Catholicism and Voting

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Felch


Freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, what are those called again? I thought they were human rights.

You might consider the "right" to marry whomever you want to be a right, but it really isn't. We can't marry family members, or multiple people. There are plenty of restrictions on marriage. Marriage is a social institution, and society determines how it is carried out. Personally I don't care about the issue.

Likewise, the "right" to an abortion isn't really cut and dried. It involves a fundamental conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn. It's a contentious political issue, and one that reasonable people can debate.

Basically I think you're mixing up rights and privileges here. Voting is a privilege, because it is under certain restrictions (age, prior felonies, citizenship, etc.) Likewise with marriage, and driving. Free assembly, religion, and speech are not privileges, they are rights. They only restriction on them is that they may not be used to harm other people. So you don't have a right to practice human sacrifice, or to slander another person.

If marriage is not a right, then why did the Supreme Court rule against prohibitions on interracial marriage in United States?

Calling pro-choice people "pro-death" in sermons is not slander then?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Felch


The Nation of Islam preaches black supremacy. As long as they don't act on it violently, they're free to do so. There are "Christian Identity" churches, (I think that's what they're called) which are essentially white supremacist fronts. As long as they don't act out on their theology, they're generally free to do whatever. They're all monitored of course, but that's sensible.

Is it morally sound? No. But it's their right to say it. Welcome to America.

I have not been arguing whether or not these churches have the right to such expression.

Hence, my point that equal marriage rights protection for gays would not force churches to marry people they do not wish to marry.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
If a church requires congregation members to adhere to the belief of white supremacy would it be in our interest to accept this belief as morally sound in the inerest of preventing sectarian fighting?

It is for their church. You can write them off for it if you want, but if you accept the idea of organized religion and freedom of religious belief, you must accept that they can make their own choices about morality. No one says you must join them.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MrFun
If marriage is not a right, then why did the Supreme Court rule against prohibitions on interracial marriage in United States?

The Supreme Court is full of ****. They lost all moral authority after the Dred Scott decision.

Calling pro-choice people "pro-death" in sermons is not slander then?

Well, if you favor the death of the unborn over their life, not really. Especially considering that some people support abortion as a method of population control. Also, bear in mind that slander is very narrowly defined in America.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It is for their church. You can write them off for it if you want, but if you accept the idea of organized religion and freedom of religious belief, you must accept that they can make their own choices about morality. No one says you must join them.

You and I agree on the importance of religious freedom and allowing everyone to express their beliefs no matter how harmful such beliefs can be.

I was arguing on what is morally acceptable and what is not. Even if you and I can agree on what is immoral, those people should still have the freedom to be - as Slowwy would put it - jackasses.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Felch


Well, if you favor the death of the unborn over their life, not really. Especially considering that some people support abortion as a method of population control. Also, bear in mind that slander is very narrowly defined in America.

I'm pro-choice not because I'm in favor of killing all fetuses in all circumstances but because I favor the right of the woman bearing the fetus in cases of rape, incest, pedophilia, save life of expectant mother, or economic hardship.

It really is an insult to call pro-choice people pro-death. Another reason it is an insult, is because many pro-choice people would limit abortion to a certain level of early development except for truly extradordinary circumstances for later stages of fetal development - only to save life of mother.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


For some. You've already admitted to that fact.

Just as in how pro-life people only favor rights for some "people"and not others.

Right back at you, Slowwy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
I was arguing on what is morally acceptable and what is not. Even if you and I can agree on what is immoral, those people should still have the freedom to be - as Slowwy would put it - jackasses.

It is not morally acceptable to try to dictate to a religious organization as to what they consider to be their true followers. So if Catholics want to say that voting for a pro-choice candidate is a highly sinful, that is their belief. If you don't agree, then no one is forcing you to join the church.

It'd be like someone saying how dare a Catholic priest say that if you don't believe in Jesus Christ you'd be going to Hell.

You should know the drill being a member of an organized religion yourself.

[DanS]

Originally posted by MrFun


I'm pro-choice not because I'm in favor of killing all fetuses in all circumstances but because I favor the right of the woman bearing the fetus in cases of rape, incest, pedophilia, save life of expectant mother, or economic hardship.

