What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[YankeeRC]

Not too many years ago in the U.S. adultery was a crime on the books
Statutory rape was applied to molestation and intercourse with children under 18
Sodomy was illegal.

Just because elements of our society, particularly activist judges, remove moral codes of behavior does not mean we should give up the ghost and not vote with our conscience.

The current fad of homosexual rights and same sex marriage is not a civil rights nor equality movement, it is a spearhead attack by a group who ultimately seek to change Catholic sacraments as you indicated in your original post.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree with what everyone is saying about how Catholics have a right to (name removed by moderator)ut on civil law.

Only one poster however has directly addressed the question about whether non-Catholics have a right to (name removed by moderator)ut on Catholic rules which could affect them - e.g. where you can get married. What do you think about that?

My wife and I were married in a Pentecostal Church, 36 years ago (on May 1st )

On our tenth anniversary we renewed our vows in the Catholic Church, after our conversions to Catholicism.

We viewed our marriage as a joining before God, even though at the time of our original joining I would have been open to a secular joining at the courthouse. After becoming Catholic I had changed my view so that a marriage of Christians should take place in the Body of Christ, which is His Church. I feel this way because our vows to each other were made before the Father and our joining was something I consider He joined together.

As for the secular world, or the non-believers, they do not consider their marriage as something God joined together, but some something secular law joins together.

Now, as your question is worded, I, or His Church, cannot force the secular to join together in His Church. It’s as if the secular do not recognize the authority of God they are not going to recognize that they need be joined together by Him. Their faith is not in Him, but is in the secular world of man made laws. That recognition can only come about if we can convert their hearts and minds to Him. Just as my view changed when I understood more of His truth, through His Church. Once that understanding comes to each individual I don’t believe non-Catholics can ‘(name removed by moderator)ut Catholic rules’ on the Catholic view of marriage. The same as without belief, or understanding, Catholic rules cannot (name removed by moderator)ut on their beliefs.

If God does not force the secular, which surely He could, how can we force them? The only way I see it possible is through coercion by conversion to Him. That’s what His expressed will seemed to be, when He gave His ministry in His earthly life, in my view and understanding.

One last point, if we could (name removed by moderator)ut the secular legal, or political, to be that marriages must take place in His Church, would that somehow force the non-believers to believe? I don’t think so and then don’t think we have really accomplished anything for Him as He wants, as I believe He wants people to come to Him voluntarily on their own free will…after they’ve heard His Gospel.

I feel the same about any civil law. What good would it do to force any of them, if it does not convince them to Him?

 

[Elizabeth502]

After all, we are interfering in the “secular” world by campaigning against a law, so why can’t secular people interfere in our religious world by campaigning against our “rules”?

“We” aren’t “interfering,” because “we” are equally members of society.

L&L, even many atheists acknowledge that there are secular truths and principles which any civilized state needs to protect and enshrine, if it wants to continue to remain civilized: such principles as the general respect for human life, dignity, and freedom. Those in fact are moral principles. Every man and woman within a society has responsibility to contribute to the safeguarding of moral principles which affect everyone. We don’t have two societies: a barbaric, uncivilized secular society on one side, versus a civilized “religious” society on the other, which is supposedly restricted (by some unknown informal “law”) from interchange with the “other” society.

The “separation” of Church and State just means that the State cannot endorse and associate itself, structurally and formally, with any one particular sect/religion. It does not mean that the State is therefore amoral, or that churches, individually or collectively, have no legitimate opinion and influence over society. The Christian Churches of the U.S. had an enormous influence over ultimate Civil Rights legislation in this country. Entire churches, and many individuals officially representing churches (Catholic priests and Protestant ministers) joined those efforts formally and publicly. Many Jews did, too, representing the moral views of their religion.

Churches and synagogues have also used moral pressure to try to influence foreign policies and practices, such as arm sales, arms training, Middle Eastern policy, alliances with dictators, wars (Iraq, Vietnam, etc.), and much more.

Members of religions are also equally citizens, along with non-churched individuals. Atheists and secularists do not own the state, or disproportionately have privileges to speak, act, and vote in matters involving society. Therefore, the word “interference” has no legitimate context here.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

As I posted above. Do you think that if Catholics have a right to an (name removed by moderator)ut in civil laws, do you believe it would be fair for non-Catholics to have an (name removed by moderator)ut on Catholic rules?

As individuals in mosty political systems, we have been granted civil right to assert our position. When we vote, we do not impose our political views on others, we assert our own. As for civil matters, our personal position can be governed by a combination of religious, secular, moral, philisophical and political ideologies. However, a religious system falls outside the civil perogative and as such, (name removed by moderator)ut is not innately reciprocal.

