Our Moral Responsibility to Change Society?

[Consecrated]

I am very interested to hear others’ thoughts on what our responsibilities are as Catholics in a democratic society that values the “virtue” of equality above everything, it seems.
These quotes are the beginning of this discussion from another thread where we got slightly off topic! (Imagine that! )

BillP:

I am Catholic. I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. I belive the Catholic Church encompasses the truth about morality and the path to salvation.

However, I am also mindful that throughout history many people who professed and practiced certain religions have from time to time been denied the right to practice their religion or forced to practice (at least outwardly) some other religion.

I rejoice that I live in a society governed by a Constitution that explicitly prevents such cocercion and guarantees me the ability to freely practice Catholicism. Part and parcel of that is realizing and accepting that I live in a society where the majority of people do not share my beliefs, and that I have no right to force my beliefs on them.

So yes I believe it is “okay” for the current consensus to make a law that doesn’t accept Catholic morality.

Response:

Consecrated:

So because you want to avoid the evil of limiting peoples’ free-will in a way that even God chooses not to yup: ), you believe it is ok for the State to actually encourage, protect, and sanction immoral actions( :nope: )? Allowing some immoral actions (i.e. divorce and remarriage) in the spirit of prudence and respect for the God-given gift of free-will, in order to prevent civil disorder and unjust descrimination is one thing. Supporting laws that protect and reward people for committing immoral actions is quite another.

Christ is the King of heaven and earth, and even if society chooses not to recognize His Kingship, this does not change the fact that society does indeed have an obligation to order itself after His Law. And we as believers have the obligation to do what we can by word and example to make this happen. This starts by ordering our little micro-societies (our families) with Christ as King.

Ok, go at it! :bounce:

 

[Toni]

I am answering your question about our moral responsibility in my opinion. We are all called to help make change in this world. We are all called to be leaders to help convert the world even if it is by our example alone.

I used this example with my students today in trying to teach them the importance of their examples. Sunday’s when I attend Mass in the local parish especially one Mass in particular people are litterally talking so loud that you have a tough time concentrating on your prayers. But the longer you kneel there and pray and not become aggravated with the people around you. Others see the example of that one person praying. Our actions say so much.

The greatest thing you can do to help the church in the world today is teach in the catechism programs in the parish. Teach children to be leaders to bring a new society.

The first reason I absolutely fell in love with Father Maciel Marcial was when he came to our school and spoke about leaders in the world today and making all the changes that are possible.

In Mexico in a soap opera they of course showed someone who had made the decision to get an abortion, with a little help they got the same soap opera to show the person who chose to keep her baby. Small baby steps can make large changes. When he spoke to us he said I am looking for someone to make changes in the U.S. I wanted to jump out of my seat and say I will.

When people decide that they can make a change simply by their own actions. We get enough people in the world to do this. Walah… A new world…
But of course the underlying problem is to get people to do this with charity.

 

[AndyF]

consecrated:

and even if society chooses not to recognize His Kingship, this does not change the fact that society does indeed have an obligation to order itself after His Law. And we as believers have the obligation to do what we can by word and example to make this happen. This starts by ordering our little micro-societies (our families) with Christ as King.

The individual is required to focus on change from within to affect change for the whole of society.

So far with this we see no conflict, and we pledge to do our best.

Society then decides to do has it wishes issuing decrees in direct contradiction to God’s laws, committing collective mortal sins.

So far, no conflict here. We trust God will handle it.

Then we are told our sins will be measured on how they have affected society, and society will share prosecution with the Lord at every man’s trial.

One could remain indifferent to societies relationship with God to this point, but from this point on it becomes personal and a all out case of survival. I take issue from the point that this same entity that flaunts it’s own mandate ahead of Christ’s commands gets to sit on the prosecution bench at our judgement. All through scripture this entity gets to collectively commit one mortal sin after another and it never warrants collective damnation but only temporal smiting?

If there is anything lacking in our religion this is it. In balance we should have seen in 5000 years a case where at least one deserved collective damnation, all factors remaining equal for an equivalent individual case for the same offense.

No, society is already a favored entity, both here and in heaven, and it’s favored state has nothing to do with anything of virtue and it’s righteous attainment as expected from man. It’s scriptural handling could never be a gauge of God’s justice whenever judgement is passed. From the temporal evidence at our disposal, and in wait for more evidential revelations, the current consensus is that we are being handled very unfairly.

