Catholics/Christians and Law/Government

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes, another vague statement. clear on its face, but vague in application, for the issues i and anomoly are talking about.

for example, you didn't address my last major point:
[quote]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.[/quote]

this all stems from my post in response to anamoly a couple posts back.

[Apotheoun]

Daisy,

Sins are actions contrary to right reason, i.e., they are irrational. Now, if you are saying that you personally are not a rational being, then -- and only then -- would I agree that you are incapable of discerning the objective nature of a particular action. Nevertheless, your inability to properly use the faculty of reason would not change the objective nature of a particular action (e.g., murder or rape), but it would lessen -- to the degree that you are irrational (i.e., a mental imbecile) -- your culpability for a particular unnatural action.

[dairygirl4u2c]

again, you didn't address my quote point in the last post. even if i agreed we can all reason to and know what things are composed in natural law, that doesn't answer whether not banning is wrong or not.

it seems like you are stuck a straightforward reading of your ideas i call vague, instead of addressig them in the context of applying them to anomoly and my's conversation.

to be clear the following again is what i want you to address: "even if i agreed we can all reason to and know what things are composed in natural law, that doesn't answer whether not banning is wrong or not. "

[Apotheoun]

Dairygirl,

I have answered your question. The law (i.e., the positive law of the State) must promote good behavior and condemn acts that are objectively evil. Thus, it must condemn and punish sinful acts performed by members of society, because those acts -- as contrary to nature -- are not only offensive to God, but they also damage the common good, which the State is required to protect.

God bless,
Todd

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng']The following are the only things you quoted from me:

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

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.[/quote]
What fact? Saying I want "Shariah Law" is a slur, not a fact, and in fact has nothing to do with anything I actually wrote or advocated.

I originally started this thread a year ago in response to threads on these topics:
1) Laws against abortion, or overturning Roe v. Wade
2) Voting against state recognition of "gay marriage" and other legislation which would give legal benefits to people for being in homosexual relationships.

Neither of those things constitutes "Shariah Law."

[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.

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.

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

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... [/quote]The story about the Massachussets judge's decision was widely reported in many sources, both conservative and liberal. Simply run a Google search. [url="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/02/07/judge_mulls_suit_over_gay_classroom_talk/"]Here's a story from the "mainstream" [i]Boston Globe[/i].[/url]
You have provided nothing to refute what was reported, merely brought up a pointless red herring about Michael Moore.

As for the STDs vaccine being required for girls in Texas, this is hardly a "right-wing" decision (though the governor who ordered it is Republican). I am squarely against this decision because it makes everybody pay for the sins of some, and discourages personal responsibility. In fact, most of the opposition to it I have read in fact came from "right-wingers like myself" and this bill faced much opposition from Texas "right-wingers" (especially from the "religious right")
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/"]MSNBC story here[/url][quote]By employing an executive order, [b]Perry sidestepped opposition in the Legislature from conservatives and parents’ rights groups[/b] who fear such a requirement would condone premarital sex and interfere with the way Texans raise their children.[/quote]
Thanks for once again attacking me for a position I do not hold.

[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.

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.[/quote]
My profuse apologies, looks like you didn't in fact use the word "taliban" - you instead compared my position to Shariah Law in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and mentioned beheading unbelievers - that makes all the difference in the world.

So, do you have any more straw men or childish personal attacks?


. . . If so, don't bother, because unless you can actually debate the issues at hand, I'm putting you permanently on "ignore."

Edited April 1, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1223910' date='Mar 31 2007, 10:14 AM']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.[/quote]
I am for smaller government, but moral government. (These are not mutually exclusive - our government has grown larger as it has at the same time grown more godless.)

None of the things I am advocating involve bigger government.

I am for overturning Roe v. Wade, which would return the power to make abortion laws to the states, rather than having abortion-on-demand enforced by the Federal government.

I am against any tax-payer funded abortions or stem-cell research (likewise involving big tax-and-spend government).

I am against activist federal judges making secularist orders against the will of the local people (such as in forcibly ordering the Ten Commandments removed from the Alabama courthouse).

I am against the state giving recognition to "gay marriage" and rewarding benefits to homosexual couples.

I am against the state demanding that businesses and schools support "gay rights."

These things involve less government, not more.

Maybe try responding to my actual positions, rather than just screaming buzz-words like "theocracy."

