Excommunicating It
Pope Benedict has spoken:
It didn’t take long for Pope Benedict XVI’s first trip to the Western Hemisphere to generate controversy — in fact, it started ten hours before he landed.
On Wednesday, as he flew toward his much anticipated five-day trip in Brazil, the Pope addressed the question of the “good standing” of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights — a delicate issue that has come up in the U.S., Europe and, most recently, Mexico. During an unprecedented 25-minute on-flight press conference, Benedict left little room for interpretation: pro-choice politicians not only should be denied communion, but face outright excommunication from the Church for supporting “the killing of a human child.” The Pope’s declaration came in response to recent comments from the spokesman of the Mexican bishops conference, who said politicians who pushed through a new Mexico City pro-choice law were to be excommunicated.
Standing before an Alitalia cabin full of reporters, two hours into the 12-hour flight to Sao Paulo, the Pope expressed his support for the Mexican bishops in the face of that country’s first-ever law legalizing first term abortions. “Yes, that they are excommunicated isn’t something arbitrary. It’s envisioned in the law of the Church that the killing of a human child is incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ.”
That is one of the ‘problems’ I ‘have’ with the Catholic Church: these kind of strict rules. Besides, this is not just a religious issue, it is also, first and foremost, a political issue. Separation of Church and State and all that.
This ones a bit of a tough call for me. On the one hand, the Pope and other Church leaders have every ‘right’ to say that an action or policy is wrong in the eyes of the Church, and in this case, wrong enough to warrant excommunication.
But when a public announcement involves political leaders like that, it veers a bit too close to interfering in politics by giving some politicians the blessings of the Church and others its condemnation.
Though I don’t agree with you, Michael, that opposition to abortion is first and foremost a religious issue. It has been framed that way, but it shouldn’t be; it’s an ethical issue, and an issue of definining when human beings become eligible for the protections of the Constitution.
I’d also like to point out that the Catholic rank and file, among both the parishoners and the clergy, often don’t agree with and even ignore the Vatican. This division between the magisterium (the Catholic leadership) and the laity has existed for quite some time, and I don’t know if Pope Benedict’s demands are going to be met with any action on the part of local officials.
Also, a lot of denominations have controversial rules and regulations, not just the Catholics.
This isn’t the formal decree of excommunication you know. (I can’t tell if you realize that or not.) By the theology of the Church, if one is not in communion because of sin (which distances one further from God) then one is considered excommunicated in a voluntary manner. People in such a state, were they to take the sacrements, would not enjoy the true benefits of them. Nobody is at the church door keeping them from entering.
I also do not understand your Church/State point. Do you really want the Catholic Church (or any other Church) to take the position that human beings can tell God what areas of life are or are not acceptable for religious influence? Wouldn’t that reverse who is considered divine?
The view of the Catholic Church is that the view of morality it represents is valid on Earth at ALL times in ALL situations, no matter if you are acting as a member of a family or as a member of a political community. It also says if you want to follow your own personal moral code, go right ahead…you just cannot expect to be considered Catholic.
See also:
Pope speaks out on abortion - Video from bbcworldnews
http://hammer2006.blogspot.com/2007/05/pope-speaks-out-on-abortion-youtube.html
I think that when the Catholic Church threatens to excommunicate politicians because they are politically (not personally) pro-choice, the Church goes too far. The Church should tell them why pro-choice is, relgiously, wrong, but not what laws to pass and what laws not.
“I think that when the Catholic Church threatens to excommunicate politicians because they are politically (not personally) pro-choice, the Church goes too far. The Church should tell them why pro-choice is, relgiously, wrong, but not what laws to pass and what laws not.”
The Church has its rules. The Church doesn’t “draft” its members you are there voluntarily. All politicians can make a choice and accept the repercussions .
The Church isn’t telling them what laws to make it’s telling them the outcome of their action. If ones faith and church affiliation isn’t important or a significant life guide one shouldn’t feel any pressure from standing up for ones views.
Separation of Church and State means the State shouldn’t control the Church as well. If you get angry at the Church for standing on its principles isn’t that a little hypocritical.
