And that is why I love so many of the atheists on this forum. I absolutely believe that you would do this.
I do believe, and have declared this on many occasions, that there is many an atheist that I would rather “have my back” than some Christians.
That is really the nicest thing to say. Thank you very much.
This sounds like a noble endeavor. Except that you don’t really believe it. For you would not let me proclaim, “I believe that white people are superior” without, if you are indeed a man of integrity, challenging me on this. So, in truth, you believe that there are indeed somethings that you* can* “decide what is right”.
In fact, see your above post in which you have decided that it would be wrong from anyone to tell the CC that she couldn’t teach that homosexual marriage is wrong.
But this is First Amendment stuff. ‘I do not agree with what you say, but…etc etc’. I’m certain that you believe this too. But you have to note the wording that I used, which is not exactly what you said above. I said that I would object to a law that said the church could ‘no longer teach Catholics that the homosexual act was immoral’. There’s quite a big difference there and I was quite specific in what I wrote.
In other words, I do not want to restrict free speech. And the church is free to teach ‘other Catholics’ that ‘the homosexual act is immoral’. I have no problem with that, despite the fact that I obviously disagree with it.
As to me not being able to decide what is right for other people…
The above example re the church’s teaching should suffice. But let’s say that someone says: ‘White people are superior to black people’. That is not a fact as it stands. It is an opinion. A belief. It’s right for them and it doesn’t matter how objectionable I feel their opinion is, I can’t tell them what to believe. I can’t make their decision for them.
If they went a step further and said: ‘White people are superior to black people because x, y and z’ then we have something to discuss. If x, y and z are matters that we both agree are specific facts and not just further opinion, then I can point out that his facts are possibly wrong and if he accepts that he’s based his decision on incorrect information, then maybe he’ll change his mind. You’d expect a reasonable person to do so.
As to gay marriage, if the Church says that it’s immoral, then I’m going to treat that as opinion. The reasons or the facts of the matter as the church sees them and that it brings to the table are not ones that I can accept. It’s not that I think that they’re ‘wrong’, but they’re based on a religious belief to which I don’t subscribe. So as opinion (I can’t treat it any other way), I can’t say that it’s wrong for you.
However, if we take it a step further again and we start being specific and you say: ‘Gay marriage is wrong because of x, y and z’, then as long as x, y and z aren’t religious beliefs but are specific facts which we both agree are valid to the argument, then I’m going to argue the case from my side and hope to prove you wrong.
But I have no more hope of proving that you are wrong if you base your views on your Catholic beliefs on morality than I have in convincing you that you have taken the wrong path in life.
And this I see is an enormous problem. Because for a Catholic to be persuaded that gay marriage is acceptable, then they also have to accept that something that the church teaches is wrong. I know that this is not unheard of – contraception is probably the best example, but the fact that you are not allowed what I might call a ‘conscience vote’ on this is a huge stumbling block from my viewpoint.
