The Enlightenment Culture and Creative Reason

Originally posted by frogstomp
Just how idiotic do you plan on getting?
That actually would be a case of you forcing you own "moral" value i.e. that you had some right to do that.
Since you dont have that right for perfectly good societal reasons, I suggest you don't use a 4-term fallacy to construct your argument.

Oh and BTW the Pope aint a US citizen so he shouldnt have any say in US politics.

Just how idiotic do you plan on getting?

If you will not speak my language, then I must speak yours.

That actually would be a case of you forcing you own "moral" value i.e. that you had some right to do that.
Since you dont have that right for perfectly good societal reasons, I suggest you don't use a 4-term fallacy to construct your argument.

Whether I am forcing my moral value or not is not the question. The question is - What would you (or the Government) do that would not be a forcing of moral values on me?

Oh and BTW the Pope aint a US citizen so he shouldnt have any say in US politics.

He isn't. But he is the Head of the Church and he does have the right to decide whether a member of the Church is eligible for certain privileges (communion) or not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]My idea is not that religous people check their beliefs at the door of public discourse, but that no one religion gets to insert itself into the cultural architecture, so to speak.

Do you mean cultural architecture or legal architecture? Because Christianity is already part of the "cultural architecture" of the Western world; it would be s ...[text shortened]... evil or not, it is, ultimately, an act involving two consenting adults. But what about abortion?[/b]

Do you mean cultural architecture or legal architecture? Because Christianity is already part of the "cultural architecture" of the Western world; it would be silly to deny that.

Good point. Okay, legal architecture mainly. Any underlying cultural architecture is going to have a moral dimension. However, in a pluralistic society, there is going to be more than one cultural group as part of the overall architecture, with some differing moral viewpoints. In this country, as BdN pointed out in the thread on gay marriage in the debates forum, the Native American (American Indian) culture allowed for homosexual marriages, for example.

funny how these conversations always revolve around the Catholic Church - I sometimes wonder if this idea is exclusively directed at the Church

Not by me; my greater concern in this country would be from the far right of the other side of the “Reformation.” It’s just that the RCC is kind of in context in this thread.

Interestingly enough, are your moral convictions on murder, theft, perjury etc. "subject to further questioning"?

Of course. What, for example, constitutes murder (theft, perjury), in what degree; what constitute mitigating circumstances? Everything is up for revisitation within the realm of my conscience as a continual practice of “due diligence” and self-integrity. That does not mean that I do not have long-held convictions that I can’t imagine would change; it does mean that I (try to) never let them become unexamined assumptions—which is one of the reasons I expose (some of) them to debate here. (What? You think you have never caused me to change my mind, or at least rethink my position? 🙂 )

Also, isn't your disagreement with the Church a moral absolute in itself?

Hmm… By “moral absolute” do you mean something like a moral conviction held on the basis of “objective” (insofar as that is possible) reasoning, say within the context of one or more moral philosophies? Something like bbarr’s “neo-Kantian” approach, perhaps? Or do you take the opposite of moral absolute to be moral whim?

But what about abortion?

What about it? Do I think that an early-term abortion (say, first trimester) constitutes murder? No. Do I think it’s a simple, clear-cut issue? No. Is my position open to question? Yes (as above). Do I follow the abortion debates to try to learn? Yes. Do I want to debate about it here? No.

You know, it might come out of the “cultural architecture” of Lutheran adherence to personal conscience: Luther’s famous statement at the close of the Diet of Worms. It may also be that I have no well-defined, systemic moral ideology or philosophy to hold to (I tend to distrust philosophical systems). Does that mean that I am a moral relativist? I don’t think so—I don’t say about a serial killer, “Oh, he’s just following his own (pathological) conscience, so let him be.” That would be irrational and socially irresponsible, at the very least.

If I have an underlying moral compass, perhaps it starts with something like “An it harm none, do as you will.” Now to just end there and say that’s all there is, is as simplistic as to just throw out Jesus' version of the “golden rule” and stop there. For example, it would be silly to say, “Oh, so we, as a community of persons, cannot then remove the threat of the serial killer, because to do so would then ‘harm’ him.” And that is my main point throughout this whole discussion—there is no simple, formulaic way to avoid “wrestling in the mud” over complex moral issues.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just how idiotic do you plan on getting?

If you will not speak my language, then I must speak yours.

That actually would be a case of you forcing you own "moral" value i.e. that you had some right to do that.
Since you dont have that right for perfectly good societal reasons, I suggest you don't use to decide whether a member of the Church is eligible for certain privileges (communion) or not.

maybe that's because you don't understand the difference between rights and moral values.

and that thing about communion only points out the practicing catholics should be barred from holding office and all other agents of a foreign state are.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Would you argue that, similarly, for India to reject Hinduism amounts to rejecting its own cultural expression and identity; and that, if Europe should not go that route re Christianity, that India should also not go that route re Hinduism (recognizing, of course, that India, like Europe, also has a plurality of religious expressions)?

