plaisted@cs.unc.edu (David Plaisted) (08/12/89)
A recent posting asserted that Constantine supported the separation of church and state. I find this disturbing. Obviously we are using the term ``separation of church and state'' in radically different ways. The use of the same term with entirely different meanings, engenders misunderstanding. Constantine promoted toleration of Christianity, which is compatible with the separation of church and state. However, he also passed legislation favorable to Christianity over other religions. In addition, he passed Sunday legislation that discriminated against those Christians and Jews who kept the Sabbath on Saturday. As the head of the Roman pagan religious system, he had the title Pontifus Maximus. I do not know if he assumed the same function with regard to the Christian church. Still, this does not mean that he promoted church state separation. Dave Plaisted plaisted@cs.unc.edu
dbarnes@unix.sri.com (Dave Barnes) (08/08/90)
Forgive me if this is not the right newsgroup, but talk.abortion
is just a continual flame fest.
Actually the issue is not with abortion per se, but with the greater
issue of being a Christian and believing God's laws have sovereignty over
the laws of man when there is conflict between the two. As an American
we are to respect others' views, and our religious views are not to be
mandated for everyone. But what if others' views are in opposition to
God's views (as we interpret them) on certain issues?
Case in point is the abortion issue. My Dad and most of my
family are agnostic and don't hold the same views on the status
of the unborn that I do. They see the "right to lifers" as being
shallow, one-dimensional people who don't believe in the separation
of church and state. He sees it as a religious issue and doesn't
want others telling him what to believe about what a fetus is.
This is where I get into conflict. If God is real, I mean, not just
a concept or a vague force, but a personal being with definite views
and commands for his people, then what a Christian thinks God says is
more legitimate and of greater value than anything that the citizens
of the U.S. think.
So my first allegience to God says the laws ought to be this way,
but I can't force my dad to believe the same as I do, so the laws
ought to leave room for his views, in this case that abortion
is fine.
I've been really struggling with this over the last few years.
How have some of you out there reconciled this? I'd appreciate
hearing from you.
Again, I do NOT want to start a discussion on abortion, but how have
believers out there reconciled this "separation of church and state"
vs. "ultimate accountabilty to God" matter?
--
----------------------------------------------------------
David Barnes
UUCP: {pyramid,sri-unix,ingr}!apd!dbarnes 415/852-2365
USPS: Intergraph APD, 2400 Geng Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
----------------------------------------------------------
[To avoid spreading the flamefest here, I'd like to avoid dealing with
the issue of abortion itself. However the question of how far one can
reasonably allow religious belief to affect laws is an important one
that I'm willing to look at. --clh]crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.8.04.23.22.1990.13330@athos.rutgers.edu> garth!dbarnes@unix.sri.com (Dave Barnes) writes: >Actually the issue is not with abortion per se, but with the greater >issue of being a Christian and believing God's laws have sovereignty over >the laws of man when there is conflict between the two. As an American >we are to respect others' views, and our religious views are not to be >mandated for everyone. But what if others' views are in opposition to >God's views (as we interpret them) on certain issues? [material deleted] >This is where I get into conflict. If God is real, I mean, not just >a concept or a vague force, but a personal being with definite views >and commands for his people, then what a Christian thinks God says is >more legitimate and of greater value than anything that the citizens >of the U.S. think. I would like to discuss two related issues in response to Dave's posting: the first deals with the development of US law and the role of the US citizenry in that development; the second deals with the relationship of Christians to US law. The first amendment to the US constitution contains the famous "seperation of church and state" clause. Unless one proposes repealing that clause from the constitution, the development of law based upon sectarian doctrine is unconstitutional. That is not to say that laws may not have anything to do with religion, because religion involves itself in all spheres of human activity. If anyone with a religious conviction on a given law were barred from involvement in the political process with regards to that law, most of the religiously active US citizens would be excluded from the political arena. I do not believe that this was the intention of the framers of the constitution. Dave's expressed reasons for opposing abortion involve only sectarian Christian doctrines and should therefore be excluded from the political process of the development of US law. I happen to agree with Dave's position on abortion as stated, including the religious conviction, but I also incorporate scientific reasoning in my position and use the scientific reasoning in the political arena, not sectarian religious reasoning. Just as a point of clarification, the immorality of murder (as currently defined) is a nonsectarian religious doctrine, whereas the immorality of abortion is a sectarian religious doctrine since there is not a general consensus among religious sects. Although sectarian religious beliefs are excluded from the development of US law, an individual may choose to violate the law if he/she believes that the law is in violation of the expressed will of God. Such an action is illegal, and he/she will have to accept the legal consequences. He/she may feel that the immediate consequences are acceptable in view of ultimate consequences, but that is between him/her and God. -- Daniel (God is my judge) | "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to physics graduate student | speak and slow to become angry, for man's City College of New York | anger does not bring about the righteous crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu | life that God desires." (James 1:19-20,NIV)
hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) (08/12/90)
In article <Aug.8.04.23.22.1990.13330@athos.rutgers.edu> garth!dbarnes@unix.sri.com (Dave Barnes) writes: >So my first allegience to God says the laws ought to be this way, >but I can't force my dad to believe the same as I do, so the laws >ought to leave room for his views, in this case that abortion >is fine. That's the way I see it. Firstly, Canada has explicitly embraced a position of multiculturalism, not a state religion. This is roughly equivalent to the U.S. position of separation of church and state. This means that the law is and ought to be pagan - 'an so ye do no harm'. Or, to paraphrase, trying to avoid the abortion topic, the law ought to prevent those things which are univerally agreed are wrong, and leave to our discretion those things that are primarily moral, and not 'peace, order and good government'. (The last is what the Canadian constitution offers, BTW). In essence, then, the law of the land should provide the freedom to follow our consciences. -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada... uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA 613-765-2337 |
BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu (Michael Bindner) (08/12/90)
David, Trying to avoid being rejected for starting a flame fest, I argue thus. If a moral tenant is essential for the preservation of the rights of an individual, or for the protection of the innocent, it becomes a matter for politics, over and above (under and below) religion, faith and morals. Part of the liberal justification of the state is the protection of life and liberty, so abortion falls within the bounds of politics on both sides. If the fetus is an individual with a soul the right to life is predominant. If not the mother's right to liberty is. I will not say more, thus avoiding incitement to flame (narrowly, if at all).
alharv@garnet.berkeley.edu (08/12/90)
[This is a response to a posting that asked us to look at the
church/state issues raised by abortion and similar issues. I.e. to
what extent should we have laws that are based on a Christian
understanding of ethical issues. --clh]
Hi-
I am not going to try to say anything intelligent about this rather
complex issue. But I would recommend a book very highly which does
deal pretty well with such things: "Kingdoms in Conflict" by
Charles Colson. If anybody should know about both the church and
the state, it is Colson.
Allan H. Harvey
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards)
BITNET: HARVAL@NISTCS2
Internet: harval@gnos.nist.gov OR alharv@garnet.berkeley.edu
P.S. I can't refrain from making one comment about the
"imposition of morality" question which comes up so
often. Are laws restricting abortions impositions of
morality? Of course! So are laws against murder and
racial discrimination. You can't have laws for a society
apart from some moral judgments about right and wrong.
We now descend from our soapbox and return you to our
regular programming.
[Right. All laws are in some sense an imposition of morality. So we
have to decide which kinds of imposition of morality it is correct for
the State to become involved in. --clh]gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu (gt5599d TOLBERT,JASON ALAN) (08/16/90)
I don't want to sound like I'm starting a an abortion debate so I will
state my opinion as such:
The government has certain boundaries and jursidictions. Regardless of whether
something is right or wrong, there is a fine line that the government cannot
cross in order to influence that. It may be wrong to contemplate adultery
but do you want the government putting restrictions on what you can
think about? No, because your mind is not in jurisdiction of the government
no matter how wrong. In respect to abortion, I don't think the government
(mostly men) can claim authority over abortion rights. That is not there
jurisdiction. Can the United States make a law that applies to people
in Russia? Would it make sense to pass a law in the U.S. that prohibited people
in Russia from stealing even though it is wrong? There are certain things that
must remain between that person and God.
Jason
--
TOLBERT,JASON ALAN
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt5599d
ARPA: gt5599d@prism.gatech.edujhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (08/20/90)
I offer here the traditional Catholic doctrine on the relationship
between Jesus Christ and governments.
Here is the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
Compare this to article 1 of the 1862 Concordat between the Vatican and
the Catholic state of Ecuador:
The Roman Catholic Apostolic religion will continue to be the only
religion of the Republic of Ecuador, and [the State] will always
protect all the rights and prerogatives which it ought to enjoy
according to the laws of God and canonical dispositions.
Consequently there will never be permitted in Ecuador a dissident
cult or any society condemned by the Church.
The constitutions and concordats of other Catholic countries, like
Italy, Ireland, Spain, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, contained similar
clauses.
The difference in approach is due to a difference in theology. The
founding fathers of the U.S. were descendants of the Reformation, while
the Ecuadorian concordat was produced by Catholics.
Since Catholics believe that our Lord founded the Catholic Church as the
sole means for the salvation of men, when they construct a government,
this belief naturally plays a large part in framing the laws.
The Reformers, on the other hand, did not teach that there was any one
particular authority on earth to decide matters of faith and morals, so
Protestants founded governments along quite different lines.
