What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[warpspeedpetey]

Dictionary.com says a red herring is “something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue”.

All the comments that were not specific to the syllogism. the flag waving, the “I don’t understand how rights work in a pluralistic society” kind of stuff. thats all red herrings. Restating my argument every which way but the way i wrote it is straw manning.

By framing the argument in a self-contained manner the person presenting said argument lays upon him or herself the responsibility to make sure it contains no logical flaws. If the intent was to avoid emotionalism, it did not come across, it would seem. Also, could your refusal to address your claimed logical fallacy simply be dodging the question?

Which logical fallacy am I ignoring? What logical flaws? If I ignore something than it usually because I have already answered it. It isn’t information germane to the discussion. Or sometimes if something is ludicrous prima facie. Posts can get much to long to be manageable in a reasonable amount of time if you respond to every word printed simply because it was printed.

In reference to the argument, without the framing, is the assumption that just because these rights come from God (and let’s assume they do)

That’s the working assumption. Under the theory that rights can be established by men, a moral evil could be a right.

that God’s laws must be laws in said nation?

I haven’t argued that. People are much to hedonistic to alter their behavior .

What, then, happens to the religious freedom the catechism seems to promote? What happens to the rights of people who are not religious? Nowhere does God give Christians the right to force their beliefs on others, and banning things like gay marriage isn’t a matter of violating, say, the right to marry, but on the right of individuals to define marriage according to their religious views.

One cannot derive a right to commit a moral evil from G-d. No one.

 

[Lovesa]

.One cannot derive a right to commit a moral evil from G-d. No one.

Of course. However, in the United States, we live in a country with people who do not believe that their rights come from a deity, let alone a Christian deity. These rights may come from history driving them that way, they may come from social contract theory, or they may come simply from the fact that the Constitution grants them. How is a Christian supposed to defend, to a non-Christian, the idea that their religious ideas have no expression in government? After all, this is not a nation owned exclusively by Christians; it contains other faiths as well, who are guaranteed their say under the Constitution. The only way to outlaw things Christianity/Catholicism defines as “moral evils” is to infringe on their consciences and their religion, which Christianity has never advocated, at least not officially. Besides, we are to follow our government. While we may not obey laws that are morally evil, there is no statement that one must ban all things deemed morally evil. After all, therein lies theocracy.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Of course. However, in the United States, we live in a country with people who do not believe that their rights come from a deity, let alone a Christian deity.

That’s not correct

.“We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the U.S. Declaration of Independence proclaims, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

These rights may come from history driving them that way, they may come from social contract theory, or they may come simply from the fact that the Constitution grants them. How is a Christian supposed to defend, to a non-Christian, the idea that their religious ideas have no expression in government? After all, this is not a nation owned exclusively by Christians; it contains other faiths as well, who are guaranteed their say under the Constitution. The only way to outlaw things Christianity/Catholicism defines as “moral evils” is to infringe on their consciences and their religion, which Christianity has never advocated, at least not officially. Besides, we are to follow our government. While we may not obey laws that are morally evil, there is no statement that one must ban all things deemed morally evil. After all, therein lies theocracy.

You say “of course not above” but here you say that moral evils be committed by people who can justify it. If no one can derive a right from G-d to commit a moral evil, then that means no one. No excuses. If we derive our rights from men, then any position, mine included is just as valid as any other. Further, this is not strictly an American board.

 

[Lovesa]

That’s not correct

Notice the constitution connotes a “creator” without specifying that this creator is a deity. Arguing that that is a Christian statement is difficult.

You say “of course not above” but here you say that moral evils be committed by people who can justify it. If no one can derive a right from G-d to commit a moral evil, then that means no one. No excuses. If we derive our rights from men, then any position, mine included is just as valid as any other. Further, this is not strictly an American board.

