do you believe in religious freedom?

[Resurrexi]

Vote.

[Akalyte]

well i dont believe they should be slaves but i believe that their false religions arent going to help the world..
they may contain some truth and some good, but they cannot acommplish what the True Church can. They also tend to cause a lot of confusion. which in turn makes the Church's mission harder. So my answer would be no..everyone hates the true church one way or another..

[Fidei Defensor]

I believe it as the Church has always defined it, which is that one must be free to choose so that when they come to the truth and discover Christ, that they are willfully accepting it by their own choice, instead of being forced into it.

Religious freedom does not give license to practice false religions. It gives one the right to discover the truth on their own. True religious freedom goes hand in hand with the Church's mission in evangelism, so that those who are searching may be helped in finding the truth.

So basically, it's 'let them choose for themselves, but guide them to Christ and His Church.'

Edited June 2, 2006 by fidei defensor

[Pontifite 7 of 10]

I really want everyone to be a Catholic. But if they don't have faith, and you or someone else can't help them, we can't force them. But we need to try. As hard as we can. To show them the living word and the light, Jesus. Lets Pray for them.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='995027' date='Jun 1 2006, 05:59 PM']
well i dont believe they should be slaves but i believe that their false religions arent going to help the world..
they may contain some truth and some good, but they cannot acommplish what the True Church can. They also tend to cause a lot of confusion. which in turn makes the Church's mission harder. So my answer would be no..everyone hates the true church one way or another..
[/quote]




And this is why America didn't want a Church state government. And now you have to live with it. Europe is filled with State Churches and yet they are becomming less and less christian in any sense of the word.



They are becomming more and more atheistic and the religion of Europe is becomming more and more Islamic.


No the founders of this country wanted Religion in the public square. And they wanted Religion to influence the State. But they didn't want the State to influence Religion.








INLOVE Jnorm

If I am forced to become something I don't want to be then I would rather die. For who would defend a Church or a State that won't allow them to freely choose?

This is how the Bzantium Empire fell to Islam. This is how France fell to Atheism. This is how Russia fell to Atheism.


If the Church is united to the State then those who are suffering will blame not only the State but the Church as well. For the Church was blamed along with the State.


P.S. "IF you don't have faith in your religion as being the truth then you must use the state to enforce your will over the people. And in the end the people will overthrow not only the State but the Church as well"

Edited June 2, 2006 by jnorm888

[Nathan]

Yes, I believe in religious freedom. However, of course, there must be limits to this freedom. If someone, for instance, decides that their religion requires them to dance naked through the streets weilding a machete at passersby, they should be refused the freedom to practice that part of their religion.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Nathan

[Socrates]

The problem with a Catholic "Theocracy" is it is all too easy to wind up with a Henry VIII-type situation, in which the King declares himself head of the Church. Of course, people would propose having the King take an oath of loyalty to the Pope or something, but then the King could easily declare the Pope not really Pope (as certain "rad-trads" do) if the Pope got in the way of his agenda.

The government should not oppose the practice of the Faith, but there are dangers if the state is given too much power over religious affairs. Religious practice should not be subject to State approval. Some separation of Church and State is wise (in the true sense, not in the modern lib sense of removal of any expression of religion from the public sphere).

[Tata126]

As long as practicing one's religion doesn't endanger anybody else or violate their natural rights (among which is NOT included the right to not be offended), anyone should be allowed to practice his religion publically. The state's place is in protection, not apostolate. Apostolate is what we have the Church for. We as members of the Church have the obligation to try to bring people to the truth, but each person must be free to choose God (that's why he gave us free will), so the state cannot enforce a religion.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="330000"]God gave us a free will to choose which path we want to follow.
Some of us choose the bad ones.

So yes, we all deserve the right to choose...whether that choice is wrong or right, some people dont really care.
[/color][/size]

[missionseeker]

If God didn't want religious freedom- we wouldn't have freewill. But we do so we a free to choose Him or... something else

[indescribable]

timshel, timshel (anyone read East of Eden)

God gave the ENTIRE world free will.

So who are you to force your religion on someone else?

If we're different now, then it can't be changed very easily, who's to say in 1000 years the entire world will be Catholic. Due to human nature, that's not going to happen if we decide what's best for everyone and make everyone Catholic. The Church running all of Europe forcefully didn't turn out for the very best in the end.

[goldenchild17]

I absolutely do not believe in religious freedom. Especially according to the above definition. I believe it is a heresy condemned by the Church(although I'm going to be a good boy and not debate it if such is not allowed to be debated here ).

Edited June 2, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Franimus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='995347' date='Jun 2 2006, 01:50 AM']
I absolutely do not believe in religious freedom. Especially according to the above definition. I believe it is a heresy condemned by the Church(although I'm going to be a good boy and not debate it if such is not allowed to be debated here ).
[/quote]
Actually, this is exactly the place for you to debate it...
I think if we do not allow the religious freedoms described by the poll, we are oppressing them. Ask the Romans: Religions spread best when oppressed. Since I firmly believe that philosophy and theology support each other, and since it looks to me like the philosophical arguments in this thread show that unbiased freedom (keeping in mind that you are only free to choose what is good) is the right thing, I think that religious freedom is also theologically and objectively right. Theologically, God did give us free will to choose whether or not to follow Him, so we would be going directly against God's will if we directly hindered that freedom. From personal experience, I'm pretty sure this is correct. My dad is an alcoholic, and recently was released from being locked up (because locking him up was the only way they said he would stop drinking for sure). The very first thing he did was stop at a liquor store. Obviously, stopping him from drinking did not cure him, just as stopping somebody from practicing false religions will not stop them from believing in those false religions. (To finish my story, a week from now I'll be moving back into my dad's house, and while I do not plan on forcibly stopping him from drinking anything, I plan on slowly talking him out of it, which is the same way anybody is going to follow a different religion willingly)

[JJMG2001]

I believe in freedom of religion partially. I think it is absolutely morally imperative that all religions be allowed to practice their faith because you can't force someone to be Catholic but this doesn't demand the separation of church and state nor the right to openly evangelize anything but Catholicism nor does it necessitate a lack of favoritism toward followers of certain religions. I think that in certain circumstances (especially those of the current time) promoting those three is a better practical idea but in general the Church should do what is in her best interests concerning these issues. This is because no one has the right to preach falsehood (evangelize) nor is there anything wrong with a governor nor other person surrounding with themselves nor putting in power above them people of their own world view & I also think that that Catholic Church has authority over every other authority on the face of the earth so theoretically the pope could dissolve any government and all of them receive their authority from him who speaks with the authority of God when it comes to such matters.

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='995347' date='Jun 1 2006, 11:50 PM']
I absolutely do not believe in religious freedom. Especially according to the above definition. I believe it is a heresy condemned by the Church(although I'm going to be a good boy and not debate it if such is not allowed to be debated here ).
[/quote]





What are your feelings of Roman Catholics in China? Surely they don't have freedom of religion over there.


So why would you demand the same for other religions under a Roman Catholic state? (Non vatican city)



What about Roman Catholics in the Middle east? Or North Africa? Carthage use to be under Roman authority. Now look at the place. Barely a christian in site!!! Anywhere!!!



Rome has the Right to change according to the times.









INLOVE Jnorm