Michael,
I disagree. The decisions people make as politicians are just as much “acts” as the decisions they make in their personal life. To take an extreme case, you wouldn’t claim that the Church would have had no valid objections to make against Hitler’s decress, right? Those too are “political” acts (though politics of a very different kind). But they very obviously have profound moral defects that the Church MUST stand up against. And to this day the Church is lauded for when it did stand up for their own principles, and damned for when they didn’t.
All acts, including political action, carry the potential for moral consequences and as a result the Church CAN insist that its members adhere to the basic tenets of the faith. If folks don’t like it they should have the moral courage to, well, leave.
MvdG- I agree -it is going to far. It sets a bad precedent- because later the Pope might decide to threaten a politician that makes a divorce easier to get or votes for funds for birth control clinics with ex-communication. What about a judge that issues a death penalty in a capital case?
This is the same issue that voters worried about here when we elected our first Catholic president 47 years ago.
Do we want the Vatican deciding on the laws of soveriegn nations? He is free to harshly condemn the passage of the law, but should let it go at that.
“Do we want the Vatican deciding on the laws of soveriegn nations?”
This is not a real argument. The Catholic Church doesn’t have the power to change the laws of any nation on earth. It only holds sway over those who wish to be members of the Church, and it only affects their status WITHIN the community of the Church. The Church is NOT saying, “You are not allowed to pass this law” because the Church doesn’t have the authority to stop ANY law from being enacted. It CAN say those who engage in certain acts will no longer have standing WITHIN the Church.
It fact, to deny to the Church the ability to define who is and who isn’t a member in good standing would seem to be an incursion into the free exercise of religion, and NOT an intrusion of the church into the state.
Rich,
I mostly agree with you (and I appreciate your explanations of excommunication because I think most people miss the point that that’s not a condemnation or punishment, it’s just an acknowledgement of a status when someone is living outside of grace).
For me personally though, I’m still a bit conflicted on the kind of pronouncements that the Pope has just made because there does seem to be an element of coercion. Take it a half step further, for example, and tell the members of the congregation that they risk excommunication if they vote for a politician who supports a particular policy. Doesn’t that cross the line?
This exemplifies precisely why I regret so profoundly that the religion of candidates is an issue at all. When religious leaders, like the Pope and the Evangelical spokesmen, state their views in political terms, it makes the situation worse.
Poor God. He is being used like Paris Hilton to advertise for this or that religious grouping, political party or individual candidate.
Should religious authorities be in disagreement on an issue, will God then be forced to choose sides?
Parishioners have always been free to take guidance from church elders and to take that guidance to the polls. In the past, they could incorporate sermons into their overall information on a policy or candidate. When the sermons become overtly political, the parishioners are prompted to vote in certain ways while bypassing all other avenues of information and education. That’s a shift in only a matter of degree of influence, but it’s a crucial shift.
My point is that I think its fine for the Pope to condemn a politician’s actions-but not to take this action against him personally. I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything but a threat that is used to affect those who are deciding on a nations policies. But then, I really believe in complete separation of church and state.
no,
Rich is fundamentially correct. It is not a separation of Church & State issue. There is no difference between the Pope speaking his mind as a leader on what his beliefs are, vs the Teamsters Union instructing it’s membership to vote in certain manner.
Main difference is the Pope is a leader of a sovereign nation, as well as the leader of many subsets of our population
I disagree with the contention that religious leaders are no more or less than secular leaders. They are in a separate class, because they claim to interpret God’s will.
The concept of God is so powerful that it carries unequaled influence.
Given that God’s will can be interpreted in such a variety of ways, it is very dangerous to bring the concept into politics overtly.
Europe’s religious wars should be a lesson in where we don’t want to go. So should the Crusades.
Religion has also been bright shining moments guiding countries out of despair Dom.
not everything is doom and gloom - if you want to cite the black you also need to look at the white.
Interested-
I agree that religion has played enormously positive roles in history. Christianity has been the mantle for both good and bad.
