Catholics/Christians and Law/Government

[Budge]

No,

and this may shock some here...

with the exception of abortion, and vice laws, because there are is a "weaker" party in need of being defended, Christians should not be using the govertment to force morality on unbelievers.

Christians should be working to convert people and preaching the gospel, not using the government to "Make" people be good.

Its almost like some Christians and I notice many of them have the amillenial, reconstructionist bent, seem more busy "fighting" the culture then actually bringing anyone to conversion.

Why are unrepentant unbeleivers even going to listen to those who want to enforce rules, they dont understand and dont want?

Theocracies Do NOT WORK and actually lend themselves to fascism.

All the evangelicals who marched lockstep after the "Christian" president were guilty of this too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I agree as a Catholic you shouldn't promote gay marriage. It's condoning an evil act by writing the law.

I think you question better lies with sodomy and fonication. I don't think these are flagrant enough that they are really injuring anyone. You have to weigh the freedom to sin with the amount it's hurting or not anyone.

If you think sodomy should be banned, why not fonricatin? If fornicatin, why not all sins? All sins hurt others in the extreme degree you pose. Do you draw the line because of the severity of certain htings, that you decide on a case by case basis? I'm not sure how you decide these things.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221096' date='Mar 28 2007, 08:54 AM']No,

and this may shock some here...

with the exception of abortion, and vice laws, because there are is a "weaker" party in need of being defended, Christians should not be using the govertment to force morality on unbelievers.

Christians should be working to convert people and preaching the gospel, not using the government to "Make" people be good.

Its almost like some Christians and I notice many of them have the amillenial, reconstructionist bent, seem more busy "fighting" the culture then actually bringing anyone to conversion.

Why are unrepentant unbeleivers even going to listen to those who want to enforce rules, they dont understand and dont want?

Theocracies Do NOT WORK and actually lend themselves to fascism.

All the evangelicals who marched lockstep after the "Christian" president were guilty of this too.[/quote]
So Budge, are you for "gay marriage", immoral sex ed in public schools, promotion of homosexuality and perversion in public schools, restriction of parental rights, "gays" in the military, unrestricted pornography, etc.?
Is it wrong for Christians to publicly oppose those things according to you?

This is not about "fascism" or "theocracy" (those good old liberal buzz-words), but simply about maintaining those standards of morality that most prior generations of America took for granted. This is not about imposing new rules, but opposing those forces in our society which are working hard to undermine Christian morality and impose "acceptance" and condoning of immorality in our culture. (And you are quite naive if you think those forces don't exist.)

I find your position here rather interesting, to tell the truth.
Are you trying to be at the same time both a good fundamentalist Christian and a good secularist liberal Democrat?
Or can you simply not bring yourself to agree with devout Catholics on [i]anything[/i]?

Of course it is most important to convert the hearts of unbelievers, but that does not preclude also working to have law and policy reflect Christian morality, rather than directly oppose it.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221142' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:34 AM']I agree as a Catholic you shouldn't promote gay marriage. It's condoning an evil act by writing the law.

I think you question better lies with sodomy and fonication. I don't think these are flagrant enough that they are really injuring anyone. You have to weigh the freedom to sin with the amount it's hurting or not anyone.

If you think sodomy should be banned, why not fonricatin? If fornicatin, why not all sins? All sins hurt others in the extreme degree you pose. Do you draw the line because of the severity of certain htings, that you decide on a case by case basis? I'm not sure how you decide these things.[/quote]
The purpose of law should be to promote the public common good. So long as sins are public in nature and effect the common good, they should be unlawful. Also, the enforcement of such laws should not lead to greater evil than that which they are made to prevent.

So, basically, cops should not be spying on people's bedrooms, but where sins become public (such as opening a brothel or swinger's club, or selling porn) they should be prosecuted in a Christian society.

