legislating morality

[Joseph_L_Varga]

And do you honestly rely on science in other matters: for example, its belief in evolution and its advocacy of stem cell research? Or, on the other hand, is your appeal to science only when science accords with your religious principles? If not a cafeteria Catholic, are you perhaps a cafeteria science proponent? Since when do Catholics believe that the definition of a human does not include a soul? Perhaps this is a legal argument, but hardly a religious one. Whether the former or the latter, there are plenty of counterarguments, some of which have already been expressed.

I just wanted to add, I find the position of scientists like Richard Dawkins extremely arrogant. To them, you either “confess that you believe in the theory of evolution” or you are a “heretic”. Well, I’m not that impressed with Dawkins’ credentials, and who is he to call into question the competence of other scientists who doubt or outright reject the Darwinian theory of evolution? Two notable scientists who doubted or rejected that theory were Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle. Francis Crick, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, who shared the Nobel prize with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins for the discovery of the structure of nucleic acids, was so troubled by the improbability of life arising on Earth through random processes, that he proposed an alternative theory named “directed panspermia” according to which molecules representing life may have arisen elsewhere in the universe and reached Earth through interstellar/intergalactic travel. Sir Fred Hoyle the physicist tried to mathematically model, using the theory of probabilities, the chances of life randomly arising on planet Earth, and in the universe. He was more than a little shocked when he found that the chance of life randomly arising in the whole universe, over its whole life span, is 10 to minus 40,000. Thus, he came to the conclusion that not only planet Earth is “too small” for life to randomly arise on it, but the whole universe is too small for it, and not even the theory of directed panspermia gives a plausible explanation for how did life appear on Earth. And that’s how Sir Fred Hoyle came up with his famous saying that the chances of life arising on Earth are like the chances of a tornado sweeping through the junkyard and randomly assembling, from the scattered junk there, a functional Boeing 747 airplane.

Then comes Richard Dawkins, who in the opinion of many is not the same scientific caliber as a Francis Crick, or a Sir Fred Hoyle was, and attacks like a rabid dog anyone who dares so much as to express a doubt about Darwin’s theory of evolution. So, now, Dawkins and his camp rabidly attack and try to discredit any individual scientist or organization who doesn’t pass their litmus test, who doesn’t profess their faith in Darwin’s theory of evolution. As far as I’m concerned, they are not interested in a logical, free scientific debate. What they want is a witch hunt, and they are going to burn at the stake all “heretics” who don’t profess their un-scientific and emotionally based beliefs. As far as I’m concerned, if you are not interested in scientific debate, but will attack my scientific reputation and will try to get me fired from my job if I disagree with you, then you are not true to the basic tenets of how science is practiced.

As I said, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a dog in this fight, and it leaves it up to the scientists to resolve the controversy one way or the other. But for someone like Richard Dawkins, merely refusing to take a position on their cherished belief already makes you guilty of siding with/abetting the enemy.

Are the rabid evolutionists trying to legislate their beliefs on the rest of us?

(and I use “rabid evolutionist” to distinguish from “ordinary evolutionist” who believes in the theory, but will not try to destroy the reputations and get those fired from their jobs who disagree with him)

 

[Joan1969]

Good Evening, Sufjon,

Hi Joan: I have to agree with a good deal of what you said. It makes good sense. I am somewhat at a loss to understand how the sexual behavior of other consenting adults affects my own behavior…

“No man is an island, entire unto himself…” Human nature dictates that the behavior of each affects the culture experienced by all.

I respect your decision to put your personal behavior first, which is clearly necessary for all of us. But the larger culture, especially that which is promoted and upheld by law, is in the critical interest of every thinking adult.

Just FYI, there are in fact what are called blue laws in most states that prohibit sexual behaviors in very strong and draconian ways…(Sufjon)

 

[Glennonite]

This is not a “Catholic” or even a “Christian” religious issue. It is a human dignity issue in which pro-“choice” advocates argue while considering only one of the two humans in the picture. They think they are being compassionate to the poor mother, but they are just as deceived by our culture. It makes me so sad.

Peace,
Robert

Well-said. I’m only in the arguement for the sake of the weak and defensless. Never mind what my faith is; I’m speaking for the speechless.