But that just makes my point. It isn’t religion, per se, that causes good or evil. It’s how men use religion for their purposes. We see that played out in the Muslim world, where the same religion has brought periods of extraordinary tolerance as well as the current murderous mindset.
The authority asserted by invoking the name of our God or Allah is enormours. That’s precisely why I think a direct intervention by a religious authority in political terms is so dangerous.
I agree, Religion has been the cause, reason and method for some of the ages most horrendous acts.
But at the same time it has brought peace, stability and growth over other ages.
Given that one shouldn’t knee-jerk remove religion from anything possible for it has the ability to do bad. For it also has the ability to do good.
We spend far too much time looking to remove possible sources of harm instead of focusing on removing causes of harm.
Interested-
I’m not at all proposing removing religion from sight and sound.
There is just something toxic about the mix of religion and politics, IMO.
As an example, I was apalled by the scrutiny of Romney: are Mormons really Chirsstians, etc.?
I didn’t mean to imply you were.
But it does seem like you are saying that to add Religion influence - in any way, shape or form into a Politicians thought process is a recipe for disaster.
When that is focusing on what could be a source of harm, not what is a cause of harm.
Could one not also think of the scrutiny of Romney - think back to the scrutiny of JFK. And see progress? Is it not a signal of growth of character as a nation that a Catholic or a Mormon can run period, much less that a Black or a Female can also be running in the same - highest office in the land - race? Or that a Jew could have also run in the race before and been nominated for the 2nd highest office?
I look at these and I do not see harmful things, I look at them and see it as positive steps. We are free to practice religion, we are also free to proudly display our religion as an influence in how we conduct our lives.
Interested-
Yes, but is a candidate free to proudly state that he belongs to no religion? Not if he wants to be elected. Who knows? Maybe some of the best foreign policy thinkers could be sidelined because of this acid test.
As a nonbeliever (in the tradition of organized churches), I find myself constantly trying to protect God from the trivialization of the transcendental concept of God. IMO, the name of God should never be invoked as justification to go to war or to a particular vote. This diminishes God to the status of a politician, scientist or professor.
Religious leaders are fallible men, and they can make mistakes. Even Popes reverse the judgments of previous Popes. The claim by anyone to know with absolute certainty what God’s will or intent is amounts to sacrilege, IMO.
Certainly, believers are free to believe otherwise.
The line between offering guidance to parishioners and inserting religious authority into politics is thin, I admit, but it is crucial.
C Stanley wrote: “Take it a half step further, for example, and tell the members of the congregation that they risk excommunication if they vote for a politician who supports a particular policy. Doesn’t that cross the line?”
Alright, I’m not exactly a canon lawyer so I may get some particulars wrong, but I believe a common standard for formal excommunication is that there should be a degree of infamy to the offense. Obviously the Church will not know how citizens voted in a secret ballot unless they themselves go out of their way to publicize it. Obviously there is nothing in the Church that would allow them to pro-actively investigate people to ensure they were voting properly. I realize you are deliberately making an extreme argument, like my Hitler analogy, but if we are gonna go to extremes we might as go all the way. This would require the Church to go so far beyond the criticism of Mexican politicians (as in this case) to not strike me as a particularly likely worry.
C Stanley also stated: ” I’m still a bit conflicted on the kind of pronouncements that the Pope has just made because there does seem to be an element of coercion.”
Well, you could also look at it more positively. The Church has a pastoral responsibility to its members that they do not unknowlingly fall into grave moral error. They are not concerned with the politician qua politician, but with a human being with an at risk soul. For someone who is not religious and who doesn’t identify with the concerns involved, it is not uncommon to just chalk everything up to being about politics. However, for those who DO take such things seriously it is vitally important. It is not coercion as such, because it is not the Church that imposes the final judgement on the matter. In the same vein, the Church, if it truly cares about the souls of its adherents, must attempt to make sure that those in grave moral error do not influence others to make the same mistake, and this it can do by formally recognizing individuals as being outside the good standing of the Church. Really it is not a stick. For people of the Church excommunication is not a “stick”, but simply telling people the way it is.
