The Place Of Religion In Politics

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.[/quote]

I will interpret this passage in light the Sacred Tradition (capital T) found in the Syllabus of Errors, I highly authoritative, if not infallable document. This should be iterpreted as the One True Religion (the others are really psudeo-religions) has a right to exist and cannot he hindered in public teaching.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1098000' date='Oct 21 2006, 08:15 PM']
I will interpret this passage in light the Sacred Tradition (capital T) found in the Syllabus of Errors, I highly authoritative, if not infallable document. This should be iterpreted as the One True Religion (the others are really psudeo-religions) has a right to exist and cannot he hindered in public teaching.
[/quote]
You have absolutely no authority to interpret anything. Only the Church which is headed by the Holy Father and the Bishops in union with him, have the authority to interpret based on Sacred Tradition.

[Kosh]

Well, I would say that anyone can interpret anything, but...their interpretatins don't have to be correct. Heck, even the church can make mistakes! Look at the Great Schism! (I"m not talking 'bout Papal Infallibility, o'course)

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1097457' date='Oct 21 2006, 12:17 AM']
How much religion should be in politics is determined by the political environment. Theoracy sure all the religion you can muster. Republic not so much.

I think the Conservative Christians needs to get the heck outta (right wing) politics because it is hurting the country. Our politics is based on logic and pragmaticism and who can fight a logic that says "God says it's this way"? Personally I think we need more moderates running our country because this Rep/Dem thing is way out of hand.
[/quote]
"Determined by the political environment" my fat rear-end!
Religious truth should indeed influence one's politics as concerns matters of morality. It is nonsensical to proclaim oneself a Christian who believes in such things as the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage, then turn around and vote directly contrary to Christian morality on these issues! (Whatever the "political environment" might be.)

How exactly are "Conservative Christians" in politics "hurting the country"?
(And don't give me a rant about the Iraq War, which really has nothing to do with Christianity and less to do with conservativism.)
Because our country currently has too many laws against abortion? Because our public life is just overflowing with Christian morality and religion?
Give me a break!

This country is so screwed up politically not because of an overabundance of Christian Faith and conservatism, but because both parties are way, way too liberal and given to moral relativism. (Republicans tend to be more bark than bite concerning religious values, while many Democrats are actively pushing an agenda opposed to Christian morals.)

The so-called "Christian Right" agenda is hardly radical - it mostly involves restoring or keeping what has been taken for granted in this country for most of its history: allowing states to legally restrict or outlaw the slaughter of innocent babies by abortion, and recognize marriage as only being between a man and woman, and keep the freedom to observe basic religious expression in public (such as having the Ten Commandments in public schools and courtrooms without federal judges tearing them down.)

The anti-religious godless radical pro-abort, pro-homosexual Left has been agressively pushing their agenda for decades now; yet you think they have a right to push their political agenda unopposed, while "Christian Conservatives" should "get the heck out"??!!

It seems you and your ilk simply want anti-religion banished from the public sphere, without inconvenient opposition from Christians. I suggest [b]you[/b] get the heck out of politics, and perhaps move to Communist China while you're at it! (Since you apparently prefer a system where Christianity can have no public influence)

Edited October 22, 2006 by Socrates

[track2004]

I have the utmost respect for the Republican system of government. I understand that people vote the way they do for tons of reasons, including religion. I get that Right Wing Christian Fundies (in general most aren't Catholic) have something to say and that I can't stop them because that's part of what America is. The thing is that I can have something to say too and you can't stop me either. I'm not moving to China because try as I might I can't speak Chinese.

Somewhere along the line I learned that within the government everything is based on past history. So I can't just come out of left field with an idea and make it law, it has to have some logical backing. In the same way I can't just get rid of a law because I don't like it, I have to have logic. There are many cases where judges had to decide a case one way even though their heart wasn't in it. They didn't go with what their hearts said because that wasn't their job, their job is to interpret the Consitution.

So vote the way religion tell you, or your conscience tells you, or your priest tells you, but that isn't what American law is about. Politically we're based on history and pragmaticism. You need a better reason that "God says" to make abortion illegal and to pass the gay marriage amendment. "God says" won't stand up in court.

[Budge]

I am not a Dominionist and consider the Republican party to full of endless wickedness as well as the LEFTISTS.

When a Christian thinks that the government can MAKE everyone be good {dont get me wrong I want them to outlaw things like abortion to save lives} instead of realizing that what brings people to righteousness is a change of heart via the Holy Spirit, they have lost the plot!

