Politics & Religion, where do we draw the line?

Remove all ads!

That's exactly my point. From the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholics are, in fact, obligated to follow Church doctrine. However, in practice, many Catholics do not follow all Church doctrine down to the last letter. While the RCC won't kick you out or punish you in any way, it does not change the fact that in the eyes of the RCC, a nominal Catholic is not properly practicing his/her faith. Having said that, the RCC would still prefer a someone be nominally Catholic over being deeply pious in some other religion.

 

I guess that the current reluctance to excommunicate is that history coming back to haunt them. The Bible even teaches that you reap what you sow. After 15 centuries of sowing such abuses, the harvest of resentment and apostasy is abundant...

But the assumption is that if a candidate got elected based on his moral stance, it could be assumed that the electors do consider that morality to be somewhat important. This leads to the divide I see in American politics: The perception that personal freedom conflicts with strong moral fiber (Democrats representing freedom, Republicans representing Morality).

But at the same time, if conflicting promises are made, how do you know what the politician will do? It may get them some quick support, but beyond that, they will have a track record, which may not sit well with those that would leave disillusioned...

It returns to one of the original questions: How much influence does the church really have on the population as a whole? I'll go with the exampla of Utah. A significant portion of the population is Mormon, and from what I hear, rather active. The church, while not supporting a specific candidate, encourages it's members to vote. If enough of the people who are actually going to vote consider moral standards to be an important factor, then politicians would be best served to profess and adhere to such standards while in office.

If that is the case, then it reminds me of Tal's signature:

Democracy is a mechanism that ensures that we get the government we deserve...

It sounds like you have a relationship with religion that most Americans seem to have. I heard a stat that over 90% believe in God, but I doubt that 90% of America attends Church during a week...

I know from experience that it applies to Mormons too. I would conjecture that it would apply to any religion...

 

If we assume so then obviously the electors consider morality important and will obviously remember the candidate's deception in the next elections, in which case the candidate has committed political suicide. If he somehow still manages to get elected then it's obvious that a significant portion of the electorate did not consider his "flip flopping" on morality to be all that important.

Of course it's potentially dangerous to give conflicting promises and something a politician definently should avoid. However as you very well know politicians are not foreign to backing away from previous promises. They often claim it was necessary in order to achieve the set goals in some other issue or state that furfilling those promises was not possible due to election results or simply state that the current situation does not allow such reforms. After that it's up to the electorate at the next elections to determine wether or not such explanations or trueworthy.

Agreed, and if the people consider moral standards to be such an important factor they will assumably be able to vote for candidates that they know will share those same moral views.

A very nice quote that and more or less correct in essence.

 

Yup, not everyone is properly informed or courageous enough to call wrong things wrong. Some people think abortion is okay, some don't care.

Some people leave other people alone so that they would return the favour. Some people will let others get away with anything just to be left alone. An issue being controversial doesn't mean that, "oops, it shouldn't be touched," or that just because it's controversial, people can do as they will.

It can surely devolve into absolutised relativism or absolutised egoism. Democracy is not the measure of all values, anyway.

Votes are not the most important thing.

A very different view than the Catholic Church even. Does that mean they shouldn't be Catholics? I believe there's hope for them and I wouldn't like to see them cast out. However, politicians who vote in discord with the teaching of the Catholic Church should not claim the affiliation when getting votes. Besides, why vote for someone who openly violates his system of values as he claims to have it, or someone who claims to belong to a certain religion but goes against its teaching?

Actually, an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic, but that's a matter for another topic if you're interested. Lack of excommunication doesn't mean their opinion is legitimate, true, valid etc.

There's a difference between a lie and murder, which you know well. Someone who claims to believe what the Catholic Church does, claims to believe abortion is murder. If he wants it legal, then he wants murder legal. There's no other way, logically.

Personally, I believe adultery should be a criminal offence, I'd have no problem with premarital sex being banned. Using the Lord's name in vain? That's a matter best handled in the confessional, although I do maintain that blasphemy is not a valid form of artistic expression and some instances should be prosecuted.

Great we see eye to eye on this one then.

Yeah. Or perhaps he thinks even murder can be left outside legislation.