Nat ...[text shortened]... ases are very real examples of post-Enlightenment moral relativism performing in the real world.[/b]

I think India should be free to embrace any cultural architecture it wants, but not at the expense of its own. In other words, I see nothing wrong with synthesis, only substitution.

Agreed, with the proviso that respectful account must be taken of those who do not want to “synthesize” (I take your statement as referring to a kind of natural and voluntary process of synthesis).

Re the church’s longstanding presence in India: A. DeMello is Indian. 😉

What is your opinion on the paragraph I cited from Cardinal Ratzinger's speech on laws that could prohibit the Church from teaching that homosexuality is an objective sin? Or about legislators who think that the Church's inability to ordain women is in contradiction with the European Constitution?

I was using homosexuality only as an example, since he mentioned that one in his essay. I think the Pope is free to express his moral opinions; I am free to disagree. I'm not sure where the "hate-speech" line gets drawn; that statement by Benedict did not seem to be inflammatory or hateful in any way; also, as I understand it, the RCC position is that it is not sinful to be homosexual, but to engage in homosexual intercourse is. Again, I disagree (with that second part).

I think the state telling the Roman Catholic Church who they can and cannot ordain is—well, I can’t even get my head around that one.

I’m not from Canada. I’m surprised there is not a religious exemption in that marriage law, though there are churches that conduct same-sex marriages.

Human history teaches us that leaving morality to a majority vote often leads to gross injustices - slavery in the West, caste system in India etc. Did the majority in these cases not have moral convictions?

I’d have to see some good evidence that autocratic governments do better. Did the majority not have moral convictions? Yes—one’s that condoned slavery and racism. Did not many of the churches (and I am not singling out the RCC here, far from it!) not also condone slavery? Absolutely. Did not the caste system of India develop under a feudal system, and not a democracy? Did the “unclean” caste have a vote? Were the class systems of feudal Europe open to vote?

Anti-discrimination laws do not come about in society until a minority becomes too vocal to be ignored - or a society changes its moral views.

Sadly true.

Originally posted by frogstomp
maybe that's because you don't understand the difference between rights and moral values.

and that thing about communion only points out the practicing catholics should be barred from holding office and all other agents of a foreign state are.

the difference between rights and moral values.

Such as the right not to have someone else’s moral values imposed on me without a compelling social reason? Yeah, we may be having two simultaneous discussions here that are getting blurred… I may have used up a lot of verbiage here stumbling around that point. 😛

practicing catholics should be barred from holding office and all other agents of a foreign state are.

Come on, froggy! That’s the same kind of disenfranchisement you would normally come down on like a ton of bricks! I do not think that JFK, for example, acted as an “agent of a foreign state.”

Originally posted by vistesd
the difference between rights and moral values.

Such as the right not to have someone else’s moral values imposed on me without a compelling social reason? Yeah, we may be having two simultaneous discussions here that are getting blurred… I may have used up a lot of verbiage here stumbling around that point. 😛

practicing catholics s a ton of bricks! I do not think that JFK, for example, acted as an “agent of a foreign state.”

Im agreeing with you on rights.

and even about JFK but, that was then , this is now.

Im saying that if the pope has any power to command a political stance of Catholics on a state matter of a politician then that politician has forfited their right to hold office. also the slants the political process away from democracy and toward theocracy.
It's one thing to say some act is morally wrong for a member of the RCC but the pope would overstep any legitimate authority of a church leader by punishing a church member for NOT enforcing his dictates on others.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Im agreeing with you on rights.

and even about JFK but, that was then , this is now.

And what changed? Should John Kerry and John McCain be removed from their respective sides of the Senate aisle (okay, I mean just because they're Catholic)? Is there some Catholic conspiracy that I am blissfully ignorant of? What about Baptists, what about Jews, what about Muslims....?

I seriously don't see where you're coming from here, froggy...

EDIT: Okay, I just read your edit...but, has the Pope said that a legislator that votes, say to legalize gay marriage, that they will face excommunication? What about abstaining from votes where there is a "personal interest?"

Originally posted by vistesd
And what changed? Should John Kerry and John McCain be removed from their respective sides of the Senate aisle (okay, I mean just because they're Catholic)? Is there some Catholic conspiracy that I am blissfully ignorant of? What about Baptists, what about Jews, what about Muslims....?

