Religious tolerance vs Religious liberty

[parvenu74]

So if it is our duty to prohibit the teaching of any other Faith, then you would support laws forbidding the teaching of Judaism, or Islam, or world religions, in American public schools?

I was answering that from the assumption of an ideal society, one in which the members of government were all Catholics and presumably the vast majority of the citizens are Catholics as well. America is not such a country, nevertheless the goal should still be to have a country where the Catholic Faith is enshrined in law, proclaimed by civil servants, and defended by everyone. This is a totally alien concept to Americans and causes consternation among some, including the desire to cite Thomas Jefferson rather than Saint Thomas Aquinas when it comes to discussing which form of government is the most ideal.

But to answer your question, yes: in a truly Catholic country you would forbid the teaching of other religions for one simple fact: you cannot save your soul in any other religion. If we can all agree that getting to heaven is the most important task we have in eternity, then not only our personal lives but even our state and our laws should assist us in this task.

 

[childofmary1143]

If there is one true religion, by what possible right do any other creeds have the right to exist? Or do you not believe there is one true religion?

By the way, are you really protestant like your signature implies? If so, why are you provoking arguments on the Catholic Answers Forum?

The only one who is provoking arguments on Catholic Answers forum is you parvenu.

Earlier you posted then it is our duty in both charity and justice to prohibit the teaching/evangelism of any other faith. Where did you read this from? From Lefebvre? Lefebvre was Excommunicated and as Karl Keating very wisely said schism leads to heresy.

 

[djrakowski]

But to answer your question, yes: in a truly Catholic country you would forbid the teaching of other religions for one simple fact: you cannot save your soul in any other religion. If we can all agree that getting to heaven is the most important task we have in eternity, then not only our personal lives but even our state and our laws should assist us in this task.

In other words, your ideal is to trample on every man’s God-given free will?

Do you honestly think everyone will suddenly become God-fearing, holy Catholics in the society under the system of government you’ve just described? Does the elimination of every other religion by force of law guarantee that everyone will act at the Catholic Church desires?

You simply can’t compel people to believe as you do. Being compelled by either physical or legal force doesn’t produce love of God and love of the Catholic Church. In fact, folks tend to rebel against things they’re forced to do, which ends up producing results counter to what you want to happen under such forms of government.

 

[rr1213]

I was answering that from the assumption of an ideal society, one in which the members of government were all Catholics and presumably the vast majority of the citizens are Catholics as well. America is not such a country, nevertheless the goal should still be to have a country where the Catholic Faith is enshrined in law, proclaimed by civil servants, and defended by everyone. This is a totally alien concept to Americans and causes consternation among some, including the desire to cite Thomas Jefferson rather than Saint Thomas Aquinas when it comes to discussing which form of government is the most ideal.

But to answer your question, yes: in a truly Catholic country you would forbid the teaching of other religions for one simple fact: you cannot save your soul in any other religion. If we can all agree that getting to heaven is the most important task we have in eternity, then not only our personal lives but even our state and our laws should assist us in this task.

What you are describing is a theocracy … and as an American, you have the absolute right to advocate such a government. It says little of you that you would not extend to others the fundamental rights and liberties that you yourself enjoy. But such is the way of tyranny and, thank God, we do not have such oppression in this country. If you ever run for public office, I pray that you will be candid about your views on this issue and not hide them.

 

[TNT]

What you are describing is a theocracy … and as an American, you have the absolute right to advocate such a government. It says little of you that you would not extend to others the fundamental rights and liberties that you yourself enjoy. But such is the way of tyranny and, thank God, we do not have such oppression in this country. If you ever run for public office, I pray that you will be candid about your views on this issue and not hide them.

