login
Social conservatives, what's the end game? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-11-08 5:30 PM in reply to: #4490635 |
Pro  3932      Irvine, California |  Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game?BrianRunsPhilly - 2012-11-08 2:48 PM dontracy - 2012-11-08 5:06 PM Kido - May I ask a couple questions? I assume you believe your faith is "the way" or the "the right one"? If that makes sense. Would you want to grant other faiths the same freedoms, even if they are in contradiction to yours? What if there intentions are not as noble as yours (hospital and social programs)? Granted, it's a speculative question and just curious of your thoughts.
Sure. Rather than thinking of my faith as "the way" or "the right one", The totality of truth is not knowable in this life. That truth includes metaphysical truth, something that's not on the table in this discussion, The Catholic Church has been working on this for 2000 years: 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 Read that in the context of the election rhetoric about fear of a theocracy Part of my faith that I have to assent to if I'm to remain true to my faith 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. Bingo. And I hope that someday everyone can accept that you don't need a belief in god, or an afterlife, to live a just and moral life. There's nothing wrong with believing those things, of course, but they are not necessary. Edited by Tripolar 2012-11-08 5:31 PM |
| 2012-11-08 5:39 PM in reply to: #4490701 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? GomesBolt - 2012-11-08 3:28 PM 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...
That's interesting. I know a lot of Catholics in my years that should be pretty nervous then! |
| 2012-11-08 5:54 PM in reply to: #4490701 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? GomesBolt - 2012-11-08 4:28 PM powerman - 2012-11-08 6:07 PM dontracy - 2012-11-08 3:45 PM 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. Some 50% of Catholics voted for an administration that is openly hostile to the faith. Much more important than politics though is the spiritual well being of that 50%. In the future, you'll see bishops such as Chaput in Philly, Dolan in New York, and George in Chicago, among others There are plenty of bishops and priests who will be stepping up. The first order of business is the spiritual renewal of Catholics, Whether that happens by 2016, or in the next generation, or fifty years from now, 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. 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...
And as an individual I understand that. And I certainly understand as an individual, voting for someone that holds your beliefs. I get civic and moral convictions as an individual. What I don't get is the push for an active political agenda advancing your beliefs. Prayer in school, Commandments on Court houses, amendments banning gay marriage, opposing contraception, the Faith initiatives and so on. Like legalizing drugs. I think all of them should be... but many do not agree, and that isn't a prudish religious belief. Many people just think they should be illegal. Yet many people do not have a problem with allowing the most destructive of all drugs to be legal. But the temperance movement was a religious movement to ban alcohol. Why? Just don't drink. Why ban it for others? |
| 2012-11-08 6:00 PM in reply to: #4490683 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? trigal38 - 2012-11-08 4:17 PM dontracy - 2012-11-08 2:10 PM powerman - do you not see how they might legislate something the rest of the country wants that you do not agree with? The federal government has already done that with the HHS mandate issue. Going back a couple years, Catholic Social Services in Massachusetts So it's already happening. The constitution does restrict the power of the federal government. 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. That's rough. I seems a shame. It seems logical to allow the Church to do as it sees fit. And this isn't about personal freedoms, the church is entrusted to do what they feel best for the child... but then where does it end? Back in the day, the church was against interracial marriage. So we allow the church the freedom to operate how they see fit, but CSS then would not adopt to a interracial married couple? I do not know how to draw the line of saying you feel these people are not fit to be parents... or these people are not fit to be parents according to our religious beliefs. |
| 2012-11-08 8:02 PM in reply to: #4490701 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? GomesBolt - It's not to get votes, it's to bring the departed back into the fold.