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1: Matthew 18:18-20
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, **I **am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. ******​

+LemonAndLime . . . it is . . . God Himself Who . . . gives us the right . . . and indeed the . . . **absolute responsibility and mandate **. . . to interact in society and interfere with manmade unjust and unholy secular laws when necessary . . . simply because something is made into a law doesn’t make a particular law good or holy or just . . . *many times it is the exact opposite . . . *

The underlying foundation of your familiar . . . oft asked in one form or another . . . original post question . . . actually springs from the very unholy ** base of the subtle . . . truly evil . . . completely . . . non-Christian . . . philosophy of . . . “live and let live” **. . . where our . . . **Crucified Lord Jesus ** . . . the . . . Blessed Christ of God . . . and . . . His Holy Redemptive Bloodstained Cross . . . and the only true purpose of the life of mankind here on this earth . . . which is to come to know, to love and to serve God . . . is ignored . . . cast off . . . and considered of no relevance whatsoever . . . Life lived based on this philosophy promotes no responsibility to be taken by man for the need for . . . **God Most Holy ** . . . his Creator and the Creator of this world we live in . . . and the salvation of this broken . . . darkened . . . disordered . . . sinful world we live in . . . and the fallen sinful souls of mankind . . . in all their varying degrees of decay . . . who dwell herein . . .

In the “live and let live” philosophy . . . evil is given free reign . . . and presumptiously assumes . . . and is strangely allowed . . . some sort of . . . **completely false supposedly inalienable right **. . . to flourish and go along completely unchecked . . . and the history of mankind is littered with the . . . monstrous . . . fruits of the blind ignorance and apathy promoted by this philosophy . . . such as the rize of the Nazi reign and millions upon millions upon millions of men, women and children being imprisoned, starved, tortured and murdered in death camps . . . and whole countries being invaded and destroyed in the horror of a world war . . . just to mention one example . . . and in our day . . . the horrific daily killing/murder . . . **parading under the protective cover of “secular” laws **. . . of what has now been calculated to be 50 million plus babies annually throughout the world . . . through the grievous sin of abortion . . . which murderous genocide (mankind killing his own kind) is of such hugely vast numbers as to be unparalleled in the history of man since his beginning . . .

The problem with this whole . . . **“live and let live” **. . . point of view is that it throws out the reality of **God Most Holy ** entirely . . . and ignores the true reality of the purpose of life here on this earth . . . and that here on earth we are living not in Godly peace . . . but in a battlefield . . . where **God **through the . . . **Holy Bloodstained Cross of Christ Jesus our Lord **. . . is leading a constant ongoing war of good against evil . . . which war we are as Christians are supposed to be waging right along with . . . **God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit ** . . . and all the heavenly host of saints and angels :angel1: . . . as God’s beloved redeemed children . . . and which is our portion and mission here on earth . . .

:bible1: EPHESIANS 6:12
For our wrestling is NOT against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Sacred Heart of Jesus+
. . . have mercy+​

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

As individuals in most political systems, we have been granted civil right to assert our position. When we vote, we do not impose our political views on others, we assert our own. As for civil matters, our personal position can be governed by a combination of religious, secular, moral, philisophical and political ideologies. However, a religious system falls outside the civil perogative and as such, (name removed by moderator)ut is not innately reciprocal.

 

[GRATEFULONEjim]

Non-Catholics can (name removed by moderator)ut all they want on Catholic Rules that effect them. If it is a teaching of the Church that they disagree with and it is going to affect their life in a certain way. Most likely it will fall on deaf ears. If it is a Church specific issue, believe me, the doctrines and teachings are in place for a reason. The CC is not going to change its doctrines no matter how much (name removed by moderator)ut they receive from non-Catholics. Catholics are part of the secular world. The secular world is not part of Catholicism. To answer your question though,Yes, Non-Catholics have the right to TRY and interfere with Church teachings/rules/doctrines, but it isn’t going to get them anywhere.

 

[JRKH]

Q: What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?
A: Citizenship

Q: Why shouldn’t non-catholics have the right to interfere with Church Law?
A: Citizenship (lack there-of)

Pretty simple if you really think about it.

Peace
James

 

[Christopher68]

To the OP: my comments are not in reply to the specific example you gave, but in response to the overall question of your post.

My belief is that the proper role of government is the protection of individual rights. I am a huge proponent of the sovereignty of the individual in relation to society or the collective, as ‘society’ is merely a collection of individuals. So I despise any laws that have a misplaced desire to benefit society at the expense of the individual.

In relation to government and religion, I am also a huge proponent of the separation of church and state. With regard to religion, one is free to ‘believe’ any and all tenets of their respective faiths, but they cannot use their faith as a means of denying anyone else their individual rights.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I will just respond by noting that individual rights are not absolute, even in our own country.

