Freedom Of Speech

[Hassan]

1-Is it, in your opinion, correct that the right to speak truth is an absolute right, but there is no right to speak lies and errors?

2-Does the Roman Catholic Church have a right to dictate what constitutes truth and error in this capacity within the political order.


I say no to both obviously.

[dairygirl4u2c]

id guess they'd say only bad speech that has to do with sodomy, masturbation etc, and be inconsistent about it as they are with banning sins.

a significant number have a weird outlook on outlawing stuff. they say things like "if it's sinful, ban it". more specifically, "if it's stereotyipi\ally controversially sinful, ban it etc". eg, sodomy, masturbation, fornication, adultery.
some haven't considered masturbation etc, but it'd go up there with sodomy etc, if all that's banned too, there's really no way around it.

then out of the other side of their mouth, they say "don't ban smoking too much, or drinking too much. it's a free country"

actually, they dont per se say 'if it's sinful ban it',,, but it's the only conclusion one could draw. most haven't thought about the conclusions of their beliefs.
and they dont say ban it *because* it's stereotypically sinful, but that's why they hold those beliefs so inconsistently (me thinks

"don't ban, swearing at your own home" ?
"ban eating too much?"
"ban every sin in the book"? (whether it's enforceable is a separate issue of whether it should be banned or not


if i grant benfit of the doubt, and they say only ban 'serious sins', then they still should be against smoking andor drinking too much, masturbation, fornication, disrespecting yoru parents etc.



really, they should realize, that we're free to do this stuff. true, it's not freedom in a spritual sense, as we're slaves to sin. but it's freedom to sin, that God intended. (before anyone jumps on this statement... 'free will', now it's okay what i just said) he didn't want us to compelled not to sin. (it's not like their hearts aren't in it anyway
so if it's compelled, it's not freedom in any sense of the word.
that's what freedom people are talking about per the first amendment. not to be forcibly compelled to "freedom" of not sinning.

Edited June 10, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[picchick]

There is a right to free speech. I find it hard to separate it in to right to tell the truth and right to tell a lie. Lies are not right so do we have a right to tell them?

The right to speech is also a responsibility. So in that right to say what we want we have an obligation to speak truth. Lies and error are not only sinful but (if you are not even relgious) they are degrading, damaging and hurtful. Therefore, we have an obligation to not tell lies.

I believe that the same thing goes for swearing. Even if you are not religious, swearing is disrespectful. Sure, you can do it in your own home but what if you make it a habit in your own home then what is going to censor you outside your home? It is our obligation to speak correctly within our right to speech.

The Roman Catholic Church speaks out on faith and morals. Therefore, if they say something is wrong then we should follow that (of course with understanding). They are a guide to help get us to heaven. Therefore, we should use them as a guide when exercising our rights.

People often confuse right to freedom of speech and the other freedoms with "doing whatever we want." This is not true. It is not how the Founding Fathers intended it. They intended us to be able to excerise our rights without government infringement. It is our job, responsibility and obligation to not abuse those rights and to exercise them appropriately. Since the Church guides my faith and morals, I use the Church also to guide my speech.

[musturde]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1887544' date='Jun 9 2009, 10:53 PM']1-Is it, in your opinion, correct that the right to speak truth is an absolute right, but there is no right to speak lies and errors?[/quote]

How can you know what is true without knowing the lies/errors?
Slander should remain illegal, I believe that.
However, it's dangerous to tell people they cannot talk about/write about specific things. Even if they're intentionally lying about a subject. If there truly is freedom of speech, the people who believe the deliberate lies are at fault, not the person writing.

[quote]2-Does the Roman Catholic Church have a right to dictate what constitutes truth and error in this capacity within the political order.


I say no to both obviously.[/quote]

Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir said that politics corrupts religion. I believe that. Unless the situation entails assasinations and/or excessive corruption from the political figures, I don't think the Church should take a specific side or speak against specific groups.

[Socrates]

Obviously, there is no "right," in the moral sense, to tell lies, or commit other evils.

However, politically-speaking, I believe there should be a right to free speech (in the sense our founding fathers intended, to able to freely speak or publish one's own political views without punishment or censorship from the state. Public obscenity and whatnot is not true "speech.")

There is a problem, of course, when the state becomes the ultimate arbitrator of what is truth and what are lies to be censored. This becomes a short step to tyranny in which "truth" becomes defined as whatever conforms to the official propaganda government line, and "lies" are whatever contradicts said official government line.

As Catholics, we believe the Church speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals when officially teaching through the Magisterium, but this does not mean any individual churchman cannot lie (or be honestly mistaken).
In the days of old Christendom, when all society was Catholic, heresy was considered a crime, but of course in today's "pluralistic" society, that's out of the question.

[Kitty]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1888145' date='Jun 10 2009, 09:13 PM']In the days of old Christendom, when all society was Catholic, heresy was considered a crime, but of course in today's "pluralistic" society, that's out of the question.[/quote]

Are you saying that's a bad thing?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1888148' date='Jun 10 2009, 10:21 PM']Are you saying that's a bad thing?[/quote]

In a Catholic State, I don't think it should be legal for heretics to proselytize.

And I think every state should be a Catholic State.

[Kitty]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1888157' date='Jun 10 2009, 09:38 PM']In a Catholic State, I don't think it should be legal for heretics to proselytize.

