This is a serious issue and deserves a serious answer … but it’s not the point of this particular thread and to try to address your concern would completely sidetrack this discussion. If you can’t find a thread where this concern is relevant then start a new one; I’m quite sure you’ll get a lot of responses.I struggle with my understanding and acceptance of a one major issue: whether or not it is a moral sin to use contraception such as the pill or condoms. I know what the Church teaches and I pray about understanding but I am not sure I can fully accept it.
So are you equating homosexual marriage, abortion, euthanasia and other immoral acts with giving to charity? That’s not a level playing field.I disagree with this as a general principle. Whether or not a person would choose a course of action for themselves does not necessarily dictate their position on whether that course of action should be imposed on (or barred from) others.
On *some *issues, I can see how a person could be against something personally and be in favour of its prohibition (actually, I’d think it would be odd if you were in favour of prohibition of something generally while in favour of it for yourself), but this isn’t the case for all issues… not necessarily even most.
For instance, there are certain charities that I think are especially good, and I choose to donate to them over others. However, I’d never dream of making it illegal to donate to any other charity. I probably wouldn’t even want to single out the charities I like for special government grants.
I disagree with this as a general principle. Whether or not a person would choose a course of action for themselves does not necessarily dictate their position on whether that course of action should be imposed on (or barred from) others.
On *some *issues, I can see how a person could be against something personally and be in favour of its prohibition (actually, I’d think it would be odd if you were in favour of prohibition of something generally while in favour of it for yourself), but this isn’t the case for all issues… not necessarily even most.
For instance, there are certain charities that I think are especially good, and I choose to donate to them over others. However, I’d never dream of making it illegal to donate to any other charity. I probably wouldn’t even want to single out the charities I like for special government grants.
I think you need to study the evolution of moral law. The bible says it began in the Garden of Eden when Cain asked Abel to go out into the field with him. I think you probably remember reading what happened then. Thou shall not murder wasn’t a Catholic teaching then, but a moral law that we intuitively, as humans, have always known is wrong.Spot on. You can disagree with someone. You can’t convert everyone to Catholicism. Should Catholics work towards making Catholic moral teaching into law, given that most of the population disagrees with them? Where is any sense of political freedom?
When you make your decisions about who to vote for you need to listen to the Church and practice a bit of humility. That virtue is sadly lacking in many Catholics who don’t see the necessity of following Church teachings. The immorality of abortion was upheld and probably indirectly supported by 54% of catholics in the past election because they “felt” there were “other” issues to consider. Morality and logical decisions are not a matter of emotions, but of clear level headed thinking.Now I have to say that this is an area I struggle with. I agree that my political decisions should be made on my moral beliefs. The trouble for me is when the Church says I can’t vote a certain way if I am a true Catholic. I vote for the entirety of the person running for office – not just one issue. I suspect I am like many, many Catholics. What politicians say and what they do are rarely the same – as well. I don’t have a litmus test – I look at everything collectively. In some cases, you are choosing between a person who has a few issues you don’t agree with but can lead – and the other is a person who may agree with you on most things but has no ability to lead.
No, I’m not equating anything with anything else. I was giving one example of where my conscience dictated one course of action for myself, but it would not be appropriate for me to demand that other people follow the same course of action as I do.So are you equating homosexual marriage, abortion, euthanasia and other immoral acts with giving to charity? That’s not a level playing field.
I really wonder… On exactly what principal do you base this argument. What is the logic behind it? It makes no sense!! Your vote is your VOICE, the entire basis for democracy is that your voice be heard. The entirety of law is based upon morality, that is the whole point of the law! To enforce a basic moral standard. What you say is contradictory, it encourages autocracy.I disagree with this as a general principle. Whether or not a person would choose a course of action for themselves does not necessarily dictate their position on whether that course of action should be imposed on (or barred from) others.
And how exactly do you distinguish between all these senarios? Again, what is the basis of this contradictory logic?On *some *issues, I can see how a person could be against something personally and be in favour of its prohibition (actually, I’d think it would be odd if you were in favour of prohibition of something generally while in favour of it for yourself), but this isn’t the case for all issues… not necessarily even most.
Voting has nothing to do with donating to Charity.For instance, there are certain charities that I think are especially good, and I choose to donate to them over others. However, I’d never dream of making it illegal to donate to any other charity. I probably wouldn’t even want to single out the charities I like for special government grants.
And what’s your alternative? To try to make everything that you personally disapprove of illegal?I really wonder… On exactly what principal do you base this argument. What is the logic behind it? It makes no sense!! Your vote is your VOICE, the entire basis for democracy is that your voice be heard. The entirety of law is based upon morality, that is the whole point of the law! To enforce a basic moral standard. What you say is contradictory, it encourages autocracy.
Personally, I tend to look at law on the basis of harm and benefit: unless restricting people in some way would prevent a clear and significant harm or create a clear and significant benefit, I think it’s generally best to allow people to act as they see fit.And how exactly do you distinguish between all these senarios? Again, what is the basis of this contradictory logic?
No one is saying this; there are lots of things people disapprove of without wanting to make them illegal.And what’s your alternative? To try to make everything that you personally disapprove of illegal?
To a degree we all feel this way; where we differ is where we would draw the line between actions we disapprove of and actions which we believe should be illegal.I’m not interested in making my neighbour have the same sense of right and wrong as I do. What I am interested in is making sure that my neighbour can’t harm me or others without our consent. Beyond that, if he wants to behave in a manner that I personally consider immoral, well, that’s his business.
Then you have no reason to object when someone, acting as he sees fit, tries to make a specific behavior illegal even if you disagree on that point.I think it’s generally best to allow people to act as they see fit.
That was the point I was trying to make. But for some reason, crazzeto apparently disagrees.No one is saying this; there are lots of things people disapprove of without wanting to make them illegal.
I agree… but only to a point. Trying to limit the freedom of others doesn’t necessarily do anyone any harm. Actually limiting their freedom can. It’s like the old saying goes: “your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose”.Then you have no reason to object when someone, acting as he sees fit, tries to make a specific behavior illegal even if you disagree on that point.
I’ve been trying to make a point here and have obviously done a poor job so far. Earlier you said “I think it’s generally best to allow people to act as they see fit.” OK, but here is the implication: what if the thing I want to do is something you think shouldn’t be done? If you really believe I should be allowed to act as I see fit then how can you also say there are some things I shouldn’t be allowed to do? I accept that you could express opposition but you can prohibit me from acting only by violating your rule that I should be allowed to act as I see fit.Trying to limit the freedom of others doesn’t necessarily do anyone any harm. Actually limiting their freedom can. It’s like the old saying goes: “your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose”.
Morality is not IMPOSED, but a dictate of the mind and heart. In your view, we would need no protective laws. Yes, you are right, there are levels of good and evil. It is up to us to have right discernment, through use of a well formed conscience, as to what is evil and what is not. We have an obligation to members of society to provide protection of life and limb for all. This includes the unborn. To have no protective laws which are as objective as possible leads to subjectivity and chaos. We are headed in that direction now.No, I’m not equating anything with anything else. I was giving one example of where my conscience dictated one course of action for myself, but it would not be appropriate for me to demand that other people follow the same course of action as I do.
My point is just that the morality we impose on ourselves does not necessarily have to be imposed on others. IMO, society benefits when it allows differing points of view; I think that when we talk about prohibiting things or forcing people to do things in a particular way, we should have an overwhelming reason… and I don’t believe that just thinking that a thing is wrong is not, by itself, an overwhelming reason. In any case, banning things on that basis isn’t workable, since you’d be hard-pressed to find anything that someone somewhere doesn’t think is “wrong”.