Forcing Catholic Morality on everyone

[tqualey]

Hi, beehumble,

Excellent post!

Now, I have a question. I saw “180” on my laptop and was very impressed with it - but, why did you call it ‘viral’? I tend to think of a virus as something to avoid - both for personal health and for computer health.

God bless

As the viral video 180 put it, when people said the same thing, 'I would never have an abortion but if somebody else wants to that is their business so why should I interfere or try to stop them."

the video reveals this argument’s fallacy by rephrasing it:
“I would never kill Jews but if Hitler and the Nazis want to that is their business so why should I interfere or try to stop them”

Killing of innocents is not a “value system”, it is intrinsically evil and must always and everywhere be stopped in a civil society.

God bless you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rence,

I do not have time to answer all of the issue you brought up - but, I would recommend that you stay more attentive to what is going on in the world. The idea that the State would let a religious group run an adoption service independently is not the reality of what we find (states have always had an interest in adoption services - with laws to back those interests up) The State of Illinois now has same sex unions … and guess what … the Catholic Church had a choice here: either provide adoption services to these people or get out of the business. Well the Catholic Church in Illinois got out of the business. Here is the link:

deseretnews.com/article/700151173/Civil-unions-law-stops-Catholic-adoption-agencies-in-Illinois.html

The world is changed and we all need to be at least aware of where it has changed.

God bless

I believe they can, if they are not contracted by the State. In other words, they would have to run independently and not accept any State contributions. I know they can also arrange private adoptions.

I work in a secular hospital, and I do not have to participate in abortions. And no one else has to either. Many nurses who are not Catholic will help out someone who has a problem with procedures that Catholics can’t participate in. The only time one would have to participate in an abortion is 1) if the patient is in imminent danger of losing their life AND 2) the Catholic nurse can’t find a replacement to take her patient. These are very rare instances such that this is a mountain made from a molehill. So I again don’t agree that Catholics must participate in abortion or lose their jobs.

Hospitals don’t administer contraceptives. What exactly are you talking about? And again, if a clinic or such administers contraceptives, it’s easy for a nurse to find someone to help her out and administer them for her/him. Again, I can’t relate to this ‘rights being stripped away from Catholics’ notion, and I’m Catholic, a nurse, and work in a secular hospital. I just don’t see all this discriminatio you are talking about.

Again, I dont’ know what you’re talking about. Tax exemption doesn’t have anything to do with what is said on the pulpits, it has to do with being a non-for-profit organization. Their freedom to teach faith is not hindered by their tax exempt status. However, they don’t and shouldn’t endorse a particular candidate, that’s a given. Even the Church doesn’t do this, so why should a priest do this.

They sure can, just not as a group leading the rest of the school. One can pray anywhere.

You’re putting the blame on the wrong party here. Blame the gangbangers who use rosaries as an identifier. As long as they continue to do so, kids won’t be able to wear them to school. Besides, the rosary isn’t jewelry, and is not supposed to be worn as jewelry.

Why would they? Catholic teachings should be in Catholic settings, not imposed on those who don’t want to hear it…

It’s truly horrible that you feel so victimized by the laws that are meant to protect everyone. I’m truly sorry for you. I can’t relate to any of the points you describe above. I don’t feel discriminated against at all in work or when I was in school. I feel as free as anyone else, and it’s a great place to be. I will pray for you that you find freedom and autonomy in your life, so that you feel free to practice your religion like I do and like everyone should.

It’s a great sucess to many more. It means that many people of various cultures and religions can co-exist without trying to kill each other like in areas in constant conflict because they don’t have the same rights as we do. You are fortunate to be able to lobby on behalf of what you believe, whereas many others in different parts of the world can’t even BE Christian. Think about how awful that is: In some parts of the world, one can’t even be Christian due to the prejudices of the Muslims. Some areas in the world have Muslims and Jews and Christians fighting constantly. You are able to practice your religion, you just want others to do the same, and it bugs you that they don’t have to. I guess I can understand that. But if I were you, and I know I’m not, I’d be concentrating on what I can and don’t have to do, rather than on what others choose to do, or not do. If you base your freedom on what you can make others do/not do, you will always be angry and unhappy. And that’s no way to live IMOHO

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But why are you seeing it only as completely black or white, right or left, right or wrong, all or nothing?

