Forcing Catholic Morality on everyone

[Elizabeth502]

This is NOT a strawman. In the course of history, it is not unusual that changes occur gradually, bit by bit, and most of the public is often not even aware of what is happening until it is too late to reverse the damage.

And it’s a completely inappropriate and contra-legal response to state that a sleeping public shouldn’t lie in a bed they have made for themselves. We do not restrict the rights of all religions, and all those without religions (equally) to voice opinions which later may turn into legislation. It’s our constitutional right to do so. One of the functions of the U.S. government is not to require citizens to be vigilant, but to protect citizens from government restriction on their free speech and religious beliefs. Nothing is more foundational to our government. And nowhere is it stated or implied in the founding documents that religion is limited to shul and to church and to mosque. Not on your life, it isn’t.

The function of a free press, not the government, is to keep vigilance. In fact, I will argue that never in our history have citizens had more tools – since the availability of the internet, to become informed, to check facts, to cross-reference, to alert their neighbors & communities, to agitate, to “rouse the (civil) troops,” and even to incite in time periods closer to influence than ever before. Entire gatherings now are organized electronically. Witness the Occupy movements. No one’s asleep, meltzerboy, and if they are, it is by their choice. The role of government is not to save citizens from themselves, from their somnolence, from their apathy. The role of this government is maintain Checks and Balances in the 3 branches, so that individual rights are aired and protected insofar as allowed by law, within the channels allowed for legislation, locally & nationally.

If Jews get together and are the only ones, individually or together, to lobby for a particular secular cause that has moral roots in Judaism, and later people of other faiths decide that Jews “shouldn’t” have had such a voice (while the others were sleeping, disorganized, or too cowardly to speak up), that’s too bad. Those other groups – not only then – but now, and in the future, may have a chance to reverse that. That’s why we have several opportunities, on several levels, to influence legislation & regulation. Not only through the legislative process, but also through individual plaintiff actions and constitutional lawsuits.

I do not want ANY religion–Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or atheism–forcing ANYONE, by means of government regulation, who has different (religious) convictions to act in a way contrary to their beliefs.

Again, there is no “forcing” possible, unless you believe that weapons are being used, that The Mafia is in charge, that blackmail or extortion are being applied in order to pass laws you don’t agree with, or that there’s some secret cabal that is vetoing every citizen effort at participation, over which we all are powerless. There is no constitutional guarantee to freedom from religion. That’s a myth, and an ahistorical one.

Specifically, I do not want abortion to be outlawed in ALL instances, including when the mother’s life is in imminent danger, as this is against Orthodox Jewish teaching.

Indeed it is. And that’s why you definitely should be raising your voice against that. And even though I personally believe what you fear has almost zero chance of occurring, I would also be voicing the same concerns in your position. (As an aside, I’ve made my opinions known on CAF over the last 3 years on this; even as a practical matter, I believe it is extremely bad strategy for Catholics to aim specifically for “an outlawing of abortion in all instances,” applied to the general public, because I believe that there are far more targeted and efficient ways of confronting the abortion epidemic, which is not life of the mother concerns, but elective abortion used post-contraceptively. But let’s not derail the thread.)

Likewise, I do not want Catholic hospitals and doctors to be pressured to perform abortions since this is counter to their religious beliefs.

Indeed. That’s why Catholics are exercising their constitutional rights to oppose this.

---

Freedom from religion AND freedom from government interference in the practices of religious institutions enable freedom of religion for all.

This is the opposite of what our freedoms guarantee. There is no “freedom from religion,” only freedom from a government-endorsed religion. This is a crucial distinction.

This does NOT mean that opinions should not be voiced and debate should not take place.

It’s not possible to ask people to be schizophrenic, meltzerboy. Even if individuals wanted to, we are shaped by our beliefs, even unconsciously and subconsciously. Try as we may, religion – because it is a part of one’s outlook – will form the basis for our “opinions and debates.” If people are uncomfortable with a yarmulke, a keffiyah, a Roman collar, that’s unfortunate.

cont’d…*

 

[Elizabeth502]

cont’d:

However, if and when those opinions and debates turn into legislation that limits the religious freedom of any group (and this is not hypothetical: it has already happened), we are as a country en route to either a theocratic or an anti-religious form of government.

