Should conservative Faiths such as Roman Catholicism, Conservative Judaism, etc. be made to change from church/rabbinical/etc. law based on “their” interpretation of bible to a more mainstream, secular ethic based on contemporary society…aka. recognize homosexuality, birth control, abortion, assisted suicide/euthanasia, divorce, etc.?
Why do you describe Catholicism as a “conservative religion”? What do you consider Protestant faiths in comparison?
First of all, it’s Orthodox Judaism you should be talking about, not Conservative Judaism.
And how do you plan to make religions change their views? Ultimately, I think it needs to be up to the religion to believe what it wants.
So, what exactly are you advocating? Throwing out the First Amendment regarding freedom of religion? Or are you stating that you can have the freedom to your religion provided the religion follows these tenets…
Minor nitpick: Judaism allows for divorce and abortion (the latter under certain circumstances). Always has.
Zev Steinhardt
Why should they do anything? It is their religion, they can believe what they like (provided their actions are within the law).
The way this usually works, historically, is that people branch off into other religions, and sometimes, the root religion dies off, sometimes it exists alongside, sometimes it changes a little. Each branch has its own beliefs and customs, but evolved from when someone wanted to change what the “tradition” was.
So they shouldn’t change anything. They can, and they can certainly realize that they will lose followers if they don’t, but they don’t have to change a damn thing.
Not being a Protestant myself I could not claim knowledge as to what conservative/liberal stance Mainstream Protestantism takes.
I take it the various Reform Jews have a definate liberal take of the rules governing their faith…I read of a woman in Reader’s Digest that her Rabbi counseled her to abort her Tay Sach’s pregnancy.
The purpose of this thread was; do the adherents of a faith have the democratic right to compel the Faith’s earthly ruling body to bow to popular demand, or are adherents subordinate to the dictates of the ruling body, who in turn are subordinate to the Will of ALMIGHTY GOD?
Your sarcastic tone and simplistic view of religion aside, religion is not democratic. While one could theoretically create a democratic religion, or have a democratically elected religious leadership, religion by nature is what one does to be closer to god or to follow god’s design. If one is displeased with the way a church handles this, one usually starts one’s own church - hence, one sect of Christianity branching into hundreds over time. The alternate is that a religion evolves - something new comes up that was not covered before, for instance. The third alternative is where people just say, “what were we thinking, we were wrong” and make a change - but they never have a duty to do so at the demand of their practicioners.
Well, you’re making several false assumptions here.
Firstly, you’re assuming that the religions you mentioned have a “ruling body.” Most religions, in fact, do not have one. There is no central authority in Judaism, Islam or most (all?) Protestant branches of Christianity. As such, whom would this majority compel?
Secondly, you are assuming that religions are a democracy. I don’t think any religion qualifies as such.
Lastly, most religions will not “countermand” Scripture on the basis of a majority vote. For example, if a majority of Orthodox Jews decided not to keep Shabbos anymore, all you would get would be a split between those who no longer keep Shabbos and those who will continue to do so because they believe that God’s commandment overrules a “majority vote.”
Zev Steinhardt