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Well, I would say that anyone can interpret anything, but...their interpretatins don't have to be correct. Heck, even the church can make mistakes! Look at the Great Schism! (I"m not talking 'bout Papal Infallibility, o'course).[/quote]

I beg you pardon, the Church CANNOT make mistakes as the Catechism says:

[quote name='The Catechism']8 Q. How are we certain that the Christian Doctrine which we receive from the Holy Catholic Church is really true?
A. We are certain that the doctrine which we receive from the Holy Catholic Church is true, because Jesus Christ, the divine Author of this doctrine, committed it through His Apostles to the Church, which He founded and made the infallible teacher of all men, promising her His divine assistance until the end of time.

31 Q. Are we obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us?
A. Yes, we are obliged to believe all the truths the Church teaches us, and Jesus Christ declares that he who does not believe is already condemned.

32 Q. Are we also obliged to do all that the Church commands?
A. Yes, we are obliged to do all that the Church commands, for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of the Church: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me."

33 Q. Can the Church err in what she proposes for our belief?
A. No, the Church cannot err in what she proposes for our belief, since according to the promise of Jesus Christ she is unfailingly assisted by the Holy Ghost.

34 Q. Is the Catholic Church infallible, then?
A. Yes, the Catholic Church is infallible, and hence those who reject her definitions lose the faith and become heretics.

55 Q. Can the Pope err when teaching the Church?
A. The Pope cannot err, that is, he is infallible, in definitions regarding faith and morals.

56 Q. How is it that the Pope is infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible because of the promise of Jesus Christ, and of the unfailing assistance of the Holy Ghost.

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?
A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.

58 Q. What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A. He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.

59 Q. Why has God granted to the Pope the gift of infallibility?
A. God has granted the Pope the gift of infallibility in order that we all may be sure and certain of the truths which the Church teaches.

60 Q. When was it defined that the Pope is infallible?
A. That the Pope is infallible was defined by the Church in the [First] Vatican Council; and should anyone presume to contradict this definition he would be a heretic and excommunicated.

61 Q. In defining that the Pope is infallible, has the Church put forward a new truth of faith?
A. No, in defining that the Pope is infallible the Church has not put forward a new truth of faith; but to oppose new errors she has simply defined that the infallibility of the Pope, already contained in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, is a truth revealed by God, and therefore to be believed as a dogma or article of faith.[/quote]

[Norseman82]

It would help to review Catholic moral teaching and philosophy. There are certain things that are universally wrong, such as but not limited to abortion and homosexual behavor, no matter if you are a Catholic, evangelical, Anglican, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, whatever. This is known as "natural law" and St. Paul speaks about it in Romans 2:14-15 when he speaks abouty the law of God written upon men's hearts. These things that the Church preaches about most definitely are to be taken into consideration when in the voting booth and, for those in positions of authority, when exercising that authority. Now, as far as legislating such things that are particular to the Catholic Church, I don't think we can legislate into civil law such things as Mass attendance or Lentan fast/abstinence rules on non-Catholics, just to allow Catholics the freedom to obey them (like having government cafeterias to offer non-meat selections on fast/abstinence days).

Edited October 22, 2006 by Norseman82

[Resurrexi]

I think in a Catholic country the state could make it illegal to eat meat on Friday.

[Kosh]

StThomasMore, how would you then explain, say, The Great Schism? Or some of the "italian prince" popes? I would agree, though, that the CHURCH cannot error, though her members can. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

And as Thomas Aquinas said, you can't leglislate morality. (I don't have time to explain this better, so don't bother to refute this)

[Resurrexi]

Yes, I agree, the Church cannot err but Her Members, except for of course the Pope when defining Ex Cathedra a docrine regarding Faith or Morals, can.

[Domine ut Videam]

There are two opposing sides in this question; secularism (separation of church and state) and multiculturalism (diversity of culture and religion within societyand have chaos). Each has its problems. In secularism, the relationship between the citizen and the state is mandatory and any cultural or religious matter is demoted to the private sector, thus identifying it as different and lesser than the others. The State has absolute power and the individual is kept down, mostly suppressed because their ideals and thoughts, culture and faith are suppressed. In Multiculturalism, the most obvious downfall is the difficulty uniting all of the diverse ideas and abstract conceptions of each religion. It is also not able to accept that humans do indeed live a common experience that does create measures for comparisons among these many cultural and religious ideals. Multiculturalism offers no means by which to deal with different prayers, no way to judge them; so the individual is just flooded by an overwhelming array of every ideological perspective and given no way to select the best for him. Chaos exists.

