Social conservatives, what's the end game? (Page 3)

I think you have been on point all day on multiple threads...

Not that you need MY approval... 

Sure. Rather than thinking of my faith as "the way" or "the right one",
I think of it as containing the "fullness of truth".

The totality of truth is not knowable in this life.
I know that many other faiths including secularism have some truth.
I believe that my faith holds the fullness of what truth is knowable.

That truth includes metaphysical truth, something that's not on the table in this discussion,
as well as the truth of how one ought to act in civil life.

The Catholic Church has been working on this for 2000 years:
through Ceasar, then Christendom, then the Reformation, and now through Modernism.
She holds a lot of built up collective wisdom on the subject;
how does one rightly live in a pluralistic society while holding true to one's faith.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights owes a lot to Catholic thought in this regard. 

Catholic thought regarding universal religious liberty was codified in a real sense
in the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, the Declaration on Religious Freedom. 

Read that in the context of the election rhetoric about fear of a theocracy
or a war on women. It's a ridiculous charge. 

Part of my faith that I have to assent to if I'm to remain true to my faith
is that other faiths have the same right to religious liberty.
Where and how those other faiths intersect with and affect a pluralistic civil society is always a legitimate question. 
Same with my faith. It's a legitimate question.
We have a consistent and reasonable answer to the question. 

Yes... I would suspect that lots of godless heathens would love to see religions loose their exemption and many would think that would be neat.  Here is a senario... Gay marriage becomes codified across the nation... religious organizations refuse to comply with some aspect of the law... Gays sue... religion looses tax exemption.  The exact same route that the liberal gays went with the Boys Scouts of America who lost their tax exemption in order to exclude gay leaders from their private organization.  The liberals are thrilled... yea!  But do you really want to crush the finacial ability of organizations such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services, the LDS Humanitarian Aid efforts, Habitat for Humanity, not to mention the thousands of religious owned hospitals and universities?  Religious organizations provide so much in charity to our society, that thier financial ruin would be a ruin to our nation as a whole.  The taxes you would gain would be offest by several orders of magnitude of losses that the govenment would have to pick up.  I have yet to visit an Atheist hospital. 

I'll bet secular hospitals outnumber religiously-affiliated hospitals.

Here's a deal.  We'll allow you to ban any marriage you want at your church.  Just stop trying to prevent homosexuals from being recognized under the law as married!  How is their marriage going to hurt you?  Please stop trying to prevent gay people from having the same rights as heterosexual couples under the law.  Treating gays as 2nd-class citizens will continue to land the GOP further and further behind the times.  (see:  the Whig Party)

The consitution provides for the Free Excercise of Religion... which for some means vocal prayer in public, or kneeling and facing east in public, or wearing relgious emblems in public.  If you have a problem with the free and open excercise of religion in public then fight to change the constituion, because that is exactly what it protects. 

I would think most Republicans would stand by their party's stance on government hand-outs.  If the service they provide has a market, wouldn't they survive on their own playing by the same rules as other non-profits who have a responsibility to pay taxes?  

I am not advocating we do this, but isn't it funny when the shoe is on the other foot?

One may never do evil that good may come from it.

So a Catholic institution being force to offer abortion services
or forced to offer contraceptive benefits to employess
would be formal cooperation with evil.

Can't do it.
Non negotiable. 

Even if by cooperation the institution would then be able to bring about good from its other activities. 

I think the example above is valid...

Okay, really?  These religions emphasize vocal prayer?  

btw, is somebody saying you can't wear a cross on your necklace?  Really?  I see the religious right making a mountain of a molehill.  My advice?  Enjoy the ginormous tax break.  Practice your religion...have a blast!  Nobody's preventing you from doing so...but does it have to be thrown in the faces of those who don't believe?  

Ya see, we can reach across the aisle and agree on something!  (then again, your liberal roots may be showing ) ...many on the Right would not be happy with this deal.

Maybe non-belivers should go non-belive quietly in their houses and stop bothering the religious folks.

Maybe this seems too obvious a question...  But I know faiths that allow same sex marriage.  Yet in all my readings of your posts, you are stongly opposed.  You mention above you allow other faiths to have the same right to religious liberty.

How do you reconcile letting them have religious liberties, while pushing for laws that deprive them of those very liberties?  (such as same sex marriage?)

At lunch today in a local pub there was a table behind me with 4 guys talking about the guns they were buying and what trouble we were in as a country.  In front of me was a table of 2 guys who started praying loudly over their food and asking for blessings. 

For a minute there, I think I was a liberal.

An important part of religious liberty is the right to bring religiously formed opinions into the public square.
Persons of good will then work out those differences in that political arena.

I see the issue of gay marriage as one that is not about "marriage equality"
but rather about redefining the very definition of what marriage is.
That's a legitimate criticism of the gay rights movement.

Fixed

Yes, it is.

Good thing, because I am wrong most of the time with you.

... but just so you know, I have never lost a single argument in my head.

AND, don't forget, you live in Bronco country.  That gives you points in any "reasonable" person's book.

Marriage was to connect two families power and resources.  These acts ensured that the family name would live on.  I would say that the definition of marriage has changed since it first came into affect.  Arranged marriages for connections, money and power or marriage for love... These things are fluid.

Here's one response to the OP question on end game.

