Catholics/Christians and Law/Government

[Maria]

My 'other explain' was that, while we should work to make law reflect morality, we must work within the confines of the constitution of the country.

[Desert Walker]

Great thread Socrates. This is a discussion that too few Catholics are having.

My archibishop has decided to energetically garner support for a bill regarding immigration from among the people here in Atlanta. The bill's author's are McCain and Kennedy. Last night my pastor said that it is the only bill on this issue that is most in line with Catholic social teaching.

I think that's all great.

What I don't think is great is how little energy we see from bishops on abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and other issues that aren't politically "safe." When is the entire USCCB going to demand the American Catholic laity to write to their senators and representatives about passing a ban on the most horrendous social injustice in human history: the murder of unborn human beings?

Just and fair immigration laws are something we can all get behind with smiles on our faces and feelings of righteousness welling up in our hearts.

But if the same thing can't be felt for an abortion ban, we are the dirtiest kind of hypocrites.

Supporting Catholic ideals of social justice my rear end...

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 20 2006, 12:21 PM']What I don't think is great is how little energy we see from bishops on abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and other issues that aren't politically "safe."  When is the entire USCCB going to demand the American Catholic laity to write to their senators and representatives about passing a ban on the most horrendous social injustice in human history:  the murder of unborn human beings?
[right][snapback]915623[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The US Bishops have been ZEALOUSLY vocal against abortion, euthanasia, and "gay marriage". Our Massachusetts Bishops in particular have been very vocal. From the USCCB "Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life activities":

[quote]A comprehensive public policy program should include the following long- and short-term goals:

-passage of a constitutional amendment that will protect unborn children's right to life to the maximum degree possible, and pursuit of appropriate strategies to attain this goal

-federal and state laws and administrative policies that restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible and that prohibit government support of abortion, human cloning, and research that destroys human embryos

-continual challenging of the scope of and ultimate reversing of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts denying the right to life

-support for legislation that provides morally acceptable alternatives to abortion, including funding to expand education, health, nutrition, and other services for disadvantaged parents and their children

-support for federal and state legislation that promotes effective palliative care for those who are chronically ill or dying

-support for efforts to prevent legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide by legislation or referendum

support for efforts to end the death penalty

A public policy program requires well-planned and coordinated advocacy by citizens at the national, state, and local levels. Such activity is not solely the responsibility of Catholics but instead requires widespread cooperation and collaboration on the part of groups large and small, religious and secular. As U.S. citizens and religious leaders, we see a critical moral imperative for public policy efforts to ensure the protection of human life. We urge our fellow citizens to see the justice of this cause and to work with us to achieve these objectives.

--United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life activities"

[url="http://www.usccb.org/prolife/pastoralplan.htm#iii"]http://www.usccb.org/prolife/pastoralplan.htm#iii[/url][/quote]

Edited March 20, 2006 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maria' date='Mar 19 2006, 06:34 PM']My 'other explain' was that, while we should work to make law reflect morality, we must work within the confines of the constitution of the country.
[right][snapback]915314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's not really clear what you are implying here, but the truth is that laws against abortion are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Roe v. Wade was a bad decision made by activist judges, which gave the federal government power to overrule any state laws restricting abortion.
There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

Likewise, the Constitution does not guarantee "rights" to "gay marriage" or adoption. Laws on these matters belong to the States, as stated in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Those who argue that laws against abortion or against giving special "rights" to homosexuals are contrary to the Constitution, argue falsely. They base their views on liberal activist (mis)"interpretation" of the Constitution, not on the actual law nor the intent of the framers.

As I have shown in several other threads, the "constitutional" argument for such immoral laws is a red herring.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 20 2006, 10:21 AM']Great thread Socrates.  This is a discussion that too few Catholics are having.

My archibishop has decided to energetically garner support for a bill regarding immigration from among the people here in Atlanta.  The bill's author's are McCain and Kennedy.  Last night my pastor said that it is the only bill on this issue that is most in line with Catholic social teaching.

I think that's all great.

What I don't think is great is how little energy we see from bishops on abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and other issues that aren't politically "safe."  When is the entire USCCB going to demand the American Catholic laity to write to their senators and representatives about passing a ban on the most horrendous social injustice in human history:  the murder of unborn human beings?

Just and fair immigration laws are something we can all get behind with smiles on our faces and feelings of righteousness welling up in our hearts.

But if the same thing can't be felt for an abortion ban, we are the dirtiest kind of hypocrites.

