Catholics/Christians and Law/Government

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 09:09 PM']
I find it sad that so many who consider themselves Catholic have bought into this radical-secularist idea that morality must be completely divorced from civil law. 
[/quote]

The problem is that you seem to think you can write laws that will make people moral. And that's just silly.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Mar 20 2006, 07:43 PM']The problem is that you seem to think you can write laws that will make people moral.  And that's just silly.
[right][snapback]916077[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You're silly!

Perhaps you might try actually reading what I've posted and responding to that, rather than just talking about what I "seem to think" (but have never said), and then calling it silly.

My point was that we should work for laws that reflect Catholic morality, rather than oppose it. I never said nor implied that writing laws will automatically make everyone moral.

That makes about as much sense as saying that laws against murder (or anything else) are silly because, after all, writing laws against murder has not ended murder.

Civil law can either reflect the natural and divine law, or be contrary to it.
Laws that declare abortion (which is indeed murder) to be an inalienable right, or that reward same-sex sodomy are in opposition to the natural law.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Mar 20 2006, 09:43 PM'] And that's just silly.
[/quote]
[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 10:00 PM']You're silly!
[/quote]

You giggle like a girl

[Maria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 08:51 PM']It's not really clear what you are implying here, but the truth is that laws against abortion are not in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Roe v. Wade was a bad decision made by activist judges, which gave the federal government power to overrule any state laws restricting abortion.
There is no right to  abortion in the Constitution.

Likewise, the Constitution does not guarantee "rights" to "gay marriage" or adoption.  Laws on these matters belong to the States, as stated in the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Those who argue that laws against abortion or against giving special "rights" to homosexuals are contrary to the Constitution, argue falsely.  They base their views on liberal activist (mis)"interpretation" of the Constitution, not on the actual law nor the intent of the framers.

As I have shown in several other threads, the "constitutional" argument for such immoral laws is a red herring.
[right][snapback]916036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The question asked in the poll didn't mention any of those specific issues. My point is simply that neither law-makers nor judges are entirely free. Naturally, judges aren't really that free at all, but even law makers have to work within the general vision of the constitution and what not. I'm not saying this affects any particular issue, but it does mean that you can't necessarily go and make any law you think reflects morality.

Oh, and I agree that the issues you mention are not protected in the constitution, at least not to my knowledge. They're not in our charter, either

[Era Might]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Mar 20 2006, 09:43 PM']The problem is that you seem to think you can write laws that will make people moral.  And that's just silly.
[right][snapback]916077[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Laws themselves do not make people moral, but the moral framework that undergirds the law sets the tone for society.

[quote]Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

--George Washington's "Farewell Address"[/quote]

The foundation of this country is rooted not only in "the laws of nature", but in the laws "of nature's God", as the Declaration of Independence set forth.

Edited March 21, 2006 by Era Might

[Maria]

"Laws themselves do not make people moral, but the moral framework that undergirds the law sets the tone for society."
Exactly. I had something of a debate with one of my teachers once. She said that laws should be objective, and I said that their application should be objective but that they are necessarily founded on some sort of morality. It came up because of an opinion piece written in response to the ruling on swingers clubs, which basically said that if it isn't hurting anyone against their will, it's not bad for society. The opinion piece said that was nonsense.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Mar 20 2006, 10:00 PM']You're silly!

Perhaps you might try actually reading what I've posted and responding to that, rather than just talking about what I "seem to think" (but have never said), and then calling it silly.

[/quote]

Why not? I thought that was the normal modus operandi for debates. Just trying to fit in....

[Socrates]

[dairygirl4u2c]

I've said it before but I'll say it again. Protecting other people's right to engage in sin is very moral. We shouldn't deprive them of their God given choice, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

So, I could put Yes. But I know you have something else in mind, so I put other.

[Anomaly]

dairy,
Define 'as long as it doesn't hurt others'. How much hurt is tolerable? For example, I want the right to raise my children in a society that supports heterosexual monogamy as the natural and right form of marriage and family and believe allowing homosexual marriages or open homosexuality undermines that to the degradation of society and damages what I believe is 'right'.
I and my children are being hurt.

[Budge]

No,

and this may shock some here...

with the exception of abortion, and vice laws, because there are is a "weaker" party in need of being defended, Christians should not be using the govertment to force morality on unbelievers.

Christians should be working to convert people and preaching the gospel, not using the government to "Make" people be good.

Its almost like some Christians and I notice many of them have the amillenial, reconstructionist bent, seem more busy "fighting" the culture then actually bringing anyone to conversion.

Why are unrepentant unbeleivers even going to listen to those who want to enforce rules, they dont understand and dont want?

Theocracies Do NOT WORK and actually lend themselves to fascism.

All the evangelicals who marched lockstep after the "Christian" president were guilty of this too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I agree as a Catholic you shouldn't promote gay marriage. It's condoning an evil act by writing the law.

I think you question better lies with sodomy and fonication. I don't think these are flagrant enough that they are really injuring anyone. You have to weigh the freedom to sin with the amount it's hurting or not anyone.