Strictly construed, you're pro death. The only case where you aren't is with regard to saving the life of the expectant mother.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It is not morally acceptable to try to dictate to a religious organization as to what they consider to be their true followers. So if Catholics want to say that voting for a pro-choice candidate is a highly sinful, that is their belief. If you don't agree, then no one is forcing you to join the church.

It'd be like someone saying how dare a Catholic priest say that if you don't believe in Jesus Christ you'd be going to Hell.

You should know the drill being a member of an organized religion yourself.

Shouldn't a church lose it's tax exempt status if they are going to dictate how to vote in political elections to congregation members?

And I'd only be dictating what all churches should do or practice if I disagreed with you on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I'm saying that in my opinion, beliefs that deny other people their rights is morally unacceptable - but, they are free to do as they wish.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DanS


Strictly construed, you're pro death. The only case where you aren't is with regard to saving the life of the expectant mother.

Calling me pro-death because I allow for abortion in some cases would be akin to me calling you an opponent of all civil rights because you would deny an expectant mother her right over her own body and reproduction.

Neither makes sense - I do not celebrate the death of a fetus if the pregnant woman was raped and chose to get an abortion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
Shouldn't a church lose it's tax exempt status if they are going to dictate how to vote in political elections to congregation members?

And I'd only be dictating what all churches should do or practice if I disagreed with you on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I'm saying that in my opinion, beliefs that deny other people their rights is morally unacceptable - but, they are free to do as they wish.

I think all churches should lose tax exempt status since they all advocate certain kind of behavior that has to deal with politics. Some are for gay marriage, which is also a political issue. Some are against it, etc.

You had demonstrated that you don't think they are free to do as they wish because you think their statements about Catholics voting for pro-choice candidates are wrong. If you really thought they were free to do as they wish, you wouldn't have found that to be so objectionable (it makes perfect sense when the religion believes life begins at conception), but instead the underlying belief.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by snoopy369

That said, I still think it's ludicrous to suggest that voting for one candidate over the other for any reason is a sin, and I'm certain that every one of the priests I knew would have laughed at this argument. Heck, didn't His Holiness support a certain mustached character in his youth, who supported much more evil things than abortion??? I'd say if a Hitlerite can become pope, an Obama supporter can take communion.

Well there is the whole issue of the reason you voted for the candidate. But, assuming you voted for the candidate because you supported his pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage or pro-any mortal sin stance, according to the church you would be committing a mortal sin, not much different than if you helped fund an abortion clinic, stood as best man at a "gay-marriage" or tipped off a burglar on what was the best time to rob someone's house. Inasmuch you would be ineligible for Communion, at least until you made a genuine confession.

It really doesn't matter how many priests you bring up that would look the other way at this sin or how many priests you may find that feel the enforcement of the prohibition of Communion to someone who is not in a state of grace is laughable. It's not up to a priest to override the Pope or church doctrine. Priests too are humans and therefore imperfect and sinners. By your logic I could show you a few hundred priests that molested children and say it was OK. Or perhaps a better example, I could find you priests that routinely break their vow of chastity, something which is not illegal but certainly against church doctrine. I had an assistant basketball coach that was a priest. He constantly used the Lord's name in vein when attempting to point out some of our shortcomings on the basketball court. None of these mortal sins are "OK" just because a priest commits them or a priest might think "they really aren't mortal sins".

I guess I should state right now I am no longer Catholic and it was for many of these types of reasons. But if I were Catholic I would follow the rules of the Church or leave it. I chose to leave.

[MrFun]

Same here, DeityDude - I chose to leave a long time ago.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MrFun


I'm pro-choice not because I'm in favor of killing all fetuses in all circumstances but because I favor the right of the woman bearing the fetus in cases of rape, incest, pedophilia, save life of expectant mother, or economic hardship.

It really is an insult to call pro-choice people pro-death. Another reason it is an insult, is because many pro-choice people would limit abortion to a certain level of early development except for truly extradordinary circumstances for later stages of fetal development - only to save life of mother.

Would you oppose a candidate that voted to allow late-term abortions? Note, that I'm not using the politically charged terminology here. I just think that even those who support choice should understand the need for restraint in availability of abortions. After all, the right to keep and bear arms is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, but we still have restrictions to prevent violent criminals from buying guns.

I think that a fair compromise would be to set the date at the start of brain activity. Catholics would be free to abstain from all abortions, naturally. Non-Catholics wouldn't have their civil rights violated. Anybody know what week a fetus starts having brain activity?