Domaju stated: “I disagree with the contention that religious leaders are no more or less than secular leaders. They are in a separate class, because they claim to interpret God’s will.”
This seems to be proposing some sort of restrictions about what people of religious faith may say or do, that would set them apart as second rate citizens. So it would be ok for a marxist party to advocate any political item that they believe is in keeping with the material dialectic, but it would be illegitimate for a Church to advocate against the death penalty because they believe it is in keeping with God’s word. Would I have that right? Or do you see it differently than that?
“The concept of God is so powerful that it carries unequaled influence.
Given that God’s will can be interpreted in such a variety of ways, it is very dangerous to bring the concept into politics overtly.”
I’d point out the two most pernicious regimes the world has ever seen were not overtly religious (unless you want to call the Nazi’s “scientific paganism” religion), so I think you are underestimating the power of other types of ideas. When Pol Pot got folks to hack to death their neighbors because they wore reading glasses and that was a sign of their “degenerate status” that was not religion he was whistling. And then there is the whole litany of horrors that have been perpetrated upon our fellow man in the name of science, or ideological purity, etc. Religion can, obviously, be a source of discord, but it also possible to over-sell that point. (As some historians do in an attempt to whitewash whatever movement they wish to be unsullied by what they have actually done.)
Domaju said: “Europe’s religious wars should be a lesson in where we don’t want to go. So should the Crusades.”
So many of the so-called religious wars (and even some of the crusades, such as the Albigensian crusade) had so much more to do with politics (and not even religious politics) that they hardly deserve the name “war of religion.” Despite what many history books say, no one was killing each other over how many angels could dance on the head on a pin. Additionally, no country in the western world dervives its idea of sovreignty from Divine Right, so the idea of the medieval church imperium is long dead. (Maybe someone could claim that the last flickers died in the abdication of the Kaiser in 1918, but I’d say that is a bit of a stretch. Actually more than a bit.) I’d say it is about as likely to see a crusade as it would be to see Sweden deciding to go all viking and beginning to rape and pillage northern england again.
Rich-
-About restrictions:
Honestly, I had never thought about restricting religious expression or felt the need for it, until you brought it up. I do wish there were protected zones, where people could enjoy public spaces without feeling they are constant targets for either a material or a spiritual sales pitch, offering everything from the latest brand of lipstick to salvation.
This can’t be a matter of law, but citizens like you and I can respect that public spaces are shared spaces and that our private interests, whether in music or reciting Bible verses, should interfere with others as little as possible.
Anyway, my concern was not about ordinary people with religious beliefs but with figures with religious authority, like the Pope or Pat Robertson. When they speak on matters of politics, their directives do contain a degree of coercive power higher than that of a campaign on behalf of a marxist. You can debate a marxist using logic, thus being on an even level with him. But a religious authority claims to be speaking for God, and it’s hard to compel God to debate.
The kind of influence a religious leader can have depends entirely on the character of the authority figure. I’m sure you’ve heard how difficult it is to de-program those who have fallen prey to religious cults. I would not be happy if a popular, but deranged, cult leader was influencing voitng results. If the Pope’s influence on politics is correct, so woud be the cult leader’s. You can’t pick and choose.
-About the causes of strife:
You are quite correct that some of the most horrendous historic figures, like Hitler or Stalin, had nothing to do with religion. However, the religious mantle gives an extra power boost to the masterminds of evil. This is what is happening in the Muslim world now, and that is what happened during the religious wars in France. It’s so much more difficult to give up or to compromise, if you feel you are fighting for God. Can God compromise? Religion spurred the war on, even if other factors lay underneath.
In our country, a secular miscreant is much easier to prosecute, because it’s only a matter of him and the law. A religious leader who has strayed off course, however, has the extra protection of freedom of religion and is much harder to deal with. You’ve heard of the current case of the polygamists, only one of whom has got as far as an indictment, even though polygamy itself is illegal and the young age of the brides repugnant.
Because of the power of religious leaders, the dependence of the quality of the influence on their character and the special protections they have under freedom of religion laws, I remain very much opposed to their role in politics and government.
