religious freedom

[Rence]

Change is not the same as evolution.

Evolution is change over time…

How so? Freedom is simply the power to do something. Perfect freedom would be the power to do anything, no strings attached.

So you desire a freedom that gives you complete anarchy? Well, if that’s your preference, that’s okay with me. Everyone is different. I, OTOH, prefer a freedom that gives all citizens freedoms and rights, which means one’s rights end where another citizen’s rights begin.

No, you have the power to bind yourself to a conditional marriage.

No…I have the power to bind myself into the Sacrament of marriage, which is not a conditional marriage. Secular marriages are different. But it’s my choice to enter one if I want one, and in that case, yes, it’s a conditional marriage. But being Catholic, I would be choosing a Sacramental marriage and would be marrying a like-minded person.

If two willing partners contract a permanent union, then they both transfer the freedom to enforce the union to the other.

Yes, that’s what I said: Sacaramental marriage.

It is the same thing as a mutually binding contract. You do not have this freedom under the current law of marriage.

I do have this freedom if the marriage is Sacramental, and not civil. Likewise, I have to chose a partner who is like-minded.

This is subjective. Objectively speaking, respect requires the acknowledgment of the truth about something. The United States fails to acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, and that the purpose of the life is to achieve salvation.

Actually, respect does not require that someone accept your truth about something. That’s not respect. What you mean when you say, “respect requires the acknowledgement of the truth about something”, is that you want everyone to be Catholic. Again, your freedom is contingent on controlling the actions of others. That’s why you’re so unhappy about the freedom in which you entitled.

I, OTOH, prefer Merriam-Webster’s defnition of respect:

: an act of giving particular attention : consideration
: high or special regard : esteem
the quality or state of being esteemed

And I think our country does this by the rights it gives its citizens to choose our religion, to practice our religion, to assemble for our religion, etc. I do think the US respects Catholics, like it respects Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, Muslims, etc.

The state says children must go to school.

You can home-school…

The state says children may not work except under certain conditions.

Rightfully so, this is for their protection, because again, a person’s rights end where another person’s begins. This includes children.

The state says you cannot use corporal punishment except in ;imited circumstances.

And rightfully so, for their protection. You’re correct, parents don’t have the right or the freedom to beat the snot out of their children.

The state says a non-custodial parent cannot insist that the child is brought up or attend the Church.

Rightfully so, because the custodial parent has that right. One of them has to have that right, and it correctly goes to the full time parent. Children aren’t pingpong balls, they deserve stability in their lives, not the custodial parent teaching them one way, and the non-custodial trying to undo everything done on his/her weekend. Again, one’s rights can’t infringe on the next person’s rights.

If anyone disagrees with these proposistions, then that person will find his or freedom curtailed.

That’s right, this is to ensure order. If everyone disagreed with these propositions, or any of them, then no one would have any rights because the stronger would just take them away from the weaker.

You don’t want freedom though, by your demands. You want a theocracy. We’re talking about a place with freedom for all, not just Catholics.

We can’t really re-word it that way. In any event, we aren’t debating whether you like the status quo or not. We are only debating whether freedom entails being able to enter into mutually binding agreements.

Actually, if you want to debate whether freedom entails being able to enter into a mutually binding agreement, the answer as a Catholic is yes. You can. But you want to worry about another person’s ability to do (or not do) the same. Other people don’t have anything to do with your decisions. But for some reason, their compliance to your wishes is more important to you than your own personal freedom to enter a mutually binding agreement. So it pains me that you will never be happy, and that’s too bad. But life is what we make of it. If you’re consumed by what the other guy does and can’t be happy unless you get his/her compliance, then so be it. But you have it within your power to be happy because you do have freedom…you just don’t enjoy it.

 

[Warrenton]

Evolution is change over time…

All change occurs over time. Evolution implies a change of essence.

So you desire a freedom that gives you complete anarchy? I, OTOH, prefer a freedom that gives all citizens freedoms and rights, which means one’s rights end where another citizen’s rights begin

I did not say that. I said that conceptually absolute freedom is very broad. I already understand what your preference is because you have made it clear.