If we derive our rights from men, yes, of course yours are as valid. Therefore, the majority rule comes into play. Hence the republic. If we derive our rights from God, and feel we have the right to enforce our rules on others (which is what the banning of “moral evils” would be, we force others to live against their consciences. That is theocracy, that is, government controlled by religion. Would you that all governments were controlled by religion? Where would non-Christians live? It’s not particularly Christian to force people to vote against their morals.

Also, I am aware this is not strictly an American board. However, I do not possess a knowlege of foreign governments. Therefore I have no authority to speak on them. I can offer my viewpoint on the workings of religious viewpoint in American government however, so I offer that with all the humility I can muster. The fact remains that religious freedom is the guarantee of this nation. If that contradicts someone’s view that all “moral evils” should be illegal I have no power to alter that. After all, someone publishing blasphemous material does not violate anyone’s rights. Preventing them from doing so violates their rights. Throughout history, there have been things legal that are banned by religion, and it has not been the position of religion to make laws on these things, except by certain members of those religions.

After all, supposing that blasphemy is banned. This bars religious expression. Who decides what is blasphemy? According to your scenario, the majority, according to their beliefs. Suppose that Catholic writings were banned as blasphemy, or as heresy? This would lead only to a stronger Catholic force working to reverse the decision. Is all this fighting worth it when one should lead people to Christ in love and truth, and not by forcing them to obey God’s law?

After all, in conclusion, God has given human beings free will. They can obey or disobey him. Throughout the Bible people turn away from God and disobey His commands by free will, for, while God tells people to do things, he does not force them. He tells them to repent; he does not force them. Who are we to command what God has not?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Notice the constitution connotes a “creator” without specifying that this creator is a deity. Arguing that that is a Christian statement is difficult.

The creator was understood to be G-d by those people, and they are clearly referring to the Christian G-d. The progressive view taught in schools is just that, the progressive view. Historically the evidence says these people were Christians, in a Christian culture. Arguments to the contrary are always made when one wants to avoid the consequences of recognizing G-d.

If we derive our rights from men, yes, of course yours are as valid. Therefore, the majority rule comes into play. Hence the republic. If we derive our rights from God, and feel we have the right to enforce our rules on others (which is what the banning of “moral evils” would be, we force others to live against their consciences. That is theocracy, that is, government controlled by religion. Would you that all governments were controlled by religion? Where would non-Christians live? It’s not particularly Christian to force people to vote against their morals.

Also, I am aware this is not strictly an American board. However, I do not possess a knowlege of foreign governments. Therefore I have no authority to speak on them. I can offer my viewpoint on the workings of religious viewpoint in American government however, so I offer that with all the humility I can muster. The fact remains that religious freedom is the guarantee of this nation. If that contradicts someone’s view that all “moral evils” should be illegal I have no power to alter that. After all, someone publishing blasphemous material does not violate anyone’s rights. Preventing them from doing so violates their rights. Throughout history, there have been things legal that are banned by religion, and it has not been the position of religion to make laws on these things, except by certain members of those religions.

After all, supposing that blasphemy is banned. This bars religious expression. Who decides what is blasphemy? According to your scenario, the majority, according to their beliefs. Suppose that Catholic writings were banned as blasphemy, or as heresy? This would lead only to a stronger Catholic force working to reverse the decision. Is all this fighting worth it when one should lead people to Christ in love and truth, and not by forcing them to obey God’s law?

