Catholics/Christians and Law/Government

[Budge]

[quote]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.[/quote]

Wow Reza, I agreed with what you said in the above too

Edited March 31, 2007 by Budge

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1222574' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:14 PM']Well thats good relieved to hear that, becuase I meet too many people who do support them...

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.[/quote]
The state recognizing "gay marriage", and giving legal benefits for sodomy is not something any serious Christian should support.
Yes, the state already does condone immorality, but why make the situation worse than it already is? Why support the further decline of morality?

The same goes for the other issues I mentioned.

No one is lobbying for instating "Christian Sharia Law" or outlawing King James Bibles. Only in your paranoid little Budgie imagination.

We are merely fighting against the further active promotion of immorality and godlessness in the law, and trying to restore standards that everyone in this country took for granted until recent decades - not trying to introduce new draconian measures to create an iron-fisted "theocracy", as the liberal secularist hysteria-mongers would have you believe.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1223330' date='Mar 30 2007, 06:43 PM'][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. I'm curious Socrates, do you have a self-esteem issue? 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[/quote]
This is without a doubt the most nonsensical post I have [i]ever[/i] seen posted on Phatmass. Nothing but straw-men attacks and wild accusations and personal attacks. Maybe try sticking to what I actually wrote, rather than what you claim "Socrates is pushing for." Sheesh!

So any opposition to state-recognized "gay marriage" or abortion or public promotion of immorality by the state (such as requiring homosexuality to be promoted in public schools) constitutes "theocracy" and will quickly lead to the instatement of Sharia Law and the rise of the Taliban in this country??

Such typical radical-secularist hysteria-mongering. Sad.

Reza, don't be a secularist-Leftist Lemming. Please.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Socrates

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1223410' date='Mar 30 2007, 08:30 PM']This is without a doubt the most nonsensical post I have [i]ever[/i] seen posted on Phatmass. Nothing but straw-men attacks and wild accusations and personal attacks. Maybe try sticking to what I actually wrote, rather than what you claim "Socrates is pushing for." Sheesh!

[b]How could it be "nonsensical" unless you're nonsensical yourself because I just quoted you directly and it appears that Budge agrees with me too. There were no personal attacks, that is what you do with labeling everyone that disagrees with you as "liberal", rather I quoted you so get over it and accept it for what it is.[/b]

So any opposition to state-recognized "gay marriage" or abortion or public promotion of immorality by the state (such as requiring homosexuality to be promoted in public schools) constitutes "theocracy" and will quickly lead to the instatement of Sharia Law and the rise of the Taliban in this country??

[b]There is no law or even agenda to quote "require homosexuality to be promoted in public schools", that's what theocratic people that would like to see a Socrates version of Sharia Law like to use as propaganda to get people to support them because they know that the majority will never agree with them and they don't have any support.[/b]

Such typical radical-secularist hysteria-mongering. Sad.

[b]It's pathetic that you couldn't just quote me, as being wrong but in the situation of you, I didn't have to just accuse, I got the opportunity to quote you directly.[/b]

Reza, don't be a secularist-Leftist Lemming. Please.

I'm sure that the majority wouldn't put me in that category, infact my statements dont even validate your claim, but I guess it's better then being under the SOCRATES THEOCRATIC SHARIA LAW [/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote]This is without a doubt the most nonsensical post I have ever seen posted on Phatmass. Nothing but straw-men attacks and wild accusations and personal attacks. Maybe try sticking to what I actually wrote, rather than what you claim "Socrates is pushing for." Sheesh!

How could it be "nonsensical" unless you're nonsensical yourself because I just quoted you directly and it appears that Budge agrees with me too. There were no personal attacks, that is what you do with labeling everyone that disagrees with you as "liberal", rather I quoted you so get over it and accept it for what it is. [/quote]The following are the only things you quoted from me:[quote]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![/quote]

[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.?[/quote]Nothing in there about "Shariah Law" and imprisoning or killing anyone who is not a devout Catholic. All that nonsense is entirely from you.


[quote]So any opposition to state-recognized "gay marriage" or abortion or public promotion of immorality by the state (such as requiring homosexuality to be promoted in public schools) constitutes "theocracy" and will quickly lead to the instatement of Sharia Law and the rise of the Taliban in this country??

There is no law or even agenda to quote "require homosexuality to be promoted in public schools", that's what theocratic people that would like to see a Socrates version of Sharia Law like to use as propaganda to get people to support them because they know that the majority will never agree with them and they don't have any support.[/quote]
Last month a Massachussets state judge ruled that parents could not exempt their children from second grade classes in which homosexuality was being taught. There was thread about this in Phatmass. Similar measures are also taking place in England (other country, but similar issues).

This is not right-wing paranoia, but is already news headlines. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=65083&hl="]Judge Orders 'Gay' Agenda Taught to Christian Children[/url]

[quote]Such typical radical-secularist hysteria-mongering. Sad.

It's pathetic that you couldn't just quote me, as being wrong but in the situation of you, I didn't have to just accuse, I got the opportunity to quote you directly.

Reza, don't be a secularist-Leftist Lemming. Please.

I'm sure that the majority wouldn't put me in that category, infact my statements dont even validate your claim, but I guess it's better then being under the SOCRATES THEOCRATIC SHARIA LAW[/quote]
There's no need to repeat your sophomoric remarks about Taliban and Sharia Law and whatnot, which are in this very thread for all to read, and which have nothing to do with what I actually said. Grow up.

