Originally posted by ColettiLook, you made the following claim:
I'm thinking about fair pay, theft, taxes, etc. All of which can go in either direction if you assume utilitarian viewpoint or purely secular world view. That is not the case for a Christian.
Also, private property laws, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. The principles which are the basis for our civil law, are a reflection of the principles e ...[text shortened]... our founding fathers - with a few exceptions - that formed the freedoms we have today in the US.
If the State is going to make law - it must be based on moral principles - there is no way to avoid that. No wall can separate moral principles and civil law.
I found two walls which make this claim utterly invalid: pornography and adultery. Unless you
want to make the claim that these two immoral things (from a Christian viewpoint) ought to be
illegal, then you need to revise your claim.
Note that in debunking your claim, I did not refer to religion to bolster my argument. Your claim
is internally inconsistent. As such, its merit is demonstrably weakened.
Furthermore, as #1 has pointed out, Calvinist principles have little to do with the establishment of
the US's fundamental principles; indeed, the freedoms enumerated by the Constitution are mutually
exclusive to Calvinist thought! Calvin believed that religion ought to inform state decisions; he
speaks as you do: if it is immoral, it ought to be illegal. As Calvin held many obviously morally
neutral things to be evil (like drinking or dancing in extreme interpretation), such laws would be
effected in order to establish a Calvinist government. In other words, the Bible would be the
source of determining what is and is not immoral and thus illegal: thus, a theocracy.
If you do not agree with this, then you deny Calvinist governmental philosophy. If you deny it,
then any argument you make based on its merits are hypocritical and not worthy of debate.
So, I will ask you again: Should pornography and adultery be illegal? Yes or no?
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerI note that, even with objections that I don't quite agree with, LucifersHammer is the
Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]Answer the question, Ivanhoe.
Although the question is directed at ivanhoe, I'll answer them because they weigh in my debate with no1.
You are agreeing that Pro-Choice RC politicians be denied Eucharist because they enable
the public to engage in what the Church believes is a 'grave sin.'
...[text shortened]... aching under all circumstances. Could we avoid the war-death penalty red herrings in the future?[/b]
only one with enough sack to have responded. To recap:
A politician who is personally Pro-Life but represents his/her constituency as Pro-Choice
is in violation of Church teaching and ought to be denied Eucharist. The reason is because
a RC is expected to fight against doctrinal moral injustice.
LH agrees that those politicians who also tacitly support divorce/remarrying and contraceptive
use similarly ought to be denied Eucharist. That is, if politicians are not trying to create laws
which prevent such immoral practices (according to the Church), then they are permitting
doctrinal immorality. (Ivanhoe, do you agree with this?)
I can't think of any political candidate who has ever tried to pass a law making contraception
or remarrying illegal; thus, any Roman Catholic representative necessarily should be denied
Holy Eucharist.
Consequently: any RC person who votes for a candidate who holds a political position which is in
doctrinal controversy with the RCC is similarly enabling those 'immoral' policies to continue to exist.
As such, those RCs who don't vote for someone who is explicitly Anti-Choice, Anti-Contraception,
and Anti-Remarrying (I use the term 'Anti' because it explicitly connotes an active campaign
against such institutions) ought to be denied Communion.
Does this sound reasonable to you, LH?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt doesn't surprise me that Lucifershammer would explicitly state this; he was the only anti-abortion person on this site to admit that since they believe abortion is murder that it should be treated as murder as far as criminal penalties are concerned if it becomes illegal (long prison sentences being the norm). He's a fanatic; but at least he's a logically consistent fanatic. Ivanhoe is too afraid to openly state these views as he knows it won't go down to the Western public, so he tries to obscure his ultimate agenda.
I note that, even with objections that I don't quite agree with, LucifersHammer is the
only one with enough sack to have responded. To recap:
A politician who is personally Pro-Life but represents his/her constituency as Pro-Choice
is in violation of Church teaching and ought to be denied Eucharist. The reason is because
a RC is expected to fight ag ...[text shortened]... institutions) ought to be denied Communion.
Does this sound reasonable to you, LH?
Nemesio
That being said, I wish LH would answer the objection that as the late Pope declared that the war in Iraq wasn't just, why shouldn't those Roman Catholic politicians who supported it have been denied Communion too.
Originally posted by no1marauderActually the pro-unjust war adherents are calling for the implementation of it by the state , while the pro-choice adherents are saying its none of the states business.
It doesn't surprise me that Lucifershammer would explicitly state this; he was the only anti-abortion person on this site to admit that since they believe abortion is murder that it should be treated as murder as far as criminal penalties are concerned if it becomes illegal (long prison sentences being the norm). He's a fanatic; but at least ...[text shortened]... why shouldn't those Roman Catholic politicians who supported it have been denied Communion too.
so who is most at odds with the RCC?
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: " Ivanhoe is too afraid to openly state these views as he knows it won't go down to the Western public, so he tries to obscure his ultimate agenda."
It doesn't surprise me that Lucifershammer would explicitly state this; he was the only anti-abortion person on this site to admit that since they believe abortion is murder that it should be treated as murder as far as criminal penalties are concerned if it becomes illegal (long prison sentences being the norm). He's a fanatic; but at least ...[text shortened]... why shouldn't those Roman Catholic politicians who supported it have been denied Communion too.
..... my ultimate agenda ? What might that be ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhy don't you share it with us? I did say you were trying to obscure it, perhaps you've been successful.
No1: " Ivanhoe is too afraid to openly state these views as he knows it won't go down to the Western public, so he tries to obscure his ultimate agenda."