After all, in conclusion, God has given human beings free will. They can obey or disobey him. Throughout the Bible people turn away from God and disobey His commands by free will, for, while God tells people to do things, he does not force them. He tells them to repent; he does not force them. Who are we to command what God has not?I think you misunderstand. There are no circumstances of any kind that justify a right to commit a moral evil. One simply cannot derive a right to commit a moral evil from G-d. The fact that such a thing leads to theocracy is perfectly acceptable to me. What is not acceptable to me is the murder of 50,000,000 innocent children. Which is the direct result of men determining that we can have a right to commit a moral evil. Better a theocracy, than a concentration camp. Society should be conducted entirely in accordance with Christian principle. Christian principle because it is the One True Faith. Mathematically verifiable through the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy. We are absolutely certain that Christ is the prophesied Messiah. Other faiths are false by definition. This does not mean that we convert people by force. We could simply restrict any non-Christian religious expression to private spaces. This is not a new idea. Its the same things as when they take the 10 commandments out of court rooms. Many countries have restrictions on religious expression. Even Canada fines Bishops who publish anti-homosexual statements in their diocesan newsletters. Because you are only familiar with the American system, you assume it is wrong to do these things in some way, but it clearly isn’t to other people around the world. You, like me, were just indoctrinated in elementary school to accept thee progressive view of history, that desperately tries to ignore G-d. We are not under any obligation to accept the things we are force fed in school and through the TV. Look around and you will see that much of the world agree with me in principle if not in faith.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…

The creator was understood to be G-d by those people, and they are clearly referring to the Christian G-d. The progressive view taught in schools is just that, the progressive view. Historically the evidence says these people were Christians, in a Christian culture. Arguments to the contrary are always made when one wants to avoid the consequences of recognizing G-d.

If we derive our rights from men, yes, of course yours are as valid. Therefore, the majority rule comes into play. Hence the republic. If we derive our rights from God, and feel we have the right to enforce our rules on others (which is what the banning of “moral evils” would be, we force others to live against their consciences. That is theocracy, that is, government controlled by religion. Would you that all governments were controlled by religion? Where would non-Christians live? It’s not particularly Christian to force people to vote against their morals.

Also, I am aware this is not strictly an American board. However, I do not possess a knowlege of foreign governments. Therefore I have no authority to speak on them. I can offer my viewpoint on the workings of religious viewpoint in American government however, so I offer that with all the humility I can muster. The fact remains that religious freedom is the guarantee of this nation. If that contradicts someone’s view that all “moral evils” should be illegal I have no power to alter that. After all, someone publishing blasphemous material does not violate anyone’s rights. Preventing them from doing so violates their rights. Throughout history, there have been things legal that are banned by religion, and it has not been the position of religion to make laws on these things, except by certain members of those religions.

After all, supposing that blasphemy is banned. This bars religious expression. Who decides what is blasphemy? According to your scenario, the majority, according to their beliefs. Suppose that Catholic writings were banned as blasphemy, or as heresy? This would lead only to a stronger Catholic force working to reverse the decision. Is all this fighting worth it when one should lead people to Christ in love and truth, and not by forcing them to obey God’s law?

After all, in conclusion, God has given human beings free will. They can obey or disobey him. Throughout the Bible people turn away from God and disobey His commands by free will, for, while God tells people to do things, he does not force them. He tells them to repent; he does not force them. Who are we to command what God has not?

I think you misunderstand. There are no circumstances of any kind that justify a right to commit a moral evil. One simply cannot derive a right to commit a moral evil from G-d. The fact that such a thing leads to theocracy is perfectly acceptable to me. What is not acceptable to me is the murder of 50,000,000 innocent children. Which is the direct result of men determining that we can have a right to commit a moral evil. Better a theocracy, than a concentration camp. Society should be conducted entirely in accordance with Christian principle. Christian principle because it is the One True Faith. Mathematically verifiable through the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy. We are absolutely certain that Christ is the prophesied Messiah. Other faiths are false by definition. This does not mean that we convert people by force. We could simply restrict any non-Christian religious expression to private spaces. This is not a new idea. Its the same things as when they take the 10 commandments out of court rooms. Many countries have restrictions on religious expression. Even Canada fines Bishops who publish anti-homosexual statements in their diocesan newsletters. Because you are only familiar with the American system, you assume it is wrong to do these things in some way, but it clearly isn’t to other people around the world. You, like me, were just indoctrinated in elementary school to accept thee progressive view of history, that desperately tries to ignore G-d. We are not under any obligation to accept the things we are force fed in school and through the TV. Look around and you will see that much of the world agree with me in principle if not in faith.

