catholic to apply Catholic principles to decision-making.

(5) Such Catholic posters are not seriously interested in legislating un-morality or free speech restrictions, but feel highly ambivalent about their own membership in a religion which proclaims a legitimate application of morality to law, even though all civil law and criminal law proceed in some sense from morality. They regret their Catholic identity at least on some level, and think the correct social thing to do is to “pass” in society with as much religious anonymity as possible, perhaps even going so far as to deny one’s religion even in private (which is btw a mortal sin), or to communicate a lack of commitment to religion. Those of this group who are most ambivalent also suggest that other Catholics become invisible.

Thoughtfully put.

I am coming out of the #5 phase (the “pass in society” part - to some extent anyway…), and I don’t consider my position necessarily a Catholic one, but the remnants of my Mennonite ties and non-participation doctrine.

But I do believe that to be silent is a sin. There is NEVER sin in voicing the truth! A lot of my opposition to politics is in selecting a candidate, b/c I never find someone that I can, in good (God-)conscience vote for. I don’t think a godly person will ever make it to candidacy - at least not in this age. But I’m not silent in any arena. I just won’t vote for the “lessor of two evils” b/c then I’d still be voting for evil.

 

[John21652]

I continue to be both amazed and confused by the advocates of “no forced morality”. As I’ve stated on other threads, most of these “no forced morality” folks are fine with the NRA, NAACP, AARP, PETA, etc etc ad nauseum. There’s a lobbying group for trial attorneys, realtors, oil, anti-oil, environmentalists, educators, etc. ***Why exactly should Catholics be required to sit down and shut up about their views and beliefs? ***

And as has been said too many times to count, most if not all of the legal systems in the WORLD are founded on moral foundations. In England and America, for instance, our legal systems are based on common law, which was in turn based on Natural Law, and, you guessed it, that’s a moral system. a Judeo-Christian moral system.

Hey, don’t forget Australia, Canada, New Zealand too. Europe had the same legal/moral heritage also, until some countries decided to codify their legal systems. It was not so long ago that Natural Law reasoning underpinned almost all legal reasoning. The introduction of a more utilitarian approach to law and public policy has undermined the Judeo-Christian natural Law ethic and caused much of western society to fracture its inherent morality. The results are now fairly obvious.