Umm, doesn’t the fetus have a “choice”? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and assume she doesn’t choose to have her head crushed and thrown in a garbage bag. I mean, who would?

So sue me.

 

[meltzerboy]

I just wanted to add, I find the position of scientists like Richard Dawkins extremely arrogant. To them, you either “confess that you believe in the theory of evolution” or you are a “heretic”. Well, I’m not that impressed with Dawkins’ credentials, and who is he to call into question the competence of other scientists who doubt or outright reject the Darwinian theory of evolution? Two notable scientists who doubted or rejected that theory were Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle. Francis Crick, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, who shared the Nobel prize with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins for the discovery of the structure of nucleic acids, was so troubled by the improbability of life arising on Earth through random processes, that he proposed an alternative theory named “directed panspermia” according to which molecules representing life may have arisen elsewhere in the universe and reached Earth through interstellar/intergalactic travel. Sir Fred Hoyle the physicist tried to mathematically model, using the theory of probabilities, the chances of life randomly arising on planet Earth, and in the universe. He was more than a little shocked when he found that the chance of life randomly arising in the whole universe, over its whole life span, is 10 to minus 40,000. Thus, he came to the conclusion that not only planet Earth is “too small” for life to randomly arise on it, but the whole universe is too small for it, and not even the theory of directed panspermia gives a plausible explanation for how did life appear on Earth. And that’s how Sir Fred Hoyle came up with his famous saying that the chances of life arising on Earth are like the chances of a tornado sweeping through the junkyard and randomly assembling, from the scattered junk there, a functional Boeing 747 airplane.

Then comes Richard Dawkins, who in the opinion of many is not the same scientific caliber as a Francis Crick, or a Sir Fred Hoyle was, and attacks like a rabid dog anyone who dares so much as to express a doubt about Darwin’s theory of evolution. So, now, Dawkins and his camp rabidly attack and try to discredit any individual scientist or organization who doesn’t pass their litmus test, who doesn’t profess their faith in Darwin’s theory of evolution. As far as I’m concerned, they are not interested in a logical, free scientific debate. What they want is a witch hunt, and they are going to burn at the stake all “heretics” who don’t profess their un-scientific and emotionally based beliefs. As far as I’m concerned, if you are not interested in scientific debate, but will attack my scientific reputation and will try to get me fired from my job if I disagree with you, then you are not true to the basic tenets of how science is practiced.

As I said, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a dog in this fight, and it leaves it up to the scientists to resolve the controversy one way or the other. But for someone like Richard Dawkins, merely refusing to take a position on their cherished belief already makes you guilty of siding with/abetting the enemy.

Are the rabid evolutionists trying to legislate their beliefs on the rest of us?

(and I use “rabid evolutionist” to distinguish from “ordinary evolutionist” who believes in the theory, but will not try to destroy the reputations and get those fired from their jobs who disagree with him)

I respect your credentials as a scientist, but I think you are in the minority on both the embryonic stem cell issue and, leaving Dawkins aside, the theory of evolution. It is true that, in science, theories are always subject to revision and possible rejection; however, the majority of scientists do currently support the theory of evolution as well as the special value of embryonic stem cells. But one never knows what the future will hold. Regardless, thank you for your insight.

 

[Sufjon]

Good Evening, Sufjon,
Sufjon;7718455:

Hi Joan: I have to agree with a good deal of what you said. It makes good sense. I am somewhat at a loss to understand how the sexual behavior of other consenting adults affects my own behavior…

“No man is an island, entire unto himself…” Human nature dictates that the behavior of each affects the culture experienced by all.

I respect your decision to put your personal behavior first, which is clearly necessary for all of us. But the larger culture, especially that which is promoted and upheld by law, is in the critical interest of every thinking adult.

Just FYI, there are in fact what are called blue laws in most states that prohibit sexual behaviors in very strong and draconian ways…(Sufjon)

Hi Friend Joan: There has never been a time when there weren’t those who felt that the world was rife with wrongdoing. There has never been a time when there weren’t those who felt that things were in such a state that indeed the end must be near. This time is no different. In my estimation, society hasn’t reached a point of unsurpassed debauchery or acceptance of it. Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown” is an example of a story written nearly 200 years ago where even the clergy were agents of the Devil. Nothing has changed. Evil is seen by the eye that trains on evil, while all along there is good to be seen in every place. The moon is out in the day as often as it is in the night. The fact that it is harder to see in the daytime has no bearing on the fact that it is there.