Since these two viewpoints clearly have different problems, in answering this question I have chosen to take the path less followed by many, a separate viewpoint altogether. Perhaps it is narrow, but I believe it to be better than the two paths I just described. I believe that it is possible to have a human culture, a government, a life, a system that can respond to the true appeals of both sides while overcoming their obvious problems, because both sides do contain true elements of man’s desires and experiences. People desire to have God in their life. That is an adequate desire. Some people desire that government be kept free from the entanglement of religion and the chaos of the many arguments it brings with it. That too is an adequate desire. However, “Man’s life cannot be arbitrarily separated into public and private spheres, because social dimensions are constituent of the person.” Everyone in our class has been saying that if a person wants to pray make them go home and pray, or if they want to pray at school they can go to a private school. Well, what if the private school is very small, or they have to be home schooled? A man is a social, mental, and spiritual being. If one of these aspects is unhealthy the whole man is unhealthy. Our system’s current process is inattentive because at times all or at least one of these aspects is neglected. Children are not being nourished; proposals are not being made to them. And since public dimensions are formed to be at the service of the person it is all the more important for the common public to decide if this is really the way they want to live their life; if they want their lives to be separated or not. They must choose and be the sign of contradiction – if that is what they desire.

Secondly, in observing existing man and society as it is, there appears a mysterious aspect that runs through his basic existence. This mystery is an openness to an infinite demand for meaning and happiness that characterizes every instant of his life. This openness is so important because it follows a pattern of reason and freedom and leads to the recognition of an other, or an Other; that which we come to call God. And thus, “no man, not even the State, can claim the right of being the ultimate source of this infinite vitality, because neither man nor the State are God, the recognition of elementary experience offers the foundation for a true laicity that safeguards society from both of the problems, from both sides; secularism and multiculturalism.”

I definitely think that church should not be separated from the state because humans are public people and there lives must exist in public places. The human person as a person shares a common experience with every other human; searching for truth and the infinite demand for happiness that ultimately leads to God. If I had to look on it purely as a question of constitutionality I believe I would still say yes, but even if I could not...I would still say yes, because I so passionately believe in this. If our society shuns the pursuit of this search, the answer to this question, and the sharing of a common human experience, than we are shunning, in reality, our very humanity and not our religion or prayers.



Sorry about the book but i just wrote this for my supreme court class and it fit...so i thought i'd share it.

Edited October 22, 2006 by Domine ut Videam

[Fidei Defensor]

First Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 3

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this [b]not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church[/b] throughout the world.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this [b]not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church[/b] dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

[Winchester]

Religion belongs in politics in the same way as all other human beliefs.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1098332' date='Oct 22 2006, 10:05 AM']
I have the utmost respect for the Republican system of government. I understand that people vote the way they do for tons of reasons, including religion. I get that Right Wing Christian Fundies (in general most aren't Catholic) have something to say and that I can't stop them because that's part of what America is. The thing is that I can have something to say too and you can't stop me either. I'm not moving to China because try as I might I can't speak Chinese.

Somewhere along the line I learned that within the government everything is based on past history. So I can't just come out of left field with an idea and make it law, it has to have some logical backing. In the same way I can't just get rid of a law because I don't like it, I have to have logic. There are many cases where judges had to decide a case one way even though their heart wasn't in it. They didn't go with what their hearts said because that wasn't their job, their job is to interpret the Consitution.

So vote the way religion tell you, or your conscience tells you, or your priest tells you, but that isn't what American law is about. Politically we're based on history and pragmaticism. You need a better reason that "God says" to make abortion illegal and to pass the gay marriage amendment. "God says" won't stand up in court.
[/quote]
Yes, I understand what you're saying here - that legally we must go by process of law and what is written in the Constitution, rather than just enacting into law whatever one may believe, [b]BUT . . .[/b]

You have made some very serious errors here.

1) In almost every case, the "right-wing Christian conservative" interpretation of Constitutional law is much more in accord with both the letter and spirit of the original U.S. Constitution, than the liberal interpretation.

2) [b]Nowhere, I repeat, NOWHERE, is there a univeral "right" to abortion guaranteed in the Constitution.[/b] And no-one saw it as such until the Supreme Court ruled as such in Roe v. Wade in 1974. Prior to that ruling, abortion laws were the province of the respective states, and abortion was illegal or tightly restricted by most state laws.
[b]That's right, for almost 200 years of our nation's history, there was no "constitutional right" to baby-killing.[/b] (I guess that means so much for your "historical" argument as well.)

3)[b] Nowhere in the Constitution (nor in our country's history), is there anything demanding that states recognize so-called "gay marriage[/b]." This abomination did not even exist legally until a few years back. Laws regarding marriage have always been regarded as being the province of the states. This falls under the (unfortunately, much ignored) [b]Tenth Amendment [/b] which states "[b]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.[/b] " That is why the people of the states are voting on these laws.

4) [b]Nowhere in the Constitution are public displays of religion (such as the Ten Commandments, etc.) forbidden on public property.[/b] Liberals use the First Amendment to justify judicial activism against such displays, but such a twisted "interpretation" is not accurate. The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" That means simply that Congress shall not legally establish a national "state church" like the Church of England overseas. It was never intended to banish all religion from the public sphere, and was never "interpreted" as such until the late 20th century, at the urging of atheist activists. In fact, in the early years of our Republic, many individual states had their own state churches, and no one saw this as "unconstitutional."

