S
- Status
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
I’m not going to waste my time explaining stuff that’s in every child’s American History textbook. Just borrow your kid’s schoolbook and look in the chapter on the American Enlightenment.
S
Scout1441
Guest
I’m just getting in on this one, so I’m probably just rehashing what has been discussed a dozen times, but from the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” I believe that is the extent of the Constitutional issue. However the Fed gets involved with the function of the Church often through the IRS. During the '08 election, alot of warnings were out to Church’s about naming names and over politicizing the sermons or else the tax status would be in jeopardy.
I firmly believe that the Church has a responsibility to teach and to form our consciences in order that we may properly handle ourselves in the political arena.
Personally I wish the Church would tell the IRS to take the tax exemptions, because they act as a muzzle. (Unless you are a liberal President who can preach and campaign from the pulpit in numerous evangelical churches without fear of retribution).
I firmly believe that the Church has a responsibility to teach and to form our consciences in order that we may properly handle ourselves in the political arena.
Personally I wish the Church would tell the IRS to take the tax exemptions, because they act as a muzzle. (Unless you are a liberal President who can preach and campaign from the pulpit in numerous evangelical churches without fear of retribution).
S
sedonaman
Guest
Everyone’s concept of “separation of church and state” is different, and you refuse to explain yours. So, why are you on this forum at all?
A deist subscribes to the “clock winder” belief that God created the universe and then had nothing more to do with it, including the affairs of man. Yet there are founding father writings that refute the idea they believed in it, for example:
There are other appeals for “heaven”, “Providence”, “the Almighty”, etc. to aid in the cause. Now if they were deists who believe that God does not involve himself in the affairs of man, there would be no use in praying for His help. So why did they do it? If God does not involve himself in the affairs of man, why did Washington think cursing was “a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it” because, being uninvolved in man’s affairs, God wouldn’t care one way or the other. <---- [Enlightenment reasoning]
In view of this, you are just repeating a worn-out argument that doesn’t make any sense, without researching it out.
You need to stop making ridiculous claims you are not willing or able at least to make a reasonable argument in favor of.
L
Lycorth
Guest
You don’t understand anything about what the Church teaches. Why are you even here?
The Church has classically acted as moral shepherd to civil institutions, and this is its rightful place. The Church has this as duty, as obligation, not as privilege or pleasure. We have the duty to obey the Church for God speaks through it. This is what Catholics believe and therefore, it is untenable to argue for a secularist state given the facts of our Catholic obligation to obey.
According to you, perhaps. Not according to Scripture, Western tradition, or common sense.
Proof right there you don’t understand anything the Church teaches. I wish you’d at least educate yourself before you post.
The Church never teaches that it is a “human perfection” nor that it is even of human origin. The only time the concept of infallibility even comes into play is in papal teachings regarding faith and morals, and even there infallibility means that error cannot be taught, not that the pope nor his Magisterium are perfect.
Anything else is Protestant polemic and if you really want to understand what the Church teaches, I suggest you avoid such dialogue.
Nowadays, yes. One of many, and Western Christendom’s inability to even see to the implementation of basic Christian decency in society proves how bad this has been.
However, the Church is one sect amongst many because of the actions of heretics. The Church did not invent thousands of confused and competing sects to fight with one another. If you want human inventions, look to those.
False. Every sect teaches that it is the right sect. Even the non-denominationalists believe their way is the only way. That’s why there are different sects to begin with - all formed by someone who had to go his own way and do his own thing.
Frankly, you are claiming that you have the right to mandate your beliefs to human kind. Everyone does it; the difference is that not everyone has the right idea. Only Christ’s Church does.
More mandating from Ron the Almighty.
JPII made too many concessions to enemies of the Church. He was a great man to combat Marxism but entirely too soft on the other problems of the Church. No matter, for he has gone on to his eternal rest and a wiser traditionalist now sits in the Chair.
Pride comes before a fall.
I thought you weren’t going to respond to me? I’m the only one using the word “polemic” on this thread that I’ve noticed.RTNJ,
I honestly don’t believe the Catholic Church is teaching that it should take over the political and religious in this world; rather I believe it is the rantings of a few extreme conservative Catholics with very strong convictions in their beliefs. I personally wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. Besides, even if it were true; there are too many evangelical/non-demoninationals/people of other religious persuasions that would never allow it to happen in this country.
Furthermore, expressing your opinion as you have aptly done in here does not mean you are spewing forth anti-catholic polemics inspite of what some in here may maintain.
Film at eleven!
Attacking me in PM and beating around the bush in public
L
Lycorth
Guest
That’s insane. How can the marginalizing of Christ’s Church be a good thing? Or does the corruption of modern American society not ring any bells for you?