If you think sodomy should be banned, why not fonricatin? If fornicatin, why not all sins? All sins hurt others in the extreme degree you pose. Do you draw the line because of the severity of certain htings, that you decide on a case by case basis? I'm not sure how you decide these things.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221096' date='Mar 28 2007, 08:54 AM']No,

and this may shock some here...

with the exception of abortion, and vice laws, because there are is a "weaker" party in need of being defended, Christians should not be using the govertment to force morality on unbelievers.

Christians should be working to convert people and preaching the gospel, not using the government to "Make" people be good.

Its almost like some Christians and I notice many of them have the amillenial, reconstructionist bent, seem more busy "fighting" the culture then actually bringing anyone to conversion.

Why are unrepentant unbeleivers even going to listen to those who want to enforce rules, they dont understand and dont want?

Theocracies Do NOT WORK and actually lend themselves to fascism.

All the evangelicals who marched lockstep after the "Christian" president were guilty of this too.[/quote]
So Budge, are you for "gay marriage", immoral sex ed in public schools, promotion of homosexuality and perversion in public schools, restriction of parental rights, "gays" in the military, unrestricted pornography, etc.?
Is it wrong for Christians to publicly oppose those things according to you?

This is not about "fascism" or "theocracy" (those good old liberal buzz-words), but simply about maintaining those standards of morality that most prior generations of America took for granted. This is not about imposing new rules, but opposing those forces in our society which are working hard to undermine Christian morality and impose "acceptance" and condoning of immorality in our culture. (And you are quite naive if you think those forces don't exist.)

I find your position here rather interesting, to tell the truth.
Are you trying to be at the same time both a good fundamentalist Christian and a good secularist liberal Democrat?
Or can you simply not bring yourself to agree with devout Catholics on [i]anything[/i]?

Of course it is most important to convert the hearts of unbelievers, but that does not preclude also working to have law and policy reflect Christian morality, rather than directly oppose it.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221142' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:34 AM']I agree as a Catholic you shouldn't promote gay marriage. It's condoning an evil act by writing the law.

I think you question better lies with sodomy and fonication. I don't think these are flagrant enough that they are really injuring anyone. You have to weigh the freedom to sin with the amount it's hurting or not anyone.

If you think sodomy should be banned, why not fonricatin? If fornicatin, why not all sins? All sins hurt others in the extreme degree you pose. Do you draw the line because of the severity of certain htings, that you decide on a case by case basis? I'm not sure how you decide these things.[/quote]
The purpose of law should be to promote the public common good. So long as sins are public in nature and effect the common good, they should be unlawful. Also, the enforcement of such laws should not lead to greater evil than that which they are made to prevent.

So, basically, cops should not be spying on people's bedrooms, but where sins become public (such as opening a brothel or swinger's club, or selling porn) they should be prosecuted in a Christian society.

[Budge]

[quote]So Budge, are you for "gay marriage", immoral sex ed in public schools, promotion of homosexuality and perversion in public schools, restriction of parental rights, "gays" in the military, unrestricted pornography, etc.?
Is it wrong for Christians to publicly oppose those things according to you?
[/quote]No.

The gay marriage thing is a non-issue, most gays are going to do their thing with or without the piece of paper making it "legal"

Immoral sex ed in public schools...no kid of mine would be in public school, but then what good is that going to do when theyll learn even worse on the street or from the TV?

Restriction of parental rights, that comes along with people who want the government to step into every situation.

If some gay guy wants to be in the army he should be allowed to. If he is sexually harrassing others throw him out, otherwise leave him alone.
[quote]

This is not about "fascism" or "theocracy" (those good old liberal buzz-words), but simply about maintaining those standards of morality that most prior generations of America took for granted. This is not about imposing new rules, but opposing those forces in our society which are working hard to undermine Christian morality and impose "acceptance" and condoning of immorality in our culture. (And you are quite naive if you think those forces don't exist.)[/quote]

Morality cant be "forced". The goverment is not supposed to serve in the role of parent or of God. It is to protect the weak from the strong, and deal with actual CRIMES.

You know if you want to use rule of law to force your morality instead of bringing people to change via conviction through Jesus Christ you are no better then the liberal Democrats who want to impose their hate crimes, and other nonsense.
[quote]
I find your position here rather interesting, to tell the truth.
Are you trying to be at the same time both a good fundamentalist Christian and a good secularist liberal Democrat?[/quote]Sheesh youre a smart fella, and you cant think outside the right/left paradigm of Republican vs. Democrat.

Im [u]neither.[/u] Think independent with "some" libertarian leanings. and I said SOME, they arent right about everything either.