[Budge]

[quote]So Budge, are you for "gay marriage", immoral sex ed in public schools, promotion of homosexuality and perversion in public schools, restriction of parental rights, "gays" in the military, unrestricted pornography, etc.?
Is it wrong for Christians to publicly oppose those things according to you?
[/quote]No.

The gay marriage thing is a non-issue, most gays are going to do their thing with or without the piece of paper making it "legal"

Immoral sex ed in public schools...no kid of mine would be in public school, but then what good is that going to do when theyll learn even worse on the street or from the TV?

Restriction of parental rights, that comes along with people who want the government to step into every situation.

If some gay guy wants to be in the army he should be allowed to. If he is sexually harrassing others throw him out, otherwise leave him alone.
[quote]

This is not about "fascism" or "theocracy" (those good old liberal buzz-words), but simply about maintaining those standards of morality that most prior generations of America took for granted. This is not about imposing new rules, but opposing those forces in our society which are working hard to undermine Christian morality and impose "acceptance" and condoning of immorality in our culture. (And you are quite naive if you think those forces don't exist.)[/quote]

Morality cant be "forced". The goverment is not supposed to serve in the role of parent or of God. It is to protect the weak from the strong, and deal with actual CRIMES.

You know if you want to use rule of law to force your morality instead of bringing people to change via conviction through Jesus Christ you are no better then the liberal Democrats who want to impose their hate crimes, and other nonsense.
[quote]
I find your position here rather interesting, to tell the truth.
Are you trying to be at the same time both a good fundamentalist Christian and a good secularist liberal Democrat?[/quote]Sheesh youre a smart fella, and you cant think outside the right/left paradigm of Republican vs. Democrat.

Im [u]neither.[/u] Think independent with "some" libertarian leanings. and I said SOME, they arent right about everything either.

[quote]
Or can you simply not bring yourself to agree with devout Catholics on anything?[/quote]

Im prolife.
[quote]Of course it is most important to convert the hearts of unbelievers, but that does not preclude also working to have law and policy reflect Christian morality, rather than directly oppose it.[/quote]

Read scripture, and Bible prophecy, you actually EXPECT THE WORLD SYSTEM to GET ON BOARD WITH TRUE CHRISTIANITY?
[b]
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.[/b]

Dominionism from evangelicals stinks and it does from the Catholic side as well.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221599' date='Mar 28 2007, 07:56 PM']Read scripture, and Bible prophecy, you actually EXPECT THE WORLD SYSTEM to GET ON BOARD WITH TRUE CHRISTIANITY?
[b]
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.[/b][/quote]
Conditional statement. The verse begins with the word, "if." Sometimes, certain civil laws can reflect Christianity. They did for centuries. The Scriptures do not say that they never do or will.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221142' date='Mar 28 2007, 12:34 PM']I think you question better lies with sodomy and fonication. I don't think these are flagrant enough that they are really injuring anyone. You have to weigh the freedom to sin with the amount it's hurting or not anyone.[/quote]

Leading people to hell isn't injuring someone? Or don't you believe in hell.

Gay sex and fornication kill the soul. That is in fact hurting someone.

Edited March 29, 2007 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

So does using condoms and non-procreative sex. Yet you guys, or at least most of you, don't seem to want to ban those. I think others are compelled to ban the sins that affect others. You seem intent on banning just because it kills the soul. (even if you ban it though, if they are intent on doing it, banning isn't going to save them, necessarily. though i admit it might help, but then it might create resentment and not help) So do you also think banning condoms, masturbation, and nonprocreative sex should be the law?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221628' date='Mar 28 2007, 10:38 PM']So does using condoms and non-procreative sex. Yet you guys, or at least most of you, don't seem to want to ban those. I think others are compelled to ban the sins that affect others. You seem intent on banning just because it kills the soul. (even if you ban it though, if they are intent on doing it, banning isn't going to save them, necessarily. though i admit it might help, but then it might create resentment and not help) So do you also think banning condoms, masturbation, and nonprocreative sex should be the law?[/quote]dairy,
I have enjoyed thinking about the points you've been making. It's helped me clarify some of my opinions and thougts on these matters. What Soc wrote here is very interesting.
[b]The purpose of law should be to promote the public common good. So long as sins are public in nature and effect the common good, they should be unlawful. Also, the enforcement of such laws should not lead to greater evil than that which they are made to prevent.