Catholics see religion playing a vital part in a proper Christian
government. Indeed, one of the very purposes of the Incarnation was to
teach men what constitutes proper faith and morals, so they could reform
their social organisms appropriately. This is called the social reign
of our Lord Jesus Christ, the King.
The darling of the present era, and the Western democracies/republics,
is Liberalism, which is the following belief:
Everyone has the right to believe and do as they please, provided
they don't bother anyone else.
This is basically what the U.S. constitution is based on, and is the
reason why we have such things as abortion and legalized pornography.
Strictly speaking, it is both a heresy and a blasphemy.
Because, of course, no one has the right to commit sin. Whether the
sins that people commit involve "bothering others" at some level is
immaterial. No one has a right to commit sin.
Liberalism is quite blasphemous, because it sees the basis of human laws
in Man, rather than God. When considering a new law, liberal
governments consider "how does this affect the rights of men?", rather
than "how is this law in accordance with the eternal law of God?".
Essentially, Liberalism is an attempt to found true peace and prosperity
by resting on Man alone, independent of Christ. Of course, it won't
work, as is amply demonstrated by the U.S. problem with abortion,
pornorgraphy, drugs, etc.
Viewing the present state of this country, I really have to wonder, do
the people really believe in God, Hell, etc.? I think not. Just
consider the public school system, where God is excluded. What kind of
education is it that doesn't teach children about the fundamental
realities of life? People who establish such a state of things don't
really believe that God exists.
Joe Buehler
[You are probably right that separate of Church and State is to some
extent a result of the fact that Protestants have no authoritative way
to settle disagreements. Certainly American history seems to show
that at least some religious freedom developed as a practical matter
because there were many different beliefs, and we didn't really want to
start religious wars on this continent.
But that's not the only influence. Both Lutheran and Reformed
theology distinguish clearly between spiritual and secular authority.
I believe this is because the authority of the State is seen as being
related to Law, and Protestants generally interpret Paul as allowing
only a rather limited role for Law. The Law -- at least as an
external, compulsory discipline, is seen primarily as something not
for Christians.
Lutheran theology traditionally saw three uses for the Law.
Bonhoeffer summarized them as follows: "This primus usus legis
concerns the establishment of a disciplina externa et honestas. The
secundus usus concerns the knowledge of sins. The tertius usus serves
as a rule of conduct for converts and as a punishment for the flesh,
which is still alive even in them." He quotes the first part of the
Formula of Concord (Ep VI.7): "This both for the penitent and for the
impenitent, both for men who are born again and for men who are not
born again, the law is and remains one and the same law, namely, the
unalterable will of God, and the difference, so far as obedience is
concerned, lies solely in the men themselves; for one who has not been
born again performs the law as it is required of him, but he does it
under compulsion and against his will (as do also those who are born
again according to the flesh). The believer, however, without
compulsion and willingly, if he has been born again, does what no
threat of the law could ever force from him."
Consistent with these ideas, government has normally been seen by
Protestants as a way of compelling those who are not born again to
follow the Law. The purposes are both establishing a civil order,
which protects all of us from the actions of those who have not yet
voluntarily submitted to God, and the hope that the Law will act as a
tutor to Christ, convicting the unsaved of their sin. But the role of
compulsion -- which is after all what the State is about -- is limited
to Law. It is not responsible for actually saving people. That is
grace, and comes from God alone, through the Church. Lutheran
tradition uses the term "civil righteousness" to refer to the sort of
visible, external order that is the responsibility of the State. In
practice both Luther and Calvin thought that the magistrate had a
certain responsibility to see to it that the Church was doing its job
properly. This led in some cases to what we would now consider an
inappropriate confusion of role between the Church and State. But
there was always a theoretical separation between the Church and
State, which had nothing to do with any practical difficulty of
arriving at a single viewpoint.