Great summation to a great post!
|
| 2012-11-08 8:10 PM in reply to: #4490745 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - What I don't get is the push for an active political agenda advancing your beliefs. Prayer in school, Commandments on Court houses, amendments banning gay marriage, opposing contraception, the Faith initiatives and so on. Just consider this. In 1688, not far from where I'm sitting, Quakers organized the first public protest in the New World against slavery. They saw slavery as an evil. That was not a position universally held at the time, The fight for abolition went on for nearly 200 more years, The foundation that drove the Quaker protests was their faith. It was good for the nation that they pressed their faith based beliefs. Edited by dontracy 2012-11-08 8:13 PM |
| 2012-11-08 8:23 PM in reply to: #4490635 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? BrianRunsPhilly - 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. I take your point. It's been worked on for 6,000 years. The only place we might disagree is that the temple was rebuilt, Makes for a great theological discussion
|
| 2012-11-08 8:28 PM in reply to: #4490756 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - 2012-11-07 7:00 PM trigal38 - 2012-11-08 4:17 PM dontracy - 2012-11-08 2:10 PM powerman - do you not see how they might legislate something the rest of the country wants that you do not agree with? The federal government has already done that with the HHS mandate issue. Going back a couple years, Catholic Social Services in Massachusetts So it's already happening. The constitution does restrict the power of the federal government. 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. That's rough. I seems a shame. It seems logical to allow the Church to do as it sees fit. And this isn't about personal freedoms, the church is entrusted to do what they feel best for the child... but then where does it end? Back in the day, the church was against interracial marriage. So we allow the church the freedom to operate how they see fit, but CSS then would not adopt to a interracial married couple? I do not know how to draw the line of saying you feel these people are not fit to be parents... or these people are not fit to be parents according to our religious beliefs. My BIL was working for CSS in MA. It wasn't that the state was saying CSS can't facilitate adoptions anymore. (I'm working from memory here, so someone correct me if I'm wrong) The state was actually contracting with CSS to provide state government services, instead of the state providing the services directly. So, the state said: "We can't continue to use you as a contractor if you don't provide services equitably." CSS predictably declined, the state money dried up, and people had to be RIF'ed. |
| 2012-11-08 8:38 PM in reply to: #4490894 |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? dontracy - 2012-11-08 9:23 PM BrianRunsPhilly - 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. I take your point. It's been worked on for 6,000 years. The only place we might disagree is that the temple was rebuilt, Makes for a great theological discussion
Amen to that! |
| 2012-11-08 9:19 PM in reply to: #4490345 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - 2012-11-08 3:56 PMIn that respect though, you are no different than the pacifist that has to pay for defense spending. The government is not forcing YOU to take birth control. The state executes prisoners and I have to pay for that, and I think it is murder no matter how you slice it, but it is what it is. I do not get a refund. But they are not forcing ME to execute anyone. Sorry to go back a few pages, but I would like to respond on this one. Two concepts sort of apply here. "Moving to the nuisance" which is where a person buys land or a house near something like a power line or a sewage plant or a hog farm. The Continental Army was founded before the Declaration of Independence, as was the Continental Marine Corps. Defense was here before we declared our inalienable rights. The other concept that I think applies is the whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The Roman Empire that Christ was talking about wasn't exactly pure either. Orgies, the Colisseum, etc. So you are required to pay your taxes even though they will be used for sin. You could also say under the "moving to the nuisance" concept that the US was a country of faith from the beginning. "Endowed by their creator..." |
| 2012-11-08 9:35 PM in reply to: #4490613 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - 2012-11-08 5:40 PM trinnas - 2012-11-08 2:42 PM Is that not the same for any belief system? I gave up on needing approval around here so not to worry. There are those I like and respect and those I don't and those in between. You I actually respect.... even when you are wrong. 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. Does that make you a legand in your own mind? |
