Is it just not to impose your morals?

[nishkalank]

The question is about imposition of “your” morals. This means for a catholic, catholic morals. To cite an example, we know that divorce is not permitted by the Church and it is wrong and sinful. When your friend does a divorce, we know that it is wrong and sinful. However we cannot force him not to divorce. Our duty is to convince him about the wrong and sinful act he takes. Without passion, with great love, our advice or any other church approved way of counseling the friend to dissuade him from the step , may be resorted to.

 

[uther]

We seem to be dancing around the issue here.

The only imposition of morals can come from the state. The state gets its moral authority from the people in a democratic system, such as the democratic republic called the United States of America.

Aside from the very real issues of whether the system is working as intended, the people through their elected representatives determine the moral underpinning of the law. If you see law that contradicts your own morality, based most likely on a religious foundation, it is most often because your moral position is not the majority moral position. That is also most likely because your religious practice is not the majority religious practice.

The “imposition of your morality on me” complaint is nonsense. If a majority of the elected agree with Catholic morality on any issue they will impose it. If the majority of the people disagree they will vote those people out.

Those who keep yelling about separation of Church and state are simply trying to shut up citizens who have the moral position of the Church. They are afraid that were the moral positions of the Church well enough known there might be a majority who would agree. They are trying to pre-empt any competition in the arena of ideas.

What they are trying to conceal or are ignorant of, is the fact that all law is based on a moral code. They are attempting to position their own secular moral code as somehow neutral, and any moral code that has its roots specifically in a religious belief system is therefore radical and suspect and an “imposition.” As some have pointed out, the current moral code enshrined in law has also been imposed and much of it is based on the secular “religion.”

What many of the secularists are blissfully ignorant of is that the foundation of the original rule of law is natural law. For example, if we were to suggest that the laws against murder should be abolished they would object strongly, yet when pressed they would have a very narrow definition of murder.

But the idea that murder should be against the law is a moral statement they would agree with and if you asked them where that moral code comes from they likely would not know. They wish to blank that out with no examination because it might lead them to things like the Ten Commandments and so forth. And ultimately, in order to have intercourse without consequences, they want to be able to define murder very specifically as to not include a certain category of human beings they need to have redefined as not “really” human.

Oh yes, that’s what this is really all about. Nothing more. When anyone comes up with that canard, “you can’t impose your morality on me,” that is really what it is if you dig deep enough. I want to have sex with (a) whoever, (b) whenever and (c) however, (d) with no consequences. And woe unto those who might suggest any moral restriction in any one of those categories, and woe unto the medical community that does not guarantee that last category.

Outside of that, you would never hear anyone talking about some great imposition of morality by the Church or anyone else.

 

[Forkfoot]

How exactly does one “impose one’s morals” on someone else? You tell them your idea of morality, and if they say “Nah, I don’t see it the way you see it” you resort to using force? Sounds like a great foundation for tyranny and evil.

 

[Rence]

If by “religious law”…you mean disciplines and practices…you are correct…but if you mean moral laws professed by a religious group…namely the Catholic Church… you are mistaken.

For your consideration…Catechism states the following.

Yeah and other religions have their rules and laws too, that they also expect the world to follow too, claiming natural law and moral law, but only require it of their adherants — because they really can’t make others comply…unless one lives in a muslim-ruled part of the world.

 

[Rence]

It puzzles me how some Christians support things that are against their own teaching like pornography or gay marriage because they don’t want to impose their morals. It is almost as if they believe that being well liked by others is more important than these people going to hell.

There are many people who find it important to ‘be liked’ and won’t impose their religious values on others because of it. But there’s a whole other group of people who are following the Golden Rule (Do unto others, or treat others as you would have them treat you). I know I wouldn’t like an atheist, Jew, JW, Church of Christ, Lutheral, especially a Muslim, etc. to impose their religious rules and laws on me, and what their religion teaches as “moral” or “natural” laws. Do unto others. Now, I don’t care if they share them with me —, but try to convert me, or try to tell me what I, as a Catholic, believe, or that they are right and I am wrong…well that’s overstepping. Do unto others.