Funny how it’s OK for everyone else to influence the Catholic Church with secularism or heresy, but it’s not OK for the Catholic Church to influence anyone else
You’re right about that for the most part; the American founders were secularists at heart. Just Google the Treaty of Tripoli, or even examine the entirely secularist nature of any primary American founding document. It’s entirely man before God.
That’s the absolute truth. It is already like that today; whenever the Catholic Church is spoken of, it’s either to amplify and distort real or imagined abuses committed by churchmen over the centuries and argue that the Church must be marginalized and diminished to the point of becoming an apologetic and self-loathing entity, or when a social problem is also in the discussion, the Catholic Church is accused up and down for not doing enough to prevent or correct it.I can see it now: When Sharia Law takes over, you will be saying it’s the Catholic Church’s fault for not “doing enough.”
The Catholic-haters of the world just can’t get their stories straight.
M
mjakemccoy
Guest
We must follow all thoughts and theories through to conclusion, and weigh them accordingly. In pre-Reformation governments there existed a balance of powers between Church & state. Not perfect, sometimes the government would impose on the Church, and vise versa, but we could learn alot from a society where the Law of God actually meant something in a courtroom. In post-Reformation governments they were separated. In America the wall separates so no law may inhibit religion. This is far too vage, and it is not enforced to the letter of the law, thank the Lord. This wording taken for what it is, means the law cannot stop the Mormons from marrying multiple wives, Jamaicans from smoking marijuana, that the government cannot stop a Muslim from slaying the infidel. Everyone here would firmly agree that these are not legitimate religious claims and should not be protected by the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say that, does it? It also doesn’t clarify as to what constitutes a religion, so new preachers could potentially envision new religions just to get around the laws they don’t like. Clearly we are not taking the Constitution by the letter, we are already enforcing our religious beliefs on others to an extent are we not? This is a serious loophole in the philosophy of separation and in our Constitution that needs to be addressed.
I would hope to say most of you out there would support every effort in law making to end abortion and curb same sex “marriage”. When you get to the fundamentals of the argument, these are religious laws. To impose these laws would be enforcing the belief values of some but not all. On the flip side, to not impose these laws would be enforcing the belief/religious values of some other people, but not all. We are willing to violate the Constitution to protect some religious values but not others. This is a flawed philosophy and must be redefined or rejected.
Reformers not only removed God from government, they also removed Him from philosophy. Opening a floodgate of unabled thinkers, Marx for one. Many of us have been consumed by these modern philosophies that bind our hearts and minds, I used to subscribe to this relativist attitude with no sight of absolute truth. Use your own minds to really look hard at this philosophy in its’ entirety, where it originated, why, how, what has become of it, and what will become of it? Think, you’ll be amazed what your mind can do when God uses it, and you’ll wonder what your brain was doing all those years before. But think about this philosophical principle at its’ core. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. If we follow his truth he will guide our feet. JPII the Great, pray for us. Praise be Jesus Christ.
I would hope to say most of you out there would support every effort in law making to end abortion and curb same sex “marriage”. When you get to the fundamentals of the argument, these are religious laws. To impose these laws would be enforcing the belief values of some but not all. On the flip side, to not impose these laws would be enforcing the belief/religious values of some other people, but not all. We are willing to violate the Constitution to protect some religious values but not others. This is a flawed philosophy and must be redefined or rejected.
Reformers not only removed God from government, they also removed Him from philosophy. Opening a floodgate of unabled thinkers, Marx for one. Many of us have been consumed by these modern philosophies that bind our hearts and minds, I used to subscribe to this relativist attitude with no sight of absolute truth. Use your own minds to really look hard at this philosophy in its’ entirety, where it originated, why, how, what has become of it, and what will become of it? Think, you’ll be amazed what your mind can do when God uses it, and you’ll wonder what your brain was doing all those years before. But think about this philosophical principle at its’ core. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. If we follow his truth he will guide our feet. JPII the Great, pray for us. Praise be Jesus Christ.
L
Lycorth
Guest
Great post!
I used to subscribe to secularism, myself. I then had no way to explain why our culture is such a mess, why amorality and immorality are so rampant, and why nothing gets better even though we scrupulously remove all vestige of religion from the public sphere.
God led me to find the answers, the answers I knew all along were there - that when we removed God from government, government obeyed only itself.
Oh, if humans would only come to their senses as quickly as they lose them…
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Actually, if we were honest, the only real “prisoners” in these societies are women. However, even then, I saw an interesting moving called Persepolis, true story of a girl name Marjane Satrapi living before and after the fall of the Shah in Iran. She noted some of the strictest enforcers of the new way, including the veil, were the women themselves! We are quick to judge these societies for not embracing liberal Western values, whereas they may or may not be perfectly content with them.So tell me exactly what purpose Seperation of Church and State serves, if violence is inevidable with or without Church involvement ?