So, basically, cops should not be spying on people's bedrooms, but where sins become public (such as opening a brothel or swinger's club, or selling porn) they should be prosecuted in a Christian society. [/b]
We had talked about having laws that allow people to do things if they don't harm others, but I pointed out the harm may extend farther than at first thought. What Soc says about doing things in public versus private is very appropriate. If people want to engage in homosexuality behind closed doors, I don't think government can peek into the bedroom and make laws about it. It's when things are done in public, that they have an affect on society. We do have laws against public masterbation, but no laws against it in the privacy of your home. I think that making laws that specifically allow active homosexuality is the problem. If two guys or two girls want to live together, who are we to say no through the Government's laws. BUT, if we have to acknowledge their homosexual relationship, that brings it into the public and becomes a different matter. In other words, if people want to sin in private, we can't stop that and that allows our God given free will to operate. But if we demand that Society accept and allow our sin in public, that imposes a different set of values onto society. Societies basically operate on Natural Law, whether they're Christian or other. Basically, you see the same normative behaviors in China, as you do in Guatamala. What are your thoughts?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221599' date='Mar 28 2007, 07:56 PM']No.

The gay marriage thing is a non-issue, most gays are going to do their thing with or without the piece of paper making it "legal"

Immoral sex ed in public schools...no kid of mine would be in public school, but then what good is that going to do when theyll learn even worse on the street or from the TV?

Restriction of parental rights, that comes along with people who want the government to step into every situation.

If some gay guy wants to be in the army he should be allowed to. If he is sexually harrassing others throw him out, otherwise leave him alone.
Morality cant be "forced". The goverment is not supposed to serve in the role of parent or of God. It is to protect the weak from the strong, and deal with actual CRIMES.

You know if you want to use rule of law to force your morality instead of bringing people to change via conviction through Jesus Christ you are no better then the liberal Democrats who want to impose their hate crimes, and other nonsense.
Sheesh youre a smart fella, and you cant think outside the right/left paradigm of Republican vs. Democrat.

Im [u]neither.[/u] Think independent with "some" libertarian leanings. and I said SOME, they arent right about everything either.
Im prolife.
Read scripture, and Bible prophecy, you actually EXPECT THE WORLD SYSTEM to GET ON BOARD WITH TRUE CHRISTIANITY?
[b]
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.[/b]

Dominionism from evangelicals stinks and it does from the Catholic side as well.[/quote]
So your saying that where secularists are working to oppose Christian morality and get the state to officially sanction immorality (as with "gay marriage"), Christians should do nothing to oppose this?

Simple question Budge: should the law and public policy reflect or oppose Christian morality?

If you're going to say Christians should allow the state to encourage and condone godless immorality condemned in the Bible, your self-righteous Bible-thumping becomes that much harder to take seriously.

[Budge]

Before I answer that question, answer this..

Do you support hate crime laws?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1222542' date='Mar 29 2007, 08:59 PM']Before I answer that question, answer this..

Do you support hate crime laws?[/quote]
No.

[Budge]

Well thats good relieved to hear that, becuase I meet too many people who do support them...[quote]So your saying that where secularists are working to oppose Christian morality and get the state to officially sanction immorality (as with "gay marriage"), Christians should do nothing to oppose this?[/quote]

No Im not saying that. I certainly openly speak out against homosexuality as a sin.

What I am saying is there is a line where one cant FORCE people to be "good" outside of a Christian conversion.

This goes back to the public/private thing.

However considering most gays do not WANT to be married -a media myth considering the different view of monogamy in the homosexual world, I consider that mostly centered on money issues and shared partner benefits rather then Adam and Steve imaging a life of bliss in the suburbs, wanting to emulate Ozzie and Harriet.