And, after all, secularist governments are what led to forced famines and putting religious folk in gulags.

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually apo that was the first time you said anything about condemning or punishing sins. and the first time you said anything about the effects on society. maybe you meant what you said just now in the few preceeding posts, but it was not at all clear.
maybe i could have supposed it given your seeming lack of response, but it wasn't clear whether you were evanding or vaguely responding.

Edited April 1, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Budge]

[quote]I am for smaller government, but moral government. (These are not mutually exclusive - our government has grown larger as it has at the same time grown more godless.)[/quote]Youre dreaming if you think a government on this earth is going to be moral, at least before Jesus Christ returns.



[quote]None of the things I am advocating involve bigger government.[/quote]

Whose going to enforce all those rules, so far I see several here, Im not sure if you are one of them, defending the presents admins "Big" government palns.
[quote]
I am for overturning Roe v. Wade, which would return the power to make abortion laws to the states, rather than having abortion-on-demand enforced by the Federal government.[/quote]Sure even for the saved lives...

But Ill tell you one, thing people are living in fantasty land if they think overturning Roe vs. Wade is going to stop abortion overall. They have better drugs like RU486 that women would just go buy blackmarket and even techniques at home, the feminists have all taught themselves and traded information. Remember I used to be UU right? Most UUs are feminists, i know what is taught in that world. Abortion has advanced beyond the wire hanger days, they have already made preparations in case Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Govt may save some lives in the case of abortion which is the reason I would want them involved at all to protect the weak, but the only thing that would truly do away with abortion is changed hearts and lives via Jesus Christ.

[quote]
I am against any tax-payer funded abortions or stem-cell research (likewise involving big tax-and-spend government).[/quote]

Sure...
[quote]
I am against the state giving recognition to "gay marriage" and rewarding benefits to homosexual couples.[/quote]How about sodomy laws? Do you understand what some of us are talking about. The very definition of marriage is of man and wife together not two of the same sex. Most of the gay marriage thing is ABOUT MONEY and one inheriting the wealth of the other.


[quote]These things involve less government, not more.[/quote]

Are you a Republican? Because if you are, you are definitely associated with a party that DOES not stand for LESS government anymore. Sure there are Republicans not happy with that, but theres a reason for the term NEO-Con, it denotes someone who has abandoned the long held beliefs of true conservatives.

Do you understand what Im talking about when I say I am against Dominionism?

Even if youre for less government, I do see a Dominionist tilt to your words.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Budge

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1224349' date='Mar 31 2007, 06:40 PM']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.[/quote]Hi, dairy. I was waiting and waiting and waiting for you to see my post since we can't send Private Messages. I have my opinions on these things, and like you, like bouncing them off other people to see what they say, poke holes, agree, and tell me why.

In the first part, I agree there is a different degree regarding how sins against natural law may affect others and think that should be well considered. I had been pointing out that there is often more harm done that immediate harm identified to specific people. While I find sodomy creepy and wrong, I consider minorly against natrual law. Socrates had brought up in another thread a very interesting and valid point which I think you would find very relevant. Soc had said there are some things that if they are done in private, don't have to be acknoweldged by Society. People have a right to privacy and I think that is where people have the right to exercise their free will.

I agree with you that the effect of sins on others should be considered, and public sins have more affect than private sins. Sodomy is a good example. People should expect privacy in their home and what they do in the bedroom is between them and God. Demanding laws that force Society to permit and approve sodomy takes it beyond their right to exercise free will in private and infringes upon the values of Society. Society does not need laws that approve or disapprove sexual behavior performed in private unless it is protecting the weak or vulnerable, such as children or mentally impaired.

I think we pretty much agree there.

Active homosexuality is a murkier matter. One of my closest and longest friends left his marriage to live an actively homosexual lifestyle. This was many years ago, he is still a close friend to my wife and kids, and in fact, is called 'Uncle' because he is that close of a friend that he is considered family. Though I strongly believe that homosexuality is morally wrong, I think it is a greater wrong to not consider who he is as a person, a friend, (and a family member). He moved out of state soon after leaving his wife and for the past 15 years, we've stayed in touch, visiting each other, and we would take our kids. His partner was introduced as his roommate. Homosexuality was not discussed until my kids were much older and it was on my wife and my terms. His being homosexual may be a big part of who he is, but it isn't the most important thing. Our friendship was established before that and exists despite that. I expect his respect in not behaving in a manner that I have to publicly act as if it's okay, and he expects I behave in a manner that he has to publiclly act as if it is wrong. We can discuss this privately as friends. I expect something similar can be done in society.

