Rights Vs. Morals

[Byzantine]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1319028062' post='2323614']
Quick question, If "rights are given by God" (See the qoute above) and I have the right to bare arms. That is conflicts with "Thou shall not Kill" (Exodus 20:13 NAB). So Not all rights are given by God, I agree most are but not all.
[/quote]

You [i]do[/i], however, have the right to defend yourself. In some places (backwoods, bad inner city, etc) this may very well require carrying a gun.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=142077 Haven't read all the way, but looks like it could be good.

[Selah]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319023691' post='2323584']
Don't like wife beating? Don't beat your wife.
Don't like child abuse? Don't abuse your child.
Don't like your right taken away? Then don't take away anyone else's.

You see the stupidity in this approach?
[/quote]

LOL. I should post this to my facebook

[Papist]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1319048852' post='2323792']
May i ask what translation of the bible do you use? I use the New American since it is used in the mass, I also like the Jerusalem. I own a St.Ignatious bible though I don't use it much. And each said kill not murder. So not to say you are wrong I'm just want to know what do you think is the best translation with these three respectable versions saying otherwise.
[/quote]
I believe a more accurate translation of the Hebrew text is "Do not put anyone to death without cause." Which is closer to murder than kill.

[Papist]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1319045569' post='2323755']

sorry, im with papist on this one ^

The problem we are running into with the main argument is this: does activity x harm other people? (If not, they should be free to act as they choose.) Many people would say NO to everything on that list, and that my friends is the problem with the way most people think.

Lets "ignore" the obvious one (abortion=murder=harming someone) ... what about smoking? second hand smoke is still rather harmful to others and this is well known, why is it still legal?
[/quote]
Why you sorry you are with me?

[Oremoose]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319052062' post='2323819']
I believe a more accurate translation of the Hebrew text is "Do not put anyone to death without cause." Which is closer to murder than kill.
[/quote]
Thank you I did not know that. but you did not answer my question.

[Papist]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1319054999' post='2323855']
Thank you I did not know that. but you did not answer my question.
[/quote]

Not that I reccommend these bible translations, but here, NIV, NASB, BBE, CEV, ESV, GNB, GW, HNV, MSG, WEB, YLT

The Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate (the official Scripture of the Church), and the original Douay-Reims phrase the Fifth Word as "Thou shalt not murder"; later Douay-Reims versions, such as the Challoner, and the King James Bible, etc., phrase it as "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not murder," however, is the original intent and the meaning of the earliest texts

Edited October 19, 2011 by Papist

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1318988461' post='2323435']
Rights are given by God, there is no right to gay marriage. There is no right to an abortion. There is no right to have sex outside marriage. There is no right to porn. There is no right to be immoral. The government is duty bound as a servent of God to enforce natural and moral law and to oppose those things which are counter to nature and morality.
[/quote]

are you saying that you are ok with the government arresting people who have sex outside of marriage or look at porn? and i bet you think of yourself as politically conservative. The government does not have the right to enforce morality like that.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1319056695' post='2323874']

are you saying that you are ok with the government arresting people who have sex outside of marriage or look at porn? and i bet you think of yourself as politically conservative. The government does not have the right to enforce morality like that.
[/quote]

I was speaking to a wide range of topics. Some immoral acts are arrestable offensives some are not. Abortionists should be arrested, they are murderers. State and local governments can oppose sex outside of marriage by encouraging chastity. The making of pornography is prostitution with a camera. Government can make it illegal just as prostitution is illegal. Government does, can, and should oppose pornography by restricting the sale of it and not allowing it to be viewed publicly.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319055702' post='2323870']

Not that I reccommend these bible translations, but here, NIV, NASB, BBE, CEV, ESV, GNB, GW, HNV, MSG, WEB, YLT

The Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate (the official Scripture of the Church), and the original Douay-Reims phrase the Fifth Word as "Thou shalt not murder"; later Douay-Reims versions, such as the Challoner, and the King James Bible, etc., phrase it as "Thou shalt not kill." "Thou shalt not murder," however, is the original intent and the meaning of the earliest texts
[/quote]

Here are some other sources on the topic...