No…I have the power to bind myself into the Sacrament of marriage, which is not a conditional marriage. Secular marriages are different.

You only have a power to what you can enforce. You cannot enforce your sacramental marriage. If a spouse wants a divorce from a sacramental marriage, the spouse shall have it and the state will enforce the divorce. Therefore, as a matter of civic reality, even sacramental marriages are conditional. We are only discussing this from the standpoint of civil society.

Actually, respect does not require that someone accept your truth about something. That’s not respect. What you mean when you say, “respect requires the acknowledgement of the truth about something”, is that you want everyone to be Catholic. Again, your freedom is contingent on controlling the actions of others.

It is not “my truth” any more than 2 plus two equals 4 is “my truth.” It is truth, and I happen to realize it.

Of course I want everyone to be Catholic. What Catholic doesn’t? It is hard to conceive of a respect that is not founded on truth. The United States takes the position either than the Church is no more important than any other sect, or that it is equally unimportant. The notion is false and fails to render the honor to which the Church, as the bride of Christ, is due.

I do not want to force everyone to be Catholic, but I also don’t want non Catholics to have the unfettered ability to endanger Catholic souls.

You can home-school…

According to how the state sees fit to permit.

You’re correct, parents don’t have the right or the freedom to beat the snot out of their children.

Who said anything about beating children up? The law is far narrower than that.

Rightfully so, because the custodial parent has that right. One of them has to have that right, and it correctly goes to the full time parent. Children aren’t pingpong balls, they deserve stability in their lives, not the custodial parent teaching them one way, and the non-custodial trying to undo everything done on his/her weekend. Again, one’s rights can’t infringe on the next person’s rights.

You said the state can forbid children working to protect the child’s rights. Now you’re saying that the upbringing of the child is the right of the custodial parent, even though that right is contingent on the right to a divorce, which the other parent may not even have consented to. In such a case, wasn’t the non custodial parent’s rights violated? To whom does a child belong? The state, the custodial parent, itself?

Either way you cut if, someone’s rights are going to get infringed. Which is my point.

You don’t want freedom though, by your demands. You want a theocracy. We’re talking about a place with freedom for all, not just Catholics.

I do not want freedom as you define it, true. But I am not asking for a theocracy. I’m asking for a Catholic state, which is different. Austria in 1880 was not a theocracy. Russia in 1910 was not a theocracy. Though not a Catholic state, Turkey is not a theocracy.

Actually, if you want to debate whether freedom entails being able to enter into a mutually binding agreement, the answer as a Catholic is yes. You can. But you want to worry about another person’s ability to do (or not do) the same. Other people don’t have anything to do with your decisions

As surprising as this may sound, I do rather worry about my wife’s ability to leave the marriage if she wants. I want her to stay in the union, and that is in fact more important to me than the “freedom” either of us might enjoy were she to depart.

But for some reason, their compliance to your wishes is more important to you than your own personal freedom to enter a mutually binding agreement.

I suppose you support the Confederacy then?

So it pains me that you will never be happy, and that’s too bad

 

[Disinherited]

Just so I understand, you’re saying the Church would be stronger / better if we brought back burning “heretics?”

Mister, I’m sorry but I have to do this:

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/00...ear_face_palm_thumbnail1_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

If you’re read my recent comments, you’ll have seen that not only do I not support burning heretics but that the Inquisition is as guilty of murder as a jury is to sending a criminal to the electric chair, because it only judged whether this or that person was heretical or not. If he refused to recant his heresies, he’d be excommunicated and left to the authorities; if he recanted his heresies (not by torture which was very infrequently used, but by debating with him and showing him the error of his ways. Inquisitors spent even days debating with their subjects), he’d be given penance.

I’ll be the first to say that the middle ages weren’t as violent as people imagine them to be but punishing people severely for even the smallest crimes was a (bad custom) of the times. However, the Inquisitions aim was not to murder people but to preserve the faith and rightfully so. If we made up an investigative body of Conservative Priests to see which Priests are heretical or not, there’d be more purity of faith and holiness and no, the heretics wouldn’t be killed today, either in a Catholic theocracy or in non-catholic ones because today, heresy is no more a capital offense. Hell, its not like we didn’t do this before, excommunicating and condemning people for modernism and heresy like Luther.