If values that are against Natural Law can be kept private, then people have the freedom to choose otherwise if they aren't preying on the weak or vulnerable. When Society has to accept or acquiesce to sins against Natural Law, there is a problem. That's the problem wtih forcing the military to officially and openly accept homosexuality, or Society officially and openly accept same sex marriage. The harm is done by giving governmental or societal validation and acceptance to behavior against natural law in a public setting. The harm done is destroying the principle of Natural Law that protects people's rights because the are Inalienalble Rights, that aren't defined or determined by majority vote.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I definitely agree with Socrates and you on the point that private sins should not be banned if it's not hurting others. If your private sins affect others too much, which I can't think of many, like if you think to say sodomy makes you act gay in public or somethingetc, then I'm not completely opposed to banning it. That's a moral belief of mine. I'm not sure if you guys think that morally or legally. (I believe as a judge you have to follow the law for the most part even if it's contra you beliefs. even most catholic lawyers i know say that) There's also the legal argument, which says there's actually no privacy clauses in the Consituation. Privacy was only created to prevent sodomy laws by the supreme court in the mid 1900s. Incidentally, this privacy thing laid a big foundatino for abortion, which actually is affecting others so shouldn't be applied that way, but I digress. Anyway, I'm not completely for absolute privacy for sins affecting clearly others, or even indirectly but diretly enough. In that later sense, I might be more "conservative" than you and Soc. Probably not, but based on what's said so far.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1224628' date='Mar 31 2007, 09:10 PM']Youre dreaming if you think a government on this earth is going to be moral, at least before Jesus Christ returns.
Whose going to enforce all those rules, so far I see several here, Im not sure if you are one of them, defending the presents admins "Big" government palns.
Sure even for the saved lives...

But Ill tell you one, thing people are living in fantasty land if they think overturning Roe vs. Wade is going to stop abortion overall. They have better drugs like RU486 that women would just go buy blackmarket and even techniques at home, the feminists have all taught themselves and traded information. Remember I used to be UU right? Most UUs are feminists, i know what is taught in that world. Abortion has advanced beyond the wire hanger days, they have already made preparations in case Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Govt may save some lives in the case of abortion which is the reason I would want them involved at all to protect the weak, but the only thing that would truly do away with abortion is changed hearts and lives via Jesus Christ.
Sure...
How about sodomy laws? Do you understand what some of us are talking about. The very definition of marriage is of man and wife together not two of the same sex. Most of the gay marriage thing is ABOUT MONEY and one inheriting the wealth of the other.
Are you a Republican? Because if you are, you are definitely associated with a party that DOES not stand for LESS government anymore. Sure there are Republicans not happy with that, but theres a reason for the term NEO-Con, it denotes someone who has abandoned the long held beliefs of true conservatives.

Do you understand what Im talking about when I say I am against Dominionism?

Even if youre for less government, I do see a Dominionist tilt to your words.[/quote]
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not end abortion, but it is a necessary first step. Roe v. Wade is judicial tyranny.
Ultimately I think abortion should be outlawed. (Didn't you say you were yourself pro-life?) If the law does not protect innocent human life, it is worthless.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1220951' date='Mar 27 2007, 11:30 PM']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, [b]as long as it doesn't hurt others.[/b][/quote]

Unless that [i]other[/i] is a fetus, of course, then it can be disposed of. Right?

[GodChaser]

I am definitely voting for saying voting for those people who support Christian Morality. I'd be a hypocrit not to vote that way.

And I don't mean superficial things like the ones proposed. It is unbiblical for our countries, to be considered godly nations, to take loans from other countries and banks. God said, if a nation really served him, it would be so blessed, it would do the loaning out, and they would also cancel any debts every 50 years, on the year of Jubilee. Since that hasn't been happening in near history, I consider all nations in the world ungodly, since 1913!

When all of our nations decided to take loans from the national/international/world banks, and internationalist bankers, we decided to run our countries in an ungodly way!

And, as a Christian with Christian morality, I would vote for any person who wants us out of the UN, who wants to dismantle the Federal Resever/National Bank of the country, and getting rid of income tax, which is robbing us all blind, and giving a foreign power control over our countries.

But, hey that's my politics!