Hmm... I'm not sure I'm 100% on the right track as to what you mean by that. The problem has a different than that abortion. Gay unions don't kill people. I wouldn't vote to legalise them, I don't think they should be considered a valid alternative choice, but certainly there must be better ways to deal with the problem than putting people into prison or fining them. There'll be more controversy among Catholics as to whether it's better to ban gay unions or employ other means of dealing with the sitaution, but remember it doesn't involve anyone dying.

All Catholics have committed sins in their lives. Whether they believe they are in the right and the Church in the wrong is another matter. Some people hold surprising beliefs. Some believe they should have the, "freedom to leave the house without worrying it will fall down," (loose quotation), others believe what they're doing is wrong but they should be allow to do it and it stops there, yet others believe it's wrong but the alternative is worse. The teaching remains, however, that contraception is wrong.

If they wish to ignore the laws of the Church, why keep claiming the affiliation?

Yup. From the point of view of democracy it can't be right to claim that one stands for Catholic beliefs and then oppose those beliefs.

By voting for abortion, they do not stop being Catholics. They stop, however, being Catholic politicians in the sense of a politician who believes and votes Catholic.

And here, I would have a question for you and perhaps other posters. Supposing the Catholich Church actually excommunicated someone for voting for abortion, what would you say then? Wouldn't you say the Church is trying to manipulate politicians, coerce them into voting according to the Church's wishes, depriving them of freedom to vote as they see proper? Because I fear that if those politicians were to be excommunicated, the repercussions would be just that - lefties crying unto heaven about separation of church and state, some politicians threatening to cut off stipends for Catholic charities and so on.

Perhaps they believe abortion is wrong and shouldn't be done, but nonetheless people should have the freedom to decide. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that people have such freedom. Can't agree and disagree at the same time on the same thing.

 

Starting a second post to avoid spawning a novel.

Believing that abortion is murder, combined with belief that murder should be illegal, must result in believing that abortion should be illegal. Otherwise logic is lost and convenient exceptions start.

As for the electorate, some vote for particular politicians despite the support of abortion and some vote for that precise reason. Each situation is different, although both are wrong unless the alternative to that politician is worse. Some Catholics had a hard choice between Bush and the war in Iraq, and Kerry and his abortion support. If someone Catholic voted Kerry because Bush could do more evil in that Catholic's assessment, I'm not going to call him a bad Catholic. Now if someone voted Kerry because of his support of abortion, then he might actually be a bigger supporter of abortion than Kerry himself. If someone Catholic ignored the difference in opinions on life issues, didn't care for the war or anything, and voted simply for whom would be better for his wallet, that's something like what politicians do to get more votes - they claim mutually exclusive beliefs or act contrary to the beliefs they claim.

Why be a Catholic, then, if differ on substantial issues?

Do they even know? A priest in the communion line won't ask everyone about each and every beliefs, when have you last been to confession etc. The situation is different when the priest has knowledge that e.g. someone votes for abortion. There have been cases of pro-choice politicians being denied Communion, but that's when they support of abortion is publicly known and not just from the voting record.

Perhaps by the time he will have gained enough votes from electors who didn't previously support him. However, the initial deception will have been the reason why he got elected to the term following that deception and what made it available for him to gain more votes to cover the losses incurred by dispelling some illusions. All in all, the deception might well pay.

 

Chev, frankly anyone who isn't free thinking enough to disagree with his church once in a while is too stupid to be in politics. We need thinkers, not theocrats.

Nor does excommunication mean their opinion is not. The Church changes its stances from time to time, so it is often wrong...even by its own admission.

Abortion isn't murder. It obviously and inarguably takes a life and, in my opinion, is a violation of the unborn child's rights. It may be just as wrong as murder to some (or many), but killing someone is only murder if it is illegal.

Actually, there are lots of ways, logically. As I mentioned above, if abortion were actually murder, people wouldn't be fighting over it so much. Not even the most radical libertarians or anarchists out the disagree with the idea that murder should be illegal, so the issue is obviously not that clear cut. Some people who hold to the church's teachings about abortion feel that they do not have the right to foist their religious beliefs onto others who disagree with them. Believing abortion is wrong, but having no other reason then a deeply held conviction (with no provable facts behind it) or the Church's say so, they allow it to stay legal or simply leave the matter to the judicial system. Some people agree with everything the Church says except abortion, the death penalty, etc. I've never even met a priest (and, being the son of a music minister, I've known many) who agrees with everything the Church says.

