What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[Christopher68]

I presented my argument. The appropriate way to argue against a deductive argument is to attack the premise’s or conclusion for entailing a logical fault. Be it a logical contradiction, or a reduction to a logical absurdity, ala David Lewis’ Modal Realism. You didn’t do these things. You presented information not germane to the queation of the validity of the premise’ or conclusion. This is exactly what a red herring is. Wiki defines The items of significance, are the premise and conclusions. You have indeed introduced a Red Herring into the argument because my opinion on those matters has no bearing on the validity of the items of significance.
I’m not. I haven’t addressed them for the reasons stated above. Why are you uncomfortable attacking the premise of my argument?

Premise1 A moral evil cannot be a right derived from G-d, by definition.
Premise2 Society recognizes a duty to prevent moral evil, in that we already do so.
Premise3 Blasphemy is a moral evil.
Conclusion Blasphemy should also be illegal
So one cannot have a right to blaspheme.

Your ‘argument’ is based on faulty reasoning, and is an example of a begging-the-question fallacy. Why are you asking us to grant an assumption that is at least part of the very question at issue?

You are failing to understand the concept of ‘rights’ in a pluralistic society.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are welcome to present your argument in whatever fashion you see fit. But this is not a logic class, my friend.

Critical thinking requires that we abide by the basic Laws of logic. Otherwise no rational thought occurs, because any conclusion is as valid as any other.

If your objective is to convince anyone that your argument should be adopted as a matter of personal or public policy, it will not be accomplished through pure logic,

That’s not my objective. I recognize that most of humanity is much to hedonistic to worry about hypocrisy. That would be a fruitless goal.

nor are we constrained by your arbitrary rules about how to address your argument.

Yes you are. In order to express a rational thought one must abide by the Laws of Logic. There is nothing arbitrary about it, it is simply the state of affairs one enters when one tries to express a rational statement.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Conclusion, based on your original syllogism: All moral evils should be illegal.
Premise 1: Masturbation is a moral evil.
Premise 2: The use of artificial contraception is a moral evil.
Premise 3: To worship any God but the Roman Catholic God is a moral evil.
Conclusion: Therefore masturbation, the use of artificial contraception, and the worship of any God but the Roman Catholic God should be illegal.

Do you agree with the conclusion, Petey?

If I wasn’t going to accept that red herring from him, then why do you think I would do it for you?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Your ‘argument’ is based on faulty reasoning, and is an example of a begging-the-question fallacy. Why are you asking us to grant an assumption that is at least part of the very question at issue?..

Ok. Now we are cooking with gas. My first question would be what assumption you are referring to? How is the conclusion specifically assumed in the premise? How exactly am I begging the question?

 

[Kardinal]

There is no nature apart from G-d so there is no Law apart from His.

Aquinas identifies four laws. Natural Law, Divine Law, Eternal Law, and Human (or Civil) Law. Human laws are valid and equitable only in so far as they correspond with, and enforce or supplement the natural law; they are null and void when they conflict with it. There is no requirement in Catholic teaching or Divine Revelation that Divine Law or Eternal Law be enforced via Civil law.

 

[Kardinal]

If I wasn’t going to accept that red herring from him, then why do you think I would do it for you?

I have presented the absurd conclusion to which your conclusion leads. If you choose not to accept it, you are violating your own logical framework in which you requested answers.

It is relevant because that’s the absurd conclusion to which your conclusion leads.

Quite simply, it presents a logical absurdity.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Quite simply, it presents a logical absurdity.

You are confusing your opinion of the absurd with Reductio ad absurdum. You are not presenting a logical absurdity, you are positing a rhetorical absurdity. In other words, it is absurd because you say so, not because it violates some rule of logic.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Aquinas identifies four laws…

Ok, but what does that statement have to do with the one you quoted. You seem to be refuting a contention no one made “there is no requirement in…” While I said. “There is no nature apart from G-d so there is no Law apart from His.” In other words the foundations of anything we call “Law” are necessarily founded in G-ds authority. If they are not then they are simply the opinion of men. Treating the opinion of men as more than that, as “laws” is why we have abortion, contraception, divorce and a host of other evils that are permissible in the opinion of men.

 

[Kardinal]

Ok, but what does that statement have to do with the one you quoted. You seem to be refuting a contention no one made “there is no requirement in…” While I said. “There is no nature apart from G-d so there is no Law apart from His.” In other words the foundations of anything we call “Law” are necessarily founded in G-ds authority. If they are not then they are simply the opinion of men. Treating the opinion of men as more than that, as “laws” is why we have abortion, contraception, divorce and a host of other evils that are permissible in the opinion of men.