It could be that the basic moral ideas are “true” and good and healthy…but that human beings, in their very fallible ways, have messed up and erred and fumbled along the way in the past 2,000 years with how to apply it or teach it or learn it.

If it was all cut-and-dried like a mathematical equation where 1 + 1 = 2…then everybody would be following one way and we’d all get an A-plus on the exam and be happy as larks and nobody would be questioning anything.

But there obviously are gray, middle, maybe areas.

I’m not ‘black and white’ --the teachings of the Catholic Church are either true or not, not because of what I, or ‘human beings’, say, but because of God’s own truth and assurance of protection by the Holy Spirit. Again, this is Catholic teaching. If Catholic Christian teaching is not true, then really NOTHING is true and we have NO assurance. It would be as if Christ had never come, because even if He ‘did’ come, we would have no assurance of His existance, no assurance of His teachings. . .we would have NOTHING, Daddy’s girl. NOTHING. There is NO ‘original’ copy of the New Testament. There is no ‘proof’ of any Christian teaching whatsoever. . .do you really think that Christ came and died on the cross for us only to say, "OK, i’m going back to the Father, and I’m not going to leave with you anything to ‘prove’ that I came, lived, died and rose, any proof to my followers. . .the people who come after me are going to be exposed to nothing but ‘hear say’ and all I have said and done is going to be corrupted and changed so that there will never be any assurance that ANY given word or teaching of ANY Christian group is what I really said or meant- even if I existed, even if I existed as ‘less’ than God. . . You people 2000 years later can pick out what you LIKE of my teachings and live as you choose, confident in the fact that if you are ‘nice people’ you will get a free pass to heaven if you choose to think it exists, or the satisfaction that you’re ‘nice people’ while you live a life devoted to your SELF, not knowing or caring if there is anything afterward but deeming that IF there is a God He will be perfectly pleased that you did the best you could because after all, HE never left ‘clear instructions’ and a guarantee, or so you think. "

Of course Daddy’s girl the ‘you’ is not ‘you personally’ but the generic ‘you’ addressed to those who do hold those ideas.

“Grey areas” do not really exist. Situational ethics are a fancy name given to try to justify doing something other than the true because the true is painful.

Now let’s take for example sex. Some would argue that sex outside marriage, if the people truly ‘love’ each other’, is not sinful, especially if those people are not Christian, or, if Christian, have a ‘good reason’ to remain unmarried, like ‘if we get married as senior citizens, one of us will lose a pension and we’ll be taxed at a higher rate’. Um, that’s NOT a ‘grey area’ --it is a consequence of that ‘society’ which we keep claiming ‘trumps’ a given person’s ‘religion’. Instead of changing the teaching that sex out of marriage is wrong to, “sex out of marriage is okay in THIS situation”. . .change the SITUATION. Lobby to your state and federal government to change an UNFAIR situation and allow senior citizens of low-income who wish to marry to maintain their tax rate at the former stage. Allow low-income seniors who remarry NOT to lose pensions. THEN you ‘remove’ the bad situation.

Really, ‘gray areas’ so-called are not due to the inadequacy of the moral teachings of Catholicism. They are due to the inadequacy of society to ADDRESS those problems ACCORDING to true and absolute morality themselves.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

History, Catholic countries did not do well on behalf of the citizens. Monarchs based civil law on the laws of the Church, and people were rounded up and questioned/tortured/imprisoned/murdered for breaking Church law or for choosing not to be Catholic. I wouldn’t want to live in a Catholic State. Vatican City is the last Catholic State that I know of …

Back it up, Rence. Historians would be smacking themselves upside the head wondering how an intelligent woman like you made it through high school with such a incredibly WRONG idea of European history. Do you realize how many CENTURIES countries like Ireland, France, Wales, Scotland, etc. were Catholic and how little of your ‘torture’ etc. existed in those centuries, and how when examples came of such, it was because of people trying to destroy truth?

IOW, it would be like your stating that you wouldn’t want to ever see a doctor because when you saw a doctor he HURT you by cutting your body, and so doctors do nothing but inflict pain. But the doctor ‘cut your body’ to remove a cancer, and in doing so, he saved your life. It was painful but had he not done it you would have died.

Now, the fact is that there are a small percentage of doctors who make mistakes, a very few deliberate and the others accidental. So it could be that you were hurt by a doctor who made a mistake. But that does not make the whole medical profession WRONG, does it?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Moreover, the Constitution guarantees “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Sorry, but no, it doesn’t.