 

[Lovesa]

The fact that such a thing leads to theocracy is perfectly acceptable to me. What is not acceptable to me is the murder of 50,000,000 innocent children. Which is the direct result of men determining that we can have a right to commit a moral evil. Better a theocracy, than a concentration camp. Society should be conducted entirely in accordance with Christian principle. Christian principle because it is the One True Faith. Mathematically verifiable through the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy. We are absolutely certain that Christ is the prophesied Messiah. Other faiths are false by definition. This does not mean that we convert people by force. We could simply restrict any non-Christian religious expression to private spaces. This is not a new idea. Its the same things as when they take the 10 commandments out of court rooms.

As much as other countries may not be as entrenched in religious freedom as this one, a majority opinion does not make for correctness. Elsewise, many things you call “moral evils” would be correct, no?

This is one of the reasons many people aren’t comfortable with religion dictating things. Theocracy has historically been abused in terrible ways, leading to the persecution and forced hiding of other religious groups. While you may be comfortable with a theocracy, most people are not. Theocracies have been interpreted, even by religious, as the very moral evils that you would prevent.

Also, most Christians, even, I’m willing to wager (based on the devoted Catholics I know) a good number of Catholics, do not believe that Christianity is “mathematically verifiable”. So, all the prophecies are fulfilled? Could the writers of the New Testament not have just been very good Old Testament scholars who added those things in? I don’t believe that myself, but it’s an argument many in our nation hold to. Christianity is a matter of faith, not of attempting to prove things as irrefutable fact. Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible says, none could believe, so it is not just a matter of doing the math.

I don’t mean to imply that faith shouldn’t influence voting, but what you’re describing is a theocracy. This may be good in your opinion, but Christianity is a belief system, not a political philosophy intended to go into the world and stamp out all other faiths. Even if forcing other faiths underground has historical precedent, it is (in my opinion) nothing like Christ’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself” or like his command to “speak the truth in love”. Even when the apostles met non-believers, they did not attempt to outlaw their anti-biblical customs via the government. They preached the word and acted in love and truth.

 

[Lovesa]

The creator was understood to be G-d by those people, and they are clearly referring to the Christian G-d. The progressive view taught in schools is just that, the progressive view. Historically the evidence says these people were Christians, in a Christian culture. Arguments to the contrary are always made when one wants to avoid the consequences of recognizing G-d.

“As the circumstances and opinions of different societies vary, so the acts which may do them right or wrong must vary also, for virtue does not consist in the act we do but in the end it is to effect. If it is to effect the happiness of him to whom it is directed, it is virtuous; while in a society under different circumstances and opinions the same act might produce pain and would be vicious. The essence of virtue is in doing good to others, while what is good may be one thing in one society and its contrary in another.” --Thomas Jefferson

“Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political, I deem [one of the] essential principles of our government and, consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration.” --Thomas Jefferson

Are these the words of a man who want the country run strictly by Christian principles? Considering the skepticism of a good many of the Constitutional signers, is it fair to claim that Christianity is the sole basis of the constitution? In a country founded on religious liberty, this does not seem the case. Furthermore, the country did not have a sizeable non-Christian population when the Constitution was written. While they may have had a Christian god in mind, they also had males with property in mind when they wrote “All men are created equal.” In the spirit of democracy, we read these words differently today, else women would not have equal rights. Is it not fair to do the same for religious liberty, a matter of something unproveable which is also a matter of consciense?

Also of consequence is the tendency for absolutism in any society to lead to hideous atrocities. The death of the 50 million is terrible, to be sure. All deaths are. However, theocracies corrupt themselves, and lead to more death.

How do you reconcile your thinking with this, anyway: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html ?