| 2012-11-08 9:57 PM in reply to: #4490957 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? GomesBolt - powerman - In that respect though, you are no different than the pacifist that has to pay for defense spending. The government is not forcing YOU to take birth control. The state executes prisoners and I have to pay for that, and I think it is murder no matter how you slice it, but it is what it is. I do not get a refund. But they are not forcing ME to execute anyone. Sorry to go back a few pages, but I would like to respond on this one. Two concepts sort of apply here. "Moving to the nuisance" which is where a person buys land or a house near something like a power line or a sewage plant or a hog farm. The Continental Army was founded before the Declaration of Independence, as was the Continental Marine Corps. Defense was here before we declared our inalienable rights. The other concept that I think applies is the whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The Roman Empire that Christ was talking about wasn't exactly pure either. Orgies, the Colisseum, etc. So you are required to pay your taxes even though they will be used for sin. You could also say under the "moving to the nuisance" concept that the US was a country of faith from the beginning. "Endowed by their creator..." Those are all good points. Regarding the issue of cooperation with evil, there are two types to consider. For example, I have a moral obligation to pay reasonable taxes. I might choose to heroically refuse then to pay taxes and also be willing to accept the consequences such as jail, It may in fact be impossible to live life without materially cooperating with evil to some degree. On the other hand is the issue of formal cooperation with evil. That's serious and can make for a really bad day if you happen to die on that day. So in discerning how one ought to act in a particular situation, Edited by dontracy 2012-11-08 9:58 PM |
| 2012-11-08 9:59 PM in reply to: #4490879 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? dontracy - 2012-11-08 7:10 PM powerman - What I don't get is the push for an active political agenda advancing your beliefs. Prayer in school, Commandments on Court houses, amendments banning gay marriage, opposing contraception, the Faith initiatives and so on. Just consider this. In 1688, not far from where I'm sitting, Quakers organized the first public protest in the New World against slavery. They saw slavery as an evil. That was not a position universally held at the time, The fight for abolition went on for nearly 200 more years, The foundation that drove the Quaker protests was their faith. It was good for the nation that they pressed their faith based beliefs. Right, and in the case of slavery, they were trying to advance the rights of slaves to be free men. A little different than keeping women from contraception. And I'm going to guess that slaves were eventually freed because most people thought it was a good thing, not just because they were following Quaker teachings. That isn't meant to diminish the work the Quakers did... but it is a case where most folks, the church, and those effected all greed and beliefs aligned. Right now drugs are illegal. Not because of the church, but because a lot of folks do not think cocaine should be legal. I do, but that is not the point. Most folks align with what the church agrees to, and the only ones effected are a very small majority of drug addicts that are well... drug addicts. |
| 2012-11-08 10:03 PM in reply to: #4490973 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? trinnas - 2012-11-08 8:35 PM powerman - 2012-11-08 5:40 PM trinnas - 2012-11-08 2:42 PM Is that not the same for any belief system? I gave up on needing approval around here so not to worry. There are those I like and respect and those I don't and those in between. You I actually respect.... even when you are wrong. 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. Does that make you a legand in your own mind? You have no idea... oh ya, and a Rock Star. |
| 2012-11-08 10:08 PM in reply to: #4490957 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? GomesBolt - 2012-11-08 8:19 PM powerman - 2012-11-08 3:56 PMIn that respect though, you are no different than the pacifist that has to pay for defense spending. The government is not forcing YOU to take birth control. The state executes prisoners and I have to pay for that, and I think it is murder no matter how you slice it, but it is what it is. I do not get a refund. But they are not forcing ME to execute anyone. Sorry to go back a few pages, but I would like to respond on this one. Two concepts sort of apply here. "Moving to the nuisance" which is where a person buys land or a house near something like a power line or a sewage plant or a hog farm. The Continental Army was founded before the Declaration of Independence, as was the Continental Marine Corps. Defense was here before we declared our inalienable rights. The other concept that I think applies is the whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The Roman Empire that Christ was talking about wasn't exactly pure either. Orgies, the Colisseum, etc. So you are required to pay your taxes even though they will be used for sin. You could also say under the "moving to the nuisance" concept that the US was a country of faith from the beginning. "Endowed by their creator..." And the whole world is a world of faith. But it is not a world of one faith, and neither is the US. |
| 2012-11-08 10:16 PM in reply to: #4491014 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - And the whole world is a world of faith. But it is not a world of one faith, and neither is the US. The US was founded upon a faith rooted in natural law. It was not founded upon a theory of moral relativism or syncretism, although it allows for both to have a voice Edited by dontracy 2012-11-08 10:17 PM |