But taken further do you think we need to have a "Christian" form of Sharia law where they start tossing people in jail for private victimless...."Immoral acts"?

And what KIND of Christian morality?

I bet youd have no problem with them outlawing birth control, private KJV Bible reading and doing other crackdowns for your wannabe Catholic theocracy. ...

What if it was some Legalistic Fundies that wanted control, outlaw all booze, outlaw women wearing pants {I consider that one legalistic}, outlaw your beloved Tolkien movies and Harry Potter? {I think adults should be allowed to choose their own reading material--beleivers as led by God}

See where Im going with this?

The state ALREADY encourages and condones godless immorality.

The fact is that you and evangelicals who have lost the plot have this vision of America being this great "Christian" nation, are living in fantasty, ignoring Bible prophecy and the true state of this world.


I believe in standing up for good against evil, whereever and whatever, but if you put your faith in the state, or as your Popes have in the United Nations, YOU ARE GOING TO BE DISAPPOINTED.

I totally except them to make gay marriage legal and also start locking up those one day when Hillary is in charge after they pass hate crime laws against anyone that speaks out against homosexuality.

You dont get the fact I consider politics so corrupt, that those who play the "Christian cards", arent to be trusted either.

The Republican party only talks the talk about abortion.

They bring up gay marriage everytime theres another atrocity in the Middle East to divert attention from.

The Democrats are no better.

Edited March 30, 2007 by Budge

[Anomaly]

dairy,
I'd like to discuss my post (#39) with you. I'd send you an e-mail or private message, but us Seperated don't have that ability.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[b][i]The moral law is a matter of common human nature. While we can't impose, for example, the Immaculate Conception, because that would be an imposition of religion, condemned by the Church, we must shape society by the principles of natural law.

That is not to say everything must be made illegal, or punished. The role of law is to protect the common good. The Church can tolerate sin as long as it does not transgress the common good. [/i][/b]

This is where I stand on the issue, very articulated and to the point but I found Socrates response to be interesting:

[b][i]Exactly, though a number of left-leaning Catholics on here have claimed that Church teachings about homosexuality and other moral issues are purely religious teachings, and thus (according to them) should have no bearing on secular law. Thus, they argue against laws not recognizing homosexual "civil unions," barring "gay adoption," and the like.

I say that is absolute hogwash; for law, by its very nature, must recognize some sort of morality. If it is not informed by the true understanding of morality and human nature (as taught by the Church), it will be informed by a false understanding, contrary to the truth of the Church, and to the common good.

I was hoping this poll might stir up some lively discussion and debate on this issue, but it seems everyone here agrees that it is indeed madness to disagree on this issue![/i] [/b]

Nobody on here ever hinted at the idea that the churches teachings are strictly religious. [mod]Personal attack. --Era Might[/mod] You seem to like to paint everyone that doesn't agree with you [whom most of the time you don't even understand] as "liberal". The poll was very much just your agenda and didn't reflect that of the people. I liked the responses of others though:

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

Isn't that the truth? We shouldn't use laws to force people to be "good catholics" but should be as Saints and work to transform the hearts and minds of people. Jesus clearly disagreed with the Pharasees on this, the Pharasees thought that making laws, and forcing people to be like them was righteous but Jesus disagreed and proved that it's the heart that should be changed and that nobody should be forced to be "moral".

[b][i]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[/i].[/b]

Definately, Politians that are elected don't just randomly "pass laws" but rather before these politians even get into office, their campaign tells everyone what their agenda is and what they're about. If a Roman Catholic got into office, then he/she should have the right to propose laws that reflect the people, in fact it would only be natural for them to do so, since that's what the people elected.

