Freedom of Religion

[Shredderbeam]

GerardP:

Is the purpose of the First Cause/Unmoved Mover argument to prove the existence of the Christian God particularly or a an intellectual argument for a Primary Mover?

When debating a person who feels that those who disagree with him should be silenced, I find it useful to point out how a Primary Mover, if proven, does not necessarily prove the Christian God.

GerardP:

Care to explain how an uncaused cause can be naturalistic when the root of “Nature” (ie Natus) means to be “born” (ie caused)?

Etymology really isn’t part of the debate here. Where a word evolved from, as long as we both understand what the other is trying to convey, doesn’t factor in.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Tolerance of religion, but definitely not religious liberty. A society that is blatantly Catholic, but no punishment for those who are not Catholic. However, there would be restriction on missionary work (ie, door-to-door missionary work for non-Catholic religions would be illegal, as would “altar calls” in newspapers). The one thing the Catholic state could never do is actually persecute, torture, or even imprison those who profess different religions- all it does is serve as fodder for liberals who say religion and the state should never be mixed and casts a black mark on history.

 

[Unitas]

To me, a right means exactly that, that the state tolerates the behaviour. I guess we’re using words that we define differently.

Perhaps.

I think your version of “right” is that the state will not punish you for doing it. What I’m talking about as a “right” is what you are *morally justified *in doing, according to God’s will.

But we must remember the only true freedoms we have are those given to us by God, and that conform to his will. That does not mean we have a right to sin.

The most the state may do is withhold any kind of punishment when it is prudent and the greater good necessitates it. If the greater good necessitates the suppression of public false worship and prosletyzation of Catholics, then the state has the responsibility to do so.

(EDIT: I know someone will take this the wrong way so I must add the caveat: that the sinful practice be suppressed without persecution or harm or coercion.)

But the state has no authority to give us a right that God Himself does not give us: a right to false worship, a right to sin.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Perhaps.

But we must remember the only true freedoms we have are those given to us by God, and that conform to his will. That does not mean we have a right to sin.

The most the state may do is withhold any kind of punishment when it is prudent and the greater good necessitates it. If the greater good necessitates the suppression of public false worship and prosletyzation of Catholics, then the state has the responsibility to do so.

But the state has no authority to give us a right that God Himself does not give us: a right to false worship, a right to sin.

It seems to me that this just depends on whether you word it negatively or positively: So is it “the state giving a right to false worship” or is it “the state assuming the right to enforce laws saying how people should worship”?

 

[Unitas]

It seems to me that this just depends on whether you word it negatively or positively: So is it “the state giving a right to false worship” or is it “the state assuming the right to enforce laws saying how people should worship”?

I’m not sure I understand.

It’s perfectly possible for the state to enact laws in conformity and promotion of Catholic morality without coercing or persecution those of other religions. (Everyont seemsto think that non-Catholics would incur some kind of punishment, if Catholicism was the state religion. That’s not so.)

Examples:

The state could enforce what material is permissable, according to Catholic morality, to be spread over public television and radio. The similiar is done in our own country now, it’s called the FCC.

The state could allow the Church to handle all education and hospitalization needs of the people, which it has done for centuries, and considerably better than the state. As well as care for the poor and orphans.

The state could allow the public expression of only Catholicism, and not extend it to other religions.

The state could ban the prosleyzation of Catholics in highly public areas. The state has already done this in the way of banning all witnessing in shopping malls.

The state could ban certain business, within practicality, from doing business on sundays. This was done recently in Croatia, which my local bishop spoke very favorably of.

All these things could be enacted, all positively affecting the place of Catholicism in society, and at the same time does not require a negative punishment upon members of non-Catholic religions.

 

[Dauphin]

It was in the link you provided me.

No, I’m sure it wasn’t. St. Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t make such a silly argument.

The link referenced the Ontological argument by saying that in understanding the word “God”, his existence becomes self-evident.

No. St. Thomas Aquinas actually argued the exact opposite - that the existence of God is not self-evident.

I think you’re reading the document incorrectly. Aquinas first lists objections which he does not hold and then goes on to refute the objections. I think you’ve misconstrued one of the objections as his own view.

Do they prove that God exists? Why is the first cause uncaused?

I’ll have to read more into the summa for the nature of God, I haven’t really looked into that at all.

By reason, we know that there must be an uncaused cause, since it is an absurdity to say that something can cause itself.

 

[Dauphin]

When debating a person who feels that those who disagree with him should be silenced, I find it useful to point out how a Primary Mover, if proven, does not necessarily prove the Christian God.

Fo course it doesn’t. There’s only so much which can be proved from reason. It serves as the foundation for faith. If you want to get into why the particulars of the Christian faith are true, however, you’ll have to take it to the Apologetics forum.

 

[Dauphin]

So, you want to destroy other religions and make Christianity the #1?

What about us protestants, what would you do to us?

No, I just mean that I’m not an American.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Hmm, well I’m glad to see that over 80% of traditional catholics believe in freedom of religion.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Dauphin:

No, I’m sure it wasn’t. St. Thomas Aquinas wouldn’t make such a silly argument.

No. St. Thomas Aquinas actually argued the exact opposite - that the existence of God is not self-evident.

I think you’re reading the document incorrectly. Aquinas first lists objections which he does not hold and then goes on to refute the objections. I think you’ve misconstrued one of the objections as his own view.

Ah, fair enough.