Further, individual rights are not created by the individual. There are certain basic and essential rights that are explicitly protected, and others that are assumed or implied.

No one should confuse a desire with a right, despite the fact that it is very popular to do so in contemporary society.

All rights have context: the rights of the State, the rights of individuals, the rights of collective associations.

 

[edwest2]

All groups, religious and not, interfere with secular laws. How many lobbyists are there in Washington, D.C.?

I do not question strangers about what they do in the privacy of their home or look into their windows. They do not need my permission, or anyone else’s, to do what they want. But when they do seek a vote on same-sex marriage, what am I supposed to do? I research it, review Church teaching, and vote appropriately. Regardless of our beliefs, we usually vote what we believe.

I am for privacy, by the way, but legalizing a behavior that has never been legal in the United States, for example, requires careful consideration, If we are all equal in the eyes of the State and we have religious freedom then we have the same right to make our voices heard in the public square.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Essentially, this thread is about the concept of religious freedom versus freedom of living how you choose, and telling other people/attempting to force people to live how you want them to.

Our Faith is the One True Faith. We know for a fact that Christ is the Messiah. Therefore secular laws are secondary to and must necessarily comport with Christian morality. If they do not then they are illegitimate. There is no requirement in Christianity that we allow the open practice of immorality in our society. We need not permit, idolatry, abortion, brothels, divorce, gay pride parades, atheists publishing books, or anybody telling us when and where we can pray, or what we have to teach our kids, or where we can hang up the ten Commandments. We only believe that we must because the secular schools indoctrinate us with the idea. This is our nation. If some people do not wish to comply, they can keep it entirely in the privacy of your own home.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We need not permit …atheists publishing books.

Whoa there, partner. Atheists are protected by Freedom of Speech. They get to publish. We just don’t need to read it. And that Freedom of Speech gives us equal opportunity to publish theistic material.

 

[z0wb13]

render unto caesar…

@L&L: i think your post is very smart, and i think that the responses have, for the most part, revealed how unimaginable it is for many people, religious or otherwise, to contemplate a world where other people’s experiences aren’t exactly like their own.

that’s just psychology. specifically, it is false consensus and illusory superiority. let me use the post by warpspeedpetey to illustrate. “This is our nation. If some people do not wish to comply, they can keep it entirely in the privacy of your own home.” here, petey is presuming, falsely, that a majority of people think how he does (“This is our nation.” who are you talking about?). this is demonstrably untrue. in the usa, catholics account for slightly less than 25% of the population. worldwide, maybe about 33% of the human race is christian, and about half of them are catholic. that’s a minority, but people from all groups tend to think that their own thoughts and feelings are the majority opinion. i would explain this as birds of feather flocking together, but wikipedia says it a bit less whimsically:

This bias [false consensus] is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

anyway, that explains why people think their own opinions, beliefs, etc. are “normal”. but why does petey suspect his ideas are superior? clearly he thinks this to be the case, expressed by “Our Faith is the One True Faith. We know for a fact that Christ is the Messiah.” generally, illusory superiority is taken to mean that people think they are better than everyone around them. a 1981 study found that 93% of those surveyed thought they were above average drivers. that would be impossible, as statistically only 50% of people could be above average. regarding intelligence, around 80% of people think they are above average, which is kind of dumb when you think about it;p

so clearly, this bias exists, but why? there are two probable reasons, again from wikipedia:

Cognitive biases are instances of evolved mental behavior. Some are presumably adaptive, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions when faster decisions are of greater value. Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms, or from the misapplication of a mechanism that is adaptive under different circumstances. [emphasis mine]

@warpspeedpetey: i’m not trying to pick on you, your comments were just the easiest and most recent. you have a direct style, and made your meaning very clear. but these sorts of mistakes are not made only by religious people, or people of a certain faith. cognitive bias is something that happens across all groups, and effects every person on the planet.

anyway, can catholics interfere with secular laws? as others have mentioned, they can group together, and vote accordingly. and even as a non-catholic, i would encourage this. but there is a bright line between protecting one’s own interests and forcing your beliefs down someone else’s throat. imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.

i actually agree with petey on most of the things he’s listed as impermissible, as long as “they can keep it entirely in the privacy of your own home.” so if you don’t want any books published by atheists in your own home, that’s fine by me. if you want to disallow gay pride parades through your living room, i fully support that.

but, if you want to put up the 10 commandments in a public building, that’s different. that’s my public space, too, and since we won’t agree on which religious iconography is appropriate, i say we stick to something secular that we can both agree on, like the constitution, or a ribald limerick;p

can non-catholics tell the church what they can and cannot do? yes. i support religious freedom, but civil laws supersede religious practices in the usa. and they kind of have to, or the system wouldn’t work. rastafarians can’t use mariajuana here, even though it’s an important religious sacrament. mormons can’t practice polygamy. i can’t think of anything catholics are not allowed to do in the usa, they are pretty well protected here.