..... my ultimate agenda ? What might that be ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince I'm not a member of the Church, I don't care if they're silent or not. The Church's pronouncements on such matters have zero impact on my opinion. Apparently their prononcements on artificial contraception is rejected by the majority of Church members in the US and other Western countries. If they want to continue to jabber about their own unique version of sexual morals and ignore the teachings of Jesus (who seemingly didn't care about such trifles if his words are accurately recreated in the Gospels), that's on them: it certainly won't help the Church get new members or hang on to young ones in the West.
Should the Church be silent, No1 ?
Originally posted by no1marauder
Since I'm not a member of the Church, I don't care if they're silent or not. The Church's pronouncements on such matters have zero impact on my opinion. Apparently their prononcements on artificial contraception is rejected by the majority of Church members in the US and other Western countries. If they want to continue to jabber about their ...[text shortened]... them: it certainly won't help the Church get new members or hang on to young ones in the West.
You don't care. I see.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Look Squishy. Every one of those statements is asserting a some moral standard. Which is exactly what I am saying. Laws are not morally neutral. You are not arguing these laws are morally neutral - you are saying they are immoral. Fine - on what basis? How can you make that assertion without making some sort of moral judgment? Civil law can not be separated from moral principles.
Boy oh boy. I'm going through alot of laws - especially the ones passed by this administration and Congress - and I haven't found too many moral ones.
Do you think it's moral to give huge tax cuts to people who are already ext ...[text shortened]... u're just not well-informed enough to participate in this debate.
Originally posted by ColettiLook Colyoptile, everyone is entitled to comment on laws from the standpoint of their own moral position. I have no doubt that every politician who ever voted on a law would confidently assert (through their lying teeth) that they cast their vote in accordance with their moral yardstick.
Look Squishy. Every one of those statements is asserting a some moral standard. Which is exactly what I am saying. Laws are not morally neutral. You are not arguing these laws are morally neutral - you are saying they are immoral. Fine - on what basis? How can you make that assertion without making some sort of moral judgment? Civil law can not be separated from moral principles.
Happily we all have different moral values. If we didn't e would be robbed of our freewill , we would no longer be ourselves but we would become a many headed singularity. Ych, how boring
Originally posted by Nemesio
A politician who is personally Pro-Life but represents his/her constituency as Pro-Choice
is in violation of Church teaching and ought to be denied Eucharist. The reason is because
a RC is expected to fight against doctrinal moral injustice.
Not quite. Abortion is, in itself, an excommunicable offence because of the gravity of the sin involved. A politician taking a public position that supports abortion is encouraging/enabling people to grave sin (i.e. Scandal).
Absence of / abstaining from dissent is not the same as assent. You're making the same mistake you accuse ivanhoe of making when he claims kirksey is pro-abortion because he does not explicitly condemn abortions.
LH agrees that those politicians who also tacitly support divorce/remarrying and contraceptive
use similarly ought to be denied Eucharist. That is, if politicians are not trying to create laws
which prevent such immoral practices (according to the Church), then they are permitting
doctrinal immorality. ([b]Ivanhoe, do you agree with this?)[/b]
Again, you're reading into my position something that I have neither stated, nor logically implied by it. A politician can discourage divorce and contraception in ways other than simply introducing a Bill to outlaw them. e.g. by making no-cause divorces much more difficult, raising taxation on contraceptives etc.
Another consideration would have to be the gravity of the crime involved. Abortion is the taking of a defenseless human life (whether that life is a "person" or not) and hence a much more grave sin. A Catholic politician is reasonably expected to use his power to a greater degree in this case.
I can't think of any political candidate who has ever tried to pass a law making contraception
or remarrying illegal; thus, any Roman Catholic representative necessarily should be denied
Holy Eucharist.
See above.
Consequently: any RC person who votes for a candidate who holds a political position which is in
doctrinal controversy with the RCC is similarly enabling those 'immoral' policies to continue to exist.
Rougly correct (see below).
Once again, I'm drawing a distinction between a "positive" position (i.e. supports something) and the absence of a public position.
As such, those RCs who don't vote for someone who is explicitly Anti-Choice, Anti-Contraception,
and Anti-Remarrying (I use the term 'Anti' because it explicitly connotes an active campaign
against such institutions) ought to be denied Communion.
Roughly correct. Two considerations:
1. In a secret ballot system, it is impossible to determine which voting Catholics have voted against such candidates; practically, it is up to the individual voter to take responsibility for his actions and abstain from Communion.
2. In voting for candidates, the voter must also take into consideration the chances of success of the candidates. So, a Pro-life candidate who is also pro-contraception and pro-divorce may be preferable to a candidate who is pro-life, anti-contraception and anti-divorce if the former has a significantly greater chance of success and voting for the former prevents a pro-abortion, pro-contraception and pro-divorce candidate from attaining office. Here, the relative gravity of the sins involved is a consideration.
Originally posted by no1marauderFor a few reasons:
It doesn't surprise me that Lucifershammer would explicitly state this; he was the only anti-abortion person on this site to admit that since they believe abortion is murder that it should be treated as murder as far as crimi ...[text shortened]... holic politicians who supported it have been denied Communion too.
1. The Pope's statements were part neither of the infallible Magisterium of the Church, nor part of those teachings that require "religious assent of intellect and will" under Canon 751. So, while his comments deserve serious consideration, acting otherwise is not a canonically punishable offence.
2. The Pope did not have available to him all the intelligence that the Catholic politicians may have had at the time of the decision. Hence, they might have had a reasonable basis on which they concluded that it was a Just War that the Pope/USCCB were not aware of.
That said, Catholic politicians are obliged to apply the standards of Just War to the case in consideration to the best of their ability; those who, explicitly and publicly, did not, should IMO be denied Communion.
Hope that makes things clearer.