As to the level of acceptance shown by society for behaviors such as homosexuality, I wonder if that’s such a bad thing. If you will recall the story of Oscar Wilde, he was actually sent to prison for being a homosexual. The rigors of prison life in those days cut his life short by many years. Could we in some way determine then what was more of an affront to God - Oscar Wilde’s sexual proclivities, or the society that killed him on account of his lifestyle? It is indeed hard sometimes to see the patterns in the ways we weave.

You are very correct in saying that the actions of each have an impact on the whole. In spite of this, I am of the opinion that this world was never meant to be a place where all would be made right. It is only one of many proving grounds, wherein the eventual aggregate result is each participant being made right in his or her own time. The object of greatest import to each of us is just where we are at a given time in our spiritual journey. The object is of course to make as much progress as we can, however, there will always be those who are not as far along the journey as ourselves, and likewise those who are more fully developed than we at a given time and place. The issue has never been what the lesser among us do. The issue is and always has been what we do in return. The place at which others have arrived is their place. The question for us is what is ours at this given place and time? What role will we play?

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I respect your credentials as a scientist, but I think you are in the minority on both the embryonic stem cell issue and, leaving Dawkins aside, the theory of evolution. It is true that, in science, theories are always subject to revision and possible rejection; however, the majority of scientists do currently support the theory of evolution as well as the special value of embryonic stem cells. But one never knows what the future will hold. Regardless, thank you for your insight.

Well, regarding embryonic, or shall we better say, human embryo-destructive stem cell research, I honestly have no idea whether a majority of scientists today want to do it or are against it. I have not seen any opinion polls - have you seen some? I guess, if a majority of scientists will want it, they will legislate it on the rest of us and will use our tax dollars for that research, just like abortion has been made legal, and paid for by taxpayer money (see Planned Parenthood using taxpayer money, and our tax dollars paying for abortions abroad). That’s certainly how things work, a more powerful lobby will push its own morality on everybody else, whether they agree with it or not. I may be totally against abortion and human embryo destruction, but my tax dollars will be used to pay for it, unless I succeed in imposing my own morality on others.

Regarding the whole evolution debate, my personal opinion is a big yawn. :yawn: But I refuse to sign allegiance to the camp that regards it as a proven fact, that’s for sure. And I don’t care whether I’m in minority or majority - unless I’m up for promotion, tenure, or grant money, and the “rabid evolutionists” are coming to get me!

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

This is not a “Catholic” or even a “Christian” religious issue. It is a human dignity issue in which pro-“choice” advocates argue while considering only one of the two humans in the picture. They think they are being compassionate to the poor mother, but they are just as deceived by our culture. It makes me so sad.

Peace,
Robert

Well-said. I’m only in the arguement for the sake of the weak and defensless. Never mind what my faith is; I’m speaking for the speechless.

Umm, doesn’t the fetus have a “choice”? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and assume she doesn’t choose to have her head crushed and thrown in a garbage bag. I mean, who would?

So sue me.

I would say it is a Catholic and Christian issue as well as a human dignity issue because it is based on the higher truth of right vs. wrong. The issue of right is based in objective human nature and reason, Natural Law, which is informed by God’s Eternal Law. The issue of wrong is based in rights divorced from objective reason and only considered by subjective positive law. The truth held to be self evident are now decided by power, the dictatorship in the Church’s “Dictatorship of Relativism”.

Virgina’s laws mentioned earlier, draconian or not, if based in what was actually right and true, must be considered good on that basis. It cannot be held as wrong on merely the “rights” of people to perform any action one wishes. If these laws did result in or were based on, any error of judgment, promulgation, or implementation, then these errors should have been corrected based on other truths known to this “reason informed by God’s Law” and not tossed out leading to a state support of immorality. Catholics should read the encyclicals relating to the Church and the state:

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? source

The current belief in today’s world of unfettered freedom as liberating and fulfilling humanity does not conform to the truth of the human person and of objective human nature. To mitigate truth and morals based on “rights” is to make power the determining factor in truth and the human person alone as the source of that “truth”; and it is the same with the mere rights of the child vs the rights of the mother as it fails in the higher truth of right as opposed to wrong. The “truth” of abortion is leading to the “truth” of euthanasia, infanticide, and state sanctioned “mercy” killings, evidence of the expanding use of this power.