Supporting Catholic ideals of social justice my rear end...
[right][snapback]915623[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thanks. I started this thread/poll because this is a theme which comes up repeatedly in debates with liberals on these boards. I decided to make a thread which would put this point in focus.

I find it sad that so many who consider themselves Catholic have bought into this radical-secularist idea that morality must be completely divorced from civil law. (At least with regards to life and morality issues. Many of these same people argue quite adamently for the moral necessity of a welfare state, etc.)

And it's interesting that none of the four who have voted that morality must not be reflected in law have defended their vote.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 09:09 PM']
I find it sad that so many who consider themselves Catholic have bought into this radical-secularist idea that morality must be completely divorced from civil law. 
[/quote]

The problem is that you seem to think you can write laws that will make people moral. And that's just silly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Mar 20 2006, 07:43 PM']The problem is that you seem to think you can write laws that will make people moral.  And that's just silly.
[right][snapback]916077[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're silly!

Perhaps you might try actually reading what I've posted and responding to that, rather than just talking about what I "seem to think" (but have never said), and then calling it silly.

My point was that we should work for laws that reflect Catholic morality, rather than oppose it. I never said nor implied that writing laws will automatically make everyone moral.

That makes about as much sense as saying that laws against murder (or anything else) are silly because, after all, writing laws against murder has not ended murder.

Civil law can either reflect the natural and divine law, or be contrary to it.
Laws that declare abortion (which is indeed murder) to be an inalienable right, or that reward same-sex sodomy are in opposition to the natural law.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Mar 20 2006, 09:43 PM'] And that's just silly.
[/quote]
[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 10:00 PM']You're silly!
[/quote]

You giggle like a girl

[Maria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 08:51 PM']It's not really clear what you are implying here, but the truth is that laws against abortion are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Roe v. Wade was a bad decision made by activist judges, which gave the federal government power to overrule any state laws restricting abortion.
There is no right to  abortion in the Constitution.

Likewise, the Constitution does not guarantee "rights" to "gay marriage" or adoption.  Laws on these matters belong to the States, as stated in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Those who argue that laws against abortion or against giving special "rights" to homosexuals are contrary to the Constitution, argue falsely.  They base their views on liberal activist (mis)"interpretation" of the Constitution, not on the actual law nor the intent of the framers.

As I have shown in several other threads, the "constitutional" argument for such immoral laws is a red herring.
[right][snapback]916036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The question asked in the poll didn't mention any of those specific issues. My point is simply that neither law-makers nor judges are entirely free. Naturally, judges aren't really that free at all, but even law makers have to work within the general vision of the constitution and what not. I'm not saying this affects any particular issue, but it does mean that you can't necessarily go and make any law you think reflects morality.

Oh, and I agree that the issues you mention are not protected in the constitution, at least not to my knowledge. They're not in our charter, either

[Era Might]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Mar 20 2006, 09:43 PM']The problem is that you seem to think you can write laws that will make people moral.  And that's just silly.
[right][snapback]916077[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Laws themselves do not make people moral, but the moral framework that undergirds the law sets the tone for society.

[quote]Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

--George Washington's "Farewell Address"[/quote]

The foundation of this country is rooted not only in "the laws of nature", but in the laws "of nature's God", as the Declaration of Independence set forth.

Edited March 21, 2006 by Era Might

[Maria]

"Laws themselves do not make people moral, but the moral framework that undergirds the law sets the tone for society."
Exactly. I had something of a debate with one of my teachers once. She said that laws should be objective, and I said that their application should be objective but that they are necessarily founded on some sort of morality. It came up because of an opinion piece written in response to the ruling on swingers clubs, which basically said that if it isn't hurting anyone against their will, it's not bad for society. The opinion piece said that was nonsense.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 10:00 PM']You're silly!

Perhaps you might try actually reading what I've posted and responding to that, rather than just talking about what I "seem to think" (but have never said), and then calling it silly.

[/quote]

Why not? I thought that was the normal modus operandi for debates. Just trying to fit in....

[Socrates]

[dairygirl4u2c]

I've said it before but I'll say it again. Protecting other people's right to engage in sin is very moral. We shouldn't deprive them of their God given choice, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

So, I could put Yes. But I know you have something else in mind, so I put other.

[Anomaly]

dairy,
Define 'as long as it doesn't hurt others'. How much hurt is tolerable? For example, I want the right to raise my children in a society that supports heterosexual monogamy as the natural and right form of marriage and family and believe allowing homosexual marriages or open homosexuality undermines that to the degradation of society and damages what I believe is 'right'.
I and my children are being hurt.