| 2012-11-08 10:17 PM in reply to: #4490997 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? dontracy - 2012-11-08 8:57 PM GomesBolt - powerman - In that respect though, you are no different than the pacifist that has to pay for defense spending. The government is not forcing YOU to take birth control. The state executes prisoners and I have to pay for that, and I think it is murder no matter how you slice it, but it is what it is. I do not get a refund. But they are not forcing ME to execute anyone. Sorry to go back a few pages, but I would like to respond on this one. Two concepts sort of apply here. "Moving to the nuisance" which is where a person buys land or a house near something like a power line or a sewage plant or a hog farm. The Continental Army was founded before the Declaration of Independence, as was the Continental Marine Corps. Defense was here before we declared our inalienable rights. The other concept that I think applies is the whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The Roman Empire that Christ was talking about wasn't exactly pure either. Orgies, the Colisseum, etc. So you are required to pay your taxes even though they will be used for sin. You could also say under the "moving to the nuisance" concept that the US was a country of faith from the beginning. "Endowed by their creator..." Those are all good points. Regarding the issue of cooperation with evil, there are two types to consider. For example, I have a moral obligation to pay reasonable taxes. I might choose to heroically refuse then to pay taxes and also be willing to accept the consequences such as jail, It may in fact be impossible to live life without materially cooperating with evil to some degree. On the other hand is the issue of formal cooperation with evil. That's serious and can make for a really bad day if you happen to die on that day. So in discerning how one ought to act in a particular situation, Honestly, that seems a little too convenient. Depending on how far you want to take that, there would be nothing you could cooperate with except the Church. Taxes do go to contraception. Taxes do go to murder. Taxes go to corruption and graft, taxes go to greed and sloth... where do you want to stop? I guess my point is I live my life according to my values, and I do not assume guilt of others. I don't drink or do drugs, but I don't care who does. I don't believe in abortion... that it should not be done out of convenience that you forgot to be responsible, so I would not ask someone to have one. What everyone else does is there business... and if they want to have drunken orgies every night that is their business. I don't need the whole country to live by my values, and I don't need my value plastered on a court house for them to be valid. |
| 2012-11-09 7:53 AM in reply to: #4491030 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - 2012-11-08 11:17 PM dontracy - 2012-11-08 8:57 PM GomesBolt - powerman - In that respect though, you are no different than the pacifist that has to pay for defense spending. The government is not forcing YOU to take birth control. The state executes prisoners and I have to pay for that, and I think it is murder no matter how you slice it, but it is what it is. I do not get a refund. But they are not forcing ME to execute anyone. Sorry to go back a few pages, but I would like to respond on this one. Two concepts sort of apply here. "Moving to the nuisance" which is where a person buys land or a house near something like a power line or a sewage plant or a hog farm. The Continental Army was founded before the Declaration of Independence, as was the Continental Marine Corps. Defense was here before we declared our inalienable rights. The other concept that I think applies is the whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". The Roman Empire that Christ was talking about wasn't exactly pure either. Orgies, the Colisseum, etc. So you are required to pay your taxes even though they will be used for sin. You could also say under the "moving to the nuisance" concept that the US was a country of faith from the beginning. "Endowed by their creator..." Those are all good points. Regarding the issue of cooperation with evil, there are two types to consider. For example, I have a moral obligation to pay reasonable taxes. I might choose to heroically refuse then to pay taxes and also be willing to accept the consequences such as jail, It may in fact be impossible to live life without materially cooperating with evil to some degree. On the other hand is the issue of formal cooperation with evil. That's serious and can make for a really bad day if you happen to die on that day. So in discerning how one ought to act in a particular situation, Honestly, that seems a little too convenient. Depending on how far you want to take that, there would be nothing you could cooperate with except the Church. Taxes do go to contraception. Taxes do go to murder. Taxes go to corruption and graft, taxes go to greed and sloth... where do you want to stop? I guess my point is I live my life according to my values, and I do not assume guilt of others. I don't drink or do drugs, but I don't care who does. I don't believe in abortion... that it should not be done out of convenience that you forgot to be responsible, so I would not ask someone to have one. What everyone else does is there business... and if they want to have drunken orgies every night that is their business. I don't need the whole country to live by my values, and I don't need my value plastered on a court house for them to be valid. The problem is this is not strictly true: Thou Shalt Not Murder (the particulars of murder may be in question but the concept is not) Thou Shalt Not Steal Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Religion is a way to organize and control people so that they may live together peaceably. For that to happen a set of rules and an enforcement mechanism needs to be in place. Religion does this by giving you a set of rules to live by and proscribed consequences if you fail to obey those rules. With a god or gods you do not need enforcement to be present in terms of a "police force" because the god is the enforcer. We still need shared rules and values to live by or society will tear itself apart. Politics is fortunately/unfortunately now the way, we as a society, define those boundaries.