An additional consideration is that we already have so much to argue about, that this extra dimension of religion (with the corollary question of which religions) would make a civil co-existence among people with diverse opinions ever so much more difficult.
By the way, the argument about “second class citizens” really holds no sway with me. Religious people enjoy the same rights, and several extra pirvileges, as others.
The extras that religions enjoy include tax breaks and loose regulations for their institutions and properites.
I’ll admit that the “war on religion’ campaign actually made me mad, because it turns logic on its head: if I can’t have even more special privileges, then you are discriminating.
That being said, under law and in my personal convictions, the freedom of people to worship as they choose is to be protected at all costs. Religion and politics will mix, of course, since religious people vote, Because they mix and the line between religion and politics will always be hazy, it is even more important for religious leaders to respect the division between secular and religous authority.
Domaju:
I share your distaste of much of the religious/political posturing that you get from some of the more evangelical protestants, but in the end you have to chalk it up to being the price we all pay to live in a free society. I don’t particularly like the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons knocking on my door either, but I cannot see telling folks that they are not allowed to do it. Hell, I still feel the need to be polite to them..although I’ll admit sometimes I want to say something like, “You poor schismatic! You are on the path to hell you know!” But even that implulse is more to be mischevious than vindictive.
I do think you conflate a couple of things. The Pope’s interaction with other members WITIN the Church is different than interactions between believers and non-believers. I’ll freely admit that the Catholic Church (or any other) cannot expect to say “God makes it so” and expect anything from non-believers. But from at least nominal observants of the SAME faith it should be different. If two people are BOTH Catholic already the standards of the faith should be allowed to apply. The POpe was not speaking of all legislators (although I’m sure he’d love to influence even non-believers into the rightness of his cause), but he was speaking to Catholics who were falling away from the faith by believing that the consequences of their acts are seperate from the acts themselves. (As if, from a Catholic perspective, I as a legislator would vote to legalize lynch mobs and then consider my conscience clean because I personally didn’t help string anybody up.)
Besides, I think the degree of infuence of the Pope is overstated. Look at abortion in America. HAs the position of the Church altered any Catholic Democrat’s vote that you have ever heard of?
Rich,
Re: your comment #22….
What you describe is the positive part of this in my view; I do believe that when the Pope speaks this way he is exercising his pastoral responsibility and I think it’s all about that for him rather than trying to gain political influence.
So I agree with you on all of that.
But that’s why I said I was conflicted; I completely see it from that perspective when I consider it as a Catholic, but when I put on a secular hat I can also see the criticism and the concern about coercion.
And let me take it a bit further in another direction. Personally I think there’s a big difference between a politician who hasn’t made abortion a key issue, who has tried to vote his conscience but might have a more pragmatic view of it in the political realm than he/she does in the personal one. In other words, I think it’s quite possible for someone to be pro-life, and staunchly so, in a personal way (and I don’t just mean not having an abortion oneself, but also feeling that others should not do this), but pragmatically believe that the debate over it should be in the non-political realm to change hearts and minds. After all, it would be quite possible to have a situation where abortion is prohibited by law but still taking place in great numbers, and also theoretically possible for it to be legal but never occurring because everyone thinks it’s immoral.
So if the condemnation is directed toward a politician who is particularly pro-choice to the degree that he definitely believes that abortions should occur in some cases, then I think that’s a fair criticism in that case. But if it is applied as a blanket to any politician whose voting record doesn’t get 100% approval by NRTL and 0% by NARAL, then I think it goes too far.
Also, I think that pointing out the politicians who are on the wrong side of the issue tends to create the mindset for a litmus test and single issue voting. That’s a tough call for me as well; on the one hand, my opposition toward abortion is strong enough that I have a very hard time voting for someone who’s not pro-life, but on the other hand, that person’s actions in office will influence a lot of other things besides embryonic/fetal life and I think it all has to go into the balance.
We apply equal tests in other areas. Got a candidate too fat? Remember Clinton and his sudden interest in Jogging (not withstanding the time he jogged right into a Wendy’s) . And how drugs or military service used to be a factor.