I think yur jumping off the deep end here.
For instance, Italy, Argentina, Portugal had the Catholic religion as state SUPPORTED until very recent years. There has never been such an accusation as they were “theocracies”.
But no one has proposed such a thing on this thread.
If a state DEMANDS that its citizens hold to and practice ONLY one religion by law, then you have a Theocracy. And those who do not adhere to such a law are treated in a different way by law. Example: They are required to pay a special Tax to the state.
(I’m describing Islamic states here in case yur wondering.)
In a Catholic nation, one would have all the religious freedom he chooses just as they do in America, BUT they cannot practice it or promote it IN THE PUBLIC FORUM.
They can have schools, churches, have a private fund raising apparatus, intra-faith publications with absolutely NO adverse consequences in any law.
But, they could not, for example, have a radio or TV outlet to promote their religion. TNN would not be allowed to take residence. EWTN or The Catholic Hour would.
A universal tax for education could be used to support the Catholic schools and secular schools, or parishes, but not for that of another religion since that would be promoting another religion in the public forum.
On the other hand, a theocracy could/would disallow any other religion from being practiced by not allowing their churches or schools to be built in the first place such as Arabia can do.
A theocracy could/would disallow by law any religious garb of another religion.
In summary, the government of a theocracy is SUBORDINATED to a religious system.
In a Catholic nation, the government would be parallel to the Catholic religion. In the Morality arena, it could not contradict the Catholic Morality. For instance, it could not make a law approving abortions, or set up birth control centers, it could not approve the exercise of homosexual acts or unions equal to hetero marriages. It could not create no-fault divorces. That kind of thing.
But if the catholic church did not want the importing of cars or steel, or seductive lingerie, or allow immigration from China, well the state could tell them to go pound salt in their ear.
Whereas the theocracy would have to submit to those wishes. Why? Because the state is a subordinated BRANCH activity of their religion.

 

[djrakowski]

In a Catholic nation, one would have all the religious freedom he chooses just as they do in America, BUT they cannot practice it or promote it IN THE PUBLIC FORUM.
They can have schools, churches, have a private fund raising apparatus, intra-faith publications with absolutely NO adverse consequences in any law.
But, they could not, for example, have a radio or TV outlet to promote their religion. TNN would not be allowed to take residence. EWTN or The Catholic Hour would.

Then you are making a distinction without a difference. Under your preferred system, the result is bias and discrimination, and a refusal to allow ‘dissenting’ individuals to exercise their God-given free will.

In this country (the U.S.), the radio and television spectrums are owned and regulated by the public, and thus, the public has access to them - not just parts of the public with whom you happen to agree.

 

[BillP]

But to answer your question, yes: in a truly Catholic country you would forbid the teaching of other religions for one simple fact: you cannot save your soul in any other religion. If we can all agree that getting to heaven is the most important task we have in eternity, then not only our personal lives but even our state and our laws should assist us in this task.

You and people like you make me ashamed to be Catholic.

 

[Genesis315]

These paragraphs from the CCC do a good job of clarifying what is meant–and what is not meant by religious liberty.

**2108 **The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38
**2109 **The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.
39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 # 3.

It also bears pointing out what is not allowed (which is what was condemned by Pius VI, and Pius XI above):

In their day, the government would make legal proclamations on religion (hopefully, that Catholicism was true). But, in their days, the governments began asserting that it didn’t matter what religion you partook of, they were all the same, and that man had a moral license to believe whatever he wanted. They also clung to the Liberal idea that the government could in no way and for no reason whatsoever hinder anyone’s actions as long as they did not infringe on the liberty of another–regardless of the common good. This rule would apply to the Church as well! It would take away the freedom the Church to govern her own people in matters of religious belief and pracitce! Likewise, government was to be run on a purely naturalist or rationalist basis, without regard to God or Truth. Of course, this is completely wrong, and our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against it many times (like here).

On the other hand, the Second Vatican Council was not writing in response to radical Liberalism, but rather radical totalitarianism (such as was found in the Communist regimes.). They allowed absolutely no liberty to anyone with regards to religion, regardless of the common good. The religious liberty developed by the Second Vatican Council was not what the radical Liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries developed (that all religions were the same and that man had no obligation at all towards the true religion–in fact, no religion was true to them).

The Second Vatican Council fathers dealt with the idea that man’s coming to the true faith must be free from external constraints and coercion–since no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. It still affirmed that there is only one true faith that all men are bound to come to–but states cannot force the true faith on individuals. This is the constant teaching of the Church. This includes not forbidding religious practices–within due limits–those due limits have traditionally been understood under Thomist principles concerning the common good. Pope Bl. Gregory X, and the Council of Constance and Pope Martin V, all dealt with these issues, excommunicating people who molested the religious practices of Jews, in the Empire, and pagans in Poland, respectively.