 

[Joan1969]

Hi Sufjon,

Your perspective seems to me to come from of a sincere good will towards people and a deisire to accept them where they are, which is really admirable in itself. But what I’m not seeing is a strong, confident, effective recognition of good and evil. The problem is that many really good people tend to think as you have right here, and that is giving evil the chance to grow and thrive beyond what it otherwise might.

I would argue that every age has evils that are specific to it. So for instance, brutal prison conditions were perhaps more prevelent in the past (though I wouldn’t deny them nowadays either), mostly because public resources were more limited and it was just not possible to contain criminal personalities without very severe practices. That doesn’t justify the crimes and sins that took place, but it does explain why they were different than the ones nowadays. Each age has its evils to battle. But we can’t do battle if we are letting uncertainty and relativism blunt all our moral weapons.

Looking to Scripture, both Old and New Testments, one thing that can be seen is a strong and confident worldview, where the line between faithfulness and moral failure is clear. Compassion for sinners does not contradict this confidence but on the contrary is based on it.

Looking at the experience of Christianity, we can see where the moral and doctrinal uncertainty of liberal, mainline Catholics and Protestants led (such groups are decrepit and declining), versus where confident belief led for those Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, who respected their traditions. Those groups are largely thriving. By their fruits shall you know them.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[JohnnyReb]

Forgive me if I’m behind - I haven’t been at a computer since Friday. Concerning the death of the mother, I have already commented on this, but will summarize again: A procedure to treat the mother, that indirectly causes the death of the preborn child, is perfectly acceptable. The Church doesn’t have this “mother must die” mentality, so please don’t treat it as such. ALL life is sacred, from conception until natural death. What this means is that you can’t have an abortion if the mother is ‘at risk’. However, if the mother has to have a medical procedure to save herself that will cause the child to die, it is okay because the procedure is not intended to kill the child. You see, it is whether it is the primary intent, or simply an unfortunate and unintended result.

Unless you can have something to refute this (which you really can’t because it is Church teaching), your argument concerning the health of the mother is not relevent to the issue of banning abortion.

Thanks that was very informative. I appreciate the response, it should clear up misconceptions, it did for me at least.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I have not read all the posts but I wanted to add my two cents. Many laws do legislate morality. The purpose of our laws or any laws is to basically maintain social order. In order to do that, we have to make laws that also seek to enforce or uphold morality, often the same morality that is taught by Christianity and/or the Catholic Church itself.

That is why there are laws against adults having sex with minors. Its immoral, but its also in the interest of society to protect our children from these people. Its in societie’s interest to stop people from stealing and driving drunk, which puts everyone at risk.

The sticky point is where large chuncks of society disagree with each other. We all agree that its in our interest to protect children. Unfortunately, many in society do not agree with church teaching that all life is sacred from conception to death. Hence we have laws that allow abortion, because Roe v Wade is in place on the idea that it is in the government’s interest to protect a women’s right to privacy, more so than it is to protect the life of the unborn. Yet, in some states like where I live, they really have made an effort to restrict abortion as much as allowed by federal ruling.

I find it interesting that the two most discussed issues in this thread are abortion-which I am against because human life is sacred, and homosexual issues. Personally I do believe homosexual couples should be given the right to adopt because a) it would reduce the burden on churches and other charitable organizations, and the government. b) provide a home for the kids so that they are not in an institutional setting c) which also means that the child is more likely to grow up to become a productive citizen. I know many disagree because they find homosexuality objectionable. I understand that and respect your opinion.

 

[Sufjon]

Hi Sufjon,

Your perspective seems to me to come from of a sincere good will towards people and a deisire to accept them where they are, which is really admirable in itself. But what I’m not seeing is a strong, confident, effective recognition of good and evil. The problem is that many really good people tend to think as you have right here, and that is giving evil the chance to grow and thrive beyond what it otherwise might.

I would argue that every age has evils that are specific to it. So for instance, brutal prison conditions were perhaps more prevelent in the past (though I wouldn’t deny them nowadays either), mostly because public resources were more limited and it was just not possible to contain criminal personalities without very severe practices. That doesn’t justify the crimes and sins that took place, but it does explain why they were different than the ones nowadays. Each age has its evils to battle. But we can’t do battle if we are letting uncertainty and relativism blunt all our moral weapons.

