The Holy Father warned that our heritage of religious freedom faces "grave threats" from the "radical secularism"

[Anna_Scott]

Sam,
There is a significant difference between freedom and license. One of the “costs”, if you will, of a free society (as opposed to theocracy, for instance), is that some people will take freedom as anexcuse to act immorally, and against God’s will. These things, in and of themselves, are not freedom, but they certainly grow from a misuse of freedom.
When I say that there is a restriction of freedom, I am speaking in a constitutional sense, that individual liberty comes from God, and that it is anticedent to government. government cannot create liberty, but it can move outside its constitutional limits and restrict individual liberty. This is what is happening today, and the name for it is tyranny.

Jon

I agree, Jon.

Legislation should not require Christians to be involved in that which we know is sin; and we are facing serious threats today to be sure.

However, if we look back through history, it is easy to find periods of persecution that was Christian against Christian, and Christian against non-Christian. At least we aren’t burning people at the stake, or executing them for going against the church in power in a particular country.

History is a funny thing. I don’t think today is worse than earlier times.

Anna

Anna

 

[seeker57]

I agree, Jon.

Legislation should not require Christians to be involved in that which we know is sin; and we are facing serious threats today to be sure.

However, if we look back through history, it is easy to find periods of persecution that was Christian against Christian, and Christian against non-Christian. At least we aren’t burning people at the stake, or executing them for going against the church in power in a particular country.

History is a funny thing. I don’t think today is worse than earlier times.

Anna

Anna

I don’t know of legislation that requires a Christian to take part in a “sin,” however that is defined.

The example of same-sex marriage was raised earlier, but that still wouldn’t force someone to take part in said marriage if they didn’t agree with it, nor would it force a church, synagogue or mosque to perform any same-sex unions if the powers that be within that organization did not wish to do so.

Some may not like the idea and use their religious zeal to cement that dislike. People did that about 50 to 60 years ago when people of different races wished to marry.

I do agree times today are no worse than previous eras - and you are also right, at least people aren’t being burned or hanged for their beliefs.

There are those who do worry about theocratic dictates trying to influence our political system. These people, including some within my own congregation, become very upset when a pastor, preacher, imam, rabbi, priest or pope, try to inject their particular religious idiosyncrasies into the political maelstrom.

They believe that if churches wish to become political, they should lose their tax exempt status.

This most recent papal statement doesn’t seem to qualify as a political statement per se, but some might argue it is a harbinger of things to come.

All in all, this could lead to a most interesting discourse.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[Jimmy_B]

I agree, Jon.

Legislation should not require Christians to be involved in that which we know is sin; and we are facing serious threats today to be sure.

However, if we look back through history, it is easy to find periods of persecution that was Christian against Christian, and Christian against non-Christian. At least we aren’t burning people at the stake, or executing them for going against the church in power in a particular country.

History is a funny thing. I don’t think today is worse than earlier times.

Anna

Anna

Hi Anna,
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.

Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:

“[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States’ Bill of Rights:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I know that you were responding to my friend Jon but I just wanted to say that I agree with your post and wanted to add that in earlier times, where Christians were persecuted they weren’t living in the United States, in the 21st century where “We the People” have a Constitution, Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment, which specifically protects religious freedoms. We also have laws that are intended to protect citizens from religious based hate-crimes and so on.

I find it amazing the main-stream media doesn’t seem to view “Freedom of Religion” rights in the same light as “Freedom of the Press” and Free-Speech" rights, which are also both protected by the same First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The main-stream media would go nuts if the government were to go to war with them over free-speech and a freedom of the press issues. Where is the outrage by the media?

Religion today, Free-Speech and Freedom of the Press tomorrow. This seems like a double standard and a very dangerous, slippery slope to me.

Thank you for your post.

Your thoughts?

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

I don’t know of legislation that requires a Christian to take part in a “sin,” however that is defined.

Really ? The implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act , as indicated by HHS on 1/20/12 Mandates that religious affiliated schools , hospitals , charities , universities , orphanages , hospices , et al , provide contraceptive services ( not just the pill , but sterilization{ tubal ligation } and abortifacients as well ) to their employees in their health insurance . Not only that , there also can’t be any deductables or co-pays . This administration is demanding that Catholics commit serious sin by providing these products and services in their insurance packages . This administration is requiring Catholics to put their relationship with God in severe peril . If these organizations don’t comply , Catholic Charities ( which employs 70,000 people in the US ) for example , will face a fine of at least $ 120,000,000 ( and maybe as much as $ 140,000,000 ) IN THE FIRST YEAR ALONE . This would effectively put them out of business . One in 10 of every person below the poverty line in the US is served by Catholic Charities . The University of Notre Dame would face a fine of $ 10,000,000 in the first year alone . But this doesn’t demonstrate a hostility to religion ?
What about the religious based institutions that are self insured ?
What about individual business owners that have a conscience objection to this mandate ?