 

[michelleds]

people in the US (and elsewhere) refer to things as being “rights” when those things aren’t actually rights. People think they have a “right” to drive, a “right” to be respected, a “right” to eat hamburgers.

We all have a right to vote, well, if you’re over 18, not a felon, not under an adjudication by a court. The government does NOT have a right to establish a religion; we all have a right to exercise our religion without governmental interference. (Unless the religion is breaking the law–see Warren Jeffs’ mormon sect but also see Native American Church and peyote use.)

So, each individual in the US has a right to vote, speak, petition, etc the government to do what that individual believes is the correct thing.

BUT the government has NO right, in the US, to interfere with religious freedoms.

Therefore, no individual in the US has the right to force the government to do what it has no right to do, interfere with religious freedoms.

For some interesting and frustrating reading on the legal system–both judicial and legislative–and freedom of speech and religion, look up some of the westboro/fred phelps cases.

 

[michelleds]

FYI

Amendment I
Guarantee against establishment of religion
Guarantee of free exercise of religion
Guarantee of freedom of speech
Guarantee of freedom of the press
Guarantee of freedom of assembly
Right to petition for redress of grievances
Guarantee of freedom of expressive association (not explicit in Am I; judicially created)
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
Amendment III
Freedom from quartering of soldiers
Amendment IV
Freedom from Unreasonable search and seizure (Warrant requirements)
Amendment V
Right to indictment by a grand jury (Feds only, not States)
Protection against double jeopardy
Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination (Miranda warnings/rights)
Protection against taking of private property without just compensation
Amendment VI
Right to a speedy trial
Right to a public trial
Right to trial by impartial jury
Right to notice of accusations
Right to confront adverse witnesses
Right to compulsory process (subpoenas) to obtain witness testimony
Right to assistance of counsel
Amendment VII
Right to jury trial in civil cases
Amendment VIII
Protections against “excessive” bail and “excessive” fines
Protection against “cruel and unusual punishments”

The 14th Amendment contains the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Both are where much of the judicial activism of the last 20-40 years can be found. Everything from the good (Brown v. Bd of Educ.) to the bad (Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut: birth control; Lawrence v. Texas: sodomy laws)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Whoa there, partner. Atheists are protected by Freedom of Speech. They get to publish. We just don’t need to read it. And that Freedom of Speech gives us equal opportunity to publish theistic material.

There can be no right to commit a moral evil.

 

[z0wb13]

… we all have a right to exercise our religion without governmental interference. (Unless the religion is breaking the law–see Warren Jeffs’ mormon sect but also see Native American Church and peyote use.)
…
BUT the government has NO right, in the US, to interfere with religious freedoms.

you seem to be contradicting yourself. or are you saying that the government has no rights (it does, people have rights, and the government is of the people), but they can pass laws to restrict religious freedom? it’s confusing, because you list 2 instances of government interfering with religious practices.

The 14th Amendment contains the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Both are where much of the judicial activism of the last 20-40 years can be found. Everything from the good (Brown v. Bd of Educ.) to the bad (Roe v. Wade; Griswold v. Connecticut: birth control; Lawrence v. Texas: sodomy laws)

you realize that these decisions are not objectively good or bad, rather they are decisions that you agree or disagree with.

 

[michelleds]

I wasn’t intending to be contradictory. You’ll note that I stated that we all have a right to vote. Except for the exceptions–age, criminal history, court adjudications. Once I stated those exceptions, as well as the exception for the establishment clause, I didn’t feel compelled to re-state it all again. Besides, as you yourself stated, there’s nothing in the Catholic Church in the US that is banned or illegal. Therefore, the exception didn’t apply.

And as for the objectively bad or objectively good, well, I was answering a question by a Catholic, on a Catholic forum, and I’m Catholic…so I was using reference points that I believed the OP and I shared. Could’ve been wrong, but it’s my opinion.

 

[michelleds]

and to follow up (again) on the governmental interference in religion, the two examples I cited are interesting for this reason:

the Warren Jeffs case did not factually involve the establishment (pro or con) of Jeffs’ chosen religion. It did practically involve it because his practice involved child molestation, a felony.

In the Native American Church case, the use of peyote in religious ceremonies was upheld, specifically because the government could not establish/disestablish a religion and it was found that using peyote was part of the religious practices.

i might add that similar rationale has led prisons to have to allow practicing satanists certain ritual items that a prisoner would not be allowed to have otherwise.