No. First of all, your premise has no basis in fact, because past historical conditions do not predict the future. Those conditions and those limitations were unique to those times. Second, when legislation does happen that distresses you (or opposes your beliefs) or distresses me (or opposes my belief), you and I get repeated additional opportunities to reverse that legislation. That’s what initiatives, elections, referendums, causes of action, regulatory complaints, congressional hearings, and lawsuits are all about.

In closing, I want to go back to the first part I quoted from you, about “reversing the damage.” That’s precisely what has happened on many levels to Catholic values. Quite frankly (and I have criticized the Church vigorously for this; by the Church I mean laity easily as much as clergy; the Church has also criticized herself for this), some of the rapid and what could be called “traumatizing” changes in society occurred rapidly during a short period of time when ALL religions were sleeping, not active, let alone activist. If anything, religoins were not vigorous enough when they should have been, relative to certain ethical and moral debates in this country – from Roe (unlimited abortion in all circumstances) and moving forward from that.

It was not the fault of the government, local or national, that massive social changes occurred in a relatively short & sudden time frame. It was the result of at times an apathetic public and often a rather cooperating public. If anything, in the last, say 40 years, government has taken over the role of religion in suppressing values, editing values, promoting what many believe are empty values.

So what some religions are finally beginning to do is to try – quite late – to reverse some of that damage. And if their voices are silenced by those who have invented a supra-constitutional concept of “freedom from religion,” then the damage will remain permanent rather than temporary.

 

[tqualey]

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…

This is NOT a strawman. In the course of history, it is not unusual that changes occur gradually, bit by bit, and most of the public is often not even aware of what is happening until it is too late to reverse the damage. “In its entirety” does not mean that the changes happen all at once.

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.

I do not want ANY religion–Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or atheism–forcing ANYONE, by means of government regulation, who has different (religious) convictions to act in a way contrary to their beliefs.

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.

Specifically, I do not want abortion to be outlawed in ALL instances, including when the mother’s life is in imminent danger, as this is against Orthodox Jewish teaching.

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.

Likewise, I do not want Catholic hospitals and doctors to be pressured to perform abortions since this is counter to their religious beliefs. Government should not interfere with Catholic adoption agencies who refuse to allow gay couples to adopt children, and religious adoption agencies who permit gay couples to adopt should be permitted to do so. I have similar feelings with regard to euthanasia, divorce, and other religious issues. I believe in the separation of Church and State as much as possible.

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 have similar feelings with regard to euthanasia, divorce, and other religious issues. I believe in the separation of Church and State as much as possible. I reiterate and add to what I said in post #44: Freedom from religion AND freedom from government interference in the practices of religious institutions enable freedom of religion for all. This does NOT mean that opinions should not be voiced and debate should not take place. However, if and when those opinions and debates turn into legislation that limits the religious freedom of any group (and this is not hypothetical: it has already happened), we are as a country en route to either a theocratic or an anti-religious form of government.

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

 

[jediliz]

abortion is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue! Innocent children given the death penalty for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. No Trial. No Lawyer. No INNOCENT until proven guilty.

Marriage: Its so obvious that men and women belong together…its natural!

Funny, I don’t recall people being FORCED into going to Mass…dragged from the streets or something? Or forced to go to Catholic schools?

We have laws against stealing and murder…but the laws against murder doesn’t apply to killing a child in the womb?

 

[michelleds]

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.

 

[grannymh]

Morality does not have a religious label.

Moral actions are based on the simple concept that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[sw85]

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? ***

Moreover, the liberal secular state is no longer neutral on many important issues. Homosexuality is a good example of this. In many Western nations it is no positively illegal to declare that homosexuality is wrong – this is hate speech punishable with fines and even imprisonment. The movement for gay “marriage” is predicated on the notion that homosexual activity is a positive good worthy of public subsidy.

This is why, as I said earlier, Catholics who sign up for the “separation of church and state” nonsense are really selling their souls to the world. It is a false premise, a false promise – a lie through and through, and not even its defenders believe in it anymore.

 

[tqualey]

Hi Sw85,



God bless your activities in RCIA.

God bless

Moreover, the liberal secular state is no longer neutral on many important issues. Homosexuality is a good example of this. In many Western nations it is no positively illegal to declare that homosexuality is wrong – this is hate speech punishable with fines and even imprisonment. The movement for gay “marriage” is predicated on the notion that homosexual activity is a positive good worthy of public subsidy.

