The single best argument for separation of church and state

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

There’s a great deal of difference between theory and practice. Contraception would not just be illegal, it would be a felony. Condoms and pills trafficked like cocaine. Prison terms would ensue, all for the purpose of “saving their souls.”

Power corrupts. No one is immune.

Why should I be afraid? Even if it happens, I don’t see it going as you say. But even if it were to go as you say, I don’t think it will happen.

I think there is more likelihood of Nazis or Muslims ruling Scotland than the Catholic Church ruling Scotland. Same with the U.S.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I do not think it would be so bad. I am against promiscuity anyway, and gays should be afforded rights in accord with their human dignity (since we are going off of natural law, here). Sure, there would be serious problems, but not as severe as with many other possible states, even states that exist now (it would be worlds better than Sharia law, for example!)

The people who would get the worst of it would not be gays or people who sleep around. It would be heretics; people who claim to be Catholic but teach something contrary to what the hierarchy says they should. This would be terrible for them, but it is still a far better system than most.

If I got to choose, however, between the Athenian city-state from the golden age and government guided by Catholic-interpreted natural law, I’d choose the city-state.

I suspect that there would be no prison sentences at all for the promiscuous and for gays. I suspect that there would be the death penalty for heretics.

The evidence indicates otherwise.
For instance in Franco Spain (which lasted until 1975) gays were imprisoned and tortured simply for being gay. A situation that only changed after the dictator Franco died and the Catholic Church began to lose power in Spain (link to source: independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gay-victims-of-franco-era-to-win-compensation-430006.html).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Non sum dignus
Because Catholic teaching is rooted in the truth of Christ, and it is observant of human nature, being authored by the creator of said human nature

Well, that’s what everyone believes.

I don’t believe it.
Nor have the majority of people who have lived and died throughout history.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

The evidence indicates otherwise.
For instance in Franco Spain (which lasted until 1975) gays were imprisoned and tortured simply for being gay. A situation that only changed after the dictator Franco died and the Catholic Church began to lose power in Spain (link to source: independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/gay-victims-of-franco-era-to-win-compensation-430006.html).

I don’t buy that Francisco Franco’s rule is authentically Catholic (though crazy Catholics disagree). It’s like saying that the epitome of Japanese culture is displayed in the Nanking Massacre, or that America is a terrible place to for Japanese to live because we had internment camps.

I don’t fear authentic Catholic rule. I would fear bad counterfeits.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**I don’t buy that Francisco Franco’s rule is authentically Catholic **(though crazy Catholics disagree). It’s like saying that the epitome of Japanese culture is displayed in the Nanking Massacre, or that America is a terrible place to for Japanese to live because we had internment camps.

I don’t fear authentic Catholic rule. I would fear bad counterfeits.

Yet the Catholic Church openly supported Franco during the civil war and for many years afterward. Moreover the Church enjoyed substantial privileges throughout the Franco years.

And as you yourself said, many Catholics thought (and still think) that he was a great man for coming down so hard on the enemies (real and imagined) of the Church.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Non sum dignus
Because Catholic teaching is rooted in the truth of Christ, and it is observant of human nature, being authored by the creator of said human nature

I don’t believe it.
Nor have the majority of people who have lived and died throughout history.

I’m sorry, I was speaking in the moment, in context. To be more complete about what I meant:

“Everyone is certain their own set of beliefs is correct.” Possibly with the exception of agnostics. But including the atheist who, if he do didn’t think he were correct, would be, by definition agnostic.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yet the Catholic Church openly supported Franco during the civil war and for many years afterward. Moreover the Church enjoyed substantial privileges throughout the Franco years…

Reportedly, his close advisors included Josemaria Escriva and other Opus Dei priests.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Reportedly, his close advisors included Josemaria Escriva and other Opus Dei priests.

Sorry, have to call BS on that. And you guys are forgetting that the alternative to Franco was the Communists. Not social democrats, but undiluted Marxist true believers.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Sorry, have to call BS on that. And you guys are forgetting that the alternative to Franco was the Communists. Not social democrats, but undiluted Marxist true believers.

Well, the Republicans were no choice at all as they seemed to want to kill every priest and religious they could find. And I don’t want to get into a dispute about the Escriva/Franco connection, there are plenty of books and articles on both sides. I think the issue is: was it a Catholic dictatorship, and I think this letter from Escriva to Franco (bold mine) kind of make it clear that it was and the reference in the letter to the Fundamental Principle quoted makes it an historic fact:

To his Excellency Francisco Franco Bahamonde, Head of State of Spain

Your Excellency:

I wish to add my sincerest personal congratulation to the many you have received on the occasion of the promulgation of the Fundamental Principles.

My forced absence from our homeland in service of God and souls, far from weakening my love for Spain, has, if it were possible, increased it. From the perspective of the eternal city of Rome, I have been able to see better than ever the beauty of that especially beloved daughter of the church which is my homeland, which the Lord has so often used as an instrument for the defense and propagation of the holy, Catholic faith in the world.

Although alien to any political activity, I cannot help but rejoice as a priest and Spaniard that the Chief of State’s authoritative voice should proclaim that,** “The Spanish nation considers it a badge of honor to accept the law of God according to the one and true doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church, inseparable faith of the national conscience which will inspire its legislation.”** It is in fidelity to our people’s Catholic tradition that the best guarantee of success in acts of government, the certainty of a just and lasting peace within the national community, as well as the divine blessing for those holding positions of authority, will always be found.

I ask God our Lord to bestow upon your Excellency with every sort felicity and impart abundant grace to carry out the grave mission entrusted to you.

Please accept, Excellency, the expression of my deepest personal esteem and be assured of my prayers for all your family.

Most devotedly yours in the Lord,
Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer
Rome, May 23, 1958

(here’s a link to the original Spanish text, in case this is a poor translation)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, the Republicans were no choice at all as they seemed to want to kill every priest and religious they could find.

No kidding! So if only out of a sense of self-preservation, you would expect priests and religious to lean toward the Nationalists.

And I don’t want to get into a dispute about the Escriva/Franco connection, there are plenty of books and articles on both sides. I think the issue is: was it a Catholic dictatorship, and I think this letter from Escriva to Franco (bold mine) kind of make it clear that it was and the reference in the letter to the Fundamental Principle quoted makes it an historic fact:

Rather unconvincing on all counts. You have one side that is exteriminating the Church and another side that isn’t. Which side is more Catholic on those facts alone?

You’ll find letters like that from the Vatican to the Nazi regime. It doesn’t mean that the Nazis were Catholic or that the Vatican was Nazi.

Catholics have a long history of working with whatever civil authority is in power doing what they can to influence them in a Christian direction. Armchair quarterbacks love to second guess these efforts or to insinuate more than is there.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Rather unconvincing on all counts. You have one side that is exteriminating the Church and another side that isn’t. Which side is more Catholic on those facts alone?

I think we are talking about two different things. My only point is that Franco’s Spain was a Catholic Government, which he says himself if the quote in the letter is correct.

You’ll find letters like that from the Vatican to the Nazi regime. It doesn’t mean that the Nazis were Catholic or that the Vatican was Nazi.

No, there are no letters like this from the Vatican to Hitler. Hitler didn’t, himself, declare as a fundamental principle that the Catholic Church and it’s beliefs would be the guide for civil legislation. Franco did.

Catholics have a long history of working with whatever civil authority is in power doing what they can to influence them in a Christian direction. Armchair quarterbacks love to second guess these efforts or to insinuate more than is there.

I’m not insinuating anything, I’m stating a fact that is not controvertible since Franco himself made the declaration.

The Church also has a long history of trying to influence who it is that gets into a position of power. Just as nations have tried to influence who gets Saint Peter’s chair.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

We arre agreed that Franco didn’t kill priests and religious like the communists did and that he claimed to be instituting a Catholic government as monarchs often did. Beyond that, nothing is unusual. Even Hitler invoked Christianinity when he needed it and, yes, the Vatican tried to work with the Nazi regime to limit the damage even after the killing started.

Your claim was that San Josemarie supported Franco and that Franco’s regieme was Catholic. That’s what I called you on.

 

[TEPO]

I just saw the movie Flowers in the attic the other day on Netflix after having a tooth pulled… I like the part when the grandmother says: *** “Your mother’s marriage was unholy! A sacrilege! An abomination in the eyes of the Lord! She did not fall from Grace! She leapt! Into the arms of a man whose veins pulsed with the same blood as hers! Not a stranger, but her own uncle! And you, the children, are the devil’s spawn! Evil from the moment of conception!”***

If America ever became a catholic State, maybe the president would be exactly like the grandmother. . Hilarious…!

 

[TEPO]

My wife actually turned it to that… I normally don’t watch those kind of flaky movies.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The “Freedom From Religion Foundation” has placed a full-page ad in the Washington Post. It urges Catholics to “quit the Catholic Church” over its teachings on sex and procreation, asking: “Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages?”

Noting Catholic opposition to the Obama Administration’s mandate for covering contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs in most private health plans, the ad declares: “The Church that hasn’t persuaded you to shun contraception now wants to use the force of secular law to deny birth control to non-Catholics.”

This is so topsy-turvy a description of what is going on that I guess the Post’s advertising fact-checkers are out sick. But in case anyone is swayed by such charges, the facts may bear repeating.

It is, of course, the Administration that wants to “use the force of secular law” to deny a freedom Americans have long enjoyed. Until now, Catholics and non-Catholics alike had the freedom to decide, without federal interference, whether to buy the above-mentioned coverage or not. A religious organization with a moral objection could exclude the coverage from the health plan it subsidizes; an individual who wanted those drugs and procedures could choose to work for an organization that subsidizes them, or use his or her own money to buy them.

lifenews.com/2012/05/11/obama-admins-catholic-treatment-coercion-in-the-name-of-freedom/

While it is entirely appropriate to call out the Administration on it’s Orwellian rhetoric, there is something rather odd here.

It is the nature of government to be coercive. The freedom to live is afforded, by government, by coercing actual and would-be murderers.

Ultimately, the essential question is this: when is coercion moral? Neither side seems ready to address that question in a meaningful way.

 

[edwest2]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”–C.S. Lewis

I recently came across this quote again. It has to be one of my all-time favorite from one of the greatest Christian minds.

It occured to me that this is a great argument, perhaps the single best argument, for the separation of church and state. If by “church” we mean not symbols or mere clerical institutions but the body of thought oriented to what is ultimately good for us.

It is one thing to aim the power of the state at defending rights and boundaries It is quite another to enlist it the cause of reforming us for our own good. I am very grateful to the Church for its moral teachings and guidance. But I shudder at the thought of priests with search warrants and guns.

Should we be any less concerned with non-church busybodies acting against our will for our own good? CS Lewis thought not.

I regard the following as more definitive since it was observed in action in the United States:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

"Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. "

George Washington, published in 1796

Look up the term busybody. How it works is quite clear.

Let me know when you see a nun carrying an AK-47

Peace,
Ed

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Reportedly, his close advisors included Josemaria Escriva and other Opus Dei priests.

Which is one of the reasons Opus Dei got the reputation it has as a creepy power-hungry cult.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I regard the following as more definitive since it was observed in action in the United States:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

"Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. "

George Washington, published in 1796

Look up the term busybody. How it works is quite clear.

Let me know when you see a nun carrying an AK-47

Peace,
Ed

George Washington was also a slaveowner.
I say this not to vilify him but to illustrate that he (and the other Founding Fathers) were not perfect, and in many ways came from a culture more immoral than our own.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Which is one of the reasons Opus Dei got the reputation it has as a creepy power-hungry cult.

In order to be “one of the reasons” it would need to be true. On the other hand, there is always a market for slander among those who care not for truth.

 

[edwest2]

George Washington was also a slaveowner.
I say this not to vilify him but to illustrate that he (and the other Founding Fathers) were not perfect, and in many ways came from a culture more immoral than our own.

I understand part of what you mean and I never meant to imply that the Founding Fathers were perfect. It’s the more immoral part I don’t get. TV, the radio, the internet, perverted magazines and movies? Slavery was wrong, but legislating immorality is also wrong.

Peace,
Ed