[quote][b]2261[/b] Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."[sup]61[/sup] The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

...

[b]2263[/b] The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."[sup]65[/sup]


-CCC[/quote]

[quote]
[b]Article 7. Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?[/b]

[size=2][b]Objection 1.[/b] It would seem that nobody may lawfully kill a man in self-defense. For [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): "I do not agree with the opinion that one may kill a man lest one be killed by him; unless one be a soldier, exercise a public office, so that one does it not for oneself but for others, having the power to do so, provided it be in keeping with one's[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm"]person[/url]." Now he who kills a man in self-defense, kills him lest he be killed by him. Therefore this would seem to be unlawful.[/size]

[size=2][b]Objection 2.[/b] Further, he says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "How are they free from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] in sight of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm"]Divine providence[/url], who are guilty of taking a man's life for the sake of these contemptible things?" Now among contemptible things he reckons "those whichmen may forfeit unwillingly," as appears from the context (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): and the chief of these is the life of the body. Therefore it is unlawful for any [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] to take another's life for the sake of the life of his own body.[/size]

[size=2][b]Objection 3.[/b] Further, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11054a.htm"]Pope Nicolas[/url] [Nicolas I, Dist. 1, can. De his clericis] says in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670b.htm"]Decretals[/url]: "Concerning the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm"]clerics[/url]about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have killed a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11388a.htm"]pagan[/url] in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher degree; [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url] that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] under any circumstances whatever." Now [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm"]clerics[/url] and laymen are alike bound to observe the moralprecepts. Therefore neither is it lawful for laymen to kill anyone in self-defense.[/size]

[size=2][b]Objection 4.[/b] Further, [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07441a.htm"]murder[/url] is a more grievous [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] than fornication or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm"]adultery[/url]. Now nobody may lawfully commit simple fornication or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm"]adultery[/url] or any other mortal [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] in order to save his own life; since the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm"]spiritual[/url] life is to be preferred to thelife of the body. Therefore no [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] may lawfully take another's life in self-defense in order to save his own life.[/size]

[size=2][b]Objection 5.[/b] Further, if the tree be [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm"]evil[/url], so is the fruit, according to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat007.htm#verse17"]Matthew 7:17[/url]. Now self-defense itself seems to be unlawful, according to [url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom012.htm#verse19"]Romans 12:19[/url]: "Not defending [[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm"]Douay[/url]: 'revenging'] yourselves, my dearly beloved." Therefore its result, which is the slaying of a man, is also unlawful.[/size]

[size=2][b]On the contrary,[/b] It is written ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo022.htm#verse2"]Exodus 22:2[/url]): "If a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14564b.htm"]thief[/url] be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood." Now it is much more lawful to defend one's life than one's house. Therefore neither is a man guilty of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07441a.htm"]murder[/url] if he kill another in defense of his own life.[/size]

[b]I answer that,[/b] Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm"]intention[/url]. Now moral acts take their [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14210a.htm"]species[/url] according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm"]intention[/url], since this is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm"]accidental[/url] as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm"]intention[/url] is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm"]natural[/url] to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm"]intention[/url], an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15446a.htm"]violence[/url], it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessary[/url] for [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm"]salvation[/url] that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url], since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url], as stated above ([url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#3"]Article 3[/url]), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06636b.htm"]good[/url], as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url] if they be moved by private animosity.

[b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] The words quoted from [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm"]Augustine[/url] refer to the case when one [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm"]man[/url] intends to kill another to savehimself from death. The passage quoted in the Second Objection is to be understood in the same sense. Hence he says pointedly, "for the sake of these things," whereby he indicates the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08069b.htm"]intention[/url]. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

[b]Reply to Objection 3.[/b] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm"]Irregularity[/url] results from the act though sinless of taking a man's life, as appears in the case of ajudge who [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm"]justly[/url] condemns a man to death. For this reason a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04049b.htm"]cleric[/url], though he kill a man in self-defense, is [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08170a.htm"]irregular[/url], albeit he intends not to kill him, but to defend himself.