Different historical situations and make-ups of societies have necessitated more or less restraints. St. Thomas, for example, argued for restraining those Catholics who became heretics, but not Jews and pagans who had yet to be enlightened with the true faith. This same sentiment was put forth by Pope Paul III concerning the Indians in the New World versus the heretics in the Old World who were causing massive social disorder and violence.

In practice, religious toleration and religious liberty reach the same result, just from two different approaches. People of false religions are morally obligated to the true faith, but they won’t be molested as long as the common good does not suffer.

 

[rr1213]

I think yur jumping off the deep end here.
For instance, Italy, Argentina, Portugal had the Catholic religion as state SUPPORTED until very recent years. There has never been such an accusation as they were “theocracies”.
But no one has proposed such a thing on this thread.
If a state DEMANDS that its citizens hold to and practice ONLY one religion by law, then you have a Theocracy. And those who do not adhere to such a law are treated in a different way by law. Example: They are required to pay a special Tax to the state.
(I’m describing Islamic states here in case yur wondering.)
In a Catholic nation, one would have all the religious freedom he chooses just as they do in America, BUT they cannot practice it or promote it IN THE PUBLIC FORUM.
They can have schools, churches, have a private fund raising apparatus, intra-faith publications with absolutely NO adverse consequences in any law.
But, they could not, for example, have a radio or TV outlet to promote their religion. TNN would not be allowed to take residence. EWTN or The Catholic Hour would.
A universal tax for education could be used to support the Catholic schools and secular schools, or parishes, but not for that of another religion since that would be promoting another religion in the public forum.
On the other hand, a theocracy could/would disallow any other religion from being practiced by not allowing their churches or schools to be built in the first place such as Arabia can do.
A theocracy could/would disallow by law any religious garb of another religion.
In summary, the government of a theocracy is SUBORDINATED to a religious system.
In a Catholic nation, the government would be parallel to the Catholic religion. In the Morality arena, it could not contradict the Catholic Morality. For instance, it could not make a law approving abortions, or set up birth control centers, it could not approve the exercise of homosexual acts or unions equal to hetero marriages. It could not create no-fault divorces. That kind of thing.
But if the catholic church did not want the importing of cars or steel, or seductive lingerie, or allow immigration from China, well the state could tell them to go pound salt in their ear.
Whereas the theocracy would have to submit to those wishes. Why? Because the state is a subordinated BRANCH activity of their religion.

A couple of comments…

Until very recently, Italy, Spain and Portugal were authoritarian states. There might be an exception as to some of the Italian city states in the years prior to unification, but generally free societies existed in England, the US and other predominately Protestant nations for centuries before they existed in these particular Catholic countries.

Also, you draw a distinction between a theocracy and a “Catholic State”. First, I do not believe that the definition of a theocracy requires that all other religions in that country be suppressed. Instead, it means that the state and the church are essentially one and that the state follows the dictates of the church. It would be possible, although perhaps unlikely, that a theocracy would allow dissenting faiths in controlled circumstances.

In any event, as a Protestant (and as a free man) I have no reason to be enthralled with your alternative suggestion, i.e., a “Catholic State” since in such a state my right to the free practice of my faith–as well as my right to free speech–would be suppressed. Freedom of speech and religion are fundamental human rights. To supress them is to engage in tyranny. You would deny MY free speech and MY freedom to follow God as I believe He wishes to be followed. You would deny ME my God-given rights and you think that I am jumping off the deep end?

The position you advocate is undefendable. It is also one source of religious prejudice and bigotry towards Catholics in this country. On numerous times I’ve ripped apart posters at CARM who claim that Catholics wish to subvert our freedoms (go search for the posts, I use the same screen-name there). I then come here and face this nonsense.

You claim for yourself a right that you would deny to others. The smallness of that position is self-evident, as self-evident as the rights which you would deny if you had the power to do so. I thank God that most Catholics do not have this mentality.

