# Pope Ratzi **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 19, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086 "2005-04-19T17:22:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/341 "2005-04-20T20:52:52Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > 1. You might persuade casual Catholics that, indeed, the Vatican isn’t being fair; and by alienating them from the Church, they might start giving their energies toward humanitarian organizations that DO engage in good works; Eesh–poor wording. The Church obviously does engage in good works in many areas. Append “in the area of reproductive self-determination” to this item–I think the balance of the Church’s works in this area are very negative. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/342 "2005-04-20T20:54:30Z")
Thanks **Bricker** > [@](#): > > Sucks to be that guy, and it makes me glad I’m not Catholic. But I recognize that I’m only making a fool of myself if I sit outside the Vatican saying that I don’t think it’s fair. I’m not asking for fairness. Just honesty. You’re right, asking the Vatican to change policy would be foolish, however asking the Vatican to follow their own teachings seems the right thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/343 "2005-04-20T20:56:06Z")
**LHOD** , I’d agree that both are possible; but #1 falls under the category of “convince people not to be Catholic” and #2 indeed rests on the argument, sooner or later, being phrased in Catholic terms. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/344 "2005-04-20T21:05:21Z")
> [@furt](#): > > **LHOD** , I’d agree that both are possible; but #1 falls under the category of “convince people not to be Catholic” and #2 indeed rests on the argument, sooner or later, being phrased in Catholic terms. Well, as one or two people may have noticed 'round these parts, I’m something of a linguistic libertine :). I don’t think anyone, not even Mr. Benedict, owns the word “Catholic,” and so some people might consider themselves Catholic even if they stop believing in what the Pope says. Even if they don’t, I’m perfectly okay with trying to convince someone not to be a Catholic, as long as that effort is civil: trying to change someone’s mind on theological matters is hunky dory. I suspect we don’t have any disagreement here. As for the latter, I do think that a layman’s expression of anguish at the Church’s treatment will need to be translated into Vaticanese before it’ll do much good–but theologians may well be motivated to start that translation by hearing the layman’s passion. In that sense, I don’t think it’s foolish at all to voice concerns about Vatican policies to the Vatican. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/345 "2005-04-20T21:12:54Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Or we could argue over what the True Definition of “Un-American” is, but then we’re being linguistic ignoramuses, since there’s no such thing as a True Definition. > > I’ll start: I propose that “Un-American” should mean, “Alien to precepts accepted by a large number of American citizens–at least 20% of Americans.” By that standard, I think that **treis** is objectively wrong. I disagree with your standard. By your standard anything can be both American and un-American at the same time which obviously isn’t acceptable. When I use the term un-American I am refering to those activities or ideas that contradict the ideals of freedom, liberty and limited government on which America was founded. The majority opinion can be un-American and has been for the majority of America’s history. From slavery to discrimination to McCarthyism and to the encroachment of religion into public policy. Clearly any law based soley on religion violates both the letter and spirit of the first amendment. It certainly violates the ideal of the freedom to pursue happiness in the way I see fit. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > There’s another problem with un-American: whatever denotation we attach to the word, it’s gonna come with the connotation of “Bad.” We could define un-American as “Opposed to the theistic principles that the nation’s founders embodied,” or as, “Opposed to the concept that the United States should hold a predominant seat at the international table as the only superpower,” and in either case, I’d be happy to be un-American–but many people would shy away due to the very negative connotations the word has. > > I think, on reflection, we’re better off using a different word. Agreed. I am not a fan of playing the patriotism card and my using un-American was simply in response to Bricker’s use of it. Can we agree that laws who’s sole justification is a religious practice violates the ideal of freedom of religion by the majority imposing its religion on the minority and this is inherently wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/346 "2005-04-20T21:18:29Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > If your cause for voting a certain way is based on your religion, then you have violated the concept of the separation of church and state. You have attempted to impose your religion on all other people, regardless of whether they are practitioners of your religion. That’s a bad thing. > [@treis](#): > > Basing your vote on what God tells you to do is completely at odds with the tradition of religious freedom in this country. You are imposing your religious beliefs through government on others which is the exact opposite ideal this country was founded on. These arguments are beyond ludicrous. How can a voter possibly remove his beliefs from his voting decision? That is the whole point of voting, to elect someone who will support and fight for your beliefs! How can I separate myself from my beliefs? If I choose not to vote for someone because he is religious and will work towards things I do not believe, am I not still allowing religion to influence my vote? The ministers and religious folk who were (are) a major part of the fights against slavery, against the death penalty, for civil rights, etc., were all influenced by their faith. Should they have not allowed their faith to influence their actions? My action in opposition to religion infiltrating my government can only consist of voting for candidates who will not forward religious principles; it cannot consist of instituting an anti-religion voting test. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/347 "2005-04-20T21:22:17Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I disagree with your standard. By your standard anything can be both American and un-American at the same time which obviously isn’t acceptable. Not at all: while my suggestion allows two contradictory concepts both to be American, it doesn’t allow a concept to be both American and Un-American. I think my use of multiple negatives may have been confusing. Let me restate it: A concept is Un-American if fewer than 20% of Americans hold the concept to be true. > [@](#): > > When I use the term un-American I am refering to those activities or ideas that contradict the ideals of freedom, liberty and limited government on which America was founded. Hmm…that seems a very fuzzy category to me, given that the government had lots of contradictory ideals, sometimes held by the same person (viz. Jefferson’s response to Shay’s rebellion, which seems to approve both of the rebellion and of its quashing). I’m not sure that definition is very useful in a debate. > [@](#): > > Agreed. I am not a fan of playing the patriotism card and my using un-American was simply in response to Bricker’s use of it. > > Can we agree that laws who’s sole justification is a religious practice violates the ideal of freedom of religion by the majority imposing its religion on the minority and this is inherently wrong? Okay, I think we can dispense with the word “UnAmerican” now with no complaints. As for your second statement, I think I can agree with that–but a person might hold (for example) that murder is wrong, based wholly on their understanding of Buddha’s teachings, and vote accordingly without violating that separation of church and state. They needn’t show some secular reason to oppose murder. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/348 "2005-04-20T21:22:59Z")
Sigh, again no one is saying you have to seperate yourself from your beliefs just don’t impose them on others. To quote myself: > [@treis](#): > > In my view there are two aspects to a religions teaching, the first is a philosophical moral code and the second is a moral code for the adherents of that particular religion. The first sense is akin to looking at the major religions and their main prophet. Jesus Christ for the Christians, Mohammad for the Muslims and (I believe) Abraham for the Jews would be the main examples. If you just looked at these people as philospohers a clear moral code about what is right and wrong emerges. For example the story of the Good Samaratin teaches that we should help those in need regardless of who they are. Relying on these teachings for your moral code is permissible and just as valid as my philosophy. So for example if a person used this justification for sending humanitarian aid to North Korea I would have no problem with that. > > The second moral code of religion are those activities that the adherents must perform to be in good standing with that religion. These are things like not using condoms and going to church on days of obligation for Catholics and keeping Halal/Kosher for Muslims and Jews. This moral code is not an acceptable argument for justifying a law. If a person votes to ban homosexuality on the basis that it violates the laws of their religion in my view is not an acceptable justification. It is in essence imposing your religion through government on the citizentry. Certainly this is in violation of the spirit of the first amendment if not the actual letter of the law. > > To sum up its ok to justify laws on the philosophic teachings of your religion but it is not ok to justify laws on the grounds that your religion says you will go to hell if you commit that act. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/349 "2005-04-20T21:27:11Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > They needn’t show some secular reason to oppose murder. > > Daniel I disagree. I think it’s essential for any law to have a secular reason as well as be within realm the powers given to government to pass Constitutional muster. Individuals may indeed support a law based solely on their religious principles; but in the secular world, that’s not enough. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/350 "2005-04-20T21:31:02Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > I disagree. I think it’s essential for any law to have a secular reason as well as be within realm the powers given to government to pass Constitutional muster. Individuals may indeed support a law based solely on their religious principles; but in the secular world, that’s not enough. Hmm–I’m confused. Laws only have reasons, I think, within the brains of human beings–and you say that individuals may support a law based solely on their religious principles. Where, then, must the law have secular reasons? Within the brains of legislators? Within the brains of secularists? I’m not trying to be snarky; I really don’t understand. Naturally, as an atheist I’m strongly opposed to laws with solely religious justifications; however, I’m not sure that my opposition is based on some sort of metaprinciple that is by its nature higher than the principles on which religious people base their support for such laws. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/351 "2005-04-20T21:35:42Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Not at all: while my suggestion allows two contradictory concepts both to be American, it doesn’t allow a concept to be both American and Un-American. I think my use of multiple negatives may have been confusing. Let me restate it: > > A concept is Un-American if fewer than 20% of Americans hold the concept to be true. Ah my fault. If something passes your test as American then it is not necessarily true that the opposite viewpoint is un-American. There still are problems with that standard but I don’t wish to argue them. Its better if we just dropped it. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > As for your second statement, I think I can agree with that–but a person might hold (for example) that murder is wrong, based wholly on their understanding of Buddha’s teachings, and vote accordingly without violating that separation of church and state. They needn’t show some secular reason to oppose murder. Certainly and I seperated religious beliefs into two category’s in the post I quoted above. From now one when I say religion as a justification I mean the second part of moral code. Namely the idea that something is wrong becuase God arbitrarily said so. If we can agree on that the next logical step that when voting on a law using religion as a justification is wrong? As by definition once that law is passed its justification is religion and we have sort of agreed that is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/352 "2005-04-20T21:37:37Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Agreed. I am not a fan of playing the patriotism card and my using un-American was simply in response to Bricker’s use of it. Which, in turn, was in response to **SolGrundy** ’s claim that such actions were not American in [post 305](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6077104&postcount=305) of this thread; I believe that was the first instance that spawned the ensuing commentary. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/353 "2005-04-20T21:43:34Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Certainly and I seperated religious beliefs into two category’s in the post I quoted above. From now one when I say religion as a justification I mean the second part of moral code. Namely the idea that something is wrong becuase God arbitrarily said so. Err…which post? I’m afraid the back-and-forth has got me confused. Near as I can tell, while I think someone’s being very fuzzy-headed to vote for a law based solely on their understanding of what God wants them to do, it’s a legitimate reason for them to vote that way; my job, then, is to convince them either that their vote is inconsistent with their notion of a compassionate deity, or that their notion of a compassionate deity is incorrect. Given that I don’t like banging my head into walls, I’ll usually try for the former. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/354 "2005-04-20T21:44:48Z")
Post 348 ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/355 "2005-04-20T21:48:05Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I’m not trying to be snarky; I really don’t understand. Naturally, as an atheist I’m strongly opposed to laws with solely religious justifications; however, I’m not sure that my opposition is based on some sort of metaprinciple that is by its nature higher than the principles on which religious people base their support for such laws. The Constitution lists specific powers the government has been granted. A law have a purpose that advances meeting the goals of the Nation. A Blue Law making it illegal to buy pantyhose on Sunday supports no rational goal of the government. Laws requiring bars to be closed on Sunday don’t support the execution of powers granted to the government. Their only purpose is to satisfy a religious prohibition. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to make sure laws fit the bill. ---
**Author:** ![Selkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@Selkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Selkie)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/356 "2005-04-20T21:50:31Z")
I realize the Catholic church likes to pride itself on the immutability of its teachings and the infalliability of the Pope, but Catholic doctrine can, does, and has changed in the past, on everything from selling indulgences and slaughtering non-believers to eating meat on Fridays. I don’t think it’s at all out of line or inappropriate to hope that the College of Cardinals had selected Pope who was more likely to re-examine doctrine in accordance with modern reality as well as tradition. I’m more than a little concerned that he almost immediately came out with a list of “threats” rather than a positive message. Something along the lines of “The modern church faces a lot of challenges in the world ranging from (famine, AIDs, whatever), and I look finding real solutions in accordance with our faith” or somesuch probably would have inspired many Catholics; it certainly would have been reassuring, rather than alienating, to the many non-Catholics in the world. Is the media coverage an accurate reflection of his statements? I don’t know; haven’t had time to research adequately, and don’t know when I will. I’ve been hearing about enough concern about his hardline attitudes from actual Catholics not to believe there’s fire under this particular cloud of smoke. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/357 "2005-04-20T22:03:12Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > These arguments are beyond ludicrous. How can a voter possibly remove his beliefs from his voting decision? That is the whole point of voting, to elect someone who will support and fight for your beliefs! > > How can I separate myself from my beliefs? If I choose not to vote for someone because he is religious and will work towards things I do not believe, am I not still allowing religion to influence my vote? Der. Read the whole post, please, before calling it ludicrous. You don’t completely remove your beliefs from your voting decision; that would be absurd. But neither do you let your personal beliefs on the issue at hand be the sole determinant of how you vote. You incorporate your personal beliefs along with your civic responsibility to those who don’t necessarily share your religious beliefs to make sure that the government treats everyone fairly. I may have a moral objection to gambling (I don’t; it’s just an example). But there’s no rational objection to it that’ll convince me it’s harmful if other people do it. So my personal belief against gambling means that I don’t gamble (or drink alcohol, or eat pork, or have sex outside of marriage, or have sex with someone of my own gender). My personal belief that it’s wrong to act completely out of self-interest and impose my beliefs on others, means that I vote to favor legalized gambling for those who choose to take part in it. So I vote to allow it, while still free not to do it myself, and even to encourage other people not to do it because it’s sinful and immoral. Everybody’s a winner! ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/358 "2005-04-20T22:03:19Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > It is the responsibility of the judiciary to make sure laws fit the bill. Absolutely. However, one could advance a secular reason for those laws too. Here, the legislature tried to advance a law this session to allow liquor stores to be open on Sunday. It failed. The arguments against the proposed law seemed to say to me that the secular purpose of that law is to enable grocery stores to sell tons of 3.2 beer on Sundays. The secular purpose of the law prohibiting car dealerships from opening on Sundays may be to allow buyers an opportunity to browse the lots without being hounded by salesmen. Or it may be as simple as “the world would be a better place if this were law.” They have a perfect right to attempt to pass such laws, just as I have a perfect right to oppose them. And I do depend on the juduciary to slap them down if they go too far. And they do nowadays, mostly. When I look at how much religion ruled the public spere when I was growing up in the 60s, the progress is astonishing. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/359 "2005-04-20T22:11:46Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > I may have a moral objection to gambling (I don’t; it’s just an example). But there’s no rational objection to it that’ll convince me it’s harmful if other people do it. So my personal belief against gambling means that I don’t gamble (or drink alcohol, or eat pork, or have sex outside of marriage, or have sex with someone of my own gender). My personal belief that it’s wrong to act completely out of self-interest and impose my beliefs on others, means that I vote to favor legalized gambling for those who choose to take part in it. Perfect example. I have voted _against_ legalized gambling every single time it has been on the ballot here. I believe there are rational objections. I believe legalized gambling damages society in general, and the locations where it is in particular. I believe that those who support it are looking at their self-interest rather than the interest of society as a whole. Given that that is my belief, why in the world should I not attempt to impose it on others? That’s my right. It’s the right of those who believe otherwise to oppose me. ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086/360 "2005-04-20T22:15:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is no such rule. > > There is a rule against the establishment, by the government, of religion. > > There is a rule against government-imposed religious tests for public office. > > THERE IS NO RULE REQUIRING VOTERS TO IGNORE OR MINIMIZE RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE WHEN CASTING THEIR VOTE. > > None. Zero. A voter basing his vote entirely and completely on, “This is what God wants me to do,” is not un-American. And you cannot point to one single scintilla of law or regulation that says otherwise. > > What you said above is wrong. There is no such rule. So what are you telling me, exactly? That there’s such a rule? It’s absolutely no surprise at all that you, **Bricker** , would be saying that because there’s no explicit law to that effect, it doesn’t apply. So save me some time here: would I be completely banging my head against the wall to try and explain how the _principle_ of the separation of church and state applies to all people, not just the government? Why, exactly, do you believe that the framers imposed such limitations on the government in establishing an official religion? Is it just some arbitrary law pulled out of the either? Was it only out of reaction to religious persecution between Catholics and Protestants in England, and nothing else? I say no, obviously. I say there’s a valid principle there that does and should apply to every single aspect of government, from federal policy right down to individual voters. If it’s wrong for the government to choose one belief system’s values over another’s, then it’s wrong for the individuals who make up the government and define the government to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pope-ratzi/300086.md?page=19)