The short answer is that separation serves the purpose of keeping us from living in insane prison-like societies like Saudi Arabia and Iran. That alone makes it worth the price of admission for me. Violence and mistrust are not inevitable, nor are they the result of atheism. For all the hype, street violence is much lower now than it was 20 years ago. Everywhere. Our gang problems are not due to a lack of theocracy. They are the result of bad choices young people make each day, generations of people who have internalized our society’s low expectations of them, and the utter lack of any legitimate pathways to success in many inner cities.
The financial meltdown you speak resulted from a culture of predatory greed which was encouraged by many sectors of the Christian community, ie the notion of “prosperity Gospel.” Further, it was enabled by the legislative dismantling of all effective regulation and oversight, done by a political party which saw itself as Christ’s hammer and right hand on Earth. They also engineered a war which has killed probably three-quarters of a million people, most of whom had no prior terrorist aspirations against us. It was viewed by that administration, and by elements within our military, as a war to advance Christianity.
But what of Islamic success stories, like Qatar or United Arab Emirates, or even Brunei? They enjoyed significant economic growth, minimal social turmoil, and increasing freedom, all under an Islamic state. Not every religious society is Iran and Saudi Arabia, it is just easy to scapegoat and villify.
It could also be easily argued that medieval Christian society, which was religion centered, was far freer than any society we in the West live in now.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I see. So the vision of the state we see endorsed here is one where there is no official religion, but the state can tell us where and when to invest money, what kind, how much, and what quality of healthcare, etc. Not far behind is how to think, how to eat, what to wear, etc.
Every statement made clearly indicates the real concern is not freedom of anything, but freedom from the Church’s wisdom. Obviously, since one endorses the idea that we need more regulation of the economy (indicating a total lack of knowledge on the subject), health care, and I am sure a lot of other things, that the wisdom of government is superior to the Church. The all seeing, all knowing state will save us. This is secular salvation at its worst. As William Penn said: “Those who will not be governed by God, will be ruled by tyrants.”
The state is the new Church, and oh, how we worship, daily and with reverence.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Again, vote for the man who welds God-like power. He will give us jobs! Make us all rich, healthy and happy! Who believes this nonsense? Do really believe any politician can do these things? What stopped them before now?
All the above is just air politicians spout. They cannot really deliver these things, and never will, and to say we should sacrifice ourselves to their bloated egos is foolish.
Vanity of vanities. We cannot accomplish the above, nor should we try to. There are limits to what even a Catholic society could accomplish. At least the Church never promised paradise on earth, unlike the lesser gods of modernity.
Nothing is stopping anybody from doing any of the above voluntarily, and in fact many already do it. I do not remember Christ saying, “Go therefore and vote unto yourselves a powerful state to clothe the naked, feed the poor, and make peace ON YOUR BEHALF!.”
S
sedonaman
Guest
Mega
The notion that a belief system is a religion if incorporates the worship of some deity is long past due for overhaul. The Mafiosos run their operation like a business, and when they have to rub out a competitor, they call it “business”, but that doesn’t make it a business just because they call it one.To my way of thinking, the worship of a deity is important but insufficient by itself, as you point out the cases of pot smoking, etc. It would have to include the Golden Rule. But this is just my definition.
Technically, yes, but in reality someone’s beliefs will be force on the rest. As I posted before, in any form of government [and democracy is no exception], someone’s preferences will prevail. That’s why we have elections – to determine whose. Don’t you vote for candidate “A”, whose views you favor, in lieu of “B”, whose views you oppose, so your views, of whatever character, will be “forced” on society? This is unavoidable because society has to have rules; the only questions are what they’re to be how we decide them. So, since it’s impossible to create a law that doesn’t force someone to do what he doesn’t like, or avoid what he does, this is a “loophole” that cannot be addressed.
Are laws that abolished slavery “religious laws”?
I don’t see how you can redefine this part of the Constitution because conflict of some sort is inevitable. It is a result of human imperfection.
This is because the conviction that everyone is entitled to his opinion has mutated into what I call “Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies,” which states, “For every opinion, there is an equal but opposite opinion. Opinions might be opposite, but not necessarily equal. The answer is what you stated:
In most cases, this has already been done for us.
S
sedonaman
Guest
L
Lycorth
Guest
Indeed, and it has been argued. Warren H. Carroll and Regine Pernoud, whose works I’ve cited here numerous times, are amongst the voices who peel back the veil and shine the light of truth on the Medieval era, and it was a far different world than what we self-absorbed moderners like to imagine.
That is the goal of the secularist, whether or not they use religious language or profess to follow any given religion. Their goals mesh perfectly with those of their anticlerical comrades, that of keeping religion out of the government entirely. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf.