I still submit that someone like Robertson or Jackson or whoever has the ability to try to sway their “population” just as much as Big Union’s do.
I would be hesitant to label all religious followers as people who will blindly follow whatever their Church leaders instruct them to do.
To all believers-
As a purely theoretical question:
If polygamists were to increase in sufficient numbers to start pushing for legislation accepting this lifestyle as a legitimate expression of their beliefs, would you still have the same benign view of the intersection of church and state?
Please, let’s not argue about laws and the Constitution. It’s an argument in the ABSTRACT to highlight the implications.
It seems to me, people see this in a particular way only because it furthers the power of their position on certain issues (abortion). If the policy issue being debated would go against your ‘lifestyle’ choices, I suspect you would begin to see my concerns differently.
Why see everything in such black and white?
Why do you (if you do) drive a car given that the car can kill
Why drink water when water has been known to have impurities in it.
Why breath air which has been proven to be laced with things that kill us each and every day.
Do you not yourself rely on your past and what you believe in to make decisions for the future?
Why then be so against others who do the very same thing.
Interested -
I give extreme examples to make a point. If I were to couch my argument in disclaimers and qualifications, a reader would be hard put to understand the gist of the comment.
In reality, I don’t see this in black and white at all. I have said overr and over (see my previous comments) that politics and religion have, do and will intersect. It’s unavoidable in a democracy.
Just like there is a fine line between being honest and being rude, we recognize the extremes and accept that there is a line, no matter how difficult it is to identify at times.
My position in the church/state debate is the same. While the line may be difficult to identify at times, the principle of accepting that there should be a line is important.
doma,
I do understand your concern, but I don’t see why you say we shouldn’t allow the Constitution or laws to enter into the discussion. On the issue of abortion, for example, the SC justices have bent over backward the other way to interpret a right to an abortion in the Constitution so that the opinion that coincides with religious views is being trumped by the interpretation of the Constitution. So if anything, things are leaning in that direction instead of the one that you fear where religious groups can get some special consideration concerning laws that affect others.
But Dom,
What you say is entirely different than what you claim to have said.
How can you accept that a line exists but not want to possibly debate where it may be, or what influence it may be. How can anyone understand your line of reasoning without even knowing where it is at.
And the more I read that the more I sense your running away from actually saying what it is that you may - or may not believe in. Where that line is I still have no idea as it’s been shifting.
And in the end - it is about the laws and the Constitution.
CS-
I tried to make it clear that a debate about laws or the Constitutions would be extraneous in the CASE OF MY EXAMPLE RE POLYGAMY.
If you are discussing an ABSTRACTION, or a MAKE-BELIEVE situation, discussing the judiciary system of the US is irrelevant. I made the stipulation because today we are not threatened by a take-over by polygamists.
As soon as we return to the real world, we bring in real facts.
I was hoping for a reaction to my hypothetical case instead of getting bogged down in side issues.
Any thoughts?
Interested-
“How can you accept that a line exists but not want to possibly debate where it may be, or what influence it may be. ”
=============
You just have to go with the flow of the conversation.
I would have to recap all our comments in order to summarize for you.
*****
“Please, let’s not argue about laws and the Constitution. It’s an argument in the ABSTRACT to highlight the implications”
==============
I am introducing a new point. Where we draw the line regarding current events has implications for the future.
See also CS #32 and me #33
Interested-
My view:
1. There should be a church/state division.
Since believers take their beliefa to the voting booth, the division can never be finite.
2. Government funding of religious undertakings violate my personal view of the division. but I have to recognize the political reality that I may be outvoted on this issue.
2. Religious leaders exert an influence in the ‘public square’ greater (because it’s more difficult to confront) than secular leaders.
That influence may be good or it may be bad, but it’s there. I have no answer for this dilemma, but my concern is that if we become too complacent about the good leaders, we may be laying the groundwork for en entree for bad leaders. Hence my example about polygamists.