That’s from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Back it up, Rence. Historians would be smacking themselves upside the head wondering how an intelligent woman like you made it through high school with such a incredibly WRONG idea of European history. Do you realize how many CENTURIES countries like Ireland, France, Wales, Scotland, etc. were Catholic and how little of your ‘torture’ etc. existed in those centuries, and how when examples came of such, it was because of people trying to destroy truth?

There’s really no point in providing examples, because you would say “oh, that’s just secular history” etc. It’s clear you have your mind made up, which is evident from the fact that you find it permissible for people to be massacred and tortured because they are allegedly “destroy[ing] truth”. Quite frankly, such view of the world and of fellow human beings is sickening.

It works both ways. If you want to justify people being tortured/killed because they are “heretics”, you also have to recognize the “right” for Muslims to torture/kill “infidels”. And historically, we all know where that ultimately leads to. You really can’t make excuses, because Muslims also believe they have the “Truth” whether you want to admit it or not. What your post exhibits is crude religious radicalism. Period.

If you want to start with an example, you can look up Mary I of England, who massacred a multitude Protestants. She is given the nickname “Bloody Mary”. She restored England to Catholicism (at least for a time), but at what cost?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

There’s really no point in providing examples, because you would say “oh, that’s just secular history” etc. It’s clear you have your mind made up, which is evident from the fact that you find it permissible for people to be massacred and tortured because they are allegedly “destroy[ing] truth”. Quite frankly, such view of the world and of fellow human beings is sickening. excuse me but quite frankly, how dare you say that I find it 'permissible for people to be massacred and tortured? I said NOTHING OF THE KIND.

It works both ways. If you want to justify people being tortured/killed because they are “heretics”, you also have to recognize the “right” for Muslims to torture/kill “infidels”. And historically, we all know where that ultimately leads to. You really can’t make excuses, because Muslims also believe they have the “Truth” whether you want to admit it or not. What your post exhibits is crude religious radicalism. Period.

If you want to start with an example, you can look up Mary I of England, who massacred a multitude Protestants. She is given the nickname “Bloody Mary”. She restored England to Catholicism (at least for a time), but at what cost?

My dear man, I have probably forgotten more about Mary Tudor, oldest child of Henry VIII, than you have learned.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

excuse me but quite frankly, how dare you say that I find it 'permissible for people to be massacred and tortured? I said NOTHING OF THE KIND.

Yes you did:
Tantum Ergo:

Do you realize how many CENTURIES countries like Ireland, France, Wales, Scotland, etc. were Catholic and how little of your ‘torture’ etc. existed in those centuries, and how when examples came of such, it was because of people trying to destroy truth?

The underlined part of the quote indicates the justification for torture on the grounds that they were “destroying truth”. If you believe in the preservation of life, and aren’t just adhering to it in name only, you have to believe that people do not deserve to be tortured or be killed because they hold an opinion different from the status quo.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, where did I state all of this that you claim?

Again, by implication you stated as even a possibility that religious law, confined to a particular religion (Sharia Law, Torah Law, Catholic Canon & Moral Law) might have the possibility of being implemented in the United States of America, in which you, meltzerboy, were theoretically educated to understand without a moment’s cognition that this is impossible. I expect much more from someone with your education and intelligence.

When we live in a pluralistic, multicultural society, we should recognize that society must set limits on implementing into secular law what each group regards as the Truth. Society cannot follow Torah Law, nor Sharia Law, nor Gospel Law in their entirety.

I don’t want to speak for the poster to whom you responded (sw85), but based on retracing his conversation to which you responded, this is what he said. He was not addressing you, a Jew. He was addressing another Catholic, like himself:

Because what we believe is the truth.

And if you don’t believe Catholicism possesses the truth… why in the world are you a Catholic?

He’s speaking about the obligations of Catholics to represent what we believe are absolute (not relative) principles in the public square, because of their universal applicability. By the way, Mormons do this – apply their principles, as do Christian evangelical faiths, etc.

I will grant you that he may have opened himself up to criticism here, and perhaps that prompted you to put on the brakes:

They may try to establish sharia law – but they have no right to do it, because it is false, and no one has a right to error. This would be true even if they succeeded in it.

