Why I Was Pro-Kerry (What Makes This So Wrong?)

[chicago]

Most law is the setting of a lowest common denominator which must not be crossed lest the good of society and individuals be harmed. Some law is the setting of a minimum standard which is expected for the good of society and defense of the dignity of persons.

That said, the standard can not be merely relativistic and positivistic in nature. Therefore, the following statement…

Karynna_Raye:

The fact remains that the law must remain impartial to moral/religious beliefs to ensure that the rights of everyone are protected, no matter what they may believe.

is a bit misleading. Yes, the law must be general enough so as to protect everyone’s rights unpredjudiciously. However, when the claim of some to have a moral or religious exercize is such that the activity goes against that which is objectively true about the dignity of man and the good of society, then it must be rejected for there will be a natural conflict, and everybody can’t just “get along and go along” while allowing the others to do whatever they like. In reality, there will be “winners and losers” as some ideology will become the norm.

Take, for example, someone who might claim that their religious beliefs requires them to perform human sacrifice. Sorry, Charlie, but that’s bad tuna which will make us all sick. We can’t just allow you that “personal” right without relation to some alternative morality to yours, even if thsi creates a divide between varying systems of belief which, then, sets a standard in law.

One can not, therefore, legitimately claim to have a personal “right” to whatever they wish. For when we get into certain questions of what society can tolerate or approve regarding the desires (sincere as though they may be) of some who would like legal approval for what might be objectively immoral or against the very nature of man, a decision must be definitely rendered that will either be permissive or restrictive; the two options are inherantly exclusive. In this sense, one can not ultimately seperate law from morality or, possibly even religiousity, even though the state can legitimately remain neutral to denominationalism and the peculiarities of particular religious belief and practice of discipline which is not a matter concerning the common good.

 

[Exporter]

Karrynna Raye,

Your profile says you are a 16 year old who thinks religion is “unnaplicable”. You came to a Catholic Forum to obviously to express you opinion of Kerry supporters, you being one of them.

From your own words, I think your stance is very prejudiced!
You wrote," If our President would lie to us about something like that, then what else have we been told out of dishonesty? As Ralph Nader stated, “Bush is an oversized Corporation disguised as a man.” I agree with this statement in full, and would like to add that had Nader held any chance at winning the election, I would have been behind him in full, not because of his statement of Bush, but because his intellect is quite impressive.This type of intellect is needed so that informed, decisions are made off of an objective viewpoint that allows the whole truth to be seen, and not clouded by personal beliefs. That said, I would like to close by stating that I would like to have a President who is smarter than, if not as smart, as I am, and as one should be able to see in the disorganization of his addresses to the public (when the address is impromtu and the speeches not pre-written by someone other than Bush himself), Bush fails to fit this bill. I do not believe that to be Pro-Kerry was to be anti-Catholic and will stand firm in this belief until adequate reaonsing or evidence is given that would convince me to do otherwise.

You chose this fight, you are asking us to not answer back to you. That is juvinile.

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Originally posted by Exporter:
Your profile says you are a 16 year old who thinks religion is “unnaplicable”. You came to a Catholic Forum to obviously to express you opinion of Kerry supporters, you being one of them.

To start, the only reason my profile states that my religious denomination is “unapplicable”, was because at the time of joining this forum, I was seeking a return to the Catholic faith, but had not, as of yet, completely conformed. I didn’t want to claim a religion I was not yet practicing, out of respect for those who were. Furthermore, I did not come to this forum just to express my oppinion on John Kerry, if you’ll see, I have posted several times before this, and in most of those posts, I was seeking counsel on how to return to Catholicism. Therefore your claim that I “obviously” came here solely to express my oppinion on John Kerry is unfounded. I will not comment on being a “16” year old, as I don’t see how in fact that helps your argument.

Origianally posted by Exporter:
You chose this fight, you are asking us to not answer back to you. That is juvinile.