[b][i]Christians should not be using the govertment to force morality on unbelievers.[/i] [/b]

It's even deeper then that, not only should they not do it but it simply doesn't work. In Iran, the government "imposes" the Hijab upon the people and initially the people obeyed it very conservatively but eventually people began to push the envelop and the standards and it became a mockery of morality. The people might wear the clothing instructed but it definately isn't modest [which was the governments intentions]. The Government in Iran also attempted to force the people to pray Salat [Muslim prayers] by forcing businesses to close during prayer, etc. but that didn't work either. Most people that own business just take a 20-30 min nap during those times.

[i][b]Christians should be working to convert people and preaching the gospel, not using the government to "Make" people be good.

Its almost like some Christians and I notice many of them have the amillenial, reconstructionist bent, seem more busy "fighting" the culture then actually bringing anyone to conversion.

Why are unrepentant unbeleivers even going to listen to those who want to enforce rules, they dont understand and dont want?[/b][/i]

That's the most important point, it pushes people further from desiring to be a Christian because if people are forced to be Christians, it counter acts what Jesus came to do in the first place. I'd always thought that what seperates Christians from Muslims is that in the middle east, a great portion of Muslims are forced to be Muslims, while in Christianity we're given the freedom to choose. In Egypt, the price for apostacy [weather you were born into the religion of Islam or not] is death, while in Christianity we don't operate like that and Jesus's ministry wasn't about forciing people to follow him but giving them the choice to follow him.

[i][b]Theocracies Do NOT WORK and actually lend themselves to fascism.[/b][/i]

That's right, and Jesus wouldn't have wanted the people forced, because Jesus Christ believed that we should be changed from the inside out. I found Socrates response interesting:

[b][i]So Budge, are you for "gay marriage", immoral sex ed in public schools, promotion of homosexuality and perversion in public schools, restriction of parental rights, "gays" in the military, unrestricted pornography, etc.?[/i][/b]

This isn't an uncommon response from Socrates as it seems impossible for him to wrap his mind around the idea of not forcing the people but rather transforming them from the inside out. If you force the people to be "Christian" or "Catholic", you're actually hindering them from learning about Christianity, as it often terns them off to Christianity altogether. I was fond of Budge's response though:

[b][i]No.

The gay marriage thing is a non-issue, most gays are going to do their thing with or without the piece of paper making it "legal"[/i][/b]

That's the facts, and still is the facts. There are still alot of states that have anti-sodomy laws, in which have large gay populations [in comparison to some states that dont have such laws] and those laws are simply violated, as nobody cares about them [or doesn't even know that they exist]. Socrates seems to take the stance that Fred Phelps does [do a search on youtube, you'll find lots of Fred Phelps videos]. Socrates responded with:

[i][b]So your saying that where secularists are working to oppose Christian morality and get the state to officially sanction immorality (as with "gay marriage"), Christians should do nothing to oppose this?[/b][/i]

This is a typical response of Socrates, as he has a difficult time with the concept of not forcing people but having the heart and mind transformed by the Holy Spirit and the Power of Jesus Christ. Nowhere ever did anyone [or has anyone] hinted at the idea that Christians should just sacrifice their morality but what virtually everyone has unanimously said is that we should voice our opinion at the voting booths, that we should actively push for morality but not as a theocracy. Budges response was a classic:

[i][b]But taken further do you think we need to have a "Christian" form of Sharia law where they start tossing people in jail for private victimless...."Immoral acts"?[/b][/i]

This seems to be what Socrates is pushing for, which is very sad and underminds the very essence of what Christianity and Jesus's Ministry is/was about. What's next Socrates? Should we bring back the crusades and publically behead everyone that isn't "Christian" enough for you? Then we'd be no different then Saudi Arabia. I'd always thought that the very moral fabric that proved that Christianity was superior to other religions is our grace and mercy. That we didn't use militant force to keep the people locked into a particular mindset, that we used the most active method that other religions are missing [the Holy Spirit] to wage a spiritual war that is much more successful then a militant war could ever have phathumed.

NOTE: This is probably one of the first times that I agree with Budge, it kinda feels good to agree with Budge more then disagree.

Reza

Edited March 31, 2007 by Era Might