“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”

 

[SteveGC]

I’ve only read a few replies here, and many may have already said this, but I just wanted to offer this:

This is not a dilemma of unequal rights. Everyone is free to launch a campaign to change whatever they want changed, targeting whatever entity they desire. That’s a benefit/condition of being part of the human race. Someone who complains that Catholics can lobby against civil law, but that they do not have the right to lobby for a change to Catholic doctrine is confusing the right to campaign with the successful potentiality of that campaign.

In other words, non-Catholics have every right in the world to campaign for change in The Church. Problem is, their campaign will never succeed…but that doesn’t deny their right to campaign. And often the Catholic campaign to change civil law does not succeed, but sometimes it does. The difference is in the governing authority. Man’s law is pliable and transitory, so campaigns from all sides often succeed in changing it. God’s law is rigid and permanent, so campaigns against it will never succeed. The secularist is upset that this is so. They mask the issue by claiming they have no right to try and change it, then argue against our right to try and change “theirs”.

Steve

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As much as other countries may not be as entrenched in religious freedom as this one, a majority opinion does not make for correctness. Elsewise, many things you call “moral evils” would be correct, no?

You’re right, people are not correct just because of majority opinion.

This is one of the reasons many people aren’t comfortable with religion dictating things. Theocracy has historically been abused in terrible ways, leading to the persecution and forced hiding of other religious groups. While you may be comfortable with a theocracy, most people are not. Theocracies have been interpreted, even by religious, as the very moral evils that you would prevent.

I don’t know what terrible evils you refer too. I do know that secular governments murdered more than 100,000,000 in the last century. Russia, China, Germany, Pol Pot, Uganda, Vietnam, Cuba, and the list goes on. I do not know that theocracy is a moral evil in itself.

Also, most Christians, even, I’m willing to wager (based on the devoted Catholics I know) a good number of Catholics, do not believe that Christianity is “mathematically verifiable”.

Every single Christian is duty bound to recognize it. Christ Fulfilling the Messianic Prophecies is why the Christian religion exists.

So, all the prophecies are fulfilled? Could the writers of the New Testament not have just been very good Old Testament scholars who added those things in? I don’t believe that myself, but it’s an argument many in our nation hold to. Christianity is a matter of faith, not of attempting to prove things as irrefutable fact. Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible says, none could believe, so it is not just a matter of doing the math.

Christianity is a matter of the theological virtue of faith, trust in the goodness of G-d. Not belief in in something without sufficient reason. Collusion is an impossibility because the nature of many prophecies and the fact they were written and fulfilled hundreds of years apart foretelling events man cannot control.

I don’t mean to imply that faith shouldn’t influence voting, but what you’re describing is a theocracy. This may be good in your opinion, but Christianity is a belief system, not a political philosophy intended to go into the world and stamp out all other faiths. Even if forcing other faiths underground has historical precedent, it is (in my opinion) nothing like Christ’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself” or like his command to “speak the truth in love”. Even when the apostles met non-believers, they did not attempt to outlaw their anti-biblical customs via the government. They preached the word and acted in love and truth.

No one is proposing that Christianity is a political philosophy. The particular system of government does not matter. Democracies, oligarchies, dictatorships. Can all be made to comport with Christian values. Nor do I mean to force other faiths underground, there would be nothing wrong with treating other faiths exactly as the secular system does and restrict their public expression. Not their private. This is what we already do. Loving my neighbor as my self requires acting against moral evil. Imagine a society where every child is born. Imagine a place where divorce is so rare that every child grows up with two parents. Imagine a society without nursing homes or social programs. Where families are legally responsible for each others welfare. What about a world where absolutely everything that can be done to support the Christian family is done? How about a world where the moral is more important than the dollar? As long as there is free will, there will be evil. But we do not have to cooperate. We can do better.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“As the circumstances and opinions of different societies vary, so the acts which may do them right or wrong must vary also, for virtue does not consist in the act we do but in the end it is to effect. If it is to effect the happiness of him to whom it is directed, it is virtuous; while in a society under different circumstances and opinions the same act might produce pain and would be vicious. The essence of virtue is in doing good to others, while what is good may be one thing in one society and its contrary in another.” --Thomas Jefferson

“Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political, I deem [one of the] essential principles of our government and, consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration.” --Thomas Jefferson

Are these the words of a man who want the country run strictly by Christian principles?