--clh]durham@mprgate.mpr.ca (Paul Durham) (08/21/90)
In article <Aug.12.02.08.46.1990.15655@athos.rutgers.edu> hwt@bwdlh490.bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes: > >Firstly, Canada has explicitly embraced a position >of multiculturalism, not a state religion. This is roughly equivalent to >the U.S. position of separation of church and state. > Well, not quite. The province of Ontario ( among others ) has a fully tax supported Roman Catholic school system. I doubt if a single judge anywhere in the US would consider such a setup constitutional. Here in BC denominational schools are treated the same under the law as any private school, which means they do get some partial funding from the government. I think that even this would result in some legal tussles in the US, although I'm no expert in that area. P. Durham
coatta@cs.ubc.ca (Terry Coatta) (08/24/90)
Joe Buehler writes: > Because, of course, no one has the right to commit sin. Whether the > sins that people commit involve "bothering others" at some level is > immaterial. No one has a right to commit sin. Nonsense. Everyone has the right to sin -- that is just free will. But we must also accept the responsibility for our actions. We do not have the right to expect forgiveness. > Liberalism is quite blasphemous, because it sees the basis of human laws > in Man, rather than God. When considering a new law, liberal > governments consider "how does this affect the rights of men?", rather > than "how is this law in accordance with the eternal law of God?". I don't think you understand Liberalism properly. Liberalism sees the basis of laws in indivduals. Liberalism does not prevent God from entering into the establishment of laws. A Christian liberal (such as myself) may very well derive his concept of laws and morality from God. An Christian liberal when considering a new law will ask himself ``how is this law in accordance with the law of God, and how does this law affect the rights of men.'' Your posting implies that ``the rights of men'' are somehow in conflict with the ``eternal law of God.'' I believe this is false. God calls on us to love one another. Where there is no respect there is no love. Fundamental rights and freedoms are the embodiment of that respect. This places no barriers on the advancement of God's will. You seem to believe that the secular nature of government has promoted evil in society. Rubbish! Evil exists in society because we, as Christians, tolerate it. We sit in our houses, being ever so comfortable, and feeling ever so smug that we've got all the right answers. The tools for us to change society are there. How often do we lend support to charities? How often do we get involved to protect the poor or the suffering? How often do we permit actions for the ``good of the nation'' or ``the good of the economy'' that we know are wrong? How often do we base our actions on economics rather than Christian ethics? Legislated Christianity is a cheap shot. Make a bunch of rules that say ``Hey, our nation is Christian'' and suddenly you've solved all your problems? I doubt it. Legislation does not make Christians. The problem with the nation is not lack of Christian law, ITS LACK OF CHRISTIANS who have the dedication and the sincerity to translate their beliefs into actions. Terry Coatta (coatta@cs.ubc.ca) Dept. of Computer Science, UBC, Vancouver BC, Canada `What I lack in intelligence, I more than compensate for with stupidity'
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/25/90)
In article <Aug.19.23.23.41.1990.16735@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >I offer here the traditional Catholic doctrine on the relationship >between Jesus Christ and governments. ... (Lots of information about the contrast between US freedom of religion and Catholic ideas deleted. Joe quotes a lot of agreements etc. to back up his idea that the Catholic Church should have a hand in government and other churches should be prohibited. One of these is a concordat with Ecuador indicating that no other religion would ever be permitted there. I find this interesting personnaly since I was an LDS missionary in Ecuador where I found the people quite friendly and receptive. Obviously the concordat is no longer in force.) >The darling of the present era, and the Western democracies/republics, >is Liberalism, which is the following belief: > Everyone has the right to believe and do as they please, provided > they don't bother anyone else. >This is basically what the U.S. constitution is based on, and is the >reason why we have such things as abortion and legalized pornography. >Strictly speaking, it is both a heresy and a blasphemy. >Because, of course, no one has the right to commit sin. Whether the >sins that people commit involve "bothering others" at some level is >immaterial. No one has a right to commit sin. Well, who says what rights we have and do not have? If (as most Christians undoubtedly believe) those rights come from God then we ought to be careful how we treat them. I think it's rather obvious that God allows us to sin, He even put that tree in the Garden of Eden. Even Jesus, when rejected by a Samaritan village refused to let his apostles call down fire from heaven to punish the inhabitants. Just to present a different viewpoint, the LDS idea is quite opposite to the Catholic view (at least as Joe expresses it). In LDS theology freedom of choice is not only allowed but absolutely necessary to God's purpose. God does not want people forced to accept him. He wants people to grow and learn to follow Jesus of their own free will. This is the only way to become truely righteous, if we refrain from sin because we are unable to do otherwise we haven't done anything righteous at all. If we Accept Jesus at the point of the sword we have not freely and totally accepted him. In fact, LDS belief is that Satan is the devil in large part because he tried to deprive man of his free agency (see Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1,3). Of course Satan would still like to destroy the agency of man and has used things like the inquisition and government mandated religion to achieve this end. We believe that government can properly protect the lives, property, and freedom of its citizens but should not prescribe rules of worship or bind the conscience (see Doctrine and Covenants, section 134). The law may apply punishment for crime but should not restrain a person's belief.