You have made the assertion that all of God’s law must be enforced via civil law. I have demonstrated that in Catholic teaching there is only the requirement that Natural Law be enforced via Civil law. In short, I have put the onus on you to demonstrate why all God’s law must be enforced via Civil Law, as opposed to what the Church teaches us, which is that Natural Law must be enforced via Civil Law.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You have made the assertion that all of God’s law must be enforced via civil law.

Not quite. I asserted that all moral evils should be illegal. I did not make an assertion to the effect that it “must” be enforced via civil law.

the requirement that Natural Law be enforced via Civil law.

I never made this claim either

In short, I have put the onus on you to demonstrate why all God’s law must be enforced via Civil Law, as opposed to what the Church teaches us, which is that Natural Law must be enforced via Civil Law.

No you haven’t, you just stated what Aquinas thought, in response to an assertion I didn’t make. You have misstated my assertion. I have never commented on “must” or any “requirement”.

See, this is the problem with trying to argue a point will nilly. You keep misstating what my position is after I stated it as a syllogism. Stick to what I actually say. Its a waste of time to have to keep typing “That’s not what I said”.
**
Premise1 A moral evil cannot be a right derived from G-d, by definition.
Premise2 Society recognizes a duty to prevent moral evil, in that we already do so.
Premise3 Blasphemy is a moral evil.
Conclusion Blasphemy should also be illegal**
This is what I said.

 

[Kardinal]

Not quite. I asserted that all moral evils should be illegal. I did not make an assertion to the effect that it “must” be enforced via civil law.

Remarkable. You’re going to hide behind the distinction between “should be illegal” and “must be enforced via civil law”?

Your entire syllogism hangs on the premise that all moral evils should be illegal. You have not established this.

Further, your Premise: “Society recognizes a duty to prevent moral evil, in that we already do so.” presupposes that society recognizes a duty to prevent ALL moral evil, which is not established. It has prevented some moral evils, not all. Therefore, your premise is invalid.

 

[vsedriver]

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?

Civil laws impact everyone, Catholic rules impact only Catholics so there is no necessity for non-Catholics to have any ‘fairness’ concerning Catholic rules.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Remarkable. You’re going to hide behind the distinction between “should be illegal” and “must be enforced via civil law”?

That’s not a distinction, that’s an entirely separate thing. I am not required to support your arguments, only mine.

Your entire syllogism hangs on the premise that all moral evils should be illegal. You have not established this.

Why not? Simply stating that doesn’t tell me anything.

Further, your Premise: “Society recognizes a duty to prevent moral evil, in that we already do so.” presupposes that society recognizes a duty to prevent ALL moral evil,…

The word ALL is not logically necessary to the statement, so the statement doesn’t presuppose it at all.

 

[Kardinal]

That’s not a distinction, that’s an entirely separate thing.

In English, they are the same thing.

The word ALL is not logically necessary to the statement, so the statement doesn’t presuppose it at all.

I’m sorry, it does. If Premise 2 does not include ALL moral evils, then it is logically consistent to assert that society prevents some evils but not others. Which which makes the conclusion invalid.

If Premise 2 does not include “ALL”, then the conclusion simply does not follow.

 

[PJM]

=LemonAndLime;7841215]Recently in Brazil same-sex unions have been legalised despite condemnation from the Catholic Church -

bbc.co.uk/news/world-13304442

This thread is not a news thread, it is only using the above story as an example.

While reading the comments, I notice one person had posted this below the story -

“Why is the Catholic Church trying to interfere with secular unions? Do they think non-Catholics have a similar right to interfere with Catholic sacraments?”

What is everyone’s opinion on this? If we believe we have a right to campaign against secular laws including civil partnerships, does that mean it is okay for non-Catholics to start telling us how to apply our religious rules e.g. the Catechism?

Let’s say that there was a group of Catholics campaigning for same-sex marriage to be outlawed. Would it then be fair for a group of non-Catholics to campaign for Catholics to be forced to allow same-sex marriages?

Or -

Let’s say Catholics successfully managed to campaign for same-sex marriage to be made illegal, would it then be fair if non-Catholics successfully managed to campaign for Catholic Churches to be forced to marry any heterosexual couple, whether they are Catholic or not? If not, why not?

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”?

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.

Actually you ask the worng question my friend. Turn it around and ask 'Why is it the Government is legislating Morallty?

The Church " can" because the Church [God] HAS TOO defend the moral laws. This is a Godly MANDATE; not even an option.

Intrinsinc Moral ACTS Gay Unions in this case} are of themselves ALWAYS an INMORAL and Ungodly act! Always was ans shall always be.

A Lie remains a LIE even if unbeleived; and truth is always truth; even when one claims it is not

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[LemonAndLime]

Civil laws impact everyone, Catholic rules impact only Catholics so there is no necessity for non-Catholics to have any ‘fairness’ concerning Catholic rules.

As I said in my original question - what about a non-Catholic’s “right” to get married in that lovely little Catholic Church down the street? Do they have a right to campaign to get married there? That’s one example when it might apply.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In English, they are the same thing.