I don’t disagree with this. Men should be treated equally under the law. Not religions. We already restrict religious practice. Its not a new thing. I also don’t think it that the opinion of men trumps G-ds.

How do you reconcile your thinking with this, anyway: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html ?

“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”

Yeah, I am not talking about restricting religious freedom anymore than we already do.

 

[Lovesa]

I don’t know what terrible evils you refer too. I do know that secular governments murdered more than 100,000,000 in the last century. Russia, China, Germany, Pol Pot, Uganda, Vietnam, Cuba, and the list goes on. I do not know that theocracy is a moral evil in itself.

Honestly? You don’t know? At the risk of sounding utterly cliche, I’d like to point out not just the Crusades, but the governmental systems of not a few nations promoting Sharia law, the suppression of dissent in the Puritan colonies of the Americas, the impact of the Japanese notion of the emperor as god that led to many of Japan’s darker moments, and, not least, the banning of Christianity in the Roman Empire for some time. Religion has at least as many evils as the secular world, and it does no one good to deny it.

Every single Christian is duty bound to recognize it. Christ Fulfilling the Messianic Prophecies is why the Christian religion exists.
Christianity is a matter of the theological virtue of faith, trust in the goodness of G-d. Not belief in in something without sufficient reason. Collusion is an impossibility because the nature of many prophecies and the fact they were written and fulfilled hundreds of years apart foretelling events man cannot control.

And the events could not possibly be made up? Christians are obligated to believe that, but the rest of the world is not.

No one is proposing that Christianity is a political philosophy. The particular system of government does not matter. Democracies, oligarchies, dictatorships. Can all be made to comport with Christian values. Nor do I mean to force other faiths underground, there would be nothing wrong with treating other faiths exactly as the secular system does and restrict their public expression. Not their private. This is what we already do. Loving my neighbor as my self requires acting against moral evil. Imagine a society where every child is born.

And moral evil is whatever the church says it is, yes? So, now we ban premarital intercourse; anyone caught with a prostitute is arrested, etc. Missing church is also a “moral evil”. Shall we persecute the other religions when they don’t attend church? This is an incredibly dangerous position to take, morally.

Besides that, human dignity is more than being allowed to carry on one’s faith in secret. Forcing religions into hiding is persecution. And, for the record, I don’t agree with the current laws forcing religious expression into secret either. Not being for theocracy is not the same as supporting the current system.

Imagine a place where divorce is so rare that every child grows up with two parents. Imagine a society without nursing homes or social programs. Where families are legally responsible for each others welfare. What about a world where absolutely everything that can be done to support the Christian family is done? How about a world where the moral is more important than the dollar? As long as there is free will, there will be evil. But we do not have to cooperate. We can do better.

Honestly? Considering that it would be impossible to achieve without suppressing free will, without violating the consciences of our fellow men, I would shudder to live in such a world. I would rather allow people to commit what you call “moral evils” and have a world where people live with or without the free love of God as they choose than a Stepford Wife situation like that. There is a reason Heaven is a promise. It’s not here.

Aside from your scenario, Christians have the right to try to ban things which infringe on the life and liberty of others. Abortion may fall under this, if anti-abortionists manage to prove that it is a human being killed. (My opinion on this is of no issue; I merely state the requirements of proof.) This may be voted on by religious conscience.

However, forcing other religions underground? That’s not religious freedom. That’s tyranny.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Honestly…

No one is talking about doing anything terribly different than we do today. We simply change the laws to comport with the Christian culture we wish to foster. You are letting your imagination run wild.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

First, we live here too and we are just as rightfully allowed to “interfere” as are the secularists.