bjstaff@uunet.uu.net (08/25/90)
In soc.religion.christian, Joe Buehler writes: [ Some stuff deleted ] >Catholics see religion playing a vital part in a proper Christian >government. Indeed, one of the very purposes of the Incarnation was to >teach men what constitutes proper faith and morals, so they could reform >their social organisms appropriately. This is called the social reign >of our Lord Jesus Christ, the King. In my opinion, prior to the Second Advent, "Christian government" is an oxymoron. To wit, Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." - John 18:36 In addition, if you are willing to allow for "Christian government", then you must be willing to allow for "Islamic government", "Satanic government", etc. >The darling of the present era, and the Western democracies/republics, >is Liberalism, which is the following belief: > > Everyone has the right to believe and do as they please, provided > they don't bother anyone else. > >This is basically what the U.S. constitution is based on, and is the >reason why we have such things as abortion and legalized pornography. Yes, the U.S. Constitution is based on Liberalism. But the main reason we have abortion and legalized pornography is because our country is populated by sinful people, just like every other country. Many (most?) U.S. citizens do not regard an unborn baby as a person. (I believe an unborn baby is a person.) If most U.S. citizens regarded an unborn baby as a person, abortion would quickly become illegal, because it would be seen to violate the foundational principles of Liberalism. I find pornography offensive, so I don't buy it, and I encourage others not to buy it. But I believe that as long as nobody's rights are violated, any adult has a right to sell anything to any adult. Of course, we will all have to answer to the Judge. >Strictly speaking, it is both a heresy and a blasphemy. Jesus replied: "`Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." - Matthew 22:37-40 >Because, of course, no one has the right to commit sin. Whether the >sins that people commit involve "bothering others" at some level is >immaterial. No one has a right to commit sin. Quite true. Try explaining that to someone who doesn't subscribe to the Christian idea of sin. >Liberalism is quite blasphemous, because it sees the basis of human laws >in Man, rather than God. When considering a new law, liberal >governments consider "how does this affect the rights of men?", rather >than "how is this law in accordance with the eternal law of God?". "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - Declaration of Independence In my opinion, the State's proper theater of action is our body and our property; the Church's proper theater of action is our mind and our soul. >Essentially, Liberalism is an attempt to found true peace and prosperity >by resting on Man alone, independent of Christ. There may be some truth to this. > Of course, it won't >work, as is amply demonstrated by the U.S. problem with abortion, >pornorgraphy, drugs, etc. Please show me a country with a system that produces better results. >Viewing the present state of this country, I really have to wonder, do >the people really believe in God, Hell, etc.? I think not. What does this say about the job our churches are doing? Remember, churches in the U.S. have virtual carte blanche. > Just >consider the public school system, where God is excluded. What kind of >education is it that doesn't teach children about the fundamental >realities of life? People who establish such a state of things don't >really believe that God exists. In my opinion, the public school system is an illiberal idea. It would be much better if people were free to send their children to schools *of their choice*, whether they be secular private, religious private, or otherwise. >Joe Buehler Brad Staff ...uunet!zds-ux!bjstaff "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." - John 8:32
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (08/25/90)
In article <Aug.12.02.03.20.1990.15519@athos.rutgers.edu> crowe@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Daniel Crowe) writes: > >The first amendment to the US constitution contains the famous "seperation >of church and state" clause. Unless one proposes repealing that clause >from the constitution, the development of law based upon sectarian doctrine >is unconstitutional. That is not to say that laws may not have anything >to do with religion, because religion involves itself in all spheres of >human activity. If anyone with a religious conviction on a given law were >barred from involvement in the political process with regards to that law, >most of the religiously active US citizens would be excluded from the >political arena. I do not believe that this was the intention of the framers >of the constitution. Daniel, I would remind you that this interpretation of the freedom of religion clause is a recent one. In fact, in the beginning, the Federal government was prohibited from establishing a national religion but the states weren't. >Dave's expressed reasons for opposing abortion involve only sectarian >Christian doctrines and should therefore be excluded from the political >process of the development of US law. I happen to agree with Dave's Here I seriously disagree with your thinking. The mere fact that his reasons for opposing abortion are sectarian should not have any import at all on his input to the process. His reasons for opposing such is as valid as those of others who oppose abortion for non-sectarian reasons. The point is that laws are not made in a moral vacuum. When they are, they are an abomination, which is apropos for many laws passed by our Congress. To inhibit a person's freedom of expression and input into the laws of the land based merely on this prescription that it is sectarian is to dis-enfranchise a lot of citizens. When I vote for a politician, I do so based on my Christian view of things. I vote for a candidate who is more likely to give my views a better representation. And when I discuss the rightness or wrongness of a law, I do so from a Christian perspective. Again, I refuse to get embroiled in an argument here about abortion, that is OFM's request. But I do believe that there are substantial reasons, both sectarian and non-sectarian, against it. The other thing that must be considered is that Christianity for many of us is not merely a religion, it is a relationship with the living God. It