 

[rr1213]

These paragraphs from the CCC do a good job of clarifying what is meant–and what is not meant by religious liberty.

**2108 **The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38
**2109 **The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.
39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 # 3.

It also bears pointing out what is not allowed (which is what was condemned by Pius VI, and Pius XI above):

In their day, the government would make legal proclamations on religion (hopefully, that Catholicism was true). But, in their days, the governments began asserting that it didn’t matter what religion you partook of, they were all the same, and that man had a moral license to believe whatever he wanted. They also clung to the Liberal idea that the government could in no way and for no reason whatsoever hinder anyone’s actions as long as they did not infringe on the liberty of another–regardless of the common good. This rule would apply to the Church as well! It would take away the freedom the Church to govern her own people in matters of religious belief and pracitce! Likewise, government was to be run on a purely naturalist or rationalist basis, without regard to God or Truth. Of course, this is completely wrong, and our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against it many times (like here).

On the other hand, the Second Vatican Council was not writing in response to radical Liberalism, but rather radical totalitarianism (such as was found in the Communist regimes.). They allowed absolutely no liberty to anyone with regards to religion, regardless of the common good. The religious liberty developed by the Second Vatican Council was not what the radical Liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries developed (that all religions were the same and that man had no obligation at all towards the true religion–in fact, no religion was true to them).

The Second Vatican Council fathers dealt with the idea that man’s coming to the true faith must be free from external constraints and coercion–since no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him. It still affirmed that there is only one true faith that all men are bound to come to–but states cannot force the true faith on individuals. This is the constant teaching of the Church. This includes not forbidding religious practices–within due limits–those due limits have traditionally been understood under Thomist principles concerning the common good. Pope Bl. Gregory X, and the Council of Constance and Pope Martin V, all dealt with these issues, excommunicating people who molested the religious practices of Jews, in the Empire, and pagans in Poland, respectively.

Different historical situations and make-ups of societies have necessitated more or less restraints. St. Thomas, for example, argued for restraining those Catholics who became heretics, but not Jews and pagans who had yet to be enlightened with the true faith. This same sentiment was put forth by Pope Paul III concerning the Indians in the New World versus the heretics in the Old World who were causing massive social disorder and violence.

In practice, religious toleration and religious liberty reach the same result, just from two different approaches. People of false religions are morally obligated to the true faith, but they won’t be molested as long as the common good does not suffer.

John Paul II was one of the greatest champions of freedom in the 20th century and it truly bothers me to see some misguided Catholics claiming that God has ordained that only Catholics have the right to religious liberty. I am pleased to see this post. I will take a look at the citations.

 

[TNT]

Then you are making a distinction without a difference. Under your preferred system, the result is bias and discrimination, and a refusal to allow ‘dissenting’ individuals to exercise their God-given free will.

In this country (the U.S.), the radio and television spectrums are owned and regulated by the public, and thus, the public has access to them - not just parts of the public with whom you happen to agree.

1. WHERE does it say I prefer it??
2. Individuals can exercise their free will all they want, just not impose or propose their free will dissent on the public in moral matters.
3. Discrimination is a mantra without basis. For instance, you cannot go to any school if you have been diagnosed with tuberculosis.
   You cannot vote if you were ever convicted of a felony.
   You can get a ticket for dissenting to a “too-long” traffic red light.
   Discrimination is a requirement on many levels for any society.
   In the catholic society, it simply extends the same discrimination to the MORAL order. Whereas in American Secular Society, that discrimination is essentially absent though not entirely.
   For instance, polygamy is outlawed. WHY?
   If I can afford it, why am I prohibited?? This is nothing but discrimination against the polygamy religions.
   So, the discrimination idea is a conard.

The Federal Comm Commission REGULATES aka DISCRIMINATES in the broadcast arena.
There are volumes of can/cannot do’s.
Including, language (Moral), Advertising (Ethical), Sedicious activity (Secular), Equal time (Secular)
Again, this “freedom in broadcasting” is also a conard.
If my free will insists that I disregard any law as unjust, am I free-will to do so? NO. I still have to pay income taxes that go to support the ACLU, the abortion mills, the arts no matter how depraved.
Again, a conard with proof otherwise.
**Re:
**

…just parts of the public with whom you happen to agree.