Second, our ideas are better than their are … not all ideas are equal … Hitler and Marx had some ideas and they were TERRIBLE.

 

[Lovesa]

No one is talking about doing anything terribly different than we do today. We simply change the laws to comport with the Christian culture we wish to foster. You are letting your imagination run wild.

Perhaps, but if things as simple as blasphemy were to be made illegal it could be very dangerous. After all, if everything condemned by the Bible were illegal there would be no room for all the prison inmates.

First, we live here too and we are just as rightfully allowed to “interfere” as are the secularists.

Second, our ideas are better than their are … not all ideas are equal … Hitler and Marx had some ideas and they were TERRIBLE.

Of course there is a right to interfere. However, responsibility comes with every right. Is it morally responsible to ban things because one’s own religion says they are wrong? Is that not forcing one’s own religion on others? The law (governmental law) is not there to make people good. It is there to protect them enough to let them live free lives.

You seem to have a strange view of Marx, as well. He was atheistic, granted, but where did he advocate murder or other heinous deeds? That his ideas led to great crimes is sure; however, that is the fault of his successors. His book as it stands advocates no evil.

Also, Hitler is a tired argument. Mere mention of him seems to be deemed enough to quiet people for some reason, as if he is the boogeyman of modern debate. However, if he must be brought up, you are aware that his regime was religious suppression? You are aware that he outlawed things that you consider “morally reprehensible”? And look where that went.

I don’t mean to suggest people shouldn’t vote by their religious values. However, suggesting that banning “moral evils” which harm no one is an absolute necessity seems strange and dangerous. Like I noted, the apostles made no forays into banning pagan religions. Why not follow their model of gentle persuasion, rather than force?

 

[Lovesa]

Second, our ideas are better than their are … not all ideas are equal … Hitler and Marx had some ideas and they were TERRIBLE.

Just a quick note: Secularists are not Hitler or Marx. They are people with strong morals who believe that faith is best kept when it is not imposed.

Those “moral evils”? They are not believed to be moral evils by a good many people, and under our constitution, if their actions do not impact your rights, there is no good reason for a law banning it. Sure, we’d all like a lower divorce rate. How would that be achieved, exactly? Would divorce be banned? Would only Christians be allowed to get married? It all smacks of something a little too controlling for comfort.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Perhaps, but if things as simple as blasphemy were to be made illegal it could be very dangerous. After all, if everything condemned by the Bible were illegal there would be no room for all the prison inmates.

The same might be said of drug, prostitution, and a number of other laws. laws, but that doesn’t prevent us from enforcing the law anyway.

 

[Lovesa]

The same might be said of drug, prostitution, and a number of other laws. laws, but that doesn’t prevent us from enforcing the law anyway.

Here we get into sticky territory. These also are crimes some think hurt no one, so I’m afraid I find no basis for the refutation of my argument here. After all, I never said I support all current laws.

 

[Rock_Happy]

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.

This should send alarm bells ringing at the Vatican. As people have become more educated in the northern countries, the Church has lost influence. In order to keep the treasury full, the Church has turned its back on its traditional constituency, and tried to establish itself among the uneducated in Africa and South America. For Brazil to brazenly reject Church doctrine does not bode well for the success of the Church’s plan. The election of Benedict XVI is seen as an effort to entrench conservative ideologies within the Church. If the conservative target countries for Church growth reject the Church, then it has no place to go. It has burned its bridges in Europe and the US, and if it is rejected in South America or Africa, it has reached a dead end.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here we get into sticky territory. These also are crimes some think hurt no one, so I’m afraid I find no basis for the refutation of my argument here. After all, I never said I support all current laws.

The point being that we don’t decide which laws to have based on our ability to imprison people. Those things are illegal because of their morality. Whether people agree with them or not, it is a demonstration of our willingness to legislate morality when it suits us. I do no think it is wrong for us to do the very same thing. There is no reason to prefer “secular” over “Christian”. Indeed we have every reason to prefer “Christian”.