This is why, as I said earlier, Catholics who sign up for the “separation of church and state” nonsense are really selling their souls to the world. It is a false premise, a false promise – a lie through and through, and not even its defenders believe in it anymore.

 

[grannymh]

Moreover, the liberal secular state is no longer neutral on many important issues. Homosexuality is a good example of this. In many Western nations it is no positively illegal to declare that homosexuality is wrong – this is hate speech punishable with fines and even imprisonment. The movement for gay “marriage” is predicated on the notion that homosexual activity is a positive good worthy of public subsidy.

This is why, as I said earlier, Catholics who sign up for the “separation of church and state” nonsense are really selling their souls to the world. It is a false premise, a false promise – a lie through and through, and not even its defenders believe in it anymore.

Our country has changed since the days of George Washington. Here is the proclamation for the first Thanksgiving Day.

gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/transcript.html

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

This whole discussion borders on Atheistic relativism, so I’ll address this from that perspective.

Since Atheists are big on PROOF, please show me the scientific and statistical PROOF that any of todays hot-button, non-Catholic “morals” are a benefit to individuals or society as a whole, b/c one of the reasons I am a Catholic, is b/c I believe godly principals (Catholic teaching…) can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be more beneficial to the (“evolution”) of the human race.

Thanks~

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

This whole discussion borders on Atheistic relativism, so I’ll address this from that perspective.

Since Atheists are big on PROOF, please show me the scientific and statistical PROOF that any of todays hot-button, non-Catholic “morals” are a benefit to individuals or society as a whole, b/c one of the reasons I am a Catholic, is b/c I believe godly principals (Catholic teaching…) can be SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be more beneficial to the (“evolution”) of the human race.

Thanks~

I always chuckle when I see someone cynically exclaim “relativism”. Do you even know what relativism is? Because if you did, you would be aware that you can be religious and be a moral relativist at the same time. You can be a Christian and be a moral relativist. Atheists do not possess a monopoly on relativism; in fact, the vast majority of Christians believe in moral relativism to one extent or another. Before shouting out words, at least have the courtesy in reading about what it actually means.

As for your demand for “proof”, no one is going to spoonfeed you. If you want to know the truth, you can search on Google. That said, I will give a good starting point. You should read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is an analysis and explanation of morality. Adam Smith was a very eminent deist who believed that morality and virtue was embedded within the system of things itself (i.e. in a free society) rather than being handed down from God. He stands today as one of the most important moral philosophers in the history of moral philosophy. The work is very simple to read, and you can begin here: ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf

Wikipedia page (The Theory of Moral Sentiments): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
Wikipedia page (Adam Smith): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner.” - Adam Smith

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I always chuckle when I see someone cynically exclaim “relativism”.

And I always chuckle when an Atheist assumes the believer they are talking to is not a critical thinker.

Do you even know what relativism is? Because if you did, you would be aware that you can be religious and be a moral relativist at the same time.

Then they have deceived you, b/c they may profess to be Christians, but if they espouse moral relativism they are not following the God they claim to know.

You can be a Christian and be a moral relativist.

Show me how. Telling me this is possible b/c such people exist won’t do.

Atheists do not possess a monopoly on relativism

Quite right. Such professing Christians are closet Atheists. Been there, done that.

in fact, the vast majority of Christians believe in moral relativism to one extent or another. Before shouting out words, at least have the courtesy in reading about what it actually means.

Chuckle… Sorry, couldn’t resist!

As for your demand for “proof”, no one is going to spoonfeed you.

Cop-out. Assuming the believer is uninformed…

That said, I will give a good starting point. You should read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is an analysis and explanation of morality. Adam Smith was a very eminent deist who believed that morality and virtue was embedded within
the system of things itself (i.e. in a free society) rather than being handed down from God

.

I will read this, but meanwhile, for the sake of time, please enlighten me by quickly explaining what the “system of things itself” is. Thanks.

He stands today as one of the most important moral philosophers in the history of moral philosophy. The work is very simple to read, and you can begin here: ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf

Wikipedia page (The Theory of Moral Sentiments): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
Wikipedia page (Adam Smith): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Will do.