I know , I know , the president supposedly walked this policy back on Friday . But did he really ? I say it’s a shell game . For those who say the insurance companies won’t incur higher costs by providing these services for free , and pass those costs on to their Catholic Church affiliated customers , resulting in higher premiums to these institutions ( which they will have to pay for ) , I ask , why haven’t these same insurance companies provided these products and services for free all along ?
It seems the Obama administration believes there really is a free lunch .

Re; your comment on Pope Benedict’s declaration , I hope you understand that the IRS states that tax-exempt religious institutions just can’t endorse individual political candidates . These same instititions can talk about and even endorse particular issues and/or policies with impunity and not lose their tax exempt status .
So , with that in mind , how do the Pope’s comments cause you any concern ?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi Anna,
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.
I know that you were responding to my friend Jon but I just wanted to say that I agree with your post and wanted to add that in earlier times, where Christians were persecuted they weren’t living in the United States, in the 21st century where “We the People” have a Constitution, Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment, which specifically protects religious freedoms. We also have laws that are intended to protect citizens from religious based hate-crimes and so on.

I understand, and my comments were not meant to encourage Christians to fail in vigilance or in fighting for our religious freedom.

I find it amazing the main-stream media doesn’t seem to view “Freedom of Religion” rights in the same light as “Freedom of the Press” and Free-Speech" rights, which are also both protected by the same First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The main-stream media would go nuts if the government were to go to war with them over free-speech and a freedom of the press issues. Where is the outrage by the media?

Religion today, Free-Speech and Freedom of the Press tomorrow. This seems like a double standard and a very dangerous, slippery slope to me.

Thank you for your post.

Your thoughts?

Indeed, it is a slippery slope. The loss of freedom is often insidious.

At least recently, Christians from many faith backgrounds have spoken out boldly regarding any mandate for religious healthcare providers to cover/provide abortions and contraception.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t know of legislation that requires a Christian to take part in a “sin,” however that is defined.

I may not have used the proper terminology. I was referring to the issue discussed on the thread entitled, “Pastor Rick Warren: I’d Rather Go to Jail Than Obey Mandate.”

more…
lifenews.com/2012/02/09/pastor-rick-warren-id-rather-go-to-jail-than-obey-mandate/

Peace,
Anna

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seeker57,

You are a little late on this one. At one time you would have been right … but, then there was this ‘Hate Speech’ and ‘Hate Crime’ elements added to the mix. Now, the move is that if you speak against homosexuality - well… let’s face it … you are not only ‘homophobic’ but causing grave distress to the recipient of these illegally hateful comments. Here’s one link, there are many more: thegazette.com/2011/11/14/des-moines-baker-refuses-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple/

There was once a baker who did wedding cakes - and a ‘gay coulple’ came in to order a cake for their ‘wedding’. The baker in no uncertain terms told them he would not make their cake because he did not agree with what they were doing. After all, he was a private businessman and could service whomever he wished. Not so, said a court that found him in violation of the ‘rights’ of this ‘couple’. He had to pay several thousand dollars to the couple for expressing his opinion.

Things have changed a lot.

God bless

I don’t know of legislation that requires a Christian to take part in a “sin,” however that is defined.

The example of same-sex marriage was raised earlier, but that still wouldn’t force someone to take part in said marriage if they didn’t agree with it, nor would it force a church, synagogue or mosque to perform any same-sex unions if the powers that be within that organization did not wish to do so.

Some may not like the idea and use their religious zeal to cement that dislike. People did that about 50 to 60 years ago when people of different races wished to marry.

I do agree times today are no worse than previous eras - and you are also right, at least people aren’t being burned or hanged for their beliefs.

There are those who do worry about theocratic dictates trying to influence our political system. These people, including some within my own congregation, become very upset when a pastor, preacher, imam, rabbi, priest or pope, try to inject their particular religious idiosyncrasies into the political maelstrom.

They believe that if churches wish to become political, they should lose their tax exempt status.

This most recent papal statement doesn’t seem to qualify as a political statement per se, but some might argue it is a harbinger of things to come.

All in all, this could lead to a most interesting discourse.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[JonNC]

=Jimmy B;8951992]Jon,

From what I’ve read over the years from great, early Christian writers; St Aquinas and so on, and from leaders of the Catholic Church and in early Christianity in general, is that we have the freedom to do the right thing…

Agreed, Jimmy.