Another conard.
The root point is:
There is or there is NOT a true religion. It’s got not a thing to do with me.
So, is there or is the NOT a true religion promoted and sustained by your Creator?
Yes or No.
If yes, then He has a Moral order to be held by all.
That’s the point.

 

[rr1213]

1. WHERE does it say I prefer it??
2. Individuals can exercise their free will all they want, just not impose or propose their free will dissent on the public in moral matters.
3. Discrimination is a mantra without basis. For instance, you cannot go to any school if you have been diagnosed with tuberculosis.
   You cannot vote if you were ever convicted of a felony.
   You can get a ticket for dissenting to a “too-long” traffic red light.
   Discrimination is a requirement on many levels for any society.
   In the catholic society, it simply extends the same discrimination to the MORAL order. Whereas in American Secular Society, that discrimination is essentially absent though not entirely.
   For instance, polygamy is outlawed. WHY?
   If I can afford it, why am I prohibited?? This is nothing but discrimination against the polygamy religions.
   So, the discrimination idea is a conard.

The Federal Comm Commission REGULATES aka DISCRIMINATES in the broadcast arena.
There are volumes of can/cannot do’s.
Including, language (Moral), Advertising (Ethical), Sedicious activity (Secular), Equal time (Secular)
Again, this “freedom in broadcasting” is also a conard.
If my free will insists that I disregard any law as unjust, am I free-will to do so? NO. I still have to pay income taxes that go to support the ACLU, the abortion mills, the arts no matter how depraved.
Again, a conard with proof otherwise.

You’re setting up a straw man here. No one (other than rabid liberals) thinks that the US Constitutional system prevents governmental regulation in the area of morals. The entire criminal justice code is an excercise in the regulation of morals…you cannot steal, you cannot murder, you cannot lie (at least in a way that constitutes criminal fraud). Sound familiar?

In contrast, what you and some posters have advocated in this thread is a Catholic State whereby other religions would not have the right to practice their faiths publically or to evangelize. This type of regulation is not allowed under the American system of government or, frankly, under any system of government that respects human rights. Nor, after looking at what Genesis315 has posted above, am I certain that it accurately reflects your Church’s teachings on the matter.

 

[djrakowski]

1. WHERE does it say I prefer it??
2. Individuals can exercise their free will all they want, just not impose or propose their free will dissent on the public in moral matters.

How is using the public airwaves to promote and/or discuss religious matters an imposition? I have a choice as to which media I will listen. I would say that a refusal to allow such discussion is an imposition on the non-preferred religion (in your case, everything that isn’t Catholic) by the preferred religion (in your case, Catholicism). In other words, you want to take away the free will of the public to express themselves through publically-regulated channels in preference for your religion. Would your answer change if the situation were reversed, and those in control were from Protestant, or even non-Christian, backgrounds?

1. Discrimination is a mantra without basis. For instance, you cannot go to any school if you have been diagnosed with tuberculosis.
   You cannot vote if you were ever convicted of a felony.
   You can get a ticket for dissenting to a “too-long” traffic red light.
   Discrimination is a requirement on many levels for any society.

You’re making utterly non-sensical comparisons. Individuals are barred from public institutions if they’re ill because of a legitimate public health concern. Felons are punished for their anti-social actions that had a detrimental effect on public health and/or safety. There is no such thing as ‘dissenting’ against a too-long traffic light - there is failure to observe rules that were established by the authorities in the interest of public convenience and safety. However, you’re proposing a system under which people aren’t permitted to express themselves on matters that have little to do with public health and/or safety.

In the catholic society, it simply extends the same discrimination to the MORAL order. Whereas in American Secular Society, that discrimination is essentially absent though not entirely.
For instance, polygamy is outlawed. WHY?
If I can afford it, why am I prohibited?? This is nothing but discrimination against the polygamy religions.
So, the discrimination idea is a conard.