I think you're going to see a rise in the phenomenon of Evangelical Catholics.
The target group the Evangelical Catholics will evangelize to are Catholics themselves.

Some 50% of Catholics voted for an administration that is openly hostile to the faith.
Change that dynamic and you change the political landscape in the US for generations.

Much more important than politics though is the spiritual well being of that 50%.
What the heck are they thinking?
I use to be one, so I have idea about it.

In the future, you'll see bishops such as Chaput in Philly, Dolan in New York, and George in Chicago, among others
speaking out more forcefully to people in the pew.
Or maybe a better way of saying it, they'll be teaching more clearly.

There are plenty of bishops and priests who will be stepping up.
The new generation of clergy are evangelical in their formation.

The first order of business is the spiritual renewal of Catholics,
but with that will come a change in politics as well.

Whether that happens by 2016, or in the next generation, or fifty years from now,
I don't know. The Holy Spirit has his own time table, and he's not telling me. 

Hi Don. You point out that the Catholic Church has had 2000 years to work on the fullness of truth, and that your faith comes the closest to knowing what this means. I could claim that Judaism has been working on this for closer to 6,000 years, and that WE are the closest to the fullness of truth. Other religions can make the same argument. Even within a religion different groups can claim to have the fullness of truth. Sunni and Shia for example. As you say, the totality of truth is not knowable in this life.

Therein lies the dilemma. This is not to say that you shouldn't be guided by your faith. Or have the opportunity to express your faith in your daily life. I would hope that your faith is the basis for acting justly and morally. It's the elevation of your beliefs over others in a pluralistic society that creates friction.

And for both of you, that is actually a good example. Pray in school, and all sorts of push back and animosity.

For one, I do not have a problem with public prayer... meaning we (the public) gather at some event, and we take a moment to pray "hope" nobody get hurts, or things go well, or just in gratitude at the coming together. I'm not offended by a Christian leading a prayer, or a muslin for that matter... but not every one think the same... instead of allowing all religions to lead a prayer.. .there is nothing wrong with just taking a moment of silence to do as you see fit. Nobody is insulted.

That is unless you feel it should have been your religion, then one could take that to mean we don't want your religion and are attacking you. That's unfortunate.

But I do not have any writings on buildings, nobody ask to pray to my HP with me, nobody recognizes my beliefs at any particular time... the only one that does is me. And I am free to do that whenever I want, how ever I want, and to who ever I want... and there isn't a person on this planet that can stop me.

So I do not get "being under attack". And I do not get why your religion needs to be recognized by the government for you to feel whole in your beliefs.

Go Broncos!!!

There is a saying... you can plan the plan, but not the results... others turn that to ... leave the results up to God. 

To me that makes sense, I can tell you about God, but after that, it's none of my business what you do with it. We can all tell a young person to rethink what they are doing, but in the end he's going to do what he is going to do. I understand there is a call to evangelize, but I also do not see that under attack on a personal level.

I am probably doing a poor job of explaining this... but I do not understand how you go from personal values and tenants of your faith, to a national, Federal agenda to promote that with the Government through laws and legislation.

I have not made it through all the thread but just wanted to add that the same thing has happened here in IL. This hits close to home for me as I had friends working for CSS who lost their jobs and my husband and I turned to this organization to adopt our 2 children.

This is a loss to the community - no doubt about it. Our matches were made in large part because the birth mothers were Catholic and CSS was the organization to turn to for assistance finding a match with a family that would raise the children in the Catholic Church.

So yes, it is already happening.

Long day at work and I have to ride home after this so I'll see if I can respond for Dontracy who can correct what I say if he wants.

What he's referring to is that in order to receive the sacraments, you have to be a "catholic in good standing".  That means you can't take communion, can't get married in the church, can't get confirmed, can't serve in the clergy if you are following certain behaviors or supporting those behaviors. 

Truth is that most catholic churches have no idea who is in their pews and who is receiving communion.  However, the teaching is that if you are enabling others to commit mortal sins (i.e. voting for pro-choice candidates, or you are an elected official who votes or speaks in-favor of mortal sins i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani), then you are not a "catholic in good standing."

Mind you this doesn't mean that if you pay your taxes and the state uses those for contraception or your daughter is on contraception for "regulating menstrual cycles" (usual catholic excuse...) that you can be not in good standing.  But for example, if you were married, got divorced, did not get the marriage annulled, married another woman, you would not be welcome to receive communion. 

This is why you see some catholics go to the priest for communion and they cross their hands on their chest and receive a blessing, but no communion. They're accepting that they are not in good standing, but they are acknowledging that they want to receive the sacrament.  Some of the best catholics I know have gone through this for years.

So the evangelization of catholics by catholics is outreach by catholics to bring the not in good standing catholics to the realization that they are sinning by their support and they are further sinning by receiving communion. 

It's not telling people and then translating it to a Federal agenda, it's bringing them to the way they are supposed to vote if they want to receive sacraments.

I myself am not in good standing because I essentially left the catholic church 4 years ago and I am not following a pledge to raise my kids catholic.  I am a practicing Christian and I would be one of the people they would evangelize to, but I already vote the way they are supposed to, so they wouldn't add any votes from me.  It's not to get votes, it's to bring the departed back into the fold.

Don, feel free to flaggelate me if I messed that up...