I think what you may be inferring is that the contrast being implied is that, if “Catholic” Law could succeed in being implemented, it should be, but not Sharia Law. I’ll let him speak for himself, but I don’t think that’s what he meant. I believe he meant (or he should have meant), the principles behind that law – precisely the way faithful and well-educated and committed Jews believe fervently in the principles behind tzedakah in Torah, extending not only to the Jewish community but to humanity.

But do you seriously think that Canon Law “in its entirety,” (or even one paragraph of it), Torah in its religious language, and Sharia Law is a possibility? This is such a straw man.

What I did say is that we should realize that the beliefs of our respective religions cannot be incorporated into secular law IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

Who has suggested this? Is it I? And if you are not suggesting that this is possible, why is it an issue? If others (Catholics, whoever) think it’s possible, they need a civics lesson, quickly. Whatever they “think” is possible, it’s not a threat to you, to me, or to Rence. These are straw man arguments, because they are impossible.

If it even could happen, then it makes sense to reply to this thread. Otherwise, the entire thread is a gigantic STRAW MAN. There is no explicitly religious morality being “forced” on others. It is unconstitutional to do so. Show me where this has occurred during your lifetime. Not pressure. But force. Huge difference. One is lobbying and persuasion – your constitutional right to exercse, Rence’s constitutional right, sw85’s right, my right. The other (“forcing”) has zero legal authority of actual enforcement.

Newsflash: For Rence and any others who seem to register alarm that opinions are voiced in the public square by those affiliated with specific religions: Their opinions have no binding legal authority. Such persons get to apply whatever their beliefs are, including if those are Wicca, to their participation (however they express that legally – passionately or quietly) in a representative democracy. Too bad if others are threatened by that – whether that’s the OP, Rence, you, or anybody. The appropriate response is not denial of the rights of others to be daft or misguided, but a counterbalancing voice against whatever they are concretely proposing that opposes your own moral view. Voicing an opinion =/= “forcing Morality on others.” We can build a Towering Inferno with that super-sized Straw Man.

!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Hi, beehumble,

Excellent post!

Now, I have a question. I saw “180” on my laptop and was very impressed with it - but, why did you call it ‘viral’? I tend to think of a virus as something to avoid - both for personal health and for computer health.

God bless

A viral video just means it is spreading around the internet rapidly and thoroughly, not that you are going to get a virus from it.

 

[sw85]

Your statement that you’re “OK with living under a Catholic theocracy” is a telling remark. I assume you wouldn’t be OK living under an Islamic theocracy, however. So how do you think a Muslim, Jew, Protestant, or Hindu would feel living in a Catholic theocracy? I understand you believe (or know) Catholicism is the Truth; but not everyone shares your knowledge. What about these other religious groups; should they simply be forced to conform or convert to your beliefs, and should they be punished if they refuse to do so? And do you honestly believe that non-Catholics embrace policies intentionally for the purpose of destroying Catholicism?

Oy vey. Read my posts before commenting on them, please.

I DO NOT CARE how others would feel living in a Catholic corporate state. (And for the record we must here distinguish between “theocracy,” i.e., rule directly by the Church, from any other political system in which the Church would be one institutional power among many, as was the case in the medieval Europe. I don’t care what such a system looks like provided it is founded on Catholic principles and is therefore rational, just, and moral).

It is a MATTER OF MORAL NECESSITY. A society can be just rational, just, and moral ONLY to the extent it instantiates the principles on which the Catholic Church is founded. I don’t care if that makes people unhappy because they can no longer indulge their obscene lusts without consequence or worship their reflections in the mirror or whatever. My ideal is worldly HOLINESS, not happiness.

If some dislike it, that’s THEIR problem for electing to believe in falsehoods.

No, I would not like living under an explicitly Islamic government. I would dislike it because Islam is a false religion and there is no right to error – not a right to practice it, not a right to compel others to practice it – not because I “disagree” with it or whatever other mealy mouthed way of phrasing it you’d like to put it. There can be no “disagreement” as regards the truth: only rightness or else falsehood and error. (And for the record, our belief in tolerance and secularism and so on is doing a pretty crummy job of keeping sharia out of the West, given the rising tide of honor killings and whatnot).

Again, please reread my post. I said it was hardly any surprise that non-Catholics should support policies that have the effect of destroying Catholicism – i.e., because it’s no skin off their nose. Not that they necessarily do so with that intention (although for some people that is certainly the case).