Actually, in keeping with Christ’s laws, we are to distance ourselves from entities who are obstinate in their sins. So you now have the option of leaving society to it’s fate. 1Cor 15, 33

M2C

Andy

 

[BillP]

First off, Thanks for starting the topic. I will be very interested to read the contributions of others on this issue. Especially if any of our non-Catholic friends happen to wander in.

Second, on the first few messages here, there has been a conflation of Society and Government that I’m not entirely comfortable with. My main concern when writing the post Consecrated used to start the topic was with intersection of Religion and the coercive power of Law. Particularly whether the Law can ever properly be used to enforce Religion or religious standards.

Consecrated:

So because you want to avoid the evil of limiting peoples’ free-will in a way that even God chooses not to yup: ), you believe it is ok for the State to actually encourage, protect, and sanction immoral actions( :nope: )? Allowing some immoral actions (i.e. divorce and remarriage) in the spirit of prudence and respect for the God-given gift of free-will, in order to prevent civil disorder and unjust descrimination is one thing. Supporting laws that protect and reward people for committing immoral actions is quite another.

I am afraid that I totally reject that as a premise for government. To my mind government exists only to protect the rights of its citizens. In effect, if some course of conduct doesn’t unjustly negatively impact the rights of some other human being then that conduct shouldn’t be proscribed by law.

My problem is that when you start down the path to writing laws based on not “protecting and rewarding people for committing immoral actions” you inevitably get to the question who defines “immoral”?

Are we as Catholics required to impose our definition of immorality upon our non-Catholic countrymen?

We’re only 26% of the electorate, what if we can’t prevail at the ballot box? Do we resort to coercion? Physical violence? Dishonest Judical candidates?

Consecrated:

Christ is the King of heaven and earth, and even if society chooses not to recognize His Kingship, this does not change the fact that society does indeed have an obligation to order itself after His Law.

In the first place, I’m not sure “society” is actually a tangible entity that can be held responsible for mortal sins as another poster asserted upstream. I also reject the notion of collective guilt. We are each responsible for our own actions, not those of others. I think, subject to correction, that individual responsibility is pretty sound Catholic theology.

I also believe that all governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. The concept of the Divine Right of Kings went out the window a couple of hundred years ago. The U.S. government has no obligation whatever in my mind to order itself after a Catholic understanding of “God’s Law”. Note that the correctness of our view of “God’s Law” is irrelevent. It is also not the oblligation fo the government to order itself after the tenents of Judaism, Islam, Hiduism, Confucism, Zorastrianism or any other religion. Because we live in a secular republic that guarantees religious freedom, all religions (no matter how silly and wrong) are equal in the eyes of the law.

To the extent that the Laws of the US contradict the laws of the Catholic Church they are more permissive. That is, we as Catholics are forbidden by our religion from conduct that is legally permitted. This is as it should be. Not everyone defines morality in the same way as Catholics. I don’t want, say a Muslim view of morality imposed on me, so I won’t impose a Catholic view of morality on my Muslim next door neighbor.

Consecrated:

And we as believers have the obligation to do what we can by word and example to make this happen. This starts by ordering our little micro-societies (our families) with Christ as King.

If you’re talking about encouragement and example then I agree completely. Who said “preach the gospel constantly, use words if necessary”?

 

[Consecrated]

BillP:

First off, Thanks for starting the topic. I will be very interested to read the contributions of others on this issue. Especially if any of our non-Catholic friends happen to wander in.

Second, on the first few messages here, there has been a conflation of Society and Government that I’m not entirely comfortable with. My main concern when writing the post Consecrated used to start the topic was with intersection of Religion and the coercive power of Law. Particularly whether the Law can ever properly be used to enforce Religion or religious standards.

Thank you for making this distinction. I had a hard time describing what I was trying to say in the OP.

BillP:

I am afraid that I totally reject that as a premise for government. To my mind government exists only to protect the rights of its citizens. In effect, if some course of conduct doesn’t unjustly negatively impact the rights of some other human being then that conduct shouldn’t be proscribed by law.

My problem is that when you start down the path to writing laws based on not “protecting and rewarding people for committing immoral actions” you inevitably get to the question who defines “immoral”?

Are we as Catholics required to impose our definition of immorality upon our non-Catholic countrymen?

We’re only 26% of the electorate, what if we can’t prevail at the ballot box? Do we resort to coercion? Physical violence? Dishonest Judical candidates?