And I think every state should be a Catholic State.[/quote]

Wow.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you're surprised, but round here, what's outrageous andor unheard of, is common place.

he might be talkin just about heretic in the narrowest of sense, ie, one who is catholic or whatev and still rejecting certain beliefs. he might mean a former catholic. he might mean it more colloquially to mean any noncatholic belief. he prob means it in the first sense, as that's most proper way of speaking.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1887544' date='Jun 9 2009, 11:53 PM']1-Is it, in your opinion, correct that the right to speak truth is an absolute right, but there is no right to speak lies and errors?

2-Does the Roman Catholic Church have a right to dictate what constitutes truth and error in this capacity within the political order.


I say no to both obviously.[/quote]

1) I do believe that it is an absolute right. This would imply that there is no exception.

2) The Church has a duty to teach; the Catholic Church is a teaching church. This doesn't imply a divine call for the church to dictation.

Judaism and Islam are religions of laws, but Catholicism is a religion of faith, formation, and instruction -- not dictating laws. God took a chance on humanity with liberty; and the Church does the same.

[Mercy me]

You have a right to speak freely. You have the responsibility to do it appropriately. However, no one is required to listen to you.

[musturde]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1888157' date='Jun 10 2009, 10:38 PM']In a Catholic State, I don't think it should be legal for heretics to proselytize.

And I think every state should be a Catholic State.[/quote]

Dark Ages here we come!

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1888181' date='Jun 10 2009, 11:23 PM']you're surprised, but round here, what's outrageous andor unheard of, is common place.

he might be talkin just about heretic in the narrowest of sense, ie, one who is catholic or whatev and still rejecting certain beliefs. he might mean a former catholic. he might mean it more colloquially to mean any noncatholic belief. he prob means it in the first sense, as that's most proper way of speaking.[/quote]

I actually meant I don't think that in a Catholic State where the majority of the population is Catholic that any non-Catholics should be allowed to proselytize. This is completely in accord with [i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] which says:

"[N]o one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, [i]within due limits.[/i]" ([i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] 2, emphasis added)

"[T]he right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, [i]provided that just public order be observed[/i]." ([i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] 2, my emhpasis)

It would certainly disturb the public order in a Catholic state where most of the citizens were orthodox Catholics is non-Catholics began to proselytize.

[quote name='musturde' post='1888337' date='Jun 11 2009, 02:04 AM']Dark Ages here we come![/quote]

The Dark Ages and Middle Ages were wonderful times. Those were the ages when Christendom was at its height.

[picchick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1888157' date='Jun 10 2009, 10:38 PM']In a Catholic State, I don't think it should be legal for heretics to proselytize.

And I think every state should be a Catholic State.[/quote]

I disagree. I mean I understand what you are saying, that it should be the majority. But my fear is that people will start following like lemmings. I do not agree with that. If people are to come to be Catholic, they need to accept it wholeheartedly themselves. They cannot be forced nor can they be pushed into the faith. This is where we start to get problems with hating religion, the Church and God.
With that being said, I believe that just as I don't go around hatin' on other religions and I try to understand where people are coming from, people should do the same for Catholicism. I think that if more people learned about the Catholic faith (and maybe even their own) they would be more apt to become Catholic.

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1888182' date='Jun 10 2009, 11:26 PM']1) I do believe that it is an absolute right. This would imply that there is no exception.

2) The Church has a duty to teach; the Catholic Church is a teaching church. This doesn't imply a divine call for the church to dictation.

Judaism and Islam are religions of laws, but Catholicism is a religion of faith, formation, and instruction -- not dictating laws. God took a chance on humanity with liberty; and the Church does the same.[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1888424' date='Jun 11 2009, 10:25 AM']I actually meant I don't think that in a Catholic State where the majority of the population is Catholic that any non-Catholics should be allowed to proselytize. This is completely in accord with [i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] which says:

"[N]o one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, [i]within due limits.[/i]" ([i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] 2, emphasis added)

"[T]he right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, [i]provided that just public order be observed[/i]." ([i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] 2, my emhpasis)

It would certainly disturb the public order in a Catholic state where most of the citizens were orthodox Catholics is non-Catholics began to proselytize.[/quote]
but then that would limit freedom of religion for non-Catholics, no?

[quote]The Dark Ages and Middle Ages were wonderful times. Those were the ages when Christendom was at its height.[/quote]

I disagree. Christendom was at its height but I am sure that the majority of the people did not understand what it was that they were practicing. And would I, a woman, be able to learn as much as I have now? I would rather live now in this day in age where I have learned extensively about my faith and that I am able to understand and convey my faith to others.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1888424' date='Jun 11 2009, 11:25 AM']I actually meant I don't think that in a Catholic State where the majority of the population is Catholic that any non-Catholics should be allowed to proselytize. This is completely in accord with [i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] which says:

"[N]o one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, [i]within due limits.[/i]" ([i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] 2, emphasis added)

"[T]he right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, [i]provided that just public order be observed[/i]." ([i]Dignitatis Humanae[/i] 2, my emhpasis)

It would certainly disturb the public order in a Catholic state where most of the citizens were orthodox Catholics is non-Catholics began to proselytize.[/quote]

Something tells me what you think the Church means by "within due limits" and "provided that just public order be observed" is not what you are taking it to mean.

Every Christian, regardless of creed, is commanded to evangelize by the words of Jesus Christ in the Great Commission (which was the Gospel reading this past Sunday).