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner.” - Adam Smith

I agree with Mr. Smith. Man has a God-given conscience (the evident principles in man’s nature which Mr. Smith observes…). Apparently, sad to say, man’s conscience is often ignored in preference to his selfish desires. Finding people who live in accordance with their God-given conscience does not dismiss this evidence. Homosexuality, for instance, is not natural, even if you can observe instances of it in the some of the rest of the animal kingdom (like apes, for instance). Firstly, it is not commonplace, and secondly, we are evolved enough to observe the negative consequences of homosexual living to (hopefully) discourage people from engaging in such lifestyles. The proof exists: domestic abuse, suicide, promiscuity, sexually-transmitted diseases, etc. etc… But when people like something, they will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the evidence that points out its poison to society. You can put warnings on cigarette boxes, but people will still smoke them. Sorry, but I’m not interested in that sort of self-deceived “morality”.

In the words of Gahndi: “the truth at all costs”. Even if it means being Catholic!

 

[mro]

And I always chuckle when an Atheist assumes the believer they are talking to is not a critical thinker.

Then they have deceived you, b/c they may profess to be Christians, but if they espouse moral relativism they are not following the God they claim to know.

Show me how. Telling me this is possible b/c such people exist won’t do.

Quite right. Such professing Christians are closet Atheists. Been there, done that.

Chuckle… Sorry, couldn’t resist!

Cop-out. Assuming the believer is uninformed…

That said, I will give a good starting point. You should read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments

 

[Cat_Herder]

I always chuckle when I see someone cynically exclaim “relativism”. …
As for your demand for “proof”, no one is going to spoonfeed you. If you want to know the truth, you can search on Google. That said, I will give a good starting point. You should read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is an analysis and explanation of morality. Adam Smith was a very eminent deist who believed that morality and virtue was embedded within the system of things itself (i.e. in a free society) rather than being handed down from God. …

Smith, like you, presupposes that majority rule and democracy are the same thing.

Majority rule alone does not a democracy make. Majority rule combined with moral relativism results in a choice between two and only two moral systems: anarchy and communism.

This is because in a morally relativist “democracy,” laws simply boil down to a majority vote. If the voters do not establish a state, then you have anarchy. If the voters establish a state, the state then gives and takes away individual rights for the benefit of the “people” according to the whim of the “people.” This is communism.

It is clear that to have a democracy you need to have inalienable rights that the state cannot infringe. But if the state is the source of rights, the rights are not inalienable; for what the state can give the state can take away. It does not help to have a “declaration of rights” based on a referendum (i.e., a constitution) for the same is true of the people; if the people are the source of rights, the people can also take them away.

The only solution is God. And we’ve known this for a very long time.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

And I always chuckle when an Atheist assumes the believer they are talking to is not a critical thinker.

Then they have deceived you, b/c they may profess to be Christians, but if they espouse moral relativism they are not following the God they claim to know.

Show me how. Telling me this is possible b/c such people exist won’t do.

Quite right. Such professing Christians are closet Atheists. Been there, done that.

Chuckle… Sorry, couldn’t resist!

Cop-out. Assuming the believer is uninformed…

.

I will read this, but meanwhile, for the sake of time, please enlighten me by quickly explaining what the “system of things itself” is. Thanks.

Will do.

I agree with Mr. Smith. Man has a God-given conscience (the evident principles in man’s nature which Mr. Smith observes…). Apparently, sad to say, man’s conscience is often ignored in preference to his selfish desires. Finding people who live in accordance with their God-given conscience does not dismiss this evidence. Homosexuality, for instance, is not natural, even if you can observe instances of it in the some of the rest of the animal kingdom (like apes, for instance). Firstly, it is not commonplace, and secondly, we are evolved enough to observe the negative consequences of homosexual living to (hopefully) discourage people from engaging in such lifestyles. The proof exists: domestic abuse, suicide, promiscuity, sexually-transmitted diseases, etc. etc… But when people like something, they will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the evidence that points out its poison to society. You can put warnings on cigarette boxes, but people will still smoke them. Sorry, but I’m not interested in that sort of self-deceived “morality”.

In the words of Gahndi: “the truth at all costs”. Even if it means being Catholic!