[b]Reply to Objection 4.[/b] The act of fornication or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm"]adultery[/url] is not [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm"]necessarily[/url] directed to the preservation of one's own life, as is the act whence sometimes results the taking of a man's life.

[b]Reply to Objection 5.[/b] The defense forbidden in this passage is that which comes from revengeful spite. Hence a [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06586a.htm"]gloss[/url] says: "Not defending yourselves--that is, not striking your enemy back."

[size=3][url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html"]Summa Theologica[/url] > [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3.htm"]Second Part of the Second Part[/url] > [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7"]Question 64[/url][/size]

[/quote]

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1319056695' post='2323874']

are you saying that you are ok with the government arresting people who have sex outside of marriage or look at porn? and i bet you think of yourself as politically conservative. The government does not have the right to enforce morality like that.
[/quote]

it doesn't have the right to enforce immorality either, and yet it does...

[Socrates]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1319025616' post='2323594']
That quote in the OP's post is indicative of today's society where consent is the sole criterion of whether something is 'good'.

I like "x", therefore "x" is ok.

Bob and Harry like "y", therefore "y" is ok.

It completely misses the point of not only the societal impact of these issues, but also, as KofC mentions, completely misrepresents and attempts to transform 'wants' into 'rights'.
[/quote]
That's the effects of relativism for you.
The only criteria of "good" is if you like it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1319048852' post='2323792']
May i ask what translation of the bible do you use? I use the New American since it is used in the mass, I also like the Jerusalem. I own a St.Ignatious bible though I don't use it much. And each said kill not murder. So not to say you are wrong I'm just want to know what do you think is the best translation with these three respectable versions saying otherwise.
[/quote]
The commandment forbids murder (unjust or unlawful killing of a human being). As God in numerous cases prescribes the death penalty for a variety of crimes, and orders the killing of enemies in war, the commandment cannot be taken to mean any and all taking of human life, unless you wish to argue that God contradicts Himself.

If you want to take the English word "kill" at its generic face value, that would also include killing animals, insects, weeds, and bacteria, so obviously it is not a generalized command against all killing.

[stevil]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1318970383' post='2323318']
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I have recently seen a picture floating around Facebook that has cought my attention. I am unsure how ot add images to a post (If you know please just message me don't tell me in the theard), But it is all words so I'll just qoute it to you all.[/font][/size]




[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#222222]This has spun the gears in my brain for a while and I want to know what you think.[/color][/font][/size]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][color=#222222]I say that this list mixes rights and morals which change the last statement. Because as I see it as a good parent the government should set laws in place that guide their children (citizens) to make the right moral choices. do you agree?[/color][/font][/size]
[/quote]
Wow, you give way too much power to a government. I feel government should only get involved if absolutely necessary. Next we will have a moral or religious police branch like some Arab countries have. I could imagine your government deeming it immoral and hence illegal for people to pray to gods other then your god. People going to prison for adultery, for lying, for performing sexual positions that you don't think are moral.

Government must restrict their scope to providing a functioning society, not a moral one. Churches can instill their form of moralities on their followers if they wish and if the followers desire to obey. Just don't force your religion on me, I disagree with your religion and your religious based moralities on many points. I would never vote for a religious based government.

[Kia ora]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1319023691' post='2323584']
Don't like wife beating? Don't beat your wife.
Don't like child abuse? Don't abuse your child.
Don't like your right taken away? Then don't take away anyone else's.

You see the stupidity in this approach?
[/quote]
I don't know what a right is, but I have a feeling that they would say that beating one's wife and abusing a child takes away their right to be happy and safe.

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1319064180' post='2323928']
The making of pornography is prostitution with a camera. Government can make it illegal just as prostitution is illegal. Government does, can, and should oppose pornography by restricting the sale of it and not allowing it to be viewed publicly.
[/quote]
Prostitution is legal in my country. I think this is the right direction. It allows government to regulate it and ensure people are of legal age and are treated fairly.
If people are willing to prostitute and people are willing to pay the I think as adults they are entitled to make their decisions.