is a way of life. Our ethics and morals are based upon this relationship. To ask us not to debate the merits of a law based upon this is rather like asking the sun to set at mid-day. If our ethics and morals match some non-sectarian view or reasoning, fine and good. But even if they don't, we must still act based upon what we as Christians believe is right or wrong because that is what we believe God has said to us. For us to do otherwise, would be to negate our faith. > >Although sectarian religious beliefs are excluded from the development of >US law, an individual may choose to violate the law if he/she believes >that the law is in violation of the expressed will of God. Such an action >is illegal, and he/she will have to accept the legal consequences. >He/she may feel that the immediate consequences are acceptable in view >of ultimate consequences, but that is between him/her and God. I would go further. I'd say that Christians are obligated to disobey those laws that conflict with what we understand the will of God to be. If the authorities put us in jail, so what? Did not the Apostles end up in jail for the preaching of the Gospel? Were not our Christian ancestors sent to jail and killed for merely being Christians? Were not many of our ancestors tortured and put to death for not being in the right denomination? I do not see having to pay this price as being too great. But there is yet a better way. We can pray about these things for God has the heart of the "king." When the saints pray, the very foundations of earth can be moved. When the saints pray, God hears and responds. Consider what can happen when only a few Christians take the faith seriously and march forward in faith and the power of the Lord. Consider the spread of the faith in the early days of the church here on earth. And I believe that if Christians around the world were to follow 2 Chronicles 7:14, I do believe that we'd see a movement of God's Spirit not seen since the early days of the Church. I wonder what would happen if say a dozen Christians covenanted together to follow that passage and earnestly pray and seek God's face!? Anyone want to find out?? If so, email me a note. May His joy be yours, Gene
bukys@cs.rochester.edu (Liudvikas Bukys) (08/27/90)
One important point has been neglected in this discussion of established churches, the U.S. establishment clause, and the influence of Catholic and Protestant philosophy on the relation of church and state. An important difference between the U.S. and its predecessors, and to some extent between the Reformation-influenced European governments and the others, is the principal of checks and balances, which is a product of the Reformation's heavier emphasis on the awareness of the fallenness of man.
cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca (08/30/90)
In article <Aug.26.22.44.57.1990.982@athos.rutgers.edu>, bukys@cs.rochester.edu > One important point has been neglected in this discussion of > established churches, the U.S. establishment clause, and the influence > of Catholic and Protestant philosophy on the relation of church and > state. > > An important difference between the U.S. and its predecessors, and to > some extent between the Reformation-influenced European governments and > the others, is the principal of checks and balances, which is a product > of the Reformation's heavier emphasis on the awareness of the > fallenness of man. Checks and balances go right back to the Middle Ages and are an important feature of old-time Catholic political theory, although that particular phrase seems American. You may be right as to the reason given for these checks and balances. Fear of tyranny is certainly one aspect, but on a more positive note, they can be justified on the grounds that you should give people and groups the freedom they need (and hence the relative autonomy) to do the job they have. The awareness of man's fallen nature can have a variety of effects on political theory. You can argue that since man is so rotten, he needs to be ruled by a firm hand and a tyranical central authority. Hobbes took that view, if not mistaken, and don't forget that Bismark considered himself to be a consistent Lutheran politician. (There can be no morality in government, especially foreign relations, so do what **works** with as much blut und eisen as the job takes.) My own feeling is that the big split in Western political thinking is between the checks and balances people, on the one hand, and the centralizers on the other, and I think that the main determinent is the time and pace at which a nation industrialized, not the religious beliefs it had. (I am not an historian; just making this up as I go along). Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about the condition of France prior to the Rev. and comparing it to the U.S. of A. (About which he also wrote) noted that the freedoms and privileges of French towns, which they had enjoyed from Medieval times and which had died out under the absolutism of the later Louis's, were much the same as the constitutions of American towns as he had observed them in the 1830's. He seemed to think that in many ways, Americans were old-fashioned Europeans. Recall that the U.S.A was not on the industrial or scientific leading edge at the time of the American Revolution. But I should also point out that Canadian political life is full of checks and balances, and the English Canadian soul has generally been Protestant, but for some reason, we have always felt more confidence in the honesty of politicians and civil servants. ODdly enough, that confidence is waning now, precisely as fewer people attend churches of any denomination. C. Dalzell
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/20/90)