I’ve bolded what I think is a key question. If you answer “yes” then your next questions are very good ones. I think my short answer is “yes”. My longer answer is "yes, but we need to be very careful about what we mean by ‘impose’ ". Obviously, we can’t resort to coercion, physical violence, or dishonesty… all sins of themselves that lead to a case of the ends not justifying the means. At the very least, however, we should expect more than we’re getting from our current governmental structure.

BillP:

In the first place, I’m not sure “society” is actually a tangible entity that can be held responsible for mortal sins as another poster asserted upstream. I also reject the notion of collective guilt. We are each responsible for our own actions, not those of others. I think, subject to correction, that individual responsibility is pretty sound Catholic theology.

I also believe that all governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. The concept of the Divine Right of Kings went out the window a couple of hundred years ago. The U.S. government has no obligation whatever in my mind to order itself after a Catholic understanding of “God’s Law”. Note that the correctness of our view of “God’s Law” is irrelevent. It is also not the oblligation fo the government to order itself after the tenents of Judaism, Islam, Hiduism, Confucism, Zorastrianism or any other religion. Because we live in a secular republic that guarantees religious freedom, all religions (no matter how silly and wrong) are equal in the eyes of the law.

All very fascinating subjects to ponder and research. I am going to find out more about the concept of “collective guilt”. Also, the concept of the Divine Right of Kings may not be in practice, but does that mean that it’s no longer the ideal of government? And didn’t Jesus say something in one of the Gospel’s about Ceasar’s authority being given to him by God (not his constituents)? I’ll have to look that up.

BillP:

To the extent that the Laws of the US contradict the laws of the Catholic Church they are more permissive. That is, we as Catholics are forbidden by our religion from conduct that is legally permitted. This is as it should be. Not everyone defines morality in the same way as Catholics. I don’t want, say a Muslim view of morality imposed on me, so I won’t impose a Catholic view of morality on my Muslim next door neighbor.

I guess where I’m differing is that since I believe the Church has the fullness of the Truth (while we shouldn’t be forcing anyone to believe anything), Catholic moral truth should have more influence on the laws than is currently in style. It seems to me to be a false logic that says “since I don’t want Muslimism forced on me, I shouldn’t force Catholicism on Muslims.” No one should be forcing, first of all, and second of all the big difference here is that the Catholic Church has an infallible moral compass. If any organization can know for sure what’s right/wrong, it’s the Catholic Church. So how would it be bad for society/gorvernment to go by that compass as much as possible? I can only see how it would be good.

BillP:

If you’re talking about encouragement and example then I agree completely. Who said “preach the gospel constantly, use words if necessary”?

 

[BillP]

Consecrated:

I’ve bolded what I think is a key question. If you answer “yes” then your next questions are very good ones. I think my short answer is “yes”. My longer answer is "yes, but we need to be very careful about what we mean by ‘impose’ ". Obviously, we can’t resort to coercion, physical violence, or dishonesty… all sins of themselves that lead to a case of the ends not justifying the means. At the very least, however, we should expect more than we’re getting from our current governmental structure.

Well, here is an example that comes to mind. Recently two Catholics, John Roberts and Anthony Alito, were nominated to positions on the SCOTUS. As justices, these men will almost certainly be called on to rule either affirming or overturning Roe v Wade. Now I think the non-Catholic population of America is entitled to know whether these two men, should they be confirmed, will judge that case using the standard of the U.S. Constitution or on the standard of the Catholic Church and its interpretation of Natural Law. In fact, I would go so far as to say that their duty as Catholics and Americans is to rule according to the US Constitution. If they don’t feel like they can separate their Catholicism from their legal opinions they shoudl either resign or decline to serve.

Consecrated:

I guess where I’m differing is that since I believe the Church has the fullness of the Truth (while we shouldn’t be forcing anyone to believe anything), Catholic moral truth should have more influence on the laws than is currently in style.

I too believe the Church has the fullness of truth, but the US Constitution doesn’t. In fact, under the First Amendment, it is forbidden from so acting. That’s because each and every religion on the planet believes that IT has the fullness of truth. We’ve seen throughout human history what happens when Churchs obtain temporal power and it isn’t pretty. From the Inquisiton, to the Thirty Years War, the Salem Trials, all the way down to The Islamic Revolution in Iran in the late 70’s.

Consecrated:

It seems to me to be a false logic that says “since I don’t want Muslimism forced on me, I shouldn’t force Catholicism on Muslims.” No one should be forcing, first of all,

Isn’t any Law simply an attempt to cause or prevent specified behaviors by threat of force? I see a huge disconnect when folks talk about making laws but not forcing people.

Consecrated:

So how would it be bad for society/gorvernment to go by that compass as much as possible? I can only see how it would be good.

Well, 76% of the US population has explicitly or implicitly chosen NOT to live as Catholics. These folks prefer to live by their own moral code. Why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?

Let me ask you what specifically would you change in our Laws to bring them into conformity with Catholic morality?

 

[wcknight]

BillP:

Well, 76% of the US population has explicitly or implicitly chosen NOT to live as Catholics. These folks prefer to live by their own moral code. Why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?

Let me ask you what specifically would you change in our Laws to bring them into conformity with Catholic morality?

Make them all go to mass on Sunday ??? or have them all Baptized ??

 

[AndyF]

BillP:

In the first place, I’m not sure “society” is actually a tangible entity that can be held responsible for mortal sins as another poster asserted upstream.** I also reject the notion of collective guilt.** We are each responsible for our own actions, not those of others. I think, subject to correction, that individual responsibility is pretty sound Catholic theology.

I think it is sound theology as well, and the Church extends that to include every decision making being under His domain. We are responsible for each others actions when we swear allegiance to be bound as one and submit to the whatever may result from our collective decision.

If it were not so, 10 people who have the desire to murder an individual in their heart and carry out the deed, then not one individually could be culpable by the collectivisation rule.

Rejecting collective guilt would be contrary to Church teaching. Time and again God punishes entities in the form they have chosen, or, came into existance with.

You are forgeting the characteristics of collectives, and it is not at all difficult to conceptualize:

They have the ability to make collective choices, know the difference between right and wrong, invoke devine assistance, get recognition of that form from the Church by the Popes praying for the forgiveness of it’s sins, incur God’s wrath collectively,commit decreed mortal sins, ask for His forgiveness.
All these requests and recognition of a higher Authority comes with a price. The enitity doing so is bound by His laws and can expect to reap the rewards. If it makes evil choices, we are obliged to shun it as we would any individual. 1Cor 15, 33

The U.S. government has no obligation whatever in my mind to order itself after a Catholic understanding of “God’s Law”.

Prior to Christ establishing his Church, there were many beliefs and religions in the world. That changed when his Church was established at Pentecost. Since then he waits for his flock to return.

Incidentally, every person who has passed on and is worthy of entering heaven becomes a Catholic by default.

(Newadvent.org, Government)

“…As domestic obedience is not to be carried to the extent of rebellion against the civil government, so neither is the State to be obeyed as against God. It is not within the competence of the State to command anything and everything. The State cannot command what God could not command, for instance, idolatry. The authority of the State is absolute, that is to say, full and complete in its own sphere, and subordinate to no other authority within that sphere. But the authority of the State is not arbitrary; it is not available for the carrying out of every whim and caprice…”

Not everyone defines morality in the same way as Catholics.

If there was no requirement that every person should be a Catholic, that would be permissible. If any church claims to be the right church, then the other must not be.

Andy

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Well, here is an example that comes to mind. Recently two Catholics, John Roberts and Anthony Alito, were nominated to positions on the SCOTUS. As justices, these men will almost certainly be called on to rule either affirming or overturning Roe v Wade. Now I think the non-Catholic population of America is entitled to know whether these two men, should they be confirmed, will judge that case using the standard of the U.S. Constitution or on the standard of the Catholic Church and its interpretation of Natural Law. In fact, I would go so far as to say that their duty as Catholics and Americans is to rule according to the US Constitution. If they don’t feel like they can separate their Catholicism from their legal opinions they shoudl either resign or decline to serve.

I completely disagree with this. It is their responsibility given to them by God to do whatever they can in their position to make abortion illegal, because it is murder. Their responsiblities as
Catholics are to defend life. The life that God gave us as a gift. Who cares what anyone else in this country thinks? All they need to care about is what God says and that they will be accountable for this. They would be wrong in just walking away. They have just as much a right to rule abortion illegal as anyone does the other way, or they wouldn’t be given that power to do so at all. It does not say in the U.S. constitution that all are given the right to abort their children.

To go farther with this, it is my right to practice Catholicism. I should not have to be forced to pay for abortions with MY money through taxes, when this is immoral. We should be doing everything we can to overturn Roe vs. Wade, otherwise we will be continuing to participate in these immoral, evil, acts that the government FORCES me to participate in just because I live here.

You can claim all you want that religion and government are separate, but they never will be. It is impossible to completely separate the two. Start giving me the right to send my children to Catholic school without having to pay for both public AND Catholic. Isn’t it bad enough that we have to pay for it without any help from the government, just because I want to be able to send my children to the school of my choice? A school that allows my children to speak about the Lord and pray.

 

[BioCatholic]

luvmykids:

I completely disagree with this. It is their responsibility given to them by God to do whatever they can in their position to make abortion illegal, because it is murder. Their responsiblities as
Catholics are to defend life. The life that God gave us as a gift. Who cares what anyone else in this country thinks? All they need to care about is what God says and that they will be accountable for this. They would be wrong in just walking away. They have just as much a right to rule abortion illegal as anyone does the other way, or they wouldn’t be given that power to do so at all. It does not say in the U.S. constitution that all are given the right to abort their children.

now you are crying for an ACTIVIST judge. hmmmm. dont like the “activist judges” that rule against what you believe, so you want another activist judge to rule FOR you.

as Justices, their only obligation is to the CONSTITUTION. that is their job description.

They have just as much a right to rule abortion illegal as anyone does the other way

our legal system and stare decisis says otherwise, unless they find the original decision was seriously, seriously flawed.

i find it utterly amusing that people screaming for “strict constructionist” judges now want them to be “activist” in their own favor. you either have activist judges, or constructionists that rule in a limited, restricted fashion. PERIOD. Alito and Robers do not seem to present their Catholic faith in their decisions. they are all well-founded and well based in constitutional law and precedent.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

I completely disagree with this. It is their responsibility given to them by God to do whatever they can in their position to make abortion illegal, because it is murder.

Alas, in this particular instance their responsibility is not to God but to Caesar. When they accept the appointment they take this oath:

“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

See. Nothing in their about doing what God wants. Simply asking God to help them “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”.

luvmykids:

it is my right to practice Catholicism. I should not have to be forced to pay for abortions with MY money through taxes, when this is immoral.

Well the Government spends trillions of dollars each year on things other than abortion. Perhaps you should just think of YOUR tax dollars as doing something that you DO approve of?

You need to realize that as long as you live in the US you are obliged to respect the religious sensibilities and beliefs of others. Sorry if that annoys you.

 

[luvmykids]

BioCatholic:

now you are crying for an ACTIVIST judge. hmmmm. dont like the “activist judges” that rule against what you believe, so you want another activist judge to rule FOR you.

as Justices, their only obligation is to the CONSTITUTION. that is their job description.

They have just as much a right to rule abortion illegal as anyone does the other way

our legal system and stare decisis says otherwise, unless they find the original decision was seriously, seriously flawed.

i find it utterly amusing that people screaming for “strict constructionist” judges now want them to be “activist” in their own favor. you either have activist judges, or constructionists that rule in a limited, restricted fashion. PERIOD. Alito and Robers do not seem to present their Catholic faith in their decisions. they are all well-founded and well based in constitutional law and precedent.

I’m sorry, maybe I’m out of line here because I know nothing about politics. “Activist judges”, “strict constructionist” etc… these are all things I know nothing about. What I do know is that there IS a serious flaw in the original ruling on Roe vs. Wade and that is the very fact that it is unconstitutional because it is infringing on the right to life that we all have, even the unborn. So I don’t know if I was was screaming for anything but the right to life of the unborn and ours and those judges reponsibility to doanything in their power to fight for this.

 

[luvmykids]

“so help me God.”

See. Nothing in their about doing what God wants. Simply asking God to help them “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”.

Actually, yeah there is.

BillP:

Well the Government spends trillions of dollars each year on things other than abortion. Perhaps you should just think of YOUR tax dollars as doing something that you DO approve of?

Like what, paying for other people’s kids to go to school when I’m expected to pay for mine? I’m not going to think something that isn’t true, and ignore the truth.the truth is that MY tax money IS going towards these things that I don’t approve of.

BillP:

You need to realize that as long as you live in the US you are obliged to respect the religious sensibilities and beliefs of others. Sorry if that annoys you.

Just as they are to mine.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

Actually, yeah there is.

Really? Where?

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

I’m sorry, maybe I’m out of line here because I know nothing about politics.“Activist judges”, “strict constructionist” etc… these are all things I know nothing about.

Let me be as gentle as I possibly can. Until you do know something about these things, I am afraid you can’t reasonably expect your opinion on these issues to be taken seriously, at least not by people who do know something about them.

As a citizen of a democratic republic I think one has an obligation to educate oneself in order to responsibly exercise one’s franchise. But, what do I know?

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Let me be as gentle as I possibly can. Until you do know something about these things, I am afraid you can’t reasonably expect your opinion on these issues to be taken seriously, at least not by people who do know something about them.

As a citizen of a democratic republic I think one has an obligation to educate oneself in order to responsibly exercise one’s franchise. But, what do I know?

I’m sorry you are right. But are you telling me then that it is not a serious flaw that we are killing innocent human beings by aborting them. And are you trying to tell me that my money doesn’t go towards abortions, and are you trying to tell me that it is fair that even though I want to excercise my right to send my kids to catholic school that I still have to pay for other people’s kids to go to school and my own? If not then be charitable and enlighten me. I think the reason I haven’t had much desire to learn more is because I have such little faith in this so called democracy.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

Like what, paying for other people’s kids to go to school when I’m expected to pay for mine? I’m not going to think something that isn’t true, and ignore the truth.the truth is that MY tax money IS going towards these things that I don’t approve of.

Think about that for a second. What is you think is “just” that each and every citizen have a veto power over how each and every Federal tax dollar is spent? Is that what you consider respecting your religion?

The Federal Government spent $2.94 TRILLION in FY 2004. According to the CDC there were 850,000 abortions performed in the US in 2002 (the last year for which data are available). Even if the Federal government paid for every one of them at an average cost of $250 they would have spent $212 Million. That $212 Million would represent 7 cents out of every $1000 of Federal Spending. And all taxes account for 35% of Federal Spending so its really, 2.5 cents out of every $1000 of Federal Income taxes paid.

I’m having a bit of trouble understanding your problem here.

 

[luvmykids]

BillP:

Think about that for a second. What is you think is “just” that each and every citizen have a veto power over how each and every Federal tax dollar is spent? Is that what you consider respecting your religion?

The Federal Government spent $2.94 TRILLION in FY 2004. According to the CDC there were 850,000 abortions performed in the US in 2002 (the last year for which data are available). Even if the Federal government paid for every one of them at an average cost of $250 they would have spent $212 Million. That $212 Million would represent 7 cents out of every $1000 of Federal Spending. And all taxes account for 35% of Federal Spending so its really, 2.5 cents out of every $1000 of Federal Income taxes paid.

I’m having a bit of trouble understanding your problem here.

Even if your stats are accurate, 1, 2,3 cents, whatever, I’m still paying for it. If I pay $500 a year in federal income taxes that would account for about $100 in about 40 years that I spent on abortion. That is my problem. Even if it was $50, I want nothing to do with it.

I am basically trying to point out to you that when you say we can force our beliefs on others, someone’s beliefs are always being infringed upon.

By the way, God is in the constitution more than once. You wrote it yourself in one of your posts. You must have looked over the name God in your post. But your own two hands typed it.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

I’m sorry you are right. But are you telling me then that it is not a serious flaw that we are killing innocent human beings by aborting them.

Personally, I believe life begins at conception. I do believe the Constitution contains a right to privacy. I also believe that right to privacy does include a woman’s right to choose whether or not she has an abortion or whether or not a married couple uses ABC. Which by the way I don’t practice.

As long as something like 70-80% of Americans favor permitting abortion in at least some circumstances we will have legal abortion in this country.

The way to change that is NOT making abortion illegal. the way to change that is to make our case in the court of public opinion.

luvmykids:

And are you trying to tell me that my money doesn’t go towards abortions and are you trying to tell me that it is fair that even though I want to excercise my right to send my kids to catholic school that I still have to pay for other people’s kids to go to school and my own?

Is it fair? Not particularly. But then again life isn’t fair. Why should people who don’t have cars pay for road construction? Why should people who don’t have kids pay school taxes at all?

See my post above. a VERY, VERY TINY amount of your taxes does go toward abortion. If your family paid $10,000 in Federal Income taxes last year then maybe as much as a quarter ($.25) went to pay for abortions.

But other folks have problems funding all sorts of things. In our country majority rules subject to basic riaghts and freedoms accorded the minority. Each and every ciotizen have a personal line item veto over Federal Spending item isn’t one of those rights.

 

[BillP]

luvmykids:

By the way, God is in the constitution more than once. You wrote it yourself in one of your posts. You must have looked over the name God in your post. But your own two hands typed it.

Maybe, but it’s only in the oath of office once. At the end.
God’s law (as interpreted by the Catholic Church) is NOT the basis of the US Constitution.