Ok, reading your link…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

You know we’re never going to eliminate homosexuality or STD’s etc… I mean sure you can try to put sanctions on it criminally or medically but until the big man himself returns its still going to be around…

And so will murder. So?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you even know what relativism is? Because if you did, you would be aware that you can be religious and be a moral relativist at the same time. You can be a Christian and be a moral relativist.

Unquestionably. However, you cannot be an orthodox Catholic and be a relativist in the sense in which most people posting on this forum understand the term, let alone how Church-approved apologists understand the term. What non-Catholic Christians believe, and how they arrive at those beliefs, is immaterial to a practicing Catholic. Who cares about wikipedia and Google? How about the documents which emanate from the Vatican? How do those grab you? Moral truths as defined by Catholicism are not subject to peer-review for their accurate representation of The Faith by the folks at various secular information sources.

Atheists do not possess a monopoly on relativism

Yeah, no kidding. Lots of Catholics share the ignominy.

the vast majority of Christians believe in moral relativism to one extent or another.

The ability to make refined moral distinctions, which is compatible with Catholicism, is not in the same category as the relativism to which the Church refers. (Definiing a particular moral problem, locating it within Catholic moral principles, making a decision as to how the problem fits within Catholic moral doctrine, and weighing various goods and various evils as defined by the Church – all this is the legitimate application of moral theology, with the big If that includes If such a Catholic knows what he or she is doing, and unfortunately many are not well catechized in the system of moral theology which distinguishes Catholic from other Christian theology.)

But that is immaterial to the casual disposal of Catholic principles in the context of popular contemporary issues, including social pressures to rationalize and support such issues out of bad catechesis, false compassion, and personal convenience. That is the way most Catholic relativists practice the art.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bohm Bawerk,

Always nice to know that humor can be found wherever one looks for it… But, I think you misread Watchful - he was not being ‘cynical’ … just being realistic. Now, when it comes to an understanding of moral relativism … it would appear that since you are claiming that, “(Y)ou can be a Christian and a moral relativist”, that it is you who are deficient in philosophy and working arrangements of moral relativism! You can not practice following Christ and claim ‘Anything goes because if it feels good it must be good!’ A practicing Catholic simply can not be a moral relativist.

But, I must admit, your quoting Adam Smith - and essentially advancing the position of a Deist… did catch my eye… So, was this just a blatant inconsistency on your part … or a nobel offer from a respected author who totally denied the position of Atheists? ‘Curious minds want to know’…

So, since you were graciious enough to share Adam Smith’s work (my favorite economist!) allow me to share a more contemporary writer: John Paul II. Here is the short hand version: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veritatis_Splendor
And here is the document itself: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
Seriously, claiming to be a Christian and claiming to embrace moral relativism is the same as claiming to be a ‘square circle’. One can claim anything they wish - but such a claim is simply impossible on the face of it. The claimant is either delusional or a liar.

God bless

I always chuckle when I see someone cynically exclaim “relativism”. Do you even know what relativism is? Because if you did, you would be aware that you can be religious and be a moral relativist at the same time. You can be a Christian and be a moral relativist. Atheists do not possess a monopoly on relativism; in fact, the vast majority of Christians believe in moral relativism to one extent or another. Before shouting out words, at least have the courtesy in reading about what it actually means.

As for your demand for “proof”, no one is going to spoonfeed you. If you want to know the truth, you can search on Google. That said, I will give a good starting point. You should read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which is an analysis and explanation of morality. Adam Smith was a very eminent deist who believed that morality and virtue was embedded within the system of things itself (i.e. in a free society) rather than being handed down from God. He stands today as one of the most important moral philosophers in the history of moral philosophy. The work is very simple to read, and you can begin here: ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf

Wikipedia page (The Theory of Moral Sentiments): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
Wikipedia page (Adam Smith): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

“How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others, when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner.” - Adam Smith

 

[meltzerboy]

cont’d:

No. First of all, your premise has no basis in fact, because past historical conditions do not predict the future. Those conditions and those limitations were unique to those times. Second, when legislation does happen that distresses you (or opposes your beliefs) or distresses me (or opposes my belief), you and I get repeated additional opportunities to reverse that legislation. That’s what initiatives, elections, referendums, causes of action, regulatory complaints, congressional hearings, and lawsuits are all about.

