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
Thanks Bricker
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Sigh, again no one is saying you have to seperate yourself from your beliefs just don’t impose them on others. To quote myself:
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
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.
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.
Which, in turn, was in response to SolGrundy’s claim that such actions were not American in post 305 of this thread; I believe that was the first instance that spawned the ensuing commentary.
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
Post 348
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.