3. I think that there is too much emphasis on religion in policy debates.
In a nation of diverse outlooks, public debate is always difficult. When it is couched in religious terms, it makes debate even more difficult. I am old enough to remember a time, when people went to their churches and worshipped, but this was part of their private lives. People with diverse beliefs could more easily discuss the news.
Again, this is my view, and I must recognize that in the real world, conditions may not work out to my liking.
Not to violate “net-iquette” or anything but after following the commentary I was curious about something.
In the Commonwealth of Mass. and two other states pretty soon gay marriage is /will be law. The opposition is primarily religious in its standing although activist judicial legislation is also a big issue and the one with constitutional bearing.
Furthermore opponents of gay marriage have reasoned that the principles of its legalization are applicable to polygamy and other relational combinations.
I quibble about it, generally I agree - but mostly to your point #2.
hmm the paragraph that starts with “Constitution states that there ” and the one below it are my comments.
did a boo-boo there.
Interested-
First #2
I talk about funding. You talk about prayer. I don’t see the connection.. In case you are talking about prayer on gov’t funded time, I would say that prayer should be PRIVATE, not an official ceremony. If some spiritual invocation is demanded by the population, then it should be non-sectarian. This doesn’t bother me personally, but I know that atheists object. I can see their point, in a way. If you simply stand there while others are down on their knees, so to speak, it’s awkward and alienating.
Reasonable people should be able to work this out according to the situation. It would help, though, if the religious insisting on their religious freedom in shared spaces at least ackowledged how this impacts on others. Sometimes just the ackowledgement works wonders to soothe ruffled feathers.
Second #2
Re teaching avoidance, we will just have to remain in disagreement. I can teach my child not to do drugs, but I would still like to know that there are drug-free zones.
About the role of religious leaders, we will just have to disagree. They can be good and they can be bad. I will never like it when they go beyond preaching morals to the flock to making political statements.
Re: “action to remove it [religion] from being out in the open.”
I agree about removing symbols of religion; this went unneccesarily too far. As I said, even prayer can probably be accomodated rather than banned. However, ‘being out in the open’ should require consideration for others in shared spaces.
in2thefray said:
“Furthermore opponents of gay marriage have reasoned that the principles of its legalization are applicable to polygamy and other relational combinations.”
I’m sorry, I can’t take that argument seriously. It’s scare tactics of the worst kind IMO.
It reminds me of arguments against civil rights legislation referring to the coming rape of white women by black men from coast to coast.
If you feel otherwise, we’ll just have to disagree, hopefully in peace.
Doma states:
“To all believers-
As a purely theoretical question:
If polygamists were to increase in sufficient numbers to start pushing for legislation accepting this lifestyle as a legitimate expression of their beliefs, would you still have the same benign view of the intersection of church and state?”
You don’t think the BAN on polygamy isn’t based upon religion itself?
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were strict libertarians that have no problem with polygamy.
Rich Horton said:
“You don’t think the BAN on polygamy isn’t based upon religion itself?”
Yes, it is.
The USA was based in the culture of white male Protestant landowners.
You can see how various groups have been added to the mix: women, Catholics, Jews, blacks, etc, with varying degrees of struggle.
I was pointing out that how one feels about the church/state divide depends in part on which position appears to promise more power to his/her group. If one day we woke up to discover that the majority were polygamists, or Hindus, or Muslims, religious Christians might well be the ones calling for a high wall between church and state.
This was just an effort to dramatize the perspective of those who like a more rigorous chuch/state divide. Straight prose doesn’t seem to do the trick.
I really don’t get you here at all, doma. On the one hand, you want us to consider the implications if polygamists gain ground, but on the other hand, you say that when people use the possibility of polygamy as a reason to avoid legalization of gay marriage you say that such people are engaging in the use of fear tactics (commment #39). How was your hypothetical any different than that (except that it compared the potential polygamy boogeymen to the religious right instead of the gay activists)?
And in #38 when you discuss the position of atheists on public prayer, I agree that polite people should work these things out but this MUST be completely outside the sphere of the law. There simply is no ‘right to not feel awkward’ and to me it is quite important that we don’t begin to create one. I’m not saying that you were advocating that, but I sensed that you are a bit more sympathetic to the viewpoint of those who would.