In closing, I want to go back to the first part I quoted from you, about “reversing the damage.” That’s precisely what has happened on many levels to Catholic values. Quite frankly (and I have criticized the Church vigorously for this; by the Church I mean laity easily as much as clergy; the Church has also criticized herself for this), some of the rapid and what could be called “traumatizing” changes in society occurred rapidly during a short period of time when ALL religions were sleeping, not active, let alone activist. If anything, religoins were not vigorous enough when they should have been, relative to certain ethical and moral debates in this country – from Roe (unlimited abortion in all circumstances) and moving forward from that.

It was not the fault of the government, local or national, that massive social changes occurred in a relatively short & sudden time frame. It was the result of at times an apathetic public and often a rather cooperating public. If anything, in the last, say 40 years, government has taken over the role of religion in suppressing values, editing values, promoting what many believe are empty values.

So what some religions are finally beginning to do is to try – quite late – to reverse some of that damage. And if their voices are silenced by those who have invented a supra-constitutional concept of “freedom from religion,” then the damage will remain permanent rather than temporary.

Do you mean, Elizabeth, that because of an apathetic public or a cooperative public, government has by default usurped the role of religion? Perhaps; but, at the same time, this is all the more reason why I am opposed to government-sponsored religion (which is what I meant by “freedom from religion”) in the form of a theocracy and am in favor of the separation of Church and State. Also, your comment about the access or tools the public has at its disposal today may be true; however, let’s consider how many take advantage of these tools in an instructive way? Indeed we have the technology that previous generations never dreamed of, but how are most people using that technology? Witness, for example, the phenomenon of twittering, the explosion of video games, the astonishing multiplicity of reality shows and other “entertainment” which are part of a seemingly endless number of cable television stations. What value is all this technology without more people putting it to better use? I maintain that the majority of US citizens are not well informed, and I’m not referring only to those who are illiterate or partially literate, which incidentally comprises a surprisingly high percentage. I’m including many young college-educated people. I see this on a daily basis. How many people in the country even bother to vote, or know who their representatives are? It is true we have the Occupy Protesters on the one hand and the Tea Party on the other. They are the groups who are most vociferous and maybe they will be successful in waking up the rest of the country before it’s too late. But I’ve also observed that the tendency in our country, on the part of both the people and the government, is to do virtually nothing until we’re on the brink of an emergency and then return to a state of somnolence once the emergency is diffused.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Meltzerboy,

I must confess, you are putting up one heroic struggle against this Strawman … you know the Government sponored religion you are so forcefully fighting… yeah, the one that does not exist!

But, just to make sure we are really talking about the same thing - would you kindly provide some evidence for this government sponsored religion. You know, there are links for the Office of the President (whitehouse.gov/) and the Department of State (state.gov/), the Department of Treasury (treasury.gov/Pages/default.aspx) - but NO DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION! What is really funny is that the government has trouble with just general ethics … but, that is another story. So, just where is this beast you are battling with so much sound and fury?

God bless

Do you mean, Elizabeth, that because of an apathetic public or a cooperative public, government has by default usurped the role of religion? Perhaps; but, at the same time, this is all the more reason why I am opposed to government-sponsored religion (which is what I meant by “freedom from religion”) in the form of a theocracy and am in favor of the separation of Church and State. Also, your comment about the access or tools the public has at its disposal today may be true; however, let’s consider how many take advantage of these tools in an instructive way? Indeed we have the technology that previous generations never dreamed of, but how are most people using that technology? Witness, for example, the phenomenon of twittering, the explosion of video games, the astonishing multiplicity of reality shows and other “entertainment” which are part of a seemingly endless number of cable television stations. What value is all this technology without more people putting it to better use? I maintain that the majority of US citizens are not well informed, and I’m not referring only to those who are illiterate or partially literate, which incidentally comprises a surprisingly high percentage. I’m including many young college-educated people. I see this on a daily basis. How many people in the country even bother to vote, or know who their representatives are? It is true we have the Occupy Protesters on the one hand and the Tea Party on the other. They are the groups who are most vociferous and maybe they will be successful in waking up the rest of the country before it’s too late. But I’ve also observed that the tendency in our country, on the part of both the people and the government, is to do virtually nothing until we’re on the brink of an emergency and then return to a state of somnolence once the emergency is diffused.