 

[Rence]

How exactly does one “impose one’s morals” on someone else? You tell them your idea of morality, and if they say “Nah, I don’t see it the way you see it” you resort to using force? Sounds like a great foundation for tyranny and evil.

I would consider someone “imposing one’s morals” on me if they were trying to block a civil law (a law that was important to me, and one for which I am lobbying) from being passed, or if they were trying to change a civil law in accordance to their religious beliefs. For example, if a group was trying to lobby for all non-essential businesses to be closed on Saturdays (or Sundays) because it’s the law of their religion. Or if a group was trying to get businesses (who are closed on Saturdays or Sundays) to make it up to their employees for a lost days work on those days. But then again, it’s their right to do so. You just don’t get very far in getting someone to share your beliefs when you try in that manner. If it were me, for example, I’d fight hard against those changes in legislation. So I can understand how people are angry with religious affiliated groups who are trying to block laws, change laws, or make laws for conformity with their religion.

Also, ‘preaching’ to people on social media and discussion forums, when uninvited, is considered by many to be forcing one’s views. There’s a time and a place for everything and posting one’s religious beliefs to another’s Facebook wall, for example, is forcing one’s views when that view is unsolicited.

 

[kag1982]

I think that it depends what we are trying to do here. Fighting against abortion is just because it is protecting innocent life from being murdered. As is fighting against slave labor and workers from being exploited. In those cases, it is morally important to keep vulnerable individuals from being exploited. For many other areas of religious morality, it is not correct to do so through legislation.

Also, ‘preaching’ to people on social media and discussion forums, when uninvited, is considered by many to be forcing one’s views. There’s a time and a place for everything and posting one’s religious beliefs to another’s Facebook wall, for example, is forcing one’s views when that view is unsolicited.

I’m of the opinion that one shouldn’t share their religious beliefs with others unless invited to do so. Not only is it against Miss Manners to do so for small talk, but it also tends to have the opposite effect on people. (People are generally annoyed by this because it is such a touchy subject.) The best way to show one’s Catholic faith is through one’s actions.

 

[uther]

How exactly does one “impose one’s morals” on someone else? You tell them your idea of morality, and if they say “Nah, I don’t see it the way you see it” you resort to using force? Sounds like a great foundation for tyranny and evil.

You effectively force your morals on others when you have a majority who agree and elected representatives who act on that. There is no neutral ground.

The absence of a law against some act is permission. All law is founded on morality, even contract law, even the minutia of tax law.

Those who despise Catholic morality have been effectively forcing their morality on us for some time now (because they have a majority).

The difficulty comes about mostly in the positive and the negative. A law prohibiting an activity may be called a negative law. As above, the absence of a law prohibiting is a permission, and some would call that a positive. They say, “see, you can follow your moral code if you wish and we can follow ours.” From there they have the false notion that such a law is neutral.

So those who wish to do something that the law prohibits complain that they cannot follow their own morality. But that is irrelevant to the law. If some act is immoral and the majority agree, then the law prohibiting it is doing exactly what law always does.

That is why persecution happens to Christians. The laws in certain parts of the world have been based on a totally non-Christian moral code and often that moral code has a prohibition on the Christian faith and practice. The law mirrors that, and so Christians run afoul of the law. The so-called “free” west is moving gradually in that direction as well.

Whoever originated that expression “you cannot legislate morality” was either ignorant of what law is, or was obfuscating. Of course you can legislate morality. That is what law does. That is its purpose.

 

[Forkfoot]

Those who despise Catholic morality have been effectively forcing their morality on us for some time now (because they have a majority).

Well no, they haven’t been. What they’ve been doing is saying “Well I don’t believe that we should all be forbidden to do such-and-such a thing just because your religion forbids it, so we’re not gonna pass a law forbidding it.” That’s not imposing anything on anybody, that’s just choosing not to impose someone else’s religious beliefs upon themselves.