CS-
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your problem with distinguishing between a statememt about a theoretical, make-believe situation, and a statement about something real.
I am proposing that (41)
“how one feels about the church/state divide depends in part on which position appears to promise more power to his/her group.”
If I use plain prose and place my argument in the context of the present and real situation, arguments tend to veer off course to side issues. So, I used polygamy as a theoretical, make-believe example, and a dramatization. I could have chosen Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims instead.
In contrast, #39 refers to a real debate going on now and to the actual situation here today.
I am suggesting that how one feels about the divide between church and state depends a lot on whether one’s particular religious views are shared by those in power. If the majority of the population and their government consisted mainly of people representing religious beliefs conflicting with Christianity, then Christians might be the ones calling for an impenetrable wall between church and state.
MY point: the perspective changes depending on your majority/minority position. Much of the debate about church, state and which lows should or should not be enacted are really all about power.
One last point:
The secularists in the US are much like the secularists in Turkey.
How’s that?
The secularists in the US don’t want to be dominated by the prevailing religious coalition of Christians and Jews.
The secularists in Turkey want to avoid being dominated by religious adherents to Islam.
It’s a different religion, but the same principle.
Doma,
I’m not sure I can articulate it better but I’ll try.
In comment #39 you dismissed a particular argument as an example of fearmongering. The point (if I understand it) is that people should not argue their position on an issue based on the idea that a powerful group in society will enforce their views of morality on the rest.
So, you are saying I guess that this is how you would read that particular situation.
Then moving back to the abstract: will you apply that same logic and principle to the abstract? Because to me, if you do so with all arguments of separation of religion and state, you would have to say that you also shouldn’t fearmonger by saying that the religious sector of society shouldn’t be allowed to become so powerful that they enforce their views of morality. In other words, if that is true for the abstract, then I don’t think you are applying the same logic when you look at how secularist groups like gay activists wield their power to dominate OVER the religious groups. The majority is the majority, and as long as we are talking about laws of morality (where there are effects of one person’s actions on another, not just on self- and not relating to the relationship between self and Creator), then there’s no reason to say that the moral opinions that are consistent with the religious view shouldn’t rule the day if the majority so will it. If that majority tries to enforce something that contradicts the rights granted in the Constitution, then the laws would be struck down.
I know that you brought up the polygamy example as a theoretical one to illustrate a point. But the point you are trying to make us see, I think, is that we wouldn’t like it so much either if that kind of religious view prevailed. Well, I agree- but I still think you are engaging in a form of the fearmongering that you condemned when it was used in a different example. My opinion of the dividing line between religion and govt really doesn’t change even when I consider the views of other religions which theoretically could prevail. Why? Because the more outrageous ones which I would have a problem with would most likely not pass Constitutional muster.
CS-
I use one type of argument to dramatize (overstate) a point of theory.
I use another type of argument to address a real situation.
To dramatize an ABSTRACT point, I use exteme examples and extreme arguments.
To discuss an actual situation, I refer to actual facts and indicators, or simply state a personal opinion.
These are different modes of communicating ideas, and are different by definition.
Ar great peril, I will once again try to dramatize:
A teacher in a math class talks about symbols such as x and y.
A teacher in a literature class also talks about symols, but they are subjective and associative symbols for emotions, or societal roles, or whatever.
You can not fault either teacher for using the word ’symbol’ to mean different things. You have to consider the topic and the context.
You are demanding, in effect, that I use the word ’symbol’ in the same way in a math class, a literature class and a psychotherapy session.
How long are you all going to debate a specific example given by someone to explain her point of view, instead of debating the actual point of view / opinion? You’re now talking about something quite irrelevant, or at least of secundary concern. I mean, I like having a lof of comments but… don’t you all get tired of it?
With ‘it’ I mean debating the specific example? I mean, the discussion is, in its original form, interesting, but then it became about an example and… well…
I thought I did address her point: comment #47, last couple of sentences. I admit it took me a while to get around to it…LOL