It isn’t a canard, as we’ve dealt with all manner of unlawful and immoral discrimination in this country, and it is rather ironic that you would claim discrimination is a canard in a country that is founded, at least in part, on the notion of religious liberty and freedom. The very legal constructs that guarantee you the right to practice Catholicism, and permit individuals and organizations to engage in public instruction and evangelism in the Catholic faith, stem from this very foundation of religious liberty.

The Federal Comm Commission REGULATES aka DISCRIMINATES in the broadcast arena.
There are volumes of can/cannot do’s.
Including, language (Moral), Advertising (Ethical), Sedicious activity (Secular), Equal time (Secular)
Again, this “freedom in broadcasting” is also a conard.

Baloney. Public standards, in part, determine what is permitted on the airwaves. These particular types of restrictions in the use of public airwaves are intended, in part, to ensure free and unbiased access to these public assets. Whether this works in practice or not is a completely separate discussion.

Let’s see how this would work in the political arena. Would you prefer that only politicians with pro-life track records should be permitted to run radio and TV ads?

If my free will insists that I disregard any law as unjust, am I free-will to do so? NO. I still have to pay income taxes that go to support the ACLU, the abortion mills, the arts no matter how depraved.
Again, a conard with proof otherwise.

No, this is not a canard. You do not live in a Catholic country, and even if you did, there’s no guarantee that these objectionable forces would suddenly disappear.

How do your income taxes support the ACLU? That’s a new one on me.

And, if you don’t like the fact that there are abortion mills and depraved publically-funded art, then look for politicians who support your views, and work to convince every individual you know to support such politicians.

The government cannot force individuals to act in a way that is preferable to the state. Abortion was once against the law in this country (rightly so), and yet, desperate women found ways to procure them.

 

[TNT]

I’ll just let the readers decide your case on irrelevence.
And Polygamy?
Also, WHERE is the Moral standard or code decided in these “moral” restraints by a secular rule?
By majority?
If so, then what makes the majority infallible?

What keeps it from being progressively diminished to nothing but relativism?

My points were well made. I stand by them.
You give reasons for the Moral laws in America. But that is NOTHING BUT what a group happens to agree with in the secular arena.

 

[parvenu74]

You and people like you make me ashamed to be Catholic.

Why is that? Because I want all people to get to heaven? Because I believe in the idea of silencing the public proselytizing of non-Catholic faiths, faiths in which it is impossible to be saved? Is there anything more important in this life then working for our eternal salvation? Does it profit me to gain the world if I lose my immortal soul to the flames of hell?

Please elaborate on why you’re ashamed of your Catholic Faith. I would like to understand your point of view.

 

[parvenu74]

This thread started out as a query for the definition of terms and has spiraled into a debate of the US Constitution versus Catholic teaching. Earlier up I made the statement that set rr1213 into an apparent rage: that moral freedom doesn’t allow the freedom to choose error because error has no rights.

rr1213: Since you want to argue this in US law, let’s do it. In Schenck v. United States the court held that freedom of speech is not absolute (or as Justice Holmes put it: freedom of speech is not the freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded theater). Freedom cannot ever be absolute, and this is true in both the legal and moral domains. We absolutely have free wills given to us by God, but we don’t have the right to do whatever we please. Our free wills were given to us in order to freely seek out the best means by which to know, love, and serve God in this life so that we can be happy with Him in the next. It’s all about salvation – we were created for God and if we don’t save our souls we will forever be a contradiction in purpose: a creature created for his God but forever separated from him by the willful turning of the creature away from God.

This is pretty basic Catholic teaching, rr1213. I suspect the bigger reason for our complete lack of agreement has to do with the fact that we don’t profess the same creed. Your beliefs, as you are expressing them, are completely in line with protestant thinking, which is repugnant to Catholic teaching (Martin Luther was excommunicated for a reason). God wants everyone to be with Him in heaven, and I fervently hope and pray for everyone to respond to the graces God gives them in order to save their souls.