If I had a religion with five people in it that said people shouldn’t wear yellow on Thursdays, would it make sense for me to whine that the majority is “imposing their morality” on me by refusing to implement such a law?

 

[uther]

It’s difficult to get that ball rolling on here because it seems certain people either want a Catholic theocracy or to pander to their progressive pals for worldly feelings and personal selfishness. :tsktsk:

Personally I would love a Catholic theocracy.

The vision of the founders of America was being undermined before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence. That vision would be a good alternative to a Catholic theocracy, but it has never been realized. If you track the history of the United States it is one steady path away from that vision. The 20th century progressives are but the most recent force attacking the vision. But it will not be recovered.

The snapshot you have of today, with its level of personal freedom and its relative freedom of faith and worship, is just that, a snapshot. Take another snapshot in ten years and compare them and you will see the progression. It doesn’t stay static. Its going one way or another constantly, but always moving.

 

[Forkfoot]

Personally I would love a Catholic theocracy.

I think what you’d really love is a dictatorship where you were the dictator, where you got to decide how Catholic theology would be implemented in terms of creating laws. You’d have no way of knowing how human minds would implement the abundance of Catholic theology in a ‘Catholic theocracy’. I’m sure there are countless ways that that implementation could happen which you would be far less than pleased with.

 

[kag1982]

I think what you’d really love is a dictatorship where you were the dictator, where you got to decide how Catholic theology would be implemented in terms of creating laws. You’d have no way of knowing how human minds would implement the abundance of Catholic theology in a ‘Catholic theocracy’. I’m sure there are countless ways that that implementation could happen which you would be far less than pleased with.

Yep. Not interested in a religious government. This hasn’t worked out well in the Mideast. One thing I appreciate about America is the Bill of Rights which allows minorities protections. I think that Catholics should applaud the fact that we have robust protections not found in Europe. But we must extend that right to others.

 

[uther]

Well no, they haven’t been. What they’ve been doing is saying “Well I don’t believe that we should all be forbidden to do such-and-such a thing just because your religion forbids it, so we’re not gonna pass a law forbidding it.” That’s not imposing anything on anybody, that’s just choosing not to impose someone else’s religious beliefs upon themselves.

If I had a religion with five people in it that said people shouldn’t wear yellow on Thursdays, would it make sense for me to whine that the majority is “imposing their morality” on me by refusing to implement such a law?

Oh yes, the forcing is always there. The so-called permissive law has consequences. Witness the recent most obvious example of the mandates under the Obamacare law. We will force you to act against your conscience because the majority don’t agree with your prohibitions.

All manner of taxation is channeled into morally offensive programs. The propaganda machine is constant in the culture and in the schools. The moral support is gone from that culture that helped Catholics raise children.

Catholic organizations have been forced out of the work of helping people because they would not conform to the morality of the culture. Etc, etc, etc.

That is just the present. You’ve heard the refrain, “nobody is forcing you to …” Fill in the blank with whatever comes to mind. Then go down the road ten years and voila! Or even less than that in some cases. We’ve changed our mind, now we are forcing you. It’s called incremental-ism.

I’m giving you the truth of the matter. In point of accuracy, it is not that we are seeking to make new laws. We are pointing out the loss of laws that were in place and seeking their restoration. A bit of recent history, say back about 100-150 years will show you that the movement has been in the other direction.

The law is never neutral. Never has been, never will be. Power always seeks conformity and on specific moral issues it is no different. That is why I would much prefer a Catholic theocracy. I know that is not PC to say, especially amongst Catholics, but it is the most practical solution, but of course it could only happen in a nation that is majority Catholic.

As for whining, I’ll leave that to those who are so inclined. It is what it is. The battle was lost a long time ago through lack of vigilance and a Protestant majority without any anchor to hold them against the winds of evil. The so-called “moral majority” buckled under the pressure. In the present, Catholics will not go down quietly, because as citizens, Catholics, including Bishops and Priests, have the right to express any political point of view and any moral point of view and seek to influence the lawmakers, based on whatever reason they wish, including religion. Until that right is rescinded officially, they will continue.

