Gasp yourself as I specifically said that I do not have a problem with a religious orginization campaigning for laws. Certainly there are much more prominent moral and ethical arguments against racism than religious ones. In fact even (gasp) athiests oppose racism.
I’m happy to have the church meddle in American politics, actually. Just let them register as a PAC and start paying taxes like all the rest of us, and they can engage away.
But when the bastards start using the Church as a tax shelter from which to take potshots at politicians, that’s when I get angry at their interference here.
(Of course, I’ll also get angry at them for making atrocious political decisions that result in loss of life, just like I’d get angry at any other politician who did the same thing).
Daniel
Yes, and then immediately afterward you say the Church should butt out of political matters, which makes your argument contradictory and illogical.
A law? No. But a vote? Why the bleeding hell not?
And can’t be, unless a majority of voters decide they want it that way. If a majority of voters decide they like the worldview offered by the Catholic Church more than by a political party, you’ve lost politically.
Again this boils down to:
- A lot of people don’t like Catholic doctrine and wish it was more like their own.
- Those people wish the Catholic church was less influential, except when it’s saying things they like.
Well, I wish the Pope took orders from me, too. Hell, I wish God did.
Separated at birth?
Pope Benedict XvI
Evil genius Simon Bar Sinister
Well, yeah. And? When powerful folks are changing the world in a way that I don’t like, I tend to bitch about it. Most folks do. As Lily Tomlin said, Man invented language to satisfy his deep-seated need to complain.
Daniel
We’re talking about policy, not doctrine. I just don’t want the Church impeding the world’s ability to fight a plague. I dn’t give a shit about their doctrine as long as they don’t spread disinformation about public health or pursue other policies which cause or aggravate human suffering.
And I personally haven’t said I wish the Church was less influential, I just wish it was more responsible and ethical in how it used the influence that it does have. I wish the Church was as zealous and frontal about opposing the invasion of Iraq or the death penalty (both of which actually kill people) as it is in condemning homosexuals and reproductive rights (which hurt nobody).
[Supertramp]
“Well hey there
You tell me you’re a holy man
But, although I am just a beginner,
I don’t see you as a winner…
I said, Father (Ratzinger) you’re all mixed up,
Collecting sinners in an old tin cup,
you tell the children what they need to know,
But will they listen when it’s time to go.”
[/Supertramp]
[Eagles]
“There’s a new (Pope) in town
(I don’t want to hear it)
There’s a new (Pope) in town”
[/Eagles]
Dio, this is where if you wish to have conversation with Catholics leading to mutual understnding, you have to deal with their premises. To a faithful Catholic, abortion is murder, and homosexual acts are sin, period.
I don’t agree; but if the conversation is about whether or not the church can deny communion to politicians or influence social policies, you’re not going to get anywhere by rejecting their premises. Otherwise, everything you say amounts to “well, there’s no God anyway, so it’s all bullshit.” True, perhaps, but unpersuasive and unproductive. There’s no point on going over and over and over the same terrain.
My wife is Catholic and she doesn’t believe either one of those things. A lot of Catholics don’t. A lot of Catholics also disagree with the Church on other things as well, such as the ordination of women, contraception and divorce, not to mention the policy of aiding and abetting child molesters. There is no necessity to agree with the Vatican on everything in order to be a Catholic.
My criticism of the Church only pertains to when it actually causes qualitative harm to other people. Lying about condoms in an AIDS ravaged culture is harmful. Their beliefs do not make it less harmful. Doctrine is not a justification for causing harm.
No it doesn’t, you just apparently don’t understand it. Let me try and making it as bleeding obvious as possible.
Religions Politicking, OK
Using government to impose your religions moral code, Not OK
Catholic Church Politiciking, OK
Catholic Church consistantly trying to impose its moral code through government not OK
You can’t seperate the justification for a vote from the justification of the law that vote brings into effect. If the majority of people vote for a law becuase of their religious beliefs then the justification for that law is religion. Now that is not 100% of the time becuase religious and moral arguments often overlap.
Not necessarily. Luckily I live in a country that offers me certain constitutional protections from those that wish to impose their religion on me. Regardless just becuase 51% of the populous decides to impose its religion does not make that a just law.
Honestly, I don’t get it either. In what way would a religion politic, if not to impose their religion’s moral code? Can you give me some examples?
As I’ve said, I’m fine with religious politicking; I just think they ought to lose their tax-exempt status as soon as they start. Give them no special favors in the political arena.
Daniel
That’s true.
In a sense.
In one sense, being baptized and confirmed makes you a Catholic, period. These sacraments leave an indelible mark on the soul. (That wording shows my age; I learned the Baltimore Cathechism. The new Cathechism of the Catholic Church says that those sacraments “imprint a character.”)
So in one sense, one may believe whatever one wishes and still “be a Catholic.” One may deny the divinity of Jesus, the reality of the Resurrection, and even the existence of God and still “be a Catholic.”
However, there are certain teachings of the Church which the Church regards as mandatory - denial of these truths is heresy. A baptized, confirmed Catholic who denies the the divinity of Jesus or the reality of the Resurrection is in a state of heresy, even though such a person is still a Catholic. Even were such a person to be excommunicated, they would still be a Catholic – just a Catholic forbidden by decree to approach the sacraments under most circumstances.
A person who obstinately persists in denial of truths or teachings for which the Church requires belief is accurately said to not be in union with the Holy See.
There are cases in which abortion is not murder. But if a person asserts that abortion is never murder, then they denying a teaching that is required belief of all Catholics, and they are not in union with the Holy See.
The ordination of women, in contrast, is simply a policy of the Church. One may disagree with it without breaking one’s union with the Holy See. To pick a similarly-situated example, one may believe that priests should celebrate Mass in tuxedo and tails. This is contrary to the policies of the Church, but the use of vestments at Mass is not a point of faith or morals, not taught universally by the bishops, and not an item upon which the Church requires adherence. A Catholic is free to advocate strongly for the ordination of women - or the use of tuxedos - without entering heretical ground.
They’re the same thing. Bricker’s morality is not something apart and seperate from his being Catholic; the catholic religion shapes and defines who he is and what he believes. That may strike you as foolish, but that just goes to why you’re not Catholic.
As I understnd you, people are free to vote their moral conscience … so long as that conscience isn’t shaped by religion. People are free to take guidance from whomever they like … so long as that person isn’t religious. That’s absurd.
Successful politicking is not the same as “imposition.” Obviously, they want to expand the observance of their morals; but “impose,” as I take it, implies the change was coerced, rather than attained by popular consent.
Sure.
The distinction I make is the seperation between those values that are required by a religion to be a decent person and those that are required to be an adherent of that faith. For example not being a murderer or a robber fall into the first category but things such as go to church, don’t use a condom and don’t have homosexual relations fall into the second.
**Bricker ** beat me to it, but I used the phrase “faithful Catholic” advisedly.
Hmm…does that mean it’s impossible for the Church to impose their morality in a democracy?
Daniel
Is that anything like a true Scotsman?
I am sure Bricker’s faith has helped him define his moral code but I seriously doubt that it is his entire moral code. Certainly he doesn’t advance it as an argument when discussing proposed legislation.
No my argument is that if the sole justification for your vote is religious then that is imposing your religion which is wrong. For example banning homosexuality becuase your religion says it is wrong is not acceptable whereas your opposition to the death penalty being shaped by your religion’s teaching of compassion is fine.