Edited by trinnas 2012-11-09 7:54 AM |
| 2012-11-09 8:01 AM in reply to: #4490997 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? dontracy - 2012-11-08 10:57 PM For example, formal cooperation is when a politician says that they are personally opposed to abortion but will vote and lobby to keep abortion legal. Formal cooperation is a "grave matter" which means that assuming other conditions apply such as knowledge about what you're doing, and lack of coercion, you are committing a mortal sin. I agree that it seems you have devised a distinction that is incredibly convenient, for you.
|
| 2012-11-09 8:20 AM in reply to: #4491314 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? Goosedog - 2012-11-09 9:01 AM dontracy - 2012-11-08 10:57 PM For example, formal cooperation is when a politician says that they are personally opposed to abortion but will vote and lobby to keep abortion legal. Formal cooperation is a "grave matter" which means that assuming other conditions apply such as knowledge about what you're doing, and lack of coercion, you are committing a mortal sin. I agree that it seems you have devised a distinction that is incredibly convenient, for you.
He didn't devise it. He has no real choice, he must obey Christ's direction by paying taxes to a corrupt system of government (render unto Caesar) and he has the obligation not to support the killing of innocents when he has the choice to do so by not voting for candidates who support abortion. His point all along is that the catholics who claim to be catholics and vote for pro-abortion candidates or the politicians who claim to be catholic and vote in-favor of abortion are not catholics in good standing and should not be saying they are catholic. Joe Biden claiming he's a good catholic and that he differs on this issue is the "incredibly convenient distinction." This article is very interesting. Americans are pro-life 50-41% and yet they voted exactly opposite of that in this election. Interestingly, 46 percent of women say they are "Pro-Life" while 44% say they are "Pro-Choice". Pretty even there. |
| 2012-11-09 8:32 AM in reply to: #4491302 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? trinnas - 2012-11-09 6:53 AM The problem is this is not strictly true: Thou Shalt Not Murder (the particulars of murder may be in question but the concept is not) Thou Shalt Not Steal Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Religion is a way to organize and control people so that they may live together peaceably. For that to happen a set of rules and an enforcement mechanism needs to be in place. Religion does this by giving you a set of rules to live by and proscribed consequences if you fail to obey those rules. With a god or gods you do not need enforcement to be present in terms of a "police force" because the god is the enforcer. We still need shared rules and values to live by or society will tear itself apart. Politics is fortunately/unfortunately now the way, we as a society, define those boundaries.
There are laws that are so universal that they do not need to be defined by a particular religion. Murder and stealing other peoples stuff are a couple. What we have plastered on Court houses is the Constitution, that defines what rights I have. What religion agrees with that is irrelavent. Nor does it "validate" it by having "Creator" tagged on it. The Constitution is worth no more than the piece of parchment it is written on. Some people give credence to it because of "Creator" and some abide by just because it is a reasonable contract. |
| 2012-11-09 8:34 AM in reply to: #4491339 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? GomesBolt - 2012-11-09 9:20 AM He didn't devise it. He has no real choice, he must obey Christ's direction by paying taxes to a corrupt system of government (render unto Caesar) and he has the obligation not to support the killing of innocents when he has the choice to do so by not voting for candidates who support abortion. His point all along is that the catholics who claim to be catholics and vote for pro-abortion candidates or the politicians who claim to be catholic and vote in-favor of abortion are not catholics in good standing and should not be saying they are catholic. Joe Biden claiming he's a good catholic and that he differs on this issue is the "incredibly convenient distinction." Sorry, I know "he" didn't devise it. However, plenty of others that consider themselves followers of Christ would consider the Catholic interpretation inaccurate. What does the Catholic church say about Biden or any other Catholic politicians/voters with similar views? Are they officially "not in good standing" and, if so, how are they treated differently?