If you think that liberal judges interpret the constitution correctly and without bias, while Christian conservatives are acting "unconstitutionally," this shows an abysmal ignorance of both the Constitution and of American history. The liberal activist judges are the ones ignoring or twisting beyond recognition the U.S. Constitution to press their own liberal political agendas.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Socrates

[Winchester]

[quote name='track2004' post='1097457' date='Oct 21 2006, 01:17 AM']
How much religion should be in politics is determined by the political environment. Theoracy sure all the religion you can muster. Republic not so much.

I think the Conservative Christians needs to get the heck outta (right wing) politics because it is hurting the country. Our politics is based on logic and pragmaticism and who can fight a logic that says "God says it's this way"? Personally I think we need more moderates running our country because this Rep/Dem thing is way out of hand.
[/quote]

Pragmatism.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='track2004' post='1097745' date='Oct 21 2006, 12:33 PM']
Conservative Christians are the best thing for you because you're one of them. Fundy's are going to rip the nation apart though because not everyone agrees with them and they are going to ostrascize those of us who don't. Hey wait that was similar to your point, being unamerican and all. The US is a majority rule, but it also assumes the majority won't destroy the minority.[/quote]

Conservative Christians, or "Fudys" are not going to "rip" the nation apart. If a "fudy" says to a liberal, they are evil if they support Abortion or anyother sin, thats true, there is nothing wrong with calling things as they are. Liberals will destory this nation by killing our young, and other sins that will do harm to this nation.

[quote name='track2004' post='1097745' date='Oct 21 2006, 12:33 PM']
Moderates aren't do nothing, they just don't think that voting the party line is a good thing. We take stands on stuff, it's just different stands for different things. One might say we can think for ourselves.[/quote]

Moderate would mean "middle", if party A (Leftist) supports sin(s) therefor defacto stands against God, but party B (Conservative Christians) is against sin(s) and stands with and for God, how does a "moderate" meet in the middle on such a thing?

Does the moderate just sometimes support sin, always or never?

As a moderate what is your stand on abortion, and protecting Holy Matrimony? How does that differ from a liberal? Are you moderatly for killing babys, or you moderatly against? Or are you a Convervative Christian and obey God fully on the matter?

[quote name='track2004' post='1097745' date='Oct 21 2006, 12:33 PM']Other sins that the leftist worship ARE wrong. I like grammar, at least I've got that going for me. I don't recall God ever saying anything about those crazy "leftists" in the Bible... or are you just extrapolating?[/quote]

One only has to use logic to understand my point. No need to make fun of the way I write.

Here is a list of some of sins which the lost souls on the left support.

[color="#FF0000"]Casting off God[/color] - banning His name, complaints and accusations of intolerance and hate to those that fully follow God, and praise His name in public.

[color="#FF0000"]Murder and "Suicide"[/color] Killing millions of little babies and other souls like Terri Schiavo.

[color="#FF0000"]Lust & Sodomy[/color] - Pornography, Homosexuality, Sexualizing young children and other perverted verisons of "free speech."

[KnightofChrist]

Also Track, how do we get the Conservative Christians the heck outta politics?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1098845' date='Oct 23 2006, 01:52 AM']
Moderate would mean "middle", if party A (Leftist) supports sin(s) therefor defacto stands against God, but party B (Conservative Christians) is against sin(s) and stands with and for God, how does a "moderate" meet in the middle on such a thing?

Does the moderate just sometimes support sin, always or never?

As a moderate what is your stand on abortion, and protecting Holy Matrimony? How does that differ from a liberal? Are you moderatly for killing babys, or you moderatly against? Or are you a Convervative Christian and obey God fully on the matter?
[/quote]
Stop being purposely difficult about this.

A moderate supports political ideas of both the liberals and the conservatives. This does not mean they "moderately support" pro-death views. I consider myself moderate, and I would never support pro-death views. However, I agree with most of the Democratic views of social programs. Yet, I support the pro-life views of the Republicans.

You seem to believe that you can only support one single party, or else you are a confused waffling flip-flopper.

One should not vote based on party lines, but rather, based on issues.

And believe it or not, God doesn't support the Conservative Christians anymore than any other group. You seem to think they have some kind of mandate to run the country. However, Hitler used the same excuse..

[Anomaly]

fide,
It's just a different understanding of 'moderate'. Soc sees 'moderates' as those that are willing to compromise on EVERYTHING. For example, a moderate on Abortion would not want to outlaw abortion, but restrict it's availability with parental notices, health endangerment, etc.
Not everything can have a moderate view, but some things can. For example, a moderate could disagree with the US current policy on Iraq, but be against a planned withdrawl at this moment. Maybe support a change in tactics that won't abandond Iraq to Muslim radicals.