Much like criminal law, we are free to do the right thing and forbidden to do the wrong thing… a criminal act.

For instance, you’re not “free” to rob a bank…

Your thoughts on this?

Again, Agreed. And this is the mix we have living as Christians in a secular world. We have rights granted to us by God, according to our constitution, which antecede government. In fact, government has no power save what we grant it, again through the constitution. How we as Christians act reflects our faith, or ought to.

Jon

BTW, Jimmy, your presence here indicates improving health. Assuming this is true, I give thanks to God.

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

Agreed, Jimmy.

Again, Agreed. And this is the mix we have living as Christians in a secular world. We have rights granted to us by God, according to our constitution, which antecede government. In fact, government has no power save what we grant it, again through the constitution. How we as Christians act reflects our faith, or ought to.

Jon

BTW, Jimmy, your presence here indicates improving health. Assuming this is true, I give thanks to God.

Jon

Thanks Jon, I am

 

[Marybeloved]

Well said, Marybeloved, and here resides the issue, not only must we here conclude Obama is inconsistant with a Christian reality, he doesn’t even follow the Governments which at least somewhat followed Christian belief however imperfect.

So too then, its a process of choosing the least of which evil is presented. And in the realm of choice today? How one can conclude he is the Best choice and follow a Christian life I find simply impossible to comprehend.

Peace

I know. Unfortunately, the value system has been turned upside down. Now, it’s the secular-humanist world-view that many adopt. I pray truth and justice win in America.

 

[seeker57]

I still don’t understand the worry about loss of freedom because of secular society.

Christians are still free to believe as they wish, or as their particular sect dictates.

What I can discern here is that people want everyone to believe as they do, and are frustrated when others refuse to do so.

What if people who are Muslim decided sharia law was what should be followed in the U.S.?

I would bet hard cash that many Christians would be up in arms about such a proposal, yet the Muslims could say they are in the right because their holy book says they are right, which is exactly what Christians do with their holy book.

As an American citizen, I have the right, under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to follow the faith of my choice - or no faith for that matter - without fear of having the beliefs of another forced upon me.

That right is guaranteed me by secular society and the rule of law, not the dictates of religion or religious leaders.

I also can’t help but remember that some of the founding fathers were either Deist or Unitarian, and as such, were not necessarily among those who would surrender to theocratic dictates.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[iloveangels]

In short: the hubris of secular elitists decimating our country with the support of the fractured psyche and dulled conscience of a post nuclear society.

No, no. It’s much more specific than all that. This HHS mandate has been on the books since August of 2011. I’m sure that this was a precipitating factor.

That and contests over several same-sex marriage bills in state legislatures already this year in the Pacific Northwest. I’m sure the Vatican is aware of them. The bishops certainly are.

 

[Marybeloved]

I still don’t understand the worry about loss of freedom because of secular society.

Christians are still free to believe as they wish, or as their particular sect dictates.

What I can discern here is that people want everyone to believe as they do, and are frustrated when others refuse to do so.

What if people who are Muslim decided sharia law was what should be followed in the U.S.?

I would bet hard cash that many Christians would be up in arms about such a proposal, yet the Muslims could say they are in the right because their holy book says they are right, which is exactly what Christians do with their holy book.

As an American citizen, I have the right, under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to follow the faith of my choice - or no faith for that matter - without fear of having the beliefs of another forced upon me.

That right is guaranteed me by secular society and the rule of law, not the dictates of religion or religious leaders.

I also can’t help but remember that some of the founding fathers were either Deist or Unitarian, and as such, were not necessarily among those who would surrender to theocratic dictates.

Peace,

Seeker

Exactly! Catholic faith forbids any participation in contraception and abortion or any facilitation thereof. Are you saying American Catholics do not also have the same rights you so proudly proclaim here? Do they not have the right to believe the faith of their own choosing and practice it by not engaging in any sinful acts, like contraception/abortion and their facilitation? You’re fusing two wholly different issues. There is no law about banning contraception being proposed by Catholics here, so your point really is confusing me. The HHS mandate,on the other hand, is an imposition on Catholics, a demand that they must do what God forbids them to do! Please do not tell me that you do not see the difference here . What is happening with the HHS mandate is just a milder modern-day version of what the church suffered in her earliest times.