|
| 2012-11-09 8:36 AM in reply to: #4491339 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? GomesBolt - 2012-11-09 9:20 AM He has no real choice, he must obey Christ's direction by paying taxes to a corrupt system of government (render unto Caesar) and he has the obligation not to support the killing of innocents when he has the choice to do so by not voting for candidates who support abortion. Please don't take this as flip, but wouldn't the most appropriate (most righteous?) course of action be to move to a country that outlaws abortion? ETA: Is the theory that all governments are corrupt, so the church/Christ/God doesn't distinguish between which government you happen to be supporting?
Edited by Goosedog 2012-11-09 8:37 AM |
| 2012-11-09 8:40 AM in reply to: #4491362 |
| Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - 2012-11-09 9:32 AM trinnas - 2012-11-09 6:53 AM The problem is this is not strictly true: Thou Shalt Not Murder (the particulars of murder may be in question but the concept is not) Thou Shalt Not Steal Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Religion is a way to organize and control people so that they may live together peaceably. For that to happen a set of rules and an enforcement mechanism needs to be in place. Religion does this by giving you a set of rules to live by and proscribed consequences if you fail to obey those rules. With a god or gods you do not need enforcement to be present in terms of a "police force" because the god is the enforcer. We still need shared rules and values to live by or society will tear itself apart. Politics is fortunately/unfortunately now the way, we as a society, define those boundaries.
There are laws that are so universal that they do not need to be defined by a particular religion. Murder and stealing other peoples stuff are a couple. What we have plastered on Court houses is the Constitution, that defines what rights I have. What religion agrees with that is irrelavent. Nor does it "validate" it by having "Creator" tagged on it. The Constitution is worth no more than the piece of parchment it is written on. Some people give credence to it because of "Creator" and some abide by just because it is a reasonable contract. I can generally agree with that concept. Why though can we not have certain areas that are allowed to remain religious? Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural in the Lincoln Memorial reads as much like a sermon as any speech you hear on Sunday at a church. Should we get up there and chisel that off? Our money says we trust in God. Not "A god", "God". But it's not right for some small town in Wilbarger County Texas to have a plaque on the front lawn of the courthouse acknowledging the ten commandments as the beginning of codified ethical laws without someone from San Fran showing up and suing them?
|
| 2012-11-09 8:40 AM in reply to: #4491362 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Social conservatives, what's the end game? powerman - 2012-11-09 9:32 AM trinnas - 2012-11-09 6:53 AM The problem is this is not strictly true: Thou Shalt Not Murder (the particulars of murder may be in question but the concept is not) Thou Shalt Not Steal Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness
Religion is a way to organize and control people so that they may live together peaceably. For that to happen a set of rules and an enforcement mechanism needs to be in place. Religion does this by giving you a set of rules to live by and proscribed consequences if you fail to obey those rules. With a god or gods you do not need enforcement to be present in terms of a "police force" because the god is the enforcer. We still need shared rules and values to live by or society will tear itself apart. Politics is fortunately/unfortunately now the way, we as a society, define those boundaries.
There are laws that are so universal that they do not need to be defined by a particular religion. Murder and stealing other peoples stuff are a couple. What we have plastered on Court houses is the Constitution, that defines what rights I have. What religion agrees with that is irrelavent. Nor does it "validate" it by having "Creator" tagged on it. The Constitution is worth no more than the piece of parchment it is written on. Some people give credence to it because of "Creator" and some abide by just because it is a reasonable contract. Those laws were not always universal they were mostly codified in early religions not just their present day versions. My point was you state that you did not expect others to share your values or to abide by them and that is not the case. Incest is not banned in all cultures just most, pedophelia has not always been bad in all cultures, there is no universal human truth there are only the boundaries we as a society set. That used to be done by religion, it is now done by the body politic. Either way you force some of your views and values on others and they force theirs on you. It is how we live together. The extent and the invasiveness that is appropriate may be up for debate yes, but it is still a fundamental part of how we live together. Edited by trinnas 2012-11-09 8:41 AM |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK