I think you’ve nailed it there Rau. Where do we draw the line? (In terms of providing services)
Folks should really consider your point seriously. Christ accepted people as they were. He forgave sins at the appropriate time, but never turned his back on the people’s action of the day.
Why I love me my Patrick Stewart:
With the encouragement of a local church I had some friends that decided that they wanted to boycott companies that supported “The Gay Lifestyle.” It was all kicked off by a TV show “Queer eye for the straight guy” in which gay men would help heterosexual men pick out a new wardrobe and get a new look. In tracing through the chain of companies that had some connection with the show or involved in other activities relating to supporting the homosexual communities they found that there were a great number of companies that produced things they would rather not do without (ex: Apple Computer, before Tim Cook came out as gay). In the end their boycott got watered down to just boycotting companies that produced products that they were okay doing without. Avoiding having any interaction direct or indirect with someone with which there are moral disagreements is hard work so long as one decides to remain a member of society. Someone in these forums once thought about boycotting Microsoft for similar reasons until he found out how far their product line reaches.
If your friends are Catholic you may want to give them some gentle correction and tell them that homosexuality is not a sin, but a disordered desire.
The one’s involved in the “boycott” were not Catholic.
Of the friends I have that identify as Catholic one seems to have expressed an opinion that seems to disagree with this; I’ll summarize it with saying she doesn’t think the Church is always right on moral issues. Another (ex-coworker) had said that our company was cool and that’s why they throw Pride parties in some of the offices (not sure that I can parse that out into a statement of sin or disorder). In either case I’ve got no motivation to tell either one of them that it’s “disordered.” That stance as I understand it in Catholicism involves some premises with which I don’t necessarily agree.
That’s how the free market is supposed to work.
As you wish.
I find the idea amusing too. But experience has taught me that those being informed are not always as amused. Nonetheless I will keep your suggestion in mind for future opportunities of amusement.
Too true. Too true. :sad_yes:
And you must keep me updated should such an opportunity arise!
Beside a few rabid anarchists (if there are some) no one argues for a totally “free”, unregulated market; for example to allow weapons of mass destruction to be accessible for all who wish to purchase them.
Actually, I have noted throughout my life of 64 years, that Protestants who are engaging in the world do know more about our Catholic Religion than do we Catholics
Most people don’t want WMD’s. They are too much of a burden to manage, so the market demand is very low if present at all. Even having small guns around requires work to maintain.
I agree - but as you say where and how the line should be drawn is highly contentious, which is why it is so difficult to reach a consensus.
I agree giving up freedoms can transpire into a dangerous game, but it is a necessary one.
The demand is there, all right. Terrorists would love to procure “nucular” bombs. (Imitating Dubya’s accent
)Yes, of course. It is a very tough, but practical problem. That a line must be drawn is admitted by all libertarians (though not necessarily the anarchists).
Very well said.
What many posters are having trouble with is separation of secular and religious considerations in all this. Pre Vatican II Catholic teachings insisted on close Church/State relationship. As the secular concept of separation now meets the Catholic teaching of tolerance to all religions, the “worst case” outcome voiced by the minority of Bishops attending the Vatican II council is coming true. They worried that once the very narrow definition of the Catholic Church teachings, especially in the countries with majority Catholic populations “opened up”. that the next generation of people would drive a wedge between State and Church. They would push Church egagement in society ever more back towards only their buildings of worship.I agree giving up freedoms can transpire into a dangerous game, but it is a necessary one.
Everyone has individual rights, but we all ‘bump into each other’ and in our daily lives we give up rights all the time. It’s my right to paint my house whatever colour I choose and cover it in graffiti if I wish, but I adhere to the convention for the sake of others. When driving I don’t have to let someone out of a side street if I have the right of way, but I frequently do simply because it’s good manners. I mention this as it relates to an actual court case. It is an unwritten rule in my part of the world to let a funeral pass. A man found himself in court because he had driven through a group of mourners walking behind the coffin. His defense was he had the right of way. The judge conceded that on a black letter interpretation of the law he did have the right of way, but made comments to the effect that on that occasion it would not have been unreasonable to expect him to give up that right.
The negative impact of legislation relating to individual rights is that unless a right is spelled out in statute individuals are often met with the ‘I don’t have to’ response. ‘I don’t have to’ is the enemy of individual rights. To explain, in the UK there is no law that states you must assist a drowning stranger, you are free to watch them drown and people have died as a consequence. France has a ‘Good Samaritan’ law in that where assisting a fellow citizen poses no individual risk, you may be prosecuted if you do not assist them. The UK doesn’t like this law as it infringes individual freedom, but I am an advocate of the ‘Good Samaritan’ law as whilst we should not need such a law, in the absence of a law lurking in the background that can be used we have nothing to fight the common enemy of ‘I don’t have to.’
Thus, for society to function we don’t give up our rights entirely but give way on certain matters in order to prevent erosion of the rights of others. In the judicial system its a balancing exercise in that courts seek to balance individual rights.
In conclusion, as an Irish Nationalist my view is the sun set on the British Empire long ago - they just haven’t realized it yet.