Okay, this is an easy one. First, we have to figure out what “Un-American” means: treis tells us how he’s (she’s?) defining the term. If his term has some objective status to it, then we examine it objectively. If it’s a purely subjective term, roughly synonymous with “bad,” then there’s no way to determine who’s right.
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.
We could drink the Kool-Aid. If we pass each other on the way to Heaven and Hell, we’ll know you were right. If I’m right, then we won’t be around to know.
But here in the real world, it doesn’t really matter what happens in any, or no, afterlife. What matters is what happens here. As a proponent of Natural Law, I think governments have no powers not expressly given to it. Therefore, on what hook in the Constitution could a ban of same-sex marriages or Blue Laws or even a host of other laws whose raison d’être is religious conviction possibly hang? I believe these laws violate the Constitution because they entail the governemnt establishing religious precepts as public policy. Violating the Constitution by making laws based solely on religious ideas of sin is therefore anti-American.
I know you believe this… but the history of the country does not agree with you. For many years, blue laws - mandating closing on Sundays, the Lord’s Day - were commonplace and survived Constitutional challenge.
Are we to conclude the majority of America’s history is anti-American?
Cool! Now for two more proposed definitions (note that all my proposed definitions are workable and plausible, even if they give contradictory results–thus the need to clarify how we define our terms):
Something is Un-American if it tends to work against the ethical principle of justice (i.e., relevantly similar situations should be treated in a relevantly similar fashion, vaguely akin to what the fourteenth amendment suggests). By this standard, while it’s more debatable, I think opposition to SSM is un-American.
Something is un-American if it tends to work against the maximization of personal liberty (i.e., vaguely akin to what the first US document* was talking about with that whole “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” business). By this standard, while it’s slightly debatable, I think opposition to SSM is un-American.
Daniel
I think this is correct; is it fair to call the DoI the first US document, or was the entity formed at that time so wholly unlike the US that it doesn’t deserve that name?
I wasn’t basing my argument on an assumption about civil rights (I suppose that was a poor choice of words on my part). I don’t think something has to be a civil right in order for it to be offensive and invasive for a religious group to attempt to use political power to effect legislative control over behavior.
As for my “abstract, theoretical” reality, maybe that would be better expressed as a belief in some inherent human rights which may or may not always be recognized civilly. Segregation was a violation of human rights even when it didn’t violate codified law. So maybe I should just say that I see discriminatory marriage laws – and the Church’s support of those laws – as being a violation of human rights that I have every moral right to criticize.
You may ask how we decide whether something is a human right. I think that’s a whole other thread but I’m also willing to bet that you intuitively recognize the same rights. If you believe that slavery was a violation of human rights then you believe in the reality of non-legal, “abstract. theoretical” rights just like I do. You might not agree about what they are but I’m sure you would agree that human rights cannot be strictly defined as what is written into law.
I’m glad that you acknowledge that privacy (and therefore abortion) is an established civil right, by the way. Then wouldn’t you have to acknowledge that efforts by the Church to push for bans on abortion would represent an attempt to subordinate an established civil right to the primacy of a specfic religious doctrine?
Much of it. Slavery certainly stands in opposition to the ideals of America. So does the disenfrancisement of women. Many other things in our history that were accepted at the time are in stark contrast to our stated ideals. I don’t doubt that many of the things that currently survive legal or popular muster will one day be considered a blight on the history of our nation. The SSM bans, Blue Laws and other religiously based laws will be among those on the scrap heap of history.
I accept this as a general principle, but note that you’re correct in characterizing the result you reach as debatable. Many Americans do not agree that SSM and traditional marriage are relevantly similar, which must be true in order to reach the conclusion you propose. It is only relatively recently that I came to accept this premise as true.
No, I disagree. Much of our history as a country has been characterized with intrusions into personal liberty - intrusions that have always been balanced against society’s needs. The proper standard is not to elevate personal liberty above all other factors, but rather to balance personal liberty against other interests.
I agree with this, but I do think that the ethical principle of justice is a standard that provides us some common ground on which to debate. If we just substitute “Bad” for “unAmerican,” we have no such common ground.
Here I think you’re quibbling with the proposed definition, not with the results of using that definition–am I correct? If so, then while it’s a legitimate quibble, it’s sidestepping the issue: in most debates I think it’s more productive to stipulate a given definition than to argue over which definition is the True Definition. (Whether it’s American to restrict personal liberty is a side-debate, I think.)
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.
I agree with Diogenes - abortion is an established civil right, and the efforts by the Church to push for bans on abortion represent an attempt to subordinate an established civil right to the primacy of a specfic religious doctrine.
The Supreme Court has already decided that debate and ruled that abortion is a protected civil right. If Bricker is going to maintain that civil rights are to be defined as whatever is decided by the Supreme Court, then he’s stuck with abortion as a civil right.
For a Catholic? I’ve no idea, but I take it from the quotes you provided that it isn’t.
Of course.
If in fact the church says condoms = sin, then using condoms is a sin, period, end of discussion, end of story, forever and ever amen, no extenuating circumstances allowed (unless of course they change their minds).
As I read your post, you seemed to be looking to find a situation in which using a condom would be ok because it wasn’t his fault he was infected and otherwise he couldn’t have sex with his wife. In a strictly obediant Catholic worldview, the truth is that he must now be celibate.
You may want to read John 9: 2-3. Sometimes bad shit happens to people for no apparant reason; but they are nonetheless obligated to follow church teaching.
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 believe he would be permitted to use condoms under the principle of unintended secondary effect. The use of the condom would not be with the intent of creating a barrier to contraception. They would be used for the entirely moral and permissible purpose of stopping the infections from passing to the wife.
It’s true that, as a result of this action, there would be a barrier to contraception… but that would be an unintended, secondary effect, and thus the action would be permissible.
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; and
I don’t think that Vatican officials are immune to logic or compassion, however it may sometimes seem. While the Church moves slowly, it does move, and if officials hear persuasive evidence that their actions are resulting in serious suffering, there’s a chance that a brilliant theologian will come along and present the case in their terms, such that the Church might relax its strictures on contraception–especially disease-preventing contraception.