I seriously don't see where you're coming from here, froggy...
...[text shortened]... face excommunication? What about abstaining from votes where there is a "personal interest?"

sorry about the big edit.

The bottomline is as Christ said " You can serve two masters" and as far as I know the oath of office is NOT to the pope.

Originally posted by vistesd
And what changed? Should John Kerry and John McCain be removed from their respective sides of the Senate aisle (okay, I mean just because they're Catholic)? Is there some Catholic conspiracy that I am blissfully ignorant of? What about Baptists, what about Jews, what about Muslims....?

I seriously don't see where you're coming from here, froggy...
...[text shortened]... face excommunication? What about abstaining from votes where there is a "personal interest?"

and yet the ones that think its ok to set up a morally dictated by the pope legal system remain in office and voting on the very same issues?
Tell me who do they serve?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Do you mean cultural architecture or legal architecture? Because Christianity is already part of the "cultural architecture" of the Western world; it would be silly to deny that.

Good point. Okay, legal architecture mainly. Any underlying cultural architecture is going to have a moral dimension. However, in a pluralistic society, there is goin ...[text shortened]... ion—there is no simple, formulaic way to avoid “wrestling in the mud” over complex moral issues.[/b]

[b]But what about abortion?

What about it?[/b]

Simply this - unlike homosexuality, abortion involves the termination of a life. Unlike homosexuality, it happens without the consent of the living being whose life is being terminated.

You know only too well the arguments on both sides of the abortion debate - so I'm not going to repeat them. Suffice it to say (in the spirit of Cardinal Ratzinger) - what if this life is a human life? In such a case, your current position would amount to condoning murder or, at the very least, infanticide†.

You've said you tend to distrust moral philosophy - perhaps because you feel it is too "theoretical" or "academic" and not close enough to the realities of life. But what moral philosophy aims to do is to provide a coherent and consistent view of morality. We value consistency in moral principles; we identify it with the integrity of the person.


If I have an underlying moral compass, perhaps it starts with something like “An it harm none, do as you will.”

Does the termination of the life of the unborn fetus constitute "harm"? As a character from the recent hit I, Robot says, "That is the right question".

---
† Some might argue that "murder" refers to the killing of a 'person' (i.e. a being with intellect and will). An infant (especially a very young one) possesses neither intellect nor will and, therefore, cannot be considered a person.
---

Cheers,

LH

Originally posted by vistesd
Okay, I just read your edit...but, has the Pope said that a legislator that votes, say to legalize gay marriage, that they will face excommunication?

And what if he [the Pope]† does? Isn't that his prerogative as the Head of the Church?

If the leadership of a Buddhist organisation were to expel a member who publicly supports the slaughter of animals, would you hold it against them?

---
† Actually, according to Canon Law, it is the 'local ordinary' (usually the Bishop) who sentences a penalty of excommunication.
---

Cheers,

LH

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And what if he [the Pope]† does? Isn't that his prerogative as the Head of the Church?

If the leadership of a Buddhist organisation were to expel a member who publicly supports the slaughter of animals, would you hold it against them?

---
† Actually, according to Canon Law, it is the 'local ordinary' (usually the Bishop) who sentences a penalty of excommunication.
---

Cheers,

LH

Like I said if that's the case , then all practicing Catholic legislators and Judges are unfit for office.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Like I said if that's the case , then all practicing Catholic legislators and Judges are unfit for office.

Why?

If a legislator makes his stand on particular issues known and is legitimately voted into office by his constituency, why is he unfit for office?

If a Judge makes it clear that he will uphold the law on matters where discretion is not required, but will take a particular stand on positions where he has latitude for discretion, why is he unfit for office?

What does it matter where their views come from?

It's people like you who remind me why anti-Catholicism is called the new anti-Semitism.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why?

If a legislator makes his stand on particular issues known and is legitimately voted into office by his constituency, why is he unfit for office?

If a Judge makes it clear that he will uphold the law on matters where discretion is not required, but will take a particular stand on positions where he has latitude for discretion, why is he unf ...[text shortened]... om?

It's people like you who remind me why anti-Catholicism is called the new anti-Semitism.

you confuse anti-fascism with anti-Catholicism.
And the worst anti-semite in history learned his anti-semitism while he was a practicing Catholic.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why?

If a legislator makes his stand on particular issues known and is legitimately voted into office by his constituency, why is he unfit for office?

If a Judge makes it clear that he will uphold the law on matters where discretion is not required, but will take a particular stand on positions where he has latitude for discretion, why is he unf ...[text shortened]... om?

It's people like you who remind me why anti-Catholicism is called the new anti-Semitism.

LH: "It's people like you who remind me why anti-Catholicism is called the new anti-Semitism."


Hear hear !