Looking to Scripture, both Old and New Testments, one thing that can be seen is a strong and confident worldview, where the line between faithfulness and moral failure is clear. Compassion for sinners does not contradict this confidence but on the contrary is based on it.

Looking at the experience of Christianity, we can see where the moral and doctrinal uncertainty of liberal, mainline Catholics and Protestants led (such groups are decrepit and declining), versus where confident belief led for those Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, who respected their traditions. Those groups are largely thriving. By their fruits shall you know them.

God Bless,
Joan

Hi Joan: I don’t think we are so far apart in our thinking, but sometimes thinking in itself is the problem. The heart is usually the best guide in such matters. If we legislate homosexuality as illegal, then homosexuality is done more in secret. It is not done less. Usually the biggest opponents of such things in legislative bodies and pulpits are themselves latent or active practitioners of the behaviors they rail against. There are certain recent members of our national government who ran campaigns that featured an anti-abortion platform. These same people personally supported and were deeply entangled in business ventures in third world countries that enslaved women workers in cages. These women were not only subjected to slave labor, but repeated forced prostitution (outright rape), and forced abortions. All supported by the ultra right wing candidates who told the American public that upon election they would fight a woman’s right to an abortion in the US.

Let me be clear about this. I have had close exposure to politics. To people such as the ones I described, you and your sense of morality is only useful tools. They know that abortion will never be prohibited under US law on the case or morality. The decision to make it legal wasn’t based on morality. It was another issue altogether and it had to do with constitutional rights regarding privacy. Until it is addressed from that angle, the law will stand. It has never been addressed from that angle, and the reason why is that politicians who run on that platform will have lost their platform if abortion was made to be illegal. By voting for them, we are only ensuring that abortion stays around forever. I’m afraid it’s a lost cause. The best that can be done is to educate people about real birth control methods, and to instill an appreciation for life based on love rather than threats. Would you rather see people using condoms or killing unborn children? The greater evil is easy to spot. The same holds in Africa, where religious organizations (zealots) tell people that the way to avoid aids is abstinence. How much of the general population is capable of that? Would it be better to teach them about contraceptives, or to let them continue to die to satisfy some moral construct that we think prohibits the use of life saving measures? Which is the greater evil?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi Joan: I don’t think we are so far apart in our thinking, but sometimes thinking in itself is the problem. The heart is usually the best guide in such matters. If we legislate homosexuality as illegal, then homosexuality is done more in secret. It is not done less. Usually the biggest opponents of such things in legislative bodies and pulpits are themselves latent or active practitioners of the behaviors they rail against. There are certain recent members of our national government who ran campaigns that featured an anti-abortion platform. These same people personally supported and were deeply entangled in business ventures in third world countries that enslaved women workers in cages. These women were not only subjected to slave labor, but repeated forced prostitution (outright rape), and forced abortions. All supported by the ultra right wing candidates who told the American public that upon election they would fight a woman’s right to an abortion in the US.

Let me be clear about this. I have had close exposure to politics. To people such as the ones I described, you and your sense of morality is only useful tools. They know that abortion will never be prohibited under US law on the case or morality. The decision to make it legal wasn’t based on morality. It was another issue altogether and it had to do with constitutional rights regarding privacy. Until it is addressed from that angle, the law will stand. It has never been addressed from that angle, and the reason why is that politicians who run on that platform will have lost their platform if abortion was made to be illegal. By voting for them, we are only ensuring that abortion stays around forever. I’m afraid it’s a lost cause. The best that can be done is to educate people about real birth control methods, and to instill an appreciation for life based on love rather than threats. Would you rather see people using condoms or killing unborn children? The greater evil is easy to spot. The same holds in Africa, where religious organizations (zealots) tell people that the way to avoid aids is abstinence. How much of the general population is capable of that? Would it be better to teach them about contraceptives, or to let them continue to die to satisfy some moral construct that we think prohibits the use of life saving measures? Which is the greater evil?

Your friend
Sufjon

Sufjon, putting your perspective into a Freudian framework of our internal mental life (which, for Freud, is the source of our external conflicts), you are the voice of reason and practical compromise, which Freud called the ego, while those who engage in homosexual behavior (I would not include abortion here, though some might) represent the pleasure-seeking id, and the religious opponents of such behavior are the moral conscience, or superego. According to Freud’s theory, the id and the superego will never totally agree; they are polar opposites except for the fact that neither is driven by the social consequences of their thoughts, but rather by their immediate needs. The ego part of the mind, however, seeks practical solutions and common ground to these internal and external problems, and in so doing attempts to reconcile the needs of the id and those of the superego. However, as Freud so aptly pointed out, this is an immensely challenging task which puts a lot of stress on the ego. This is merely an observation on my part as to what we are dealing with here, not a solution.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sufjon, putting your perspective into a Freudian framework of our internal mental life (which, for Freud, is the source of our external conflicts), you are the voice of reason and practical compromise, which Freud called the ego, while those who engage in homosexual behavior (I would not include abortion here, though some might) represent the pleasure-seeking id, and the religious opponents of such behavior are the moral conscience, or superego. According to Freud’s theory, the id and the superego will never totally agree; they are polar opposites except for the fact that neither is driven by the social consequences of their thoughts, but rather by their immediate needs. The ego part of the mind, however, seeks practical solutions and common ground to these internal and external problems, and in so doing attempts to reconcile the needs of the id and those of the superego. However, as Freud so aptly pointed out, this is an immensely challenging task which puts a lot of stress on the ego. This is merely an observation on my part as to what we are dealing with here, not a solution.

Exactly and this is compounded by real life experiences which create other behaviors.

Each case is a individual situation. Are there those born or the wrong gender? Personally I haven’t had the opportunity to work with this person. I have heard this exists and read the case studys.

Nonetheless, what I have found is neglect and abuse be it physical or verbal which encourages and creates a behavior. Is the behavior it self wrong?

Its like saying, well I have seven broken ribs and need morphine. Is morphine wrong? Of course not. But, I feel great about my new career so I’m going to buy some morphine and party? So the line becomes blurred in what is Truth. And again like with abortion the real, factual case’s are so limited, yet the lies are so escalated by the percentage which is just by large behavior problems. Then the entire concept becomes a problem.

We’re not just talking the ego, but the image and facade which people by large would like to project. And become so use to living they believe they are that image. You want see a great example of this. Look at Bike Week in Daytona FLA. Because these guys/gals wear Black Leather ride HDs and buy in totally to this lifestyle. In essense the image is what they “think” they are. How about “tough guys” theres a facinating image.

So no doubt we have many factors coming into play with this lifestyle and many others. It also gets back to the task of understanding the “self”. If the biker takes off his outfit places it in a closet and puts on a clown outfit. Is he not the same person? I wonder how many understand that.

We have much to correct in our teaching process also. We made a lot of mistakes over the generations. Look at how the zero tolerence with Bullies is now headline news. Well thats gone on what 200 years? How many lives were affected?

Public schools with its needing/wanting to accomodate atheism? Its a problem

Look at Israel and how the seperation in school teaching of arab and jewish children was for as long as I can remember. How has this helped the situation in in Israel today? It hasn’t its hurt it.

I don’t propose we change everything immediatly, but we need to stop the bleeding in many of these situations. We can do better than we are doing as a society, and not as Christian or a religious society…As the Human Race.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Sufjon]

Sufjon, putting your perspective into a Freudian framework of our internal mental life (which, for Freud, is the source of our external conflicts), you are the voice of reason and practical compromise, which Freud called the ego, while those who engage in homosexual behavior (I would not include abortion here, though some might) represent the pleasure-seeking id, and the religious opponents of such behavior are the moral conscience, or superego. According to Freud’s theory, the id and the superego will never totally agree; they are polar opposites except for the fact that neither is driven by the social consequences of their thoughts, but rather by their immediate needs. The ego part of the mind, however, seeks practical solutions and common ground to these internal and external problems, and in so doing attempts to reconcile the needs of the id and those of the superego. However, as Freud so aptly pointed out, this is an immensely challenging task which puts a lot of stress on the ego. This is merely an observation on my part as to what we are dealing with here, not a solution.