Edited March 31, 2007 by Socrates

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1223454' date='Mar 30 2007, 09:22 PM']The following are the only things you quoted from me:

Nothing in their about "Shariah Law". All that nonsense is entirely from you.

[b]No its not, actually Budge brought it up in response to one of your other posts and it was on point. You just don't like that fact.[/b]

Last month a Massachussets state judge ruled that parents could not exempt their children from second grade classes in which homosexuality was being taught. There was thread about this in Phatmass. Similar measures are also taking place in England.

[b]And you believe everything that you read in the paper? There was also a bill in TX by right wingers like yourself that said every girl under the age of 9 had to get an STD Vaccine, but what you don't seem to be telling the people is that home schooling is an option, that parents can write a note to the teachers refusing to subject their children to it, among other avenues.[/b]

This is not simply right-wing paranoia, but is already news headlines.

[b]It's halarious that you tell people not to believe Michael Moore's propaganda but most of the time Moore gets his propaganda from the same sources that you're quoting. Seriously that's a twisted scale that you're standing on...[/b]

There's no need to repeat your sophomoric remarks about Taliban and Sharia Law and whatnot, which are in this very thread for all to read, and which have nothing to do with what I actually said. Grow up.

[b]I'd never mentioned the Taliban, as a matter of fact, you're the only that's mentioned the word "taliban" in this entire forum and if people go back and re-read what I posted, they can see that it's exactly what you've said. As a matter of fact, I went through every message and quoted you exactly, so get used to it.[/b][/quote]

[Budge]

Socrates, I wont even support an EVANGELICAL THEOCRACY.

In fact I refused to vote for the Constitution party [and you know how much I dislike both major parties] because I saw they were teaching Dominionism.

This is where religious belief and politics part ways. I beleive the only true conversion for the world is via salvation in Jesus CHrist, this is to be done in freedom, not FORCE.

Force and Theocracies dont work and what led to things like burning people at the stake, even from the PROTESTANT side!

I truly hope you are not going to go the shallow path of screaming LIBERAL at anyone who disagrees with you.

You know CONSERVATIVE used to mean people who supported LESS GOVERNMENT not more, such as THEOCRACIES.

[Apotheoun]

The positive law of the State must reflect the moral order established by God in the act of creation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

vaque statements like that don't do too much to help answer these questions apo.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes anamoly i agree with where you are going. it's like i said in that other thread, i don't think sodomy and a lot of these sins affect others. if you do, which i don't think is completely unreasonanble, then sure, banning it makes sense becuse of its affect on others. i think you have to admit though that many other things also affect as much as sodomy, if not more, like fornication and condom use. and so these should be banned too. i can appreaciate the argument, if it's your belief, that they are lesser sins, and at a subjective point, you have to cut off what you will ban to protect the God given right to sin. unless you're a person who wants to ban all sins, but hten own up and say so and be willing to ban peole fornicating and using condoms and nonprocreative acts.

and yes, proactively making laws for sin you cannot do. when i realized this argument, which isn't the argument i've heard anyone make, you are condoning and assiting in the sin. otehrs just seem to say it's wrong and so they ban it. they may have threaosns but not know them completlye to arguem them. or they may just be arguing a caracature of what they've been told to argue.

it's reasonable to think violations of natural law in the public realm should be banned. if you thought that, and thought for example sodomy was against natural law, and wanted to ban it when it has effects in the public, then that makes sense. i personally don't think what is and is not naturally law is completely clear, except for somethings if you're a catholics and the church says so. if homosexuality is natural, i could see saying it's not unnatural and so should not be banned. but whatever the case it's reasonable to think violations of natural law in the public realm should be banned.

ultimately, it's moral to allow people to sin, if it's not hurting others. there may be exceptions to things like killing yourself and other things when people themselves are weak and we need to save them from themself. people might argue this for sins too, the soul. that's undoable though. then you get into the cutting of yourself, and i'm not sure how to respond. i guess now that i thnk about it i'm for cutting yourself within moderation. just like some sins shouldnt be banned, not all cutting should be banned. note i'm saying cutting just as an example, hypotheical to reason through the issues.

Edited March 31, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1224336' date='Mar 31 2007, 04:30 PM']vaque statements like that don't do too much to help answer these questions apo.[/quote]
I believe he's saying that the state's laws must actively reflect the natural law. I don't think that's vague.

[dairygirl4u2c]

for the situation at hand it is. sure, we can't make laws that say you can sin. but, it doesn't help answer about not making laws and allowing sin, whether that's right or wrong. or whether, using that statement of apo, we should make the law ban sin, to reflect natural law. i argue not banning isn't not relfecting natural law. these are the issues his statemetns aren't getting to.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1224336' date='Mar 31 2007, 03:30 PM']vaque statements like that don't do too much to help answer these questions apo.[/quote]
It's not vague at all. Anyone who uses the gift of right reason can know the truth, and can understand the primary and even secondary aspects of the divine and natural moral law. Divine revelation and faith are another way of discerning the moral order, and in fact the gifts of revelation and faith perfect natural reason, and ensure its proper use.

A "law" enacted by the State that is contrary to right reason is not in fact a true law, but is instead an abuse, i.e., it is a form of tyranny.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, for socrates' poll, on a simple level it does. but for the issues i adressed quite a bit earlier, it does not, as my last post indicates.

[Apotheoun]

A law -- to be a true law -- must reflect the moral norm, and the moral norm can be discovered through the use of right reason, which is perfected by divine revelation and faith.