 

[Rence]

All change occurs over time. Evolution implies a change of essence.

Evolution is still a change over time.

You only have a power to what you can enforce. You cannot enforce your sacramental marriage. If a spouse wants a divorce from a sacramental marriage, the spouse shall have it and the state will enforce the divorce. Therefore, as a matter of civic reality, even sacramental marriages are conditional. We are only discussing this from the standpoint of civil society.

A civil divorce doesn’t erase a Sacramental marriage and in no way make it conditional. If you’re Catholic, and I think you are, then you are still bound by the Sacrament, regardless of whether or not you get a civil divorce. You are still bound by your contract. Life is what you make of it. If you don’t honor your Sacramental marriage, then you are the one responsible for it. It doesn’t matter what your neighbor does. It matters what you do.

It is not “my truth” any more than 2 plus two equals 4 is “my truth.” It is truth, and I happen to realize it.

Of course I want everyone to be Catholic. What Catholic doesn’t? It is hard to conceive of a respect that is not founded on truth. The United States takes the position either than the Church is no more important than any other sect, or that it is equally unimportant. The notion is false and fails to render the honor to which the Church, as the bride of Christ, is due.

I do not want to force everyone to be Catholic, but I also don’t want non Catholics to have the unfettered ability to endanger Catholic souls.

Again, respect does not require one to accept or agree something they respect. If you are waiting for everyone to accept your truth, you will wait for a long long time.

According to how the state sees fit to permit.

As long as you respect the limits of your freedom, which ends where the next person’s freedom begins.

You said the state can forbid children working to protect the child’s rights. Now you’re saying that the upbringing of the child is the right of the custodial parent, even though that right is contingent on the right to a divorce, which the other parent may not even have consented to. In such a case, wasn’t the non custodial parent’s rights violated? To whom does a child belong? The state, the custodial parent, itself?

The child is under the guardianship of the custodial parent, unless you want to cut the child in half and give each half to each parent. And while the custodial parent has guardiaship, that right ends where the child’s begin. So despite having custody, one can’t stick their child in a factory melting iron to make fishing lures, because it would be abusive and the laws are in place to protect all citizens.

Either way you cut if, someone’s rights are going to get infringed. Which is my point.

And my point is, someone’s rights will not be infringed because the law won’t let it. If one doesn’t believe they have enough rights, it’s usually because they can’t control others. We don’t have the right to infridge on the rights of others. You do have rights. You just also want to control your neighbor so that he values the things you value, and believe all the things you believe. That’s not going to happen. I’d rather concentrate on my rights and things I can do, and things I don’t have to do, rather than concentrate on the things I can’t make my neighbor do, or can’t prevent my neighbor from doing. You’ll never get that right.

I do not want freedom as you define it, true. But I am not asking for a theocracy. I’m asking for a Catholic state, which is different. Austria in 1880 was not a theocracy. Russia in 1910 was not a theocracy. Though not a Catholic state, Turkey is not a theocracy.

A Catholic State won’t happen either, but you can pretend where you live is a Catholic State by practicing your faith and being compliant with the rules of the Church. If you concentrate on you and not others, you’ll probably enjoy living there

As surprising as this may sound, I do rather worry about my wife’s ability to leave the marriage if she wants. I want her to stay in the union, and that is in fact more important to me than the “freedom” either of us might enjoy were she to depart.

Well I hope for your sake that she feels the same, because your rights end where hers begin. But make no mistake, it doesn’t matter what she does because you’ll still be Sacramentally married.

 

[severus68]

Mister, I’m sorry but I have to do this:

The Medeival Inquisition was as violent as they come. The Roman Inquisition started in the 16th century was less violent but people were still executed and today of course, the real awareness that force and violence are never right.

The Church has the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. What exactly are you suggesting in saying we should bring back the Inquisition?