There are a number of things that need more explanation on this thread. One, I am surprised that someone objected to my statement that no one has any right to sin. What I said was just common sense, as far as I'm concerned. Let me explain. When I say someone has a "right", I'm talking about morality. A right imparts a power to action, with no one to say nay. But, God certainly says nay to sin -- He punishes it -- so there is just as certainly no right to it. Else He would allow people to sin without any punishement at all. Men would say to God at their judgement: You cannot send me to Hell, I have every right to sin. At the core of Liberalism is a confusion over freedom. Human beings are free in several different respects. There are two that are being confused: - psychological freedom - moral freedom Psychologically, we are free to sin. But morally, we are not. Meaning, yes, I have the ability to commit sin. But not with impunity. God will punish me for my sins. There is no equivalence to a sinful act of the will and a virtuous one. Sin is inherently depraved, and contrary to human nature. It's a defective use of the human faculties. Man's dignity is not in the fact that he has free will, but in how he uses that free will. There is no equivalence between good and evil. This is proved from the consideration that God alone need exist. And if He alone existed, there would be no such thing as evil. So, good and evil cannot be on a par. Our Lord calls sin a slavery: "He who commits sin is the slave of sin." This is quite the right word, because sin is unnatural. When a man sins, he is acting irrationally, not in accordance with right reason. Since he is by nature constituted to act in accordance with reason, actions not in accordance with reason proceed from something foreign to man. Which is slavery -- subjection to an outside power. Between the saints doing the will of God for eternity, and the damned doing their own, there is no equivalence. The saints are truly free, while the damned are truly slaves. The situation in this country is only one of many possible. I do say that the American Constitution is approximately what one might expect in a pluralistic society. It's a matter of practicality. You cannot force beliefs on people, as has been said. I have no disagreement with that. On the other hand, though, the American type of pluralistic Liberal democracy is fundamentally a flawed one, in its attitude towards God. It does not recognize God as the sovereign of the land. This situation is due mainly to the religious pluralism, in my opinion. Christ did indeed say that His Kingdom was not of this world. However, that does *not* mean that the truth has nothing to do with government. When He said what He did, He was saying that He did not come to be the world's temporal ruler. He didn't want to collect everyone's taxes. That's all He was saying. The reign of Christ is in hearts and minds. It is in conforming all aspects of human existence to His teaching. This means public institutions as well as private ones -- for governments are just as much a creature as people, an just as subject to God's sovereignty. If a country is faced with a pluralistic poulation, sure, there is only so much that can be done. But that's not the entire story. Don't get the American situation mixed up, and start to think it's the only possible one. It's not. American pluralistic Liberalism will, in the end, cause the loss of many souls. What do you think is going to happen to all those people having abortions? You think they're going straight to Heaven after murdering their own children? No way. No way. There will always be a certain element of society that is bad. People who will not behave, who will not have law and order. With such people what can you do? No matter what system you have, they'll cause trouble. But the mistake of Liberalism is to give free reign to such people. Sure, they're going to cause trouble no matter what you do. But what about the weak people, or the ignorant, the poor, who are defenceless against the ill-willed? What about them? The ultimate good isn't *temporal* order and prosperity, it's *eternal*. A government certainly should ensure the one. But it should also foster the latter. Sure, it can't guarantee it. But it can foster it, with prudence. People who kill bodies should certainly suffer the just punishments of law. What is temporal murder compared to eternal, though? Why should someone be set free to murder souls, as long as he doesn't cause any temporal disturbance? Yet such is the teaching of Liberalism: "Don't steal his car, but go ahead and take his soul, if you can." The idea that people should be left exposed to both good and evil, so that they can choose for themselves, this being somehow more in accordance with their true dignity, is illusory. People are too weak, the effects of the original sin too strong. The pluralistic Liberal democracies will be the occasion of the loss of many souls for just this reason. Governments shouldn't offer people any more choices between good and evil than they already have to make. Well, this is the sort of thinking that brings about things like the Ecuadorian concordat, part of which I posted. Admittedly, such things are only possible where there is religious unity. This is a piece of cake where the large majority of the people are Catholic. There are of course, some people who object to such a situation. Such as the Freemasons who eventually assasinated President Garcia Moreno, who established the Ecuadorian concordat. Joe Buehler What more harmful for souls than freedom of error -- St. Augustine [There's also legal freedom. One could certainly hold the position that there is no moral or religious right to err, but that there is a legal right to err as long as the error does not cause one to commit acts that are within the State's charter to prevent. It is sometimes not clear from your postings whether saying that one does not have the right to sin is a religious statement or a call for legislation. I think there would be a wide agreement among Christians that when we are called before God's judgement seat we will not be able to call on a "right to sin". I think there's a good deal of disagreement over how far the State should attempt to prevent sin, with positions ranging from one side that says the State has no business concerning itself with morality, and is simply there to prevent citizens from damaging each other, to the other that says that the State has a responsiblity to work with the Church to create a Christian society. American political theory has normally taken a position somewhere between. --clh]
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (09/27/90)
The moderator wrote:
It is sometimes not clear from your postings whether saying that one
does not have the right to sin is a religious statement or a call
for legislation.
Sin should be made illegal and virtue legal as far as is prudent, given
prevalent social conditions.
Human law is based on Divine law, where moral issues are concerned. It
is simply *not* permissible for a human government to give explicit
legal right to actions that God judges to deserve Hell.