History, Catholic countries did not do well on behalf of the citizens. Monarchs based civil law on the laws of the Church, and people were rounded up and questioned/tortured/imprisoned/murdered for breaking Church law or for choosing not to be Catholic. I wouldn’t want to live in a Catholic State. Vatican City is the last Catholic State that I know of …

The 1000+ years of explicitly Catholic/Christian governance produced remarkably less bloodshed than the last 100 years of secular/atheist/materialist/gnostic government. This is even more true of the Byzantine Empire which was even more explicitly Christian in its constitution.

Unfortunately, history has a habit of repeating itself. I’m totally supportive of anyone who wants to live in a Catholic theocracy. But I wouldn’t want to live there myself. But that’s okay, because I live in the good old US of A

The “good old US of A” lent guns, ammo, and military pilots to help the totalitarian atheist government of Mexico butcher faithful Catholics during the Cristero War. By all means, place your faith in the world if you want – just don’t be surprised if the world doesn’t return the favor.

 

[sw85]

There’s really no point in providing examples, because you would say “oh, that’s just secular history” etc. It’s clear you have your mind made up, which is evident from the fact that you find it permissible for people to be massacred and tortured because they are allegedly “destroy[ing] truth”. Quite frankly, such view of the world and of fellow human beings is sickening.

It works both ways. If you want to justify people being tortured/killed because they are “heretics”, you also have to recognize the “right” for Muslims to torture/kill “infidels”. And historically, we all know where that ultimately leads to. You really can’t make excuses, because Muslims also believe they have the “Truth” whether you want to admit it or not. What your post exhibits is crude religious radicalism. Period.

If you want to start with an example, you can look up Mary I of England, who massacred a multitude Protestants. She is given the nickname “Bloody Mary”. She restored England to Catholicism (at least for a time), but at what cost?

Yeah, the atheistic/whig view of history is the valid one and everything else is just fluff and self-interest. Grow up.

And no, it does not go both ways. Because our claim is not that we BELIEVE our religion is true but the EXISTENTIAL FACT of its truthfulness. Other religions may BELIEVE their religion is true – but they are WRONG. And there is no right to practice error.

Your entire argument is predicated on one of two assumptions: that there is no such thing as universal truth (which, since you’re an atheist, is probably the case) or that everyone has an equally valid claim to it, which is as good as saying that there is no such thing as universal truth. Why in the world should WE be expected to believe that, hmm? If there is no such thing as truth than Catholicism is a lie – it has no right to exist at all, even in a pluralistic society. Do you even know the first thing about Catholicism, why it alone claims truth? The Five Ways, essentialist realism, teleology, the act/potency distinction, primary and secondary causes, etc.? (If not you should really do your homework before bothering to post here.) The Church alone furnishes a rational basis for the organization of man’s social life – a coherent and rational conception of the nature of man, his duties to his fellow man and to society, and his place in the cosmos. And this claim to truth is sealed by the operation of the most profound miracle recorded in history: the resurrection of Christ. Far superior to some silly book supposedly revealed directly by the archangel Gabriel (yet still, somehow, subject to multiple revisions!) or a bit of solipsistic navel-gazing by a fat Asian guy who probably never existed.

For myself, I would rather a Catholic state not be excessively bloody – better simply to drive false religions underground and out of sight, where they belong. But I would also rather suffer violence for the sake of truth than pacifism in the service of falsehood and evil. And I am willing to suffer this because I don’t subscribe to your (irrational) utilitarian prejudice according to which suffering and death is the most horrid thing imaginable – nor is there any reason to expect Catholics to believe that.

What the atheist secularists have historically been saying is: “Let’s make a deal. You Catholics refrain from speaking the truth and we types who are responsible for all manners of horror in the 20th century will, in turn, graciously decline to butcher you.” Only, even if we agree to the arrangement, you lot will occasionally accuse us (falsely, as consequentialists generally don’t have a problem with lying) of violating it and then proceed to butcher us, anyway. Sounds like a bum deal to me, dude. I don’t begrudge you for wanting us to subscribe to a system that lets you do whatever you want without consequence, but you can’t seriously expect us to go along with it. If you do, you’re either deluded or else posturing.