Why should adultery or pre-marital sex be criminal acts, Chev? Since the law exists to protect individual rights rather to enforce the moral values of archaic institutions, whose rights are violated if a couple decides to follow the swinger life-style or enter a polyamorous relationship (either of which would technically constitute adultery)? Whose rights are violated when a consenting couple decides to have sex? Unless you can prove that these things violate someone's rights, I don't need to tell you that they should be legal. As a lawyer, you already know.

This is ridiculous. I challenge you to find me one person (who isn't a sociopath) that thinks murder should be legal. Find me one. Given that everyone thinks that murder should be illegal, the obvious answer is that abortion isn't as clear cut an issue as your run-of-the-mill homicide. If it were clear cut, everyone would agree that it should be illegal.

I've known several priests who disagree with the church's teachings on contraception. If the clergy isn't a united front, why would you expect the same from the flock?

 

Free thinking relies on thinking, not on the outcome.

Individual clerics can be wrong and if many are, then perhaps the whole ship takes a wrong course. However, that concerns certain decisions, but not matters of doctrine. While the Church has changed opinions in practical matters, there hasn't been a change in the moral teaching. Granted, more and more knowledge is gained and therefore there are more factors in moral and philosophical discussions, more ability to assess the morality of an act also, but there's no change in the sense of changing mind on good and evil.

It's only the crime of murder in some law if it meets the description of murder in that law. But murder is not only a legal term. I don't think moral philosophy sticks to just homicide (which you could also claim to be just a legal name) unless also considering a particular legal system.

So how would you classify the legalised killing of babies then?

Drew, "killing someone illegally should be illegal?" In what you wrote above, murder is illegal by definition. Do you mean to say that everyone agrees that killing someone when the law doesn't allow you to kill that person, should be illegal? Also, in that reasoning, illegal abortions should be considered murder because they consist in illegally killing someone.

So they feel they have no right to prevent what they see as murder? Wouldn't they oppose masters killing slaves if that were legal?

How are you going to prove that something is wrong? Can you prove that murder or theft or arson is wrong in the same way as you'd expect a Catholic to prove abortion is wrong?

The facts are that a foetus 1) lives (it's not a stone, it has a life), 2) is human (it's not a dog or eggplant, it's human), 3) is not a part of the woman's body but a separate entity (it has its own blood group, DNA, own organs, own separate life in the future). Therefore "terminating" a foetus is "terminating" a living human entity, i.e. killing a human person.

Does that mean they never said they agreed on everything, or did they actually all express disagreement?

Their action harms themselves, even if they consent to the harm, their children and the rest of their families whom this affects, the society as a whole. The vast majority of accounts of adultery is plain cheating, though, I believe.

Off the top of my head: of the each of them, each other's, future spouses', more indirectly other people such as family, who are affected by their behaviour, lastly the society as a whole. By engaging in sexual activity outside the context of commitment and responsibility, they expose themselves to emotional harm, personality disorders resulting from problems that will ensue, unwanted pregnancy which will often result in abortion, venereal diseases which may also likely be passed on. Another ill effect will be comparing sexual partners, objectifying oneself and partner and reducing sex to an exchange of services. Children born out of wedlock are harmed. Scandalised or shamed families are harmed. Distressed future lovers are harmed.

Actually, what you expressed above is a philosophical stance, not a fact as you'd term it. What you're saying is that unless something violates someone's rights in a direct and ostensible manner, and most of us agree it does, it should be legal. I believe that consent doesn't eliminate harm and that consequences of an act don't need to be painfully direct in order to make that act able to be illegal. I don't see how this makes me a corrupt lawyer.

Using your definitions, I'd have to find someone who thinks illegal killing of people should be legal. That's so contradictory that you won't find anyone seriously believing that. You will find people believing that some illegal killings should not be punished or that some illegal killings should become legal.

Using my definition, that murder is an act of killing a person with some additional aggravating factors to it, you will find plenty of people who say they believe abortion is such a killing and that it should still be legal even for very egoistic reasons (e.g. not wanting the hassle of pregnancy). You will likely find people who say that the laws can be set freely to allow or outlaw any given act, including killing a person. By the way, a moment before you said abortion was undoubtedly taking a life. I don't think you believe it should be illegal, do you? So don't you believe that even though it is a killing, it should be legal on the grounds that some people don't believe it's a killing?

What exactly are you implying? Taking a life isn't clear cut enough?