In early Christianity, A law existed in the Roman empire that all Roman citizens and subjects had to worship the emperor as a god. The Jews successfully campaigned for an exemption from this law based on their faith that taught them to worship no god but YHWH. The early Christians for a time, were a safe from this Law under the exemption, because Christianity was seen as a Jewish sect. This was true until the spread of Christianity to Roman gentiles (non-Jews) and a split between the Christian Jews and Judaism, which made it very obvious to the Romans that Christianity was distinct from Judaism and therefore did not enjoy the exemption negotiated by the Jews. This spelled disaster for Our Holy Apostles and the early church (of course, in Catholicism, martyrdom is actually glorious, but I digress) and marked the beginning of a three centuries long series of persecutions of Christians by the Roman Government. The church now had to pay homage to Caesar as a god or suffer the given punishment for transgressing that Law, even though they shared with the Jews the belief that there was only one God who alone was worthy of worship.

Of course, from this we get the glorious stories of the martyrdoms of the Early Christians. They refused, like the US church is refusing, to disobey God and the Roman Government brought its full force to bear on them. The horrific executions of Christians began.

 

[Marybeloved]

I still don’t understand the worry about loss of freedom because of secular society.

Christians are still free to believe as they wish, or as their particular sect dictates.

I also wanted to point out that the ancient Roman government was not also interested in stopping
Christians from following their faith. They couldn’t care less that Christians believed that a carpenter from Nazareth was the creator of the universe! What they were interested in was making Christians, like all other Romans, follow a law that the Christian conscience could not allow them to obey. Had the Christians simply offered the handful of grain to the image of the emperor like every one else, the Roman government would not have bothered with them at all. So its not just a matter of allowing people to practise their faith- it’s also not forcing them to participate in what they consider evil.

To ordinary Romans, a simple homage to the emperor like tossing a few grains to his image was no big deal and really, nothing to get all worked up over, no? But, of course, to the Christian, a small toss of a few grains to the statue of the emperor was not just a simple matter and neither is a “simple” insurance that covers gravely sinful acts.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seeker57,

I sincerely believe you just don’t get it. There are some in this category who actually progress to never getting it until it is too late. - like the guy on the sinking “Titanic” shouting, “They said it was unsinkable!”

Let me give you just one example: Under the Constitution, the Congress makes the laws, the President upholds the laws and the Supreme Court interprets the laws. This is pretty straight forward and one would honestly wonder how there could be any confusion - at least in theory. In practice, look at the Defense of Marriage Act that was the law of the land from 1996.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act Today there is a question! President Obama unilaterally has determined that this law is unconstitutional (not respecting the role of the Supreme Court) - and because of this unilateral decision of his the Justice Department has been order not to enforce this law. abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/president-obama-instructs-justice-department-to-stop-defending-defense-of-marriage-act-calls-clinton/ It would be prudent to see what is happening and contrast this with what should be happening.

Your ‘discernment’ is faulty. President Obama is not respecting the legitimate religious freedoms and freedom of conscience that this country has enjoyed since the Founding Fathers got off of the Mayflower in Plymouth Harbor in 1620. It isn’t people of religion and conscience saying, “Believe as I do” it is those in power threatening others to believe as THEY do.

Somehow you have the idea that we can believe as we wish, but a law that forces a violation of that belief is acceptable because we can still believe whatever we wish - just being forced to act against it. This is not what freedom of religion and freedom of conscience is all about.

Your comparison of Muslims demanding Sharia Law in the US because their book says that is what they should do is irrelevant. Simply read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founding Fathers - this is a country founded by Christians in many cases to avoid persecution in England. Muslims who want Sharia can go to a country that has adopted such a law - but, that is not the US. If they want to remain in the US, then Sharia is not recognized.

And, before there is any confusion - the law of the land is we can not kill others who disagree with our religion. Sharia is quite different - and many throughout the world have died and are persecuted for believing something different from what Muslims teach.

Please seek the truth

God bless

I still don’t understand the worry about loss of freedom because of secular society.

Christians are still free to believe as they wish, or as their particular sect dictates.

What I can discern here is that people want everyone to believe as they do, and are frustrated when others refuse to do so.

What if people who are Muslim decided sharia law was what should be followed in the U.S.?

I would bet hard cash that many Christians would be up in arms about such a proposal, yet the Muslims could say they are in the right because their holy book says they are right, which is exactly what Christians do with their holy book.

As an American citizen, I have the right, under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to follow the faith of my choice - or no faith for that matter - without fear of having the beliefs of another forced upon me.

That right is guaranteed me by secular society and the rule of law, not the dictates of religion or religious leaders.

I also can’t help but remember that some of the founding fathers were either Deist or Unitarian, and as such, were not necessarily among those who would surrender to theocratic dictates.

Peace,

Seeker