And I have no interest in your posturing (oooh, sickening! Radical! Hrrrhrhhh!). My experience with atheists is that they haven’t the foggiest idea what the “good” is or what it means to be “good.” The closest they get is mindlessly parroting the consequentialist zeitgeist – the same one responsible for the total moral destruction of the West and often quite violent persecutions of Christians, Catholics especially. As I said before: to Hell with it. It’s a thing of the world and therefore of the Devil. The Catholics who sign up for it imperil their souls in the process.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

And no, it does not go both ways. Because our claim is not that we BELIEVE our religion is true but the EXISTENTIAL FACT of its truthfulness. Other religions may BELIEVE their religion is true – but they are WRONG. And there is no right to practice error.

You can claim your religion is truth incarnate till kingdom comes; that isn’t going to change the fact that Muslims also believe their religion contains the wholeness of truth, which they believe has been preserved from corruption.

Until you manage to grasp this, you will never understand how most political systems work. The world does not revolve around you or your beliefs.

But thank you for the long diatribe. It was very entertaining.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is just a question… Why are we always trying to get the government to adopt Catholic values as law?

I mean we want to outlaw abortion and contraception, ban gay marriage, the list goes on and on…

Want =/= “force”
Pressure =/= “force”
Binding law can be enforced (usually is enforced!), but the constitution guarantees all citizens – whatever their religious beliefs – not only to practice their beliefs in private (“in the closet”) but to do so publicly. One of those public manifestations is the constitutional right to persuade lawmakers to adopt certain laws which reflect the voter’s particular viewpoints.

That’s why believers and unbelivers alike get to persuade the same lawmakers to adopt whatever moral principles any of them adhere to. That’s what ***a representative democracy ***is all about: We lobby, individually and in groups (if we choose), to get laws enacted which accord with our moral and political values.

But some Christian Churches and Jewish synangoues take issues with our morality…

That’s why they have equal constitutional protection as Catholics do (no more, no less) to persuade lawmakers to adopt different laws which accord with the moral viewpoints of those religions, sects, etc.

Therefore, there is no issue, unless you are arguing for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the First Amendment, which is free speech without selective prejudice to one group or another. Now, if you are arguing that only Catholics should be denied free speech, then you will be laughed out of the first courtroom or legislature in which you try to propose such a prejudicial and exclusive amendment.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You can claim your religion is truth incarnate till kingdom comes; that isn’t going to change the fact that Muslims also believe their religion contains the wholeness of truth, which they believe has been preserved from corruption.

Until you manage to grasp this, you will never understand how most political systems work. The world does not revolve around you or your beliefs.

But anyone in our country gets to believe that, and gets to attempt to persuade lawmakers of that. Those who believe that the world revolves around their different beliefs get equal opportunity to persuade in the opposite direction.

It is not anyone’s constitutional right, including the rights of atheists or pagans, including anyone on this thread, to deny a voice to faithful Catholics, to Chasidic Jews, to devoted Mormons, to fervent Muslims, in the exercise of their constitutional rights to pressure secular leaders to adopt laws which reflect their respective moralities.

 

[sw85]

You can claim your religion is truth incarnate till kingdom comes; that isn’t going to change the fact that Muslims also believe their religion contains the wholeness of truth, which they believe has been preserved from corruption.

Until you manage to grasp this, you will never understand how most political systems work. The world does not revolve around you or your beliefs.

Oy vey.

Try to follow along:

The right of Catholics to assert their truths in the political sphere does not derive from their BELIEF in its truth value.

It derives from the FACT of its truth value.

Muslims may disagree with the truth value. That’s because they’re WRONG.

They may believe they’re right. But they believe because they are WRONG.

They may try to structure society in such a way as to promote their wrong vision of the truth (in fact, they do – your “tolerance” does nothing to stop them). But they would be WRONG to do so.

What you seem to be saying is that the secular state is the only thing that keeps Pandora’s box from being opened, that replacing a pluralistic social order with a Catholic one risks leading the Catholic social order to being replaced by a Protestant or Muslim one. So what? The Muslims and Protestants have been trying to sneak their religion into the public sphere for years. And the atheists certainly have no problem violently suppressing and socially marginalizing Catholics. Why in the world should *we *unilaterally disarm? Because it might offend their sensibilities?

Pfeh.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

It is not anyone’s constitutional right, including the rights of atheists or pagans, including anyone on this thread, to deny a voice to faithful Catholics …] in the exercise of their constitutional rights to pressure secular leaders to adopt laws which reflect their respective moralities.