I have spoken English for most of the last 38 years. I am quite certain they are not.

I’m sorry, it does.If Premise 2 does not include ALL moral evils,…

this part is fine

then it is logically consistent to assert that society prevents some evils but not others.

This part is not. First, you must demonstrate that the word “all” is logically necessary to the statement. That means the statement cannot make sense without the word ALL. As I understand the statement perfectly well without the word ALL. It is clearly not logically necessary. Which means that it is not presupposed as you claim. Here you are talking about logical consistency and asserting things that have nothing to do with proving that that the word ALL is presupposed. Second the word “all” is not in either the premise of or the conclusion so. I don’t see where you got that idea to start with.

Maybe you would agree with a negation?

Premise1 A right to commit a moral evil can be derived from G-d, By definition. (this is a logical contradiction)
Premise2 Society does not recognize a right to prevent moral evil (this is patently false)
Premise3 Blasphemy not is a moral evil.
Conclusion Blasphemy should be legal

The contradiction of my premises are inherently false. The path you walk leads to moral relativism. When G-d says something is right or wrong, then that thing is right or wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks.

 

[Kardinal]

I have spoken English for most of the last 38 years. I am quite certain they are not.

It’s fine for you to assert so, but you have neither demonstrated nor proven that they are different.

This part is not. First, you must demonstrate that the word “all” is logically necessary to the statement. That means the statement cannot make sense without the word ALL. As I understand the statement perfectly well without the word ALL. It is clearly not logically necessary. Which means that it is not presupposed as you claim. Here you are talking about logical consistency and asserting things that have nothing to do with proving that that the word ALL is presupposed. Second the word “all” is not in either the premise of or the conclusion so. I don’t see where you got that idea to start with.

Let me give you a simple logical example:
Premise1: Society recognizes that killing of persons is murder.
Premise2: When one is attacked and shoots in self-defense, one kills a person.
Conclusion: Shooting in self-defense is murder.

Obviously Premise 1 is false. But it has an implied “all”.

Likewise, I assert your Premise 2 is false. The only way that one can possibly draw the conclusion from Premises 2 and 3 is if Premise 2 includes an implied “all”. Otherwise, as I said before, one can simply assert, perfectly logically and consistently, that only some moral evils are to be prevented by society.

If the “all” is there, the Conclusion follows. If the “all” is not there, the Conclusion simply does not follow.

In your case, if the “all” is there, the Premise is false.

Therefore, it is either a non-sequitor, or a false premise. Either way, the syllogism is invalid.

When G-d says something is right or wrong, then that thing is right or wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks.

One is forced to wonder if you’re still on the same topic. That what God says says is right and wrong is not being questioned here. What is being questioned is whether what God says is right and wrong should be illegal.

 

[Warrenton]

LemonAndLime;7852308]As I said in my original question - what about a non-Catholic’s “right” to get married in that lovely little Catholic Church down the street?

I’ll try to answer the question.

Under modern freedom of speech/expression analysis, non-Catholics have the civil right to argue for the restriction of Catholic activity. No doubt about it: for example, in the USA, anyone can lobby the state to force sinful practices on the Church. We are having this debate now regarding whether Catholic hospitals must perform abortions.

But you also asked, I think, whether it would be fair for the law to go a step farther: could it fairly compel Catholics to do things they find immoral, on the basis that Catholics prohibit things other people do not find immoral.

The answer lies in the distinction between prohibition and coercion under the law.

It is fair, under secular legal theory, for Catholics to be offered a choice between complying with a civil standard or prohibiting the Church from engaging in the activity, such as in the American abortion debate or in the British adoption debate (or is it now a conclusion?).

But it is unfair to coerce Catholics to violate the tenets of their faith, like performing same sex weddings, because this deprives them of the freedom of association and the freedom of expression. In the US, we call this “a badge of slavery,” and it comes from our jurisprudence on involuntary servitude. In a nutshell, slavery is more than just one’s chattel status, it encompasses the whole region of personal liberty, and religious expression is basic to that.

Reducing someone to slavery is the essence of legal injustice, and that would basically result if the state forced Catholics to wed same sex couples, or forced them to teach that Catholicism is not true, or forced monks and nuns to live outside their cloisters, or priests to marry, or any number of similar things.

I would offer this analogy: Her Majesty’s constabulary can prohibit you from trespassing on Harrod’s property. Her Majesty’s constabulary must not force you to serve all of Harrod’s employees tea at your flat.

Cheers.

 

[Warrenton]

As I said in my original question - what about a non-Catholic’s “right” to get married in that lovely little Catholic Church down the street? Do they have a right to campaign to get married there? That’s one example when it might apply.

Answered above. I don’t know why I couldn’t highlight your quote.