[quote]
Or can you simply not bring yourself to agree with devout Catholics on anything?[/quote]

Im prolife.
[quote]Of course it is most important to convert the hearts of unbelievers, but that does not preclude also working to have law and policy reflect Christian morality, rather than directly oppose it.[/quote]

Read scripture, and Bible prophecy, you actually EXPECT THE WORLD SYSTEM to GET ON BOARD WITH TRUE CHRISTIANITY?
[b]
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.[/b]

Dominionism from evangelicals stinks and it does from the Catholic side as well.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221599' date='Mar 28 2007, 07:56 PM']Read scripture, and Bible prophecy, you actually EXPECT THE WORLD SYSTEM to GET ON BOARD WITH TRUE CHRISTIANITY?
[b]
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.[/b][/quote]
Conditional statement. The verse begins with the word, "if." Sometimes, certain civil laws can reflect Christianity. They did for centuries. The Scriptures do not say that they never do or will.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221142' date='Mar 28 2007, 12:34 PM']I think you question better lies with sodomy and fonication. I don't think these are flagrant enough that they are really injuring anyone. You have to weigh the freedom to sin with the amount it's hurting or not anyone.[/quote]

Leading people to hell isn't injuring someone? Or don't you believe in hell.

Gay sex and fornication kill the soul. That is in fact hurting someone.

Edited March 29, 2007 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

So does using condoms and non-procreative sex. Yet you guys, or at least most of you, don't seem to want to ban those. I think others are compelled to ban the sins that affect others. You seem intent on banning just because it kills the soul. (even if you ban it though, if they are intent on doing it, banning isn't going to save them, necessarily. though i admit it might help, but then it might create resentment and not help) So do you also think banning condoms, masturbation, and nonprocreative sex should be the law?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1221628' date='Mar 28 2007, 10:38 PM']So does using condoms and non-procreative sex. Yet you guys, or at least most of you, don't seem to want to ban those. I think others are compelled to ban the sins that affect others. You seem intent on banning just because it kills the soul. (even if you ban it though, if they are intent on doing it, banning isn't going to save them, necessarily. though i admit it might help, but then it might create resentment and not help) So do you also think banning condoms, masturbation, and nonprocreative sex should be the law?[/quote]dairy,
I have enjoyed thinking about the points you've been making. It's helped me clarify some of my opinions and thougts on these matters. What Soc wrote here is very interesting.
[b]The purpose of law should be to promote the public common good. So long as sins are public in nature and effect the common good, they should be unlawful. Also, the enforcement of such laws should not lead to greater evil than that which they are made to prevent.

So, basically, cops should not be spying on people's bedrooms, but where sins become public (such as opening a brothel or swinger's club, or selling porn) they should be prosecuted in a Christian society. [/b]
We had talked about having laws that allow people to do things if they don't harm others, but I pointed out the harm may extend farther than at first thought. What Soc says about doing things in public versus private is very appropriate. If people want to engage in homosexuality behind closed doors, I don't think government can peek into the bedroom and make laws about it. It's when things are done in public, that they have an affect on society. We do have laws against public masterbation, but no laws against it in the privacy of your home. I think that making laws that specifically allow active homosexuality is the problem. If two guys or two girls want to live together, who are we to say no through the Government's laws. BUT, if we have to acknowledge their homosexual relationship, that brings it into the public and becomes a different matter. In other words, if people want to sin in private, we can't stop that and that allows our God given free will to operate. But if we demand that Society accept and allow our sin in public, that imposes a different set of values onto society. Societies basically operate on Natural Law, whether they're Christian or other. Basically, you see the same normative behaviors in China, as you do in Guatamala. What are your thoughts?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221599' date='Mar 28 2007, 07:56 PM']No.

The gay marriage thing is a non-issue, most gays are going to do their thing with or without the piece of paper making it "legal"

Immoral sex ed in public schools...no kid of mine would be in public school, but then what good is that going to do when theyll learn even worse on the street or from the TV?

Restriction of parental rights, that comes along with people who want the government to step into every situation.

If some gay guy wants to be in the army he should be allowed to. If he is sexually harrassing others throw him out, otherwise leave him alone.
Morality cant be "forced". The goverment is not supposed to serve in the role of parent or of God. It is to protect the weak from the strong, and deal with actual CRIMES.

You know if you want to use rule of law to force your morality instead of bringing people to change via conviction through Jesus Christ you are no better then the liberal Democrats who want to impose their hate crimes, and other nonsense.
Sheesh youre a smart fella, and you cant think outside the right/left paradigm of Republican vs. Democrat.

Im [u]neither.[/u] Think independent with "some" libertarian leanings. and I said SOME, they arent right about everything either.
Im prolife.
Read scripture, and Bible prophecy, you actually EXPECT THE WORLD SYSTEM to GET ON BOARD WITH TRUE CHRISTIANITY?
[b]
Jhn 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.[/b]

Dominionism from evangelicals stinks and it does from the Catholic side as well.[/quote]
So your saying that where secularists are working to oppose Christian morality and get the state to officially sanction immorality (as with "gay marriage"), Christians should do nothing to oppose this?

Simple question Budge: should the law and public policy reflect or oppose Christian morality?

If you're going to say Christians should allow the state to encourage and condone godless immorality condemned in the Bible, your self-righteous Bible-thumping becomes that much harder to take seriously.