You are absolutely correct Meltzerboy. Freud outlines a good framework for the processes and components of the personality at work. It’s probably obvious from my religious background that I am also a fan of Jung.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[ANNE_2]

i understand that there are probably as many opinions on abortion as there are people on this forum. that said, why should any one religion’s opinion on the subject be forced onto people that aren’t of that faith?

so abortion is a sin in the catholic church, but why should hindus or muslims have to accept that? some do or don’t anyway, but there doesn’t seem to be any general consensus in those religions. most muslims allow it until the fourth month, and many, but not all, hindus ban it outright.

so my question isn’t on whether or not abortion is a sin. rather, i want to know is if it is ever alright to force one person’s beliefs on another person, and why or under what circumstances.

Isn’t the murder (intentional) killing of an innocent human being wrong in the Hindu or Muslim religion?
ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=44 (This is not a religious web site)

Only God can take an innocent life from conception until natural death.

 

[edowitz1]

Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[Sufjon]

Isn’t the murder (intentional) killing of an innocent human being wrong in the Hindu or Muslim religion?
ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=44 (This is not a religious web site)

Only God can take an innocent life from conception until natural death.

In Hinduism, the taking of any life, human or otherwise is to be avoided at all cost. It is the concept of ahisma. However, it is also understood that this isn’t always possible. We are called to do the least harm possible in each situation. Hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill, kill if unavoidable. It is also a sin not to explore every possible alternative first. It is presumed that there is a solemn obligation to use the intellect we were given to maximum effect in such situations. There is almost always another alternative, and you are bound to find them to the very best of your ability… If you don’t explore them, there are karmic consequences. There is also the concept of protecting that which is of a higher conscious, evolutionary or spiritual state. Therefore, an abortion to save the life of the expectant mother would be a tragedy for the whole family, and a cause of deeply felt grief, but not counter-indicated by religious principle.

Shooting a tiger at the last minute with no time left to keep it from killing a child is acceptable, but there are lesser karmic consequences for not having kept the child and the tiger out of contact with one another beforehand if it was possible to do so.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

One thing is sure, if we Catholics fail to fight for our morality to be incorporated into legislation, there will be other groups imposing their immorality, and their wicked immoral laws on us.

Let’s look at the Culture of Death. Do Americans want their tax money to fund abortions? No, they reject that by a wide margin. Yet, the Democrat Party is more willing to shut down government than to defund Planned Parenthood.

Let’s look at conscience protection laws for healthcare workers. I remember having a discussion with a very accomplished, intelligent, yet very mistaken colleague before election day in 2008. I believe she was a good example for how the liberal elite thinks. We were talking about candidate Obama, and I said I could never vote on him, partly because he promised to abolish all conscience protection laws for healthcare professionals. And I swear, this colleague, as educated and intelligent as she was, just didn’t get that it was wrong for the state to mandate pharmacies to carry and dispense birth control pills and the morning after pill which work by causing abortion, and that the state had no right to mandate doctors and nurses to perform and assist at abortions. And let’s look at the actions of the present administration. They made good on most of their promises, although they didn’t abolish the law that protects doctors from performing surgical abortions. However, they did abolish the law protecting pharmacists who refuse to carry and dispense abortive drugs, birth control pills, and poisons for assisted suicide. And certain states like Illinois mandate pharmacies to keep in stock and dispense birth control pills. So, now, since the federal regulations protecting the pharmacists have been abolished, the state can come in and shut down your pharmacy, and drive you out of business, if you are a pharmacist who refuses to stock and dispense Plan B and other abortive/contraceptive drugs.

I’m telling you folks, we either stand up and fight to impose our Catholic morality, or we will all be enslaved by other groups who are totally misguided and immoral, but have the passion and determination to fight and impose their immoral values on the rest of us - by passing immoral laws that reflect their messed-up and destructive “values”.

 

[JaredM]

Most people don’t understand is that even if you make abortions illegal people will still get them, except instead of doctors to give proper abortions we would have botched abortions that would lead to even further deaths.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Folks, it’s like Brock Lesnar said recently as the coach of The Ultimate Fighter championship: Kill or be killed. Annihilate or get annihilated.

We either stand up and fight to incorporate our Catholic moral values in the law of the land, or the representatives of the Culture of Death will pass legislation that will force all of us to have blood on our hands. There’s no middle ground.