 

[Dan_Daly]

The Medeival Inquisition was as violent as they come. The Roman Inquisition started in the 16th century was less violent but people were still executed and today of course, the real awareness that force and violence are never right.

The Church has the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. What exactly are you suggesting in saying we should bring back the Inquisition?

That is not Church teaching. From the CCC:

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Emphasis mine.

You may one day have the grave duty to use force, including lethal force, against someone.

Pax and God bless.

 

[severus68]

That is not Church teaching. From the CCC:

Emphasis mine.

You may one day have the grave duty to use force, including lethal force, against someone.

Pax and God bless.

It is the teachings of the Church today. Self defence are exceptions. Since I was referring to torture and horrific forms of execution, I do not think my meaning was unclear but thank you for your clarification.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I apologize if I misunderstood. I took your “never” to mean never.

The Church’s position on violence and killing is the same as it has always been. There are three cases in which the direct killing of another person is not immoral:

-In a just war
-In self defense
-The death penalty justly carried out by the state.

Pax and God bless.

 

[Warrenton]

If you’re Catholic, and I think you are, then you are still bound by the Sacrament, regardless of whether or not you get a civil divorce. You are still bound by your contract. Life is what you make of it. If you don’t honor your Sacramental marriage, then you are the one responsible for it. It doesn’t matter what your neighbor does. It matters what you do.

For the second time (at least), we’re not addressing the moral obligations. We’re talking about the legal obligations. If one spouse honors the obligation, but the other one doesn’t, the honoring spouse is just as divorced. Life for the honoring spouse becomes what the non honoring spouse made it. That’s an infringement of a religious freedom, and the state enforces that infringement.

If you are waiting for everyone to accept your truth, you will wait for a long long time.

Who’s waiting for anything? I am just stating what honor is due the Church. I don’t expect the U.S. government to render the honor.

As long as you respect the limits of your freedom, which ends where the next person’s freedom begins.

The strongest argument of pornographers everywhere.

The child is under the guardianship of the custodial parent, unless you want to cut the child in half and give each half to each parent. And while the custodial parent has guardiaship, that right ends where the child’s begin. So despite having custody, one can’t stick their child in a factory melting iron to make fishing lures, because it would be abusive and the laws are in place to protect all citizens.

This statement is inaccurate on many grounds. I don’t want to cut the child in half, because neither spouse should be permitted to leave the marriage. In the case of actual abandonment, strict penalties based on fault should be reinstated.

The custodial parent’s rights in many cases infringe on the non custodial parents, especially in cases where the non custodial parent did not consent to the divorce. Also, if the parents were Catholic, or if there was an agreement to raise the children Catholic, the state grants the custodial parent the “right” to change the religious affiliation of the child. This is in total violation of the non custodial parent and the child’s right as a Catholic.

This addresses your fishhook factory argument,and shows clearly how modern secular law violates the rights of Catholics and infringes their religious freedom.

And my point is, someone’s rights will not be infringed because the law won’t let it

Rose colored glasses.

A Catholic State won’t happen either, but you can pretend where you live is a Catholic State by practicing your faith and being compliant with the rules of the Church.

I prefer not to pretend. See above.

Well I hope for your sake that she feels the same, because your rights end where hers begin. But make no mistake, it doesn’t matter what she does because you’ll still be Sacramentally married.

You don’t need to repeat “your rights end where another’s begin” like a mantra. I understood you the first time. Your second comment strikes me as very strange. Are you really suggesting that it does not matter to the spouse who honors the marriage sacrament if his or her spouse divorces? It’s what you wrote.

A great comfort it must be to the abandoned spouse, who has lost her children, is forced to pay child support with money she no longer has, that will be spent by wife number two or some live in girlfriend, who can’t ensure the kids will be raised Catholic, to know that in the eyes of the Church, she still has a husband.

The facts of this scenario play out in the divorce courts of this country every week.

If that’s your idea of justice, and if that’s your idea of respecting rights, you can have it.

Last word goes to you.