If you had read and fully comprehended my post, you would have at least acknowledged the fact that I stated more than once that I posted here for the sole purpose of discovering what other people think, and in the process, perhaps gaining a better understanding of their position. In case you wish to continue your trend of not finding the facts before you make an assumption about my integrity, I’ve listed it here:

Originally posted by Karynna_Raye:
I realize that as only a returning Catholic, my viewpoints may hold extreme errors, and ask that any reading this please bear with me. …Feel free to comment and correct any flawed logic, as I am posting this here for that sole purpose.

I made my willingness to listen undeniably clear in the first post, but if you find you need further proof, here’s more:

Originally posted by Karynna_Raye:
…and will stand firm in this belief until adequate reaonsing or evidence is given that would convince me to do otherwise.

This is, in fact, the exact same quote you used to try to prove me juvenile. I said, quite clearly, that I will stand firm in this belief until *adequate reasoning or evidence is given. *It is an open invitation to give me that reasoning or evidence. Which is exactly what most people posting here have done. All, in fact, previous to your post have done so, and had you read further, you would have noticed that I remained quite receptive to their (name removed by moderator)ut:

Originally posted by Karynna_Raye:
As an example, even those who would do something as abhorrent as take the life of another (and here I must thank Vince for changing my views on pro-choice, as I believe I may soon be swayed to pro- life, though I don’t see how I could have missed the sound logic in your position in the first place)

Here I not only make inherent that I have remained open minded to the comments of others, but have in fact admitted to an errror that I had made in my judgement. I really do not see how you can claim me juvenile on the basis that I “don’t want to hear comment”, when I have not only clearly stated that the sole purpose of my posting was to have such commentary, and have been swayed by the sound evidence of a previously opposing viewpoint.

 

[Karynna_Raye]

Chicago, I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring your commentary, but I have to get to bed (I’m exhausted and have to somehow convince myself to get out of bed at five… ) , but hopefully will be able to reply to you tomorrow. Thanks again!

 

[chicago]

Karynna_Raye:

Chicago, I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring your commentary, but I have to get to bed (I’m exhausted and have to somehow convince myself to get out of bed at five… ) , but hopefully will be able to reply to you tomorrow. Thanks again!

Actually, I am quite thankful as I am exhausted and desperately need to go to bed now to also get up fairly early.

Good night! Or good morning when you read this. Or, well, whatever it is now.

 

[Pax]

Karynna Raye,

The subjects of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and the separation of church and state all require a lot of homework and study in order to become familiar with the arguments and logic surrounding them.

I think that you will find good secular arguments and logic that show abortion and embryonic stem cell research to be evils that we must avoid at all times. We must even avoid remote associations with these two things whenever it is humanly possible which would include how we vote. The religious moral principles against them are also quite sound and all Christians should rightly oppose them at every turn. The same holds true for same sex marriage and other agendas that are sweeping the country.

The concept of the “separation of church and state” is very misleading. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find this phrase. Unfortunately, some judges in their court decisions and some of our politicians coined the phrase in order to push an anti-religious agenda. The underlying Constitutional excuse for this action is found in the 1st Amendment. The Establishment Clause of the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Notice that Congress is not to pass any law respecting the establishment of religion (Congress must remain nuetral but they have not always done so.) This prohibition logically applies to the courts as well, but they unceasingly violated it by using the non-Constitutional term “separation of church and state.”

When we vote we must vote by way of a properly formed Christian conscience. We are entitled to the exercise of our religious freedoms and so are our leaders. Moral choices do not establish a religion. They emanate from both religion and the natural law and are legitimate outcomes for society when allowed as part of the political process. Without these guide posts society is lost.

Secularism, however godless, is a religion of sorts and it is rapidly taking center stage in our laws and court decisions. Abortion is a secular value set against a proper moral value that is pro-life. The same applies to embryonic stem cell research. Both of these must be opposed on constitutional, ethical, moral and religious grounds. Those that wish to eliminate religious based moral choices will actually do a disservice to the political process and remove the standards that keep society healthy. Morals are not based on political consensus. Their source is elsewhere and they are not negotiable. If this were not so, then we would routinely redefine truth over and over merely by cultural fad and political whim.