 

[djrakowski]

To those who advocate for a lack of complete religious freedom - that is, a society in which non-Catholic groups aren’t free to publically evangelize, or use the airwaves for promotion and discussion of their perspective - I have a few questions:

1. Should we allow politicians who advocate for positions contrary to Catholic teaching to use the airwaves for the promotion of their brand of immorality?
2. Is the Catholic faith so weak as to not have the ability to withstand challenges in the public square?
3. Would the lack of freedom granted to non-Catholic groups suddenly result in a highly moral society in which everyone acts in accordance with Church teaching? Would women in that society stop seeking abortions? Would there be openness to life in every marriage? Would same-sex attractions and behaviors cease?
4. Who gets to decide for this mythical Catholic government in which non-Catholic evangelism is prohibited, what constitutes Catholic belief and practice, and what doesn’t? Is it the Vatican, or the USCCB, or someone else? There would be different results depending on which Catholics are in charge - traditionalist vs. modernist/liberal vs. conservative/plain 'ol faithful Catholic.

In summary, how would such a society work, practically speaking?

 

[rr1213]

I’ll just let the readers decide your case on irrelevence.
And Polygamy?
Also, WHERE is the Moral standard or code decided in these “moral” restraints by a secular rule?
By majority?
If so, then what makes the majority infallible?

What keeps it from being progressively diminished to nothing but relativism?

My points were well made. I stand by them.
You give reasons for the Moral laws in America. But that is NOTHING BUT what a group happens to agree with in the secular arena.

No one in this thread has said that the majority is infallible. Majority rule is quite fallable. Moreover, other than the concept of a theocracy we have not been discussing what is the preferable form of goverment…we have been talking about the guarantee of fundamental rights, which can be accomplished under a number of different forms of government including democracy, a republic and a constitutional monarchy (but is highly unlikely to be preserved under a theocracy).

Nothing prevents the citizens of a democracy from passing laws that affect morals. We can do that in the USA subject to Constitutional mandates such as, for example, the prohibition on requiring a religious test to hold public office that rightfully precludes a Protestant majority from requiring that only Protestants be elected to the government.

 

[TNT]

**RE:
**

How do your income taxes support the ACLU? That’s a new one on me.

1. The ACLU for the most part sues government entities…Fed, Sate, Local.
   In those suits is imbedded a fee or fees for the ALCU attornies to exercise the suit. Provided thay prevail, the govt. entity PAYS the fees directly to the ACLU. And that is why they keep the majoity of thier suits against Govt entities>
   One of HUNDREDS of examples:
   People pay income taxes not only to the Fed, but to States & local govts.
   $18,000 = London (Ohio)
   After suing London, Ohio, for allowing their football coach to host a voluntary prayer for athletes, the ACLU was awarded $18,000 in attorney fees. PAID by the School district tax payers.
   $230,000 = San Diego (California)
   San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.

Clever eh?
Nearly ALL the ACLU atty fees …in the millions… are paid by the defending govt. entity.
Including Fed constitutional cases at the Supreme Ct level:
$6,000,000 = American taxpayers
The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court’s decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional…all paid from Tax revenues.
No there is no Budget item for the ACLU. They don’t need it. They are included in the Lawsuit Defense budgets.

 

[djrakowski]

**RE:
**

1. The ACLU for the most part sues government entities…Fed, Sate, Local.
   In those suits is imbedded a fee or fees for the ALCU attornies to exercise the suit. Provided thay prevail, the govt. entity PAYS the fees directly to the ACLU. And that is why they keep the majoity of thier suits against Govt entities>
   One of HUNDREDS of examples:
   People pay income taxes not only to the Fed, but to States & local govts.
   $18,000 = London (Ohio)
   After suing London, Ohio, for allowing their football coach to host a voluntary prayer for athletes, the ACLU was awarded $18,000 in attorney fees. PAID by the School district tax payers.
   $230,000 = San Diego (California)
   San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.

Clever eh?
Nearly ALL the ACLU atty fees …in the millions… are paid by the defending govt. entity.
Including Fed constitutional cases at the Supreme Ct level:
$6,000,000 = American taxpayers
The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court’s decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional…all paid from Tax revenues.

I see - so what you’re saying is that the ACLU shouldn’t be allowed to receive these fees because you disagree with them? Or, rather, that you don’t agree with the judges involved in handing down these decisions in favor of ACLU? You’re forgetting that they have the right to bring forth these lawsuits. Surely, it isn’t just the ACLU who’s receiving these fees, right?