Your first line is very questionable. How does one determine a “Christian” nation? That many of its people were Christian? Sure, but that can be said of virtually all European nations as well, to at least as great an extent as the U.S. Because the Founding Fathers were Christians? Hardly. Many or most of the Founding Fathers were probably something like Deists, or if they called themselves Christian, then Christian in name only. Sam Adams, for example, rejected redemption theology; Thomas Jefferson wrote that “It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.” (A curiously Catholic idea about redemption, but the “I am a Materialist” leaves no doubt as to Jefferson’s real beliefs). Ben Franklin wrote “I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it.” I can give quotes on and on to this extent.I very much disagree wtih that last statement, we have always very much been a Christian nation. The “seperation of church and state” wasn’t meant to remove the idea of God, even Christian God from government completely. It was meant, simply to be a mechinism to ensure people could worship God in the way they best saw fit. Our founding fathers would be shocked an appaled by what people, today think the amendment means.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of **Nature’s God **entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
This Declaration is a written statement, a document meant to cataloge the reasons why we felt it just to break away from England and establish our own state. No, it’s not the law the land, it is however the spirit of the law of the land. God is not nebulas, God is Trium God.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are **created **equal, that they are endowed **by their Creator **with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I know a lot of Athiests like to read this as “freedom from religion”, but the intent here was not to prohibit religious practice (even in government) any more than it was meant to prohibit the practice of printing accurate news about what was happening in the nation. Quite the oppisite, it was designed to ensure such freedom, but prohibiting the government from defining the terms on which such expression could happen.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A lot of the discussion above seems confused by the fact it’s been carried on with the blunt category of being “morally opposed” to public policies. Let me try to sharpen up this concept before giving an opinion.So. I really don’t know what my political beliefs are now. I’m a teenager, they change just about as often as the time of day. Regardless, I had a few questions. If I am MORALLY opposed to something, does that neccessarily mean I have to be POLITICALLY opposed to it? For instance, gay marriage. I’m really not sure whether or not it should be allowed politically, but I am very against it morally. I’ll put it this way- if a referendum was issued to the people of the USA about whether or not to allow gay marriage, I’m not sure about how I would vote. However, if a friend told me he was gay, and asked for advice, I would, of course, tell him not to act on his homosexuality, and that he should remain single and chaste.
To put it simply, are Catholics required to support all Catholic doctrine politically?
Well-put. I think the separation of Church and State were taking us off-topic, especially considering this is a “Moral Theology” forum, not a Secular Politics forum.A lot of the discussion above seems confused by the fact it’s been carried on with the blunt category of being “morally opposed” to public policies. Let me try to sharpen up this concept before giving an opinion.
First: does “morally opposed” mean you think something is wrong? The answer is no, because, for example, it is wrong not to brush your teeth regularly, but it should not be illegal not to do so.
Second: does “morally opposed” mean you think something is intrinsically evil? Again, the answer is no, because otherwise our society would have to outlaw fibbing.
These first two questions show that we need to get outside moral theological concepts in order to understand how our morality should inform our voting. In particular, they show that it is fallacious to argue that “X is wrong, so X should be illegal.”
From these preliminary remarks, we can go on to attempt a general answer to the OP’s question. Public policy is normally intended to foster the common good either directly or indirectly (i.e., by advancing the cause of justice or inhibiting injustice, or by adapting means to already given ends). Moral beliefs should give us a sense of what the common good consists in, and they should help us to sort out what is just from what is unjust. Thus, abortion is not only wrong (a fact of almost no political significance) but it is a grave injustice and therefore ought to be illegal. Or again, as the Church teaches and we are bound to agree, gay “marriage” is incompatible with the common good in one way or another. Therefore, a Catholic cannot vote for it. (NB: Stated flat out just like that, this teaching strikes me as cruel. In societies where gay “marriage” is a live option it should be pointed out that the Church teaches that some kind of couples registry to achieve the same material benefits would be perfectly acceptable.)
So my answer to the OP is that the issues he raises are essentially philosophical, and he could do a lot worse than trying to work out the answer for himself by reflecting on the ends that morality and politics serve. From this point of view, his best bet would be to start reading Plato’s Republic.
I don’t understand the fundamental difference you see between these two examples (and it gets back to the point I was trying to make to gabriellenoelle). It seems you are saying that where there is disagreement among people on a moral question, those who take a position based on their faith have no right to vote to impose that position on others who (for whatever reason) disagree.There is a fundamental difference between saying “People shouldn’t kill each other” and “Homos shouldn’t be allowed to marry.” We are not a Catholic nation. We are not even a Christian nation, really. That does not mean moral norms do not exist, it simply means they should not be based solely on Christian beliefs, given the pluralistic society in America.
I am a Libertarian. I believe in individual political freedom. So I don’t wish to impose my religious beliefs, nor any other non-religious beliefs on others via legislation. What business is it of Catholics if gays want to marry? How does that gay marriage or ‘legal union’ negatively impact the lives of Catholics?I don’t understand the fundamental difference you see between these two examples (and it gets back to the point I was trying to make to gabriellenoelle). It seems you are saying that where there is disagreement among people on a moral question, those who take a position based on their faith have no right to vote to impose that position on others who (for whatever reason) disagree.
What if I take a position (e.g. opposing gay marriage) but my opinion is based on criteria other than my faith; am I allowed to impose my non faith based opinion on others? If you say that I am allowed - there being no question of Church/State conflict - then on what basis can you claim that the person of faith doesn’t have the same rights as I?
I’m not leaving morality up to public opinion. I want to base morality on natural law. Rape is wrong. I think we can all agree on this. Murdering innocents is wrong, I think we can all agree on this as a society, as all states have murder laws. Abortion kills an innocent human life.If you say that I am not allowed to impose my position on others because there is no agreement as to what should be done then you make morality hostage to public opinion and must admit not only that you shouldn’t oppose abortion now but wouldn’t have opposed slavery before. History seems pretty clear that there wasn’t a confluence of opinions on that one.
This presents you with a problem. You believe in individual political freedom but you also don’t want to impose your beliefs on me so you certainly cannot insist that I act as you do. If you are free to do as you please then so am I. If you believe that it is wrong for one person to impose his beliefs on another then you may not force me to act according to your standards. If, however, I believe that it is proper for me to force my beliefs on you then, while you might not like it, you really cannot oppose me because you have already denied yourself that right. Opposing me would be forcing me to accept a restriction of my rights; that is, you would be forcing your beliefs on me.I believe in individual political freedom. So I don’t wish to impose my religious beliefs, nor any other non-religious beliefs on others via legislation.
And if I want to base it on something else, where does that leave us? I am happy that you don’t want to impose your beliefs on me - because in your value system that is wrong - but in my value system it isn’t wrong, and since I don’t have to abide by your rules why am I not free to do whatever I think is right … which might well include something very offensive to you?I’m not leaving morality up to public opinion. I want to base morality on natural law.
This is a perfect example. Do you think that abortion should be made illegal? Clearly a lot of people don’t agree so you would be imposing your beliefs on them. What part of your value system allows you to do that? Either you are willing to impose your beliefs on others - which seems to violate your cardinal rule - or you recognize the right of one group to behave without restriction in the violation of the rights of other groups.Abortion kills an innocent human life.
Standards are what people believe them to be. You believe in Natural Law; I don’t. Again, how can this standoff be resolved?There are standards
I certainly agree with you. The intent of my post was hardly to argue otherwise but to point out that IF you start with the assumption that one is never justified in imposing ones beliefs on another person THEN you cannot even oppose things you think are terribly wrong because that results in the imposition of your beliefs on someone else. I am trying to point out that “we should never impose our beliefs on other people” is not a tenable position and that the question of abortion demonstrates why.Ender the abortion issue is a no brainer.
The innocent life of the preborn child needs to be defended by “imposing” standards on a woman who has no such belief that the life within her is not hers to take.
The woman or you may also feel Jews are not human and you should be allowed to end their life. Of course standards must be applied to protect the lives of the innocent.
Perhaps I characterized the position incorrectly. It’s not that you can NEVER impose beliefs. Clearly, that ‘abortion is wrong’ is a belief. It is a belief based on the notion that innocent human lfie ought to be protected. This is one of the foundations of the social contract.I certainly agree with you. The intent of my post was hardly to argue otherwise but to point out that IF you start with the assumption that one is never justified in imposing ones beliefs on another person THEN you cannot even oppose things you think are terribly wrong because that results in the imposition of your beliefs on someone else. I am trying to point out that “we should never impose our beliefs on other people” is not a tenable position and that the question of abortion demonstrates why.
Ender
Now that is the tip of the iceberg. (I just got tired of copying and pasting)
- One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
- Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)
- Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
- 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)
- 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)
- Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
- 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)
- 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)
- Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex
- 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20)
- Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10)
- Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10)
- 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)
I have no problem with you acting on the position you have laid out above. I am pointing out that it is your personal belief about how government should work and that I should have the same right to act on my opinions as to what government should or should not do. I neither attack nor defend your position on any of the particulars you list; I don’t want to get sidetracked. I want to discuss what the basic rules of society should be, not who is right about how specific issues are to be decided.The role of government is to maintain peace and order. Abortion falls under this jurisdiction. Gay marriage, I am not convinced it does.
The standard is this: does the action/product/etc disrupt the peace or order of the larger society? Abortion kills members of society. Gay marriage, porn, and condoms are not so clearly destructive of the peace and order of society…
I think I’m just not explaining it correctly. What is your exact problem with this stance?
I was basically going to say that. I’ve seen Carla’s numbers before, and I’ve seen them pretty much debunked…CarlaOLS’s statistics can be found at the following website: traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html. If anyone cares to follow the link, it will be observed that all the information is extremely old—in fact, there is not a single reference to data published within the last 15 years. In view of this fact, I would say Rusty20 is better advised to seek out a fact sheet that wasn’t cherry picked from ancient documents.
Okay. I understand what you are saying. And yes, the standard I presented is my own standard.I have no problem with you acting on the position you have laid out above. I am pointing out that it is your personal belief about how government should work and that I should have the same right to act on my opinions as to what government should or should not do. I neither attack nor defend your position on any of the particulars you list; I don’t want to get sidetracked. ** I want to discuss what the basic rules of society should be**, not who is right about how specific issues are to be decided.
You state: “The standard is this:…” This is your standard and you have no more right to insist that it be mine than I have to insist that I have the true standard and you must accept mine. The point in all of this is that the source of my standard is irrelevant; I don’t lose my rights simply because my moral beliefs are formed by my faith and I have every right to force my opinions on you just as you have the same right to force your opinions on me. We are constrained only by the laws and the Constitution; it is a myth that there is some Church/State restriction that limits my freedom.
Ender
Perhaps I can help with that: here’s a link to a report put out this past May where gays in Canada were protesting the medical services they received. They provided their own list of health problems afflicting the gay community, beginning with this one:I would say Rusty20 is better advised to seek out a fact sheet that wasn’t cherry picked from ancient documents.
Now THAT I can agree with. I think we have things cleared up…Having said all this, however, whatever view one takes of homosexual “marriage”, the point relevant to this thread is that there is no restriction (nor should there be) on any individual to inhibit him from trying to make such unions legal or illegal because of how his opinion on the matter was formed.
Ender
Thanks for the info Ender, I’ll have to use that link if the convo comes up again on another site or something…Perhaps I can help with that: here’s a link to a report put out this past May where gays in Canada were protesting the medical services they received. They provided their own list of health problems afflicting the gay community, beginning with this one:
The life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is 20 years less than the average Canadian man
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09051403.html
And if you’re really into statistics you may want to dig through this:
conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics
Ender