Dauphin:

By reason, we know that there must be an uncaused cause, since it is an absurdity to say that something can cause itself.

Well, what caused God?

 

[Unitas]

Hmm, well I’m glad to see that over 80% of traditional catholics believe in freedom of religion.

Even though popes have condemned the so-called “freedom” as it is practiced?

Are they just outdated and no loonger apply to us?

Will we think the same of Humanae Vitae sometime in the future?

It’s a good thing truth isn’t legislated by majority vote.

 

[Robster7]

Yes, I believe in freedom of religion. Trying to coerce folks into practicing a certain religion is destined for failure.

A look at the religious history of Spain and the current practice of Catholicism there today shows how effective coercion of one sort or another the Inquisition was in keeping the country Catholic.

Historically, Spain seems to have had at times a fanatical, intolerant sort of Catholicism, such is my impression. The Inquisition existed there until about 1815 or so. And there was the Spanish Civil War in which Catholics were persecuted. In that war, it seems, however, atrocities were committed by both sides. Opus Dei arose there, and there are reports in its early days it was a bit cult-like; according to some no longer affiliated, still is. Don’t know myself for sure.

Somewhere on the Traditional Catholicism is a thread references “Liberalism is a Sin.” This book was written in the late 19th/early 20th Cent. by a Spanish bishop or cardinal. Basically, religious error has no rights and should be acted against civilly.

The Syllabus of Errors by Pius IX is in places quite frightful if viewed from an American freedom of religion perspective.

Hence, in looking over either item (Syllabus or Liberalism book), keep in mind the religious political conditions in Europe in the 19th cent. One can understand if not condone the viewpoints expressed. In several places in Europe (e.g., France, Germany) at the time, I believe, the were sometimes successful attempts at controlling, suppressing, or otherwise making life difficult for the Church.

Our religious history in US in last 2 centuries was nothing like that of Europe.

 

[Unitas]

(Everyone seems to think that non-Catholics would incur some kind of punishment if Catholicism was the state religion. That’s not so.)

Robster7:

Yes, I believe in freedom of religion. Trying to coerce folks into practicing a certain religion is destined for failure.

Haha, see?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Hmm, well I’m glad to see that over 80% of traditional catholics believe in freedom of religion.

The options weren’t great to begin with. I do not believe anyone here would advocate throwing people in jail if they on their own don’t believe in Catholicism.

 

[Robster7]

No, Unitas, I don’t see your point, except perhaps my implicit assumption that with a state religion there would be coercion of some sort to practice the state religion. I don’t see how that could not happen, at least eventually.

What would having a state religion mean civilly? Government support in taxes? Some advantage for practicing members?
What about non members–where would they stand?

It seems to me whenever religion allies itself officially with government or politics, it becomes a junior partner, if not in fact a tool to be manipulated. It loses its independence and its ability to speak out against evils perpetuated by the government.

Most recently, the alliance between certain Christians in the US and the Bush administration did not always credit the Christians.
It seems that to keep the support of the administration, some felt
they had to support various policies, whether or not they were consistent or even relevant to Christianity (Iraq war, tax policies, etc.).

Dr. James Dobson, who I respect for the good he does through his Focus on the Family Ministry, seemed to be a loyal soldier of the Bush administration. For example, he was loyal almost to the end in supporting the nomination of the unqualified Harriet Myers for the supreme court. Whether he was just naive, I dont know.

While a religion is free and independent, it has more credibility in speaking out to the society on various issues.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Even though popes have condemned the so-called “freedom” as it is practiced?

Are they just outdated and no loonger apply to us?

Will we think the same of Humanae Vitae sometime in the future?

It’s a good thing truth isn’t legislated by majority vote.

Hmmm maybe in America people confuse “separation of church and state” with “freedom of religion”. I’ve always understood freedom of religion to mean that you can’t be prosecuted for expressing or practicing your faith.

 

[Robster7]

I understand freedom of religion to be the liberty to practice or not to practice a particular faith without penalty.

Separation of church and state means the state does not interfere in the faith and religious practice of a religion. It may have practical interests in such matters of say building construction (zoning laws, fire safety regulations, etc).

Nor does the state establish a state religion which all must support thru taxes.

However, in social services, there is an area of mutual interest where church and state can cooperate. Gets a little tricky here.
Some govt funding is given on the basis that it not directly support the religion. For a school district to provide special services to students in a district, it may have to use a Catholic school facilities. To conform with non discrimination provisions, might be asked to remove religious symbols from rooms in which that occurs. what happens it that a trailer (containing no religious symbols )is pulled up next to the school itself, so students may not be forced to see religious stuff!

 

[Dauphin]

Well, what caused God?

Nothing. God is the uncaused cause which we know is necessary from reason.

 

[ChristianKnight]

No, I just mean that I’m not an American.

No, if you do not want freedom of religion, then you are either wanting to persecute the other religions on a regular social basis, or destroy them, or kick them out for believing something different.

 

[Dauphin]

No, if you do not want freedom of religion, then you are either wanting to persecute the other religions on a regular social basis, or destroy them, or kick them out for believing something different.

Catholic teaching demands the prevention of the public exercise of false religions and the suppression missionary activity, taking into account any circumstances which might justify tolerance.

No one is suggesting dragging every non-Catholic before a tribunal to be tortured into recanting. That’s just a silly strawman people toss out when they don’t want to have a discussion.