If a priest teaches that contraception is all right, he teaches in discord with the Church. If he doesn't say it's his own view, he also mispresents said teaching. And if he says that's actually the Church's view, then he's lying. Besides, from the point of view of sheer probability of who is the right and who isn't, which should appeal to someone who doesn't believe what the Church does, the same factors which make a priest more credible than a layman also make him less credible than the Pope or the bishops. In other words, a priest is an authority on the Church teaching, but the Pope and bishops are more so. I realise you were talking about unity, thought, and yes, if those under a special obligation to present the teaching of the Church fail in the duty or present other views as more or equally valid, can't all succeed in teaching the same moral truths, one can't reasonably expect that the ordinary faithful, so many more of them and so much more removed from the authority, will maintain a unified front. This however doesn't make dissident opinion alternative propositions. There are no alternative propositions on contraception or abortion.

 

Obviously what I am referring to is that, in abortion, the victim isn't as obvious. Further, there is the question of whether the life is sentient, which for many people is where the real crux of the abortion debate lies. Remember, I'm actually on your side of the fence on the abortion issue. I'm pro-life.

While I am pro-life, I'm not willing to classify a fetus that's been in the oven for 3 or 4 months a baby, yet. In my mind, abortion when the fetus is at an age where it can survive outside the womb is a no-brainer. It should absolutely, inarguably be illegal unless the mother's life is in danger. Even amongst the pro-choice community, you really aren't going to find many people who feel third trimester abortion is ethical.

The second trimester gets a little less clear, since we know that brain function is starting to kick in and, about halfway through, the fetus can actually be viable if delivered premature. In the first trimester, though, there isn't any brain function. Further, at least 12.5% of pregnancies already miscarry on their own during the first trimester. (This is actually an underestimate, since many women miscarry before they know they are pregnant).

Simply put, there's no way of proving that an early abortion terminates a sentient life. Personally, I think the burden should be on disproving it, and that until it is possible to do so, abortion should be illegal. Others disagree, but the real crux of the debate is getting undermined by all of the theological arguments currently being employed by the pro-life community. Religious arguments don't sway the non-religious.

Murder's definition has, for thousands of years, been killing another living, breathing, sentient human being without some mitigating factor like war or self defense.

Abortion is new to the field, and it isn't as crystal clear as the pro-life community or the pro-choice community would have us believe. For starters, there is no way to prove a fetus is sentient. Further, despite what the pro-choice folks have to say about the matter, you absolutely are killing a human life.

It is actually more likely that the only reason they think it is murder is because the Church says it is murder. Frankly, "the Church says no" isn't a good enough reason to make abortion illegal.

I absolutely can. An arson destroys the property of a sentient being. It also endangers sentient lives. Murder destroys the life of a sentient being. Theft steals the property of a sentient being. We cannot prove that a fetus in an early stage of development is sentient.

Absolutely. But we still don't know if the fetus was sentient.

One priest that regularly visited our parish flatly stated in a homily that the church was wrong to exclude women from the clergy. Another, a Franciscan pastor, stated, although not from the pulpit, that the Church's view on contraception was utterly ridiculous and the kind of thing only a celibate 70 year old who's never had to make a mortgage payment would say. I could go on.

In other words, not a single human being has his rights violated when two consenting adults have sex, but it's bad for society because blah, blah, blah, etc, etc. Yes, I obviously employ a paradigm in which the purpose of the law is to protect individual rights. Given that I am an American, this should hardly be a surprise to you.

 

Drew, I gather that you play the devil's advocate but I take exception to your use of the word sentient. Crimes can be committed against animals. There are forests here in the USA were it is illegal to start fires. Or do you argue that the animals and the forests belong to sentient beings so therefore the crime is against them? Further, what is a sentient being? Who defines this? From my experience as a teacher I believe that children turn into human beings at roughly seven years of age.

Are you saying that I can kill a person who has no ability to think? A person born without the ability to reason and make choices or an elderly person who is extremely senile? A person who is in a vegetative state but whose body can survive without mechanical aid?

I hope I am wrong but I get the feeling you argue for the fun of arguing. I don't agree with everything my government does but that does not mean I advocate overthrowing it by violence. I do not need to agree 100% with an institution to support it. In fact it is highly unlikely that any two people will be in 100% agreement much less a group of people. The best we can do is reach a consensus.