I never denied anyone’s rights. This is the problem…some CAF Catholics unfortunately believe that non-Catholics are “out to get them” or that we are some kind of boogeyman. Please refer back to my post:
Bohm Bawerk:

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.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I never denied anyone’s rights. This is the problem…some CAF Catholics unfortunately believe that non-Catholics are “out to get them” or that we are some kind of boogeyman. Please refer back to my post:

(1) And please know that I disagree with your assessment as you have posted it. I do not think it is preferable for the Catholic Church to remove itself as a political force. And I also disagree that past history is predictive of the future. The 21st century in the United States is not Tudor or Stuart England, or other countries or time periods in which the intertwining of religion and government was operative. Different political assumptions in contemporary culture. Different social assumptions.

(2) You may not explicitly be saying that rights should be denied, but certainly others on this thread are suggesting this might be a good idea, and/or are voicing some inappropriate political guilt about practicing their religion without embarrassment or apology, and suggesting that their own personal self-consciousness should result in a restriction of lobbying by other Catholics (lay and/or religious). If you personally do not wish to apply Catholic principles to secular decision-making, no secular or canon law can be made to “force” you to do so. But do not suggest that it is appropriate for you or anyone else to pressure Catholics who have read the document Faithful Citizenship to believe and behave one way on Sunday, and to suspend those beliefs in secular decision-making.

(3) Your statement about “non-Catholics” is a complete straw man when applied to me. I haven’t made any paranoid statement about non-Catholics out to “get” my Church. In fact, ironically, the ones on this thread arguing most to silence Catholics are…listen carefuly: Catholics.

 

[Rence]

You can’t sing gregorian chant all day unless you’re a monk. I can’t ever because I’m surrounded by Protestants. I’m forced to whisper my prayers in silence behind closed doors. Hopefully I’ll live alone soon though, where I can pray as I please. And, for similar reasons I hardly ever practice corporal mortification.

If you live in a protestant environment, you are limiting your own freedom, not the other way around. Why are you not living in a Catholic environment? Why can’t you live in an Opus Dei house?

And you can’t just greet every person you see with a Latin blessing. And there’s no forum for me to make an oration against all the sins and evils that go on every day. An oration. I could verbally dominate any argument made against the Church with an almost uncontrollable zeal and furious passion. Could, but never will …

So, I do all of these things in the secret of my room. And that’s the way it will be for some time to come. There is not one person in my life who I can talk about my beliefs with. And that spurred me into a depression, even though it has been that way for me ever since I gave my life to the faith… some… 8 years ago. I live my faith in secret, because my family is cafeteria Catholic, and I have no friends.

The world is hostile to my beliefs, and I therefore revile it. Anti-Catholic and Anti-Religious judgement are two diseases which have infected the vast majority of everyone in my generation.

This is what I mean about one’s happiness being conditional on other people’s actions or inactions. If compliance from the world-at-large is the only thing that will make you happy, I’m sorry to say that you are causing your own unhappiness. This is not freedom. You’re creating your own bondage this way. Freedom does not mean controlling other people. Freedom means controlling yourself and owning your own actions and decisions. You are free to pray, and live your faith, but that freedom doesn’t mean making others pray with you, and live your faith. Happiness is what you make of it. And I regret to say, it seems like you are creating a hostile environment for yourself, and surrounding yourself with what makes you unhappy and miserable, and despair. I pray that you find happiness within yourself, because if you wait around for others to make you happy, you will always be miserable.

 

[Rence]

There’s really no point in providing examples, because you would say “oh, that’s just secular history” etc. It’s clear you have your mind made up, which is evident from the fact that you find it permissible for people to be massacred and tortured because they are allegedly “destroy[ing] truth”. Quite frankly, such view of the world and of fellow human beings is sickening.

It works both ways. If you want to justify people being tortured/killed because they are “heretics”, you also have to recognize the “right” for Muslims to torture/kill “infidels”. And historically, we all know where that ultimately leads to. You really can’t make excuses, because Muslims also believe they have the “Truth” whether you want to admit it or not. What your post exhibits is crude religious radicalism. Period.

If you want to start with an example, you can look up Mary I of England, who massacred a multitude Protestants. She is given the nickname “Bloody Mary”. She restored England to Catholicism (at least for a time), but at what cost?

Thank you

Let me add the execution of “heretics” by Thomas More, otherwise known as, those who didn’t want to be Catholic anymore or who disagreed with Church teaching.