 

[Forkfoot]

Ah yes, 100 to 150 years ago, when everything was grand for everyone.

I was recently looking at a collection of lynch mob photos from the American south back in the thirties, forties and fifties. Black bodies, tortured, burned, swinging dead from ropes, with clean, smiling white faces standing around beaming in their Sunday best proudly posing in front of the corpses. That was a sick and evil society back then. A society in which such a thing could exist is twisted, disgusting, and evil. Things are better right now. Just plain better. Maybe we’ve got abortion and unjust wars and stuff, but at least it’s not a society where consciences are so terribly sick and asleep that they could permit something like that.

The good ol’ days you’re pining for never existed.

 

[uther]

I think what you’d really love is a dictatorship where you were the dictator, where you got to decide how Catholic theology would be implemented in terms of creating laws. You’d have no way of knowing how human minds would implement the abundance of Catholic theology in a ‘Catholic theocracy’. I’m sure there are countless ways that that implementation could happen which you would be far less than pleased with.

Me? Dictator? Mmmm… Well, perhaps we could start with the Natural Law, the Ten Commandments as a foundation. Then we have a huge body of social doctrine that balances solidarity and subsidiarity which essentially promotes the common good and charity under local control. (As dictator I would lose a lot of power there when it is decentralized, sigh!!)

I would severely restrict foreign military adventures. Lot of cost saving there. Capital punishment would be a thing of the past. (Opportunity for forgiveness and reclamation of a life and a soul, a great Catholic principle)

I’m sure the elimination of the sex trades and the porn trades would be a blow to the GDP but I’m sure we could make it up somewhere else, perhaps in agriculture. Monsanto and such monopolies would be history of course, along with their chemicals and genetic manipulation of food and productive farmland. Lots of work to do, I would say, weeding and feeding the old fashioned way.

We could put the Mexican coyotes out of business too. Just build some massive employment centers on the border at the most common entry points with fences in between and invite the Mexican workers to enter that way, receive an ID and have offices for employers to set up recruiting in competition with each other. The wages might even go up to civilized standards that way.

If I was dictator I know I would refuse to see any lobbyists, so they would have to find honest work. That would create some unemployment, I know. What do you think about eliminating usury as well? Would that be going too far? The money changers would also have to find a job that actually added value to the real economy. Gosh, think of all those empty office towers. Homeless shelters perhaps?

I would have to give it some more thought before I would agree to being the dictator, but it does have some possibilities, I must say. But thanks for thinking about me.

Seriously, I suspect that the only thing most people (the masses anyway, perhaps not the rich folks who stand to lose some of their easy money) would object to is the moral code around sexual matters. That is what all of this is about isn’t it?

 

[uther]

Yep. Not interested in a religious government. This hasn’t worked out well in the Mideast. One thing I appreciate about America is the Bill of Rights which allows minorities protections. I think that Catholics should applaud the fact that we have robust protections not found in Europe. But we must extend that right to others.

Actually it has worked out very well for Muslims. It just hasn’t worked out well by our standards of civil rights. And what makes you think that a Catholic theocracy would not protect minority religious rights? Some Protestant misrepresentation of medieval Europe perhaps?

 

[Forkfoot]

I’d totally post those lynching photos right now if it didn’t think it’d get me banned. If you’re feeling adventurous, do a google image search and then tell me our society was better off back then. The good old days, back when if you wanted to you could torture and kill a black man with no legal repercussions whatsoever just because you felt like it.

 

[uther]

Ah yes, 100 to 150 years ago, when everything was grand for everyone.

I was recently looking at a collection of lynch mob photos from the American south back in the thirties, forties and fifties. Black bodies, tortured, burned, swinging dead from ropes, with clean, smiling white faces standing around beaming in their Sunday best proudly posing in front of the corpses. That was a sick and evil society back then. A society in which such a thing could exist is twisted, disgusting, and evil. Things are better right now. Just plain better. Maybe we’ve got abortion and unjust wars and stuff, but at least it’s not a society where consciences are so terribly sick and asleep that they could permit something like that.