On the other hand, it is sometimes permissible for a government to look
the other way and tolerate some evil for the sake of a greater good.
There is, after all, only so much that you can do when you have a large
group of people who refuse to obey.
I suppose my main point is that Liberalism -- viewing temporal order
as the sole arbiter of legal right and wrong -- is a disastrous thing to
base governments on, when viewed in the light of the teachings of our
Lord.
I think there's a good deal of disagreement over how far the State
should attempt to prevent sin, with positions ranging from one side
that says the State has no business concerning itself with morality,
and is simply there to prevent citizens from damaging each other, to
the other that says that the State has a responsiblity to work with
the Church to create a Christian society. American political theory
has normally taken a position somewhere between. --clh]
The disagreement that you speak of is of a different kind where
Catholics are concerned. The fundamental problem of deciding what is
right and wrong, and getting citizens to agree with the decision, is not
the same.
I acknowledge right out that the situation in America and such a place
as 19th C. Ecuador must lead to different forms of government.
To a great extent the hinge is the doctrine of the Church.
If our Lord established the Church as a visible organization unable to
fall into major errors in faith or morals, then it of course follows
that governments formed by its members will certainly not ignore its
existence in framing laws touching on morality.
The Catholic attitude towards religion and government might be explained
in no better way than to imagine that the 12 Apostles were still alive.
Consider how governments of Christians would work given such authorities
in matters of faith and morals.
Joe Buehlerarm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.27.03.31.42.1990.14616@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com writes: >The Catholic attitude towards religion and government might be explained >in no better way than to imagine that the 12 Apostles were still alive. >Consider how governments of Christians would work given such authorities >in matters of faith and morals. > >Joe Buehler Perhaps more telling would be to consider if Jesus were still walking on this planet teaching and preaching. My understanding is that Jesus did not concern himself much with the politics of his day. No fasts protesting inhumane capital punishment (such as the crucifixion) and no civil disobedience protesting Roman rule. Further, he took a rather dim view to those who would take a legalistic approach to morality, and his teachings were at once stricter yet more compassionate and merciful. No, the way to salvation was through faith, through healing, and through developing a relationship with God through Christ. These are things that cannot be legislated. I do agree that human law should ideally mirror the Law of God. But that is quite different from saying that we should impose our conception of the Law of God in an effort to legislate morality. Our work, as a Catholic or a Christian, is to mirror the Law of God in our lives, as an example to others. Human law will follow. Oh, and Joe, there are many Catholic attitudes of the relationship between religion and government. I hope that your presentation of "the" Catholic attitude does not imply that you are open to only one view -- your own. Alex
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (10/01/90)
Joe Buehler writes: >Sin should be made illegal and virtue legal as far as is prudent, given >prevalent social conditions. Human law is based on Divine law, where moral >issues are concerned. It is simply *not* permissible for a human government >to give explicit legal right to actions that God judges to deserve Hell. The obvious problem, Joe, is that government will NEVER outlaw the most important sin in politics: self-righteousness. Inevitably, governments which invoke divine guidance for their laws slide into using this to prop up the most neinous tyrannies-- and should anyone be surprised how pride thus functions? >I suppose my main point is that Liberalism -- viewing temporal order as the >sole arbiter of legal right and wrong -- is a disastrous thing to base >governments on, when viewed in the light of the teachings of our Lord. This "liberalism" has no particular connection with real political "liberalism". Indeed, there is one strain which is most damning of your position, one that starts with the grounding of governmental purpose in "public welfare" (or if you like, love of neighbor), and proceeds to condemn christendom almost from beginning to end for neglecting this duty. >The Catholic attitude towards religion and government might be explained in >no better way than to imagine that the 12 Apostles were still alive. Consider >how governments of Christians would work given such authorities in matters of >faith and morals. Well, uh, based on the testimony in the Acts and in the letters, this kind of argument leads to something resembling the Amish attitude toward law, not the RC view. -- C. Wingate + "Our God to whom we turn when weary with illusion, + Whose stars serenely burn above this world's confusion, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + Thine is the mighty plan, the steadfast order sure mimsy!mangoe + In which the world began, endures, and shall endure."
hwt (Henry Troup) (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.27.03.31.42.1990.14616@athos.rutgers.edu> jhpb@granjon.garage.at t.com writes: >If our Lord established the Church as a visible organization unable to >fall into major errors in faith or morals, then it of course follows >that governments formed by its members will certainly not ignore its >existence in framing laws touching on morality. Reality Check Time, Joe: - Borgia Popes - Spanish Inquisition - History of South America - Status of Women in Catholic Countries The difference between 'no major errors' and 'system I want to live under' is rather large! -- Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | No humor available today uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 | try again tomorrow.