But we are the bad guys
I wonder if secularists realize the devotion they shower onto politicians matches with the loyalty we show to Holy Mother Church, yet they castigate us for doing our version of what they are doing
S
Sushi
Guest
I think it’s a good thing. Not everyone is religious and by having the church apart of the state it kind of says “this is how you’re suppose to be, and if you’re not it’s wrong.”
S
sedonaman
Guest
A lot of Judeo-Christian laws have been codified into civil law [e.g., thou shalt not steal]. Should we abolish them?
L
Lycorth
Guest
Also…
The state has an obligation to support Catholic moral teaching, defend the Church, and help it wherever it can, for the Church is Christ’s Bride and Christ’s instrument for conveying the Faith on earth.
Either we believe it is good enough to influence law, or we might as well not believe in it at all.
We already believe that as Catholics.
The state has an obligation to support Catholic moral teaching, defend the Church, and help it wherever it can, for the Church is Christ’s Bride and Christ’s instrument for conveying the Faith on earth.
Either we believe it is good enough to influence law, or we might as well not believe in it at all.
G
gamewell45
Guest
I think most religions have laws prohibiting theft and while I personally think it would be a bad idea to abolish laws regarding theft, ultimately it would be up to the people of the United States.
J
janet_baker76
Guest
Here is an aspect of separation of Church and state that perhaps might be overlooked: the ‘rules of the game,’ perhaps unspoken (at least never spoken in my hearing!!) seem to reduce apostolic work in a state which insists that all religions are equal. Let me give an example of what I mean. I volunteer at a local crisis pregnancy center. There is an adoration chapel and all the people who work and volunteer there are Catholic, mass is held daily. But there is a big gulf between the faith and the clientele. The women who come there are in serious trouble–living with men they aren’t married to, drug and alcohol problems, some of them directed to the center from abortion clinics in the area by sidewalk counselors–in other words, they had been women on the verge of killing their children. And yet those women are kept away from the chapel and their counseling will lean heavily on economic resources, with some referrals to secular AA meetings or city abuse shelters, etc. No one directs them to their closest parish for instruction in the Faith. No one gives them a list of common Catholic prayers with their proof of pregnancy to get their medical cards for pre-natal care. There is a big door between them and the chapel, and the sign on the inside shouts KEEP THIS DOOR CLOSED AT ALL TIMES, because it is the decision of the center that they maintain a neutral image, which can mean not giving it away too soon that abortions are not performed there and that we are pro-life, but seems also to include, even once our intention is known, concealing our religion. Contrast this to the Salvation Army, which (I saw a complaint from a lesbian atheist on some blog or another) still requires some small prayer to Jesus Christ before any aid is dispensed.
If you are like most Americans, you will be more comfortable with the crisis pregnancy center way than the Salvation Army way. It seems distasteful to make one’s charity depend on their tipping the hat to our God as well. This is what comes of the assumptions and corrolaries of the secular state. If you are in faith, practice it. If you are not, nobody’s going to push theirs on you. It’s distasteful. It’s what was done to, say, those poor Native Americans, or in slavery. Nobody should ‘push’ a belief on others. Etc. etc. etc.
If you saw and listened to the stories of the women coming to such a pregnancy center, you would easily see that a state medical card and a bagful of diapers is not the central need in their lives. They are the most unmoored of creatures, the new American Woman. They need Christ more than any group I ever saw, and they have nothing, nothing. Sometimes it takes everything a counselor has (I have seen them cry) to tell some of these women, don’t abort, when they are living like dregs, moving from one man to another, no security, no skills, or plenty of work skills (for some of them are college graduates) but no stability in their relationships. They are starved for love. They need God.
If you are like most Americans, you will be more comfortable with the crisis pregnancy center way than the Salvation Army way. It seems distasteful to make one’s charity depend on their tipping the hat to our God as well. This is what comes of the assumptions and corrolaries of the secular state. If you are in faith, practice it. If you are not, nobody’s going to push theirs on you. It’s distasteful. It’s what was done to, say, those poor Native Americans, or in slavery. Nobody should ‘push’ a belief on others. Etc. etc. etc.
If you saw and listened to the stories of the women coming to such a pregnancy center, you would easily see that a state medical card and a bagful of diapers is not the central need in their lives. They are the most unmoored of creatures, the new American Woman. They need Christ more than any group I ever saw, and they have nothing, nothing. Sometimes it takes everything a counselor has (I have seen them cry) to tell some of these women, don’t abort, when they are living like dregs, moving from one man to another, no security, no skills, or plenty of work skills (for some of them are college graduates) but no stability in their relationships. They are starved for love. They need God.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemies.
- Status