The good ol’ days you’re pining for never existed.

I’ll leave the pining to someone else. Nice try. Those people in their Sunday best smiling, they were Catholics were they? And they were the majority even in the south that did such things?
That such things could exist is human nature. We know that and we’ve seen it on a mass scale in Europe and Asia in the twentieth century.

But perhaps if you could see all the pictures of the ripped apart babies and the smiling abortionists and nurses and take into account the tens of millions that have been killed this way, black, white and every color between, and then take into account the racist eugenicists like Margaret Sanger who was the mother of abortion in America, you might not pass off abortion so blithely. This society is more sick, twisted and evil than ever, when it tolerated for a time the evil of racism, until it could be eliminated. And just as it was being eliminated more evil moved in to take its place on a grander scale. And all of this for the sake of sexual pleasure.

That’s where the most significant change has taken place in the culture. You see, it was people of faith that eliminated those evils of racism just as it was a few people of twisted religion that perpetrated them. Martin Luther King was not a perfect man, nor are any of us, but he was a man of faith. And the faith at that time that drove him and most of those who marched with him in the south held close parallels of sexual morality to the Catholic faith and to most of Protestant America. As proof of this we know that at that time the rate of illegitimacy as it was called then, was lower in the black community than anywhere else in the nation.

So yes, there were some parts of law and the culture that supported faithful Catholics in the raising of their children, despite the evils of racism in the south.

 

[Forkfoot]

Nah, the lynchings and the society which condoned them were just plain worse. Abortion happens behind closed doors where people don’t have to see it, and you can use various philosophical and sociological arguments to intellectualize it away. Those people watched as a man was tortured and killed right in front of them, and some actively helped. Your conscience has to be much, much sicker to condone the lynchings, IMO. Not saying either is not evil, but one requires a much more perverse and twisted sort of social consciousness.

Those people in their Sunday best smiling, they were Catholics were they?

Martin Luther King was not a perfect man, nor are any of us, but he was a man of faith.

He was also not a Catholic, which kind of makes the former sentence a moot point for the purposes of this conversation.

 

[uther]

Nah, the lynchings and the society which condoned them were just plain worse. Abortion happens behind closed doors where people don’t have to see it, and you can use various philosophical and sociological arguments to intellectualize it away. Those people watched as a man was tortured and killed right in front of them, and some actively helped. Your conscience has to be much, much sicker to condone the lynchings, IMO. Not saying either is not evil, but one requires a much more perverse and twisted sort of social consciousness.

Wow. What a fascinating discussion of comparative morality. I suppose if we had never seen the gas chambers in Poland they wouldn’t have been so bad. Really?

As to philosophical intellectualizing the whole idea of slavery in the west was justified by the idea that black people were less than human. This is the same thought process as the one that accepts killing the unborn. They are less than human supposedly. But perhaps your need to actually see the horror to give it the same moral gravity may be granted as more of the abortion chambers that go beyond the law and kill babies after they are alive and on the table are being brought to the public eye.

The spectacle of torture and execution has been with us down through history. Jesus Christ was one such scourged and then tortured to death on the Roman innovation, the cross. The same kind of sick conscience is satisfied today I suppose, in the viewing of some categories of films available.

He was also not a Catholic, which kind of makes the former sentence a moot point for the purposes of this conversation.

You missed the point. There was a moral commonality between Protestants and Catholics in those days and it was reflected in the culture and the law. That commonality has all but disappeared and we can trace the roots of it back to 1930 at the Anglican Lambeth conference. It took some time to come to full flower but that was the beginning.

However, to get back to the original point that I was making regarding law and forcing morals on someone. That was the case in the past with respect to sexual morality. The notion of passing similar laws today would not be an innovation. It would be a return. I think some who have been born since the 1970’s or 1980’s have lost the historical context and therefore cannot see the direction the nation has been moving.