 

[Rence]

For the second time (at least), we’re not addressing the moral obligations. We’re talking about the legal obligations. If one spouse honors the obligation, but the other one doesn’t, the honoring spouse is just as divorced. Life for the honoring spouse becomes what the non honoring spouse made it. That’s an infringement of a religious freedom, and the state enforces that infringement.

What you’re talking about is infringing your wishes on another party. You’re right, you can’t hold another person hostage in a relationship they no longer want. Again, you’re basing one’s freedom on their ability to control another person’s actions. True freedom doesn’t mean controlling those around you, it means having the liberty and right to control one’s own actions.

Who’s waiting for anything? I am just stating what honor is due the Church. I don’t expect the U.S. government to render the honor.

The Church is not due the ability to control and dictate the actions of people who do not want to be controlled by the Church. This is not due the Church, and the reason why it’s not due the Church is because being Catholic is a choice, and it’s a free choice. One come to the Church and lives by the rules of the Church on their own, not because their freedom and rights have been taken away so that they don’t have any other choice.

This statement is inaccurate on many grounds. I don’t want to cut the child in half, because neither spouse should be permitted to leave the marriage. In the case of actual abandonment, strict penalties based on fault should be reinstated.

Of course either parent should be permitted to leave the marriage, they’re not prisoners. They are not prisoners of the Church and their not prisoners under another person’s ideals. They have free will and have the right to make their own choices, otherwise only one is “free” while the other is a prisoner. That is not fair and just. That is slavery and coersion.

The custodial parent’s rights in many cases infringe on the non custodial parents, especially in cases where the non custodial parent did not consent to the divorce. Also, if the parents were Catholic, or if there was an agreement to raise the children Catholic, the state grants the custodial parent the “right” to change the religious affiliation of the child. This is in total violation of the non custodial parent and the child’s right as a Catholic

I can understand that you feel that way, because you believe one’s freedom is contingent on being able to control the actions of another person. Keep in mind that the person seeking the divorce is also given freedom of religion, and they have the right to choose and practice the religion of their choice, or none at all. One’s rights end where another person’s begin. Modern secular law protects the rights of Catholics as well as everyone else, and ensures their religion freedom, no matter what religion, and even if there is no religion. You’re blaming the State for an individual’s actions, and you want the State the enforce your views on the an individual against their consent, making that individual a slave to a Catholic owner. Sorry, that’s not due the Catholic person, nor the Catholic Church. Being Catholic is a choice and not something to be forced.

Your second comment strikes me as very strange. Are you really suggesting that it does not matter to the spouse who honors the marriage sacrament if his or her spouse divorces? It’s what you wrote.

Each spouse is free to enter the marriage. Neither spouse is free to force the other to remain in it. Even the Church doesn’t force the spouses to remain together, so why should the individual lay person get that undeserved privelidge. They don’t have that priviledge. The Church allows civil divorces as written in the CCC, however, they are still considered Sacramentally married and must not date other people. The Catholic spouse who is opposed to the divorce is free to not date others, and thus still free to follow the rules of the Church. His/Her rights are not violated, he’s still free to live according to the dictates of the Church. What s/he can’t do is hold the other spouse hostage.

A great comfort it must be to the abandoned spouse, who has lost her children, is forced to pay child support with money she no longer has, that will be spent by wife number two or some live in girlfriend, who can’t ensure the kids will be raised Catholic, to know that in the eyes of the Church, she still has a husband.

That’s kind of over the top. First of all, I don’t know which state you live in, but child support where I live is a percentage of what the noncustodial parent makes, and if that parent doesn’t make any money, there is no percentage to take. However if she is working, that percentage rightfully should go to the child anyway. The custodial parent has the financial burden of applying all they make to support the child. These laws are for the protection of the child and should be in place. With regards to the ‘abanoned spouse’, she is free to be Catholic and live by the rules of the Church. She chooses to be Catholic, and therefore her religious rights are honored by the State. She can’t force her unwilling husband to do the same, that would be violating his rights and he has his own rights as an individual.

If that’s your idea of justice, and if that’s your idea of respecting rights, you can have it.

And I’ll gladly take it.