Excommunication is a drastic and serious matter. If the Roman Catholic church is the one true church of the Divine Creator then excommunication means that the soul is condemned for eternity to the punishment of Hell. That is worse than killing the person. Seems to me that anyone who professes to be a Catholic would and should think twice about going against the Church if threatened with excommunication.

 

I think the Catholic Church does more than well in "informing" so unless we're talking about complete idiots here (which politicians now and then might seem to be) they should not have trouble understanding what they are doing.

Not exactly what I meant, but politics is about compromise. If you only deal with absolutes don't expect yourself getting very far in politics. Doing controversial calls is sometimes necessary but abortion is not such a case I'm afraid. When you start legistlating a moral code which is not generally accepted you'll probably end up with trouble in the future. Bush is in a certain way quite a nice example of this, he is certainly against abortion but knows that there's little point in trying to overturn Roe vs Wade since right now it's politically impossible. Sometimes personal beliefs must take backseat when considering political possibilities.

You might have to ask that about someone who's Catholic, however since I'm a Christian and probably don't agree on all issues with my church I'll elaborate this a bit from my perspective. It's simply about tradition and heritage, not so much about beliefs, I could well do without the Church. I also happen to believe that religion is important for support and might some day be important for me too, while now it seems distant. I do honestly believe that religion is mainly a good thing in society and does it a service and therefore support it even though I myself am not so active with it right now.

No, but democracy is the mechanism through which values are implemented in law.

Votes are not just the most important thing, in politics they are everything.

It has very little to do with actual democracy, if it's about voter deception then they should see through the mask and not vote for someone who seems untrustworthy.

That is of course another possibility, endless betrayal though will end up with everyone bitter and no one left trusting you enough to vote you. Such political fates are not unheard of either. In the end such turncoating in most cases backfire, getting up a new base after you've lost one is very difficult.

Finally you asked what we'd think of excommunication at some point, I could not find that part of your post right now so no quoting at this time.

And yes I'd probably be upset and view it as manipulation. However in my opinion they are allready manipulating the political system. The Catholic branch of christianity is as far as I know the only system which has some kind of a political ideology which it advises Catholic nations to follow, this in my opinion by itself is allready getting way more involved than I see as preferable. Excommunication would however be a less subtle method and would bring the point forth quite bluntly. For the Catholic Church it would be a horrible thing and I'd find the pope to be mad if he actually began such a campaign. it would just send a pretty effective message about who is wanted in the Church and who is not instead of just scolding a bit and letting business continue as usual.

I'll probably have to look at this again to see if I missed anything I would have liked to comment further upon or expand my comments on some parts. And here was I thinking that chev was done with this topic and then he comes and blasts three big posts.

 

You rightfully point out that it is possible to commit crimes against animals (though setting forest fires endangers everyone...not just animals), but those laws are ridiculously inconsistent. Dogs are protected from much abuse, but it's perfectly legal to run a slaughter house in which more than 5% of the animals are not properly stunned and, thus, more than 5% of the animals are fully conscious while they are slaughtered. We don't protect rats, mice, or birds at all. It is perfectly legal for scientists to intentionally addict chimps to amphetamines in the name of science, but giving beer to your cat is illegal. Sadly, our society doesn't protect all animals. It only protects the ones it likes (pets, some endangered species), doesn't eat, and doesn't use for research.

If you didn't know, I'm a Vegan. I think killing -at all- is wrong. However, few people see the world the way I do, and asking them to do so would be a waste of my time. Most people have a very humano-centric perspective about right and wrong, and nothing is going to change that. I would argue that most animals are sentient (the jellyfish, which has no brain function, clearly is not). They, too, should be given the benefit of the doubt until it can be conclusively proven beyond all doubt that they are not.

If sentience, itself, bothers you in the context of my argument, you can easily replace "sentience" with "able to suffer". The argument remains, in that context, essentially the same. Broccoli, possessing no brain function, is incapable of suffering. A fetus that's been gestating for a mere 3 months would likewise be incapable of suffering. The same would also be true of brain dead humans.

EDIT:

I'll re-visit this, too. The reason is likely because Catholicism comes closer to your beliefs than any other religion. If you differ with every Church on a few substantial issues (and most grown-ups do), are you saying that you shouldn't be religious? Or don't deserve to be? Most people are not going to be willing to check their brains in at the doors of their churches.