gerwitz@atexnet.epps.kodak.com (Paul Gerwitz) (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? |> |> 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. |> When confronting this issue of reconciling my faith beliefs with the tenents of civil law, I find it helpful to refer to Mathew 5:13-16. Here Jesus is showing us a conceptual model of what a believer should be to the world. There are other passages spread throughout the NT with similar ideas. Reconciling this with our interactions with the civil authority is a very difficult matter to come to grips with. The issue of seperation of church and state has been warped from the origonal 'intent' of the constitutional framers to fit the mistaken view of a large segment of the population. The popular interpretation is that religious belief should have NO interaction whatsoever with the civil government, either in its official policies or in forming the basic tenents and beliefs of the society. In my opinion, this is a false interpretation. The creation of this nation was firmly based on the basic beliefs of the christian faith, the framers where only trying to prevent the new governent from establishing a national 'religion' as England did. The current interpretation of the 1st amendment is taking this idea much farther and playing word games to completely take the chrisitian foundation and replace it with something else (call it whatever you like "humanism, agosticism, atheism...). The humnan race continues to rebel against God and His authority, therefore as believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, must continue to pray fervently for our nation, not that it will change, but that the people will repent and be reconciled to GOD. "...if my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my presence and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and revive their land" 1 Chron 1:14. +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Paul F Gerwitz WA2WPI | SMTP: gerwitz@kodak.com | | Eastman Kodak Co | UUCP: ..uunet!atexnet!kodak!eastman!gerwitz | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca (08/16/90)
In article <Aug.12.04.18.11.1990.16632@athos.rutgers.edu>, kodak!gerwitz@atexnet > 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? > :> > :> 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. > :> This is something we never stop struggling with, since it touches on every aspect of the Christian's life in the world. With all due respect, your question has something of a Protestant flavour and I think that the traditional Catholic position has something to offer here. It turns on the notion of natural law. That is to say that God's law for man and civil society is something that can, in theory, be discovered by experience and reason. In practice people will often fail to discover it because sin and self interest get in the way. Christian morals are, by this view, human morals. An exception would be in something like Sunday closing laws, which on could not justify to a non-christian population very easily. Abortion, theft and other issues can be shown to be wrong to those who are prepared to see. In argueing against abortion it is not a question of a Christian view against a non-christian view, but of the right view against the wrong view. (Jews and Muslims are also opposed to abortion after all). But politics is the art of the possible. If a substantial proportion of the population want abortion or murder, euthanasia or what have you, then there is not much you can do, except plug away trying to talk them out of it, but you are in for the long haul. Legislation is not going to solve anything at that point. No one should be happy about this. Another aspect of the Catholic theory of natural law is that bad practice has bad effects. Things are not bad in some totally theoretical way. They are bad because they cause suffering, and badness tends to spread. A country in which the majority see no evil in abortion is, in my opinion, not a country that has long to survive in any condition worth talking about. Central to the legalization of abortion is the denial of the notion that society can expect certain sacrifices from its citizens, so we have a society based on hedonism. Are Americans really supposed to respect each other's views? I pity you if that is the case. Your days are numbered. Surely what you are supposed to respect are the people holding the views. Hate the sin, love the sinner, is the old formula, and that applies to sins of the intellect as well as plain ignorance. IN matters where you care about truth you don't respect error. For instance it would never occur to me to respect the mathematical errors of my students, since these are deserving of the red pen treatment, but I have great regard for my students and for their capacity to do better and learn. keep up the struggle, Catherine Dalzell. Memorial University of Newfoundland. > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (08/16/90)
Well, for what it's worth here is my rambling on church/state relations and the constitution. Note by the way the the term "separation of church and state" *never* appears in the constitution. What it does say is that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exersize thereof." The restriction is on what congress can do, not what religion can do. Clearly the first amendment prohibits laws which require or proscribe religious *belief* but it says nothing about laws prohibiting *actions*. The amendment further specifically protects the right to petition for redress of grievance and does not limit the reasons for the grievance. If the grievance is perceived as a result of religious belief that is irrelevant. In fact since most religions teach that theft and murder are wrong one might claim that laws against them are the result of religious belief. So what? The laws prohibit actions not belief and if a person chooses to believe that murder or robbery are OK, that is quite legal as long as he does not actually rob or kill. In fact he can even teach his beliefs openly with no fear of legal action (at least constitutionally valid legal action). The first amendment protects ideas and the free dissemination thereof. It does nothing to protect actions. When people want to outlaw an action this amendment also does not ask their motivation, only if the proposed legislation deals with actions (which can be regulated) or ideas (which cannot). If I want to outlaw the use of internal combustion engines, for example, the constitution does not care if my motivation is religious, environmental, or just plain selfish. If I can get the law passed it is constitutional. However if I want a law requiring everybody to believe such engines are bad (or prohibiting speech in their favor) then such a law would clearly be unconstitutional. I think the same ideas hold for other less ridiculous laws (and even a few ridiculous ones). They violate the first amendment only insofar as they deal with ideas and the free dissemination of ideas. I see abortion as in the same category with my "internal combustion engine" example. It is an action and actions are not (in my opinion) constitutionally protected. I think that what we have in the abortion issue is 2 sides each unwilling to even consider anything beyond their own dogma. One side says that human life obviously begins at coception and therefore is deserving of protection from that point. The other says that obviously life does not begin until later and therefore the unborn child is not deserving of protection until life outside the womb is viable. I have not noticed either side paying much attention to anything outside their viewpoint.
gt5599d@prism.gatech.edu (gt5599d TOLBERT,JASON ALAN) (08/20/90)
[kodak!gerwitz@atexnet comments that people are supposed to respect each other, but not necessarily their views. In matters of truth, you don't respect error. > For instance it > would never occur to me to respect the mathematical errors of my > students, since these are deserving of the red pen treatment, but > I have great regard for my students and for their capacity to do > better and learn. --clh] My question is: What if another professor came and re-graded your papers saying that you graded them all wrong? Who has the authority of saying what is right and wrong? There can only be one score on the paper and all things in math or not right and wrong if you give partial credit. Unless you hold a superior position (they are your students) then you can make your grades hold. But what if you co-instructed the class and one professor had no more authority than the other. Who is right? Does one have the right to force "what is wrong" on the other? Just curious. 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.edu
cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca (08/25/90)
[This continues a discussion on respect for others' views. An analogy
is being used of faculty grading students' papers. One person commented
that while you may respect your students, that doesn't mean you fail
to correct their errors. This raised the question of what happens if
two faculty disagree on grading. Who has the authority to decide? --clh]
Dear Curious,
Well, now you know why we do not have two profs teaching the same
course. It's not that simple of course. At my university, a student
who is dissatisfied with his grade can petition for a reread, and then
his final exam and work for the term is considered by another
mathematician. But in the end "the judges' decision is final".
Yes, what authority means is the right to make binding decisions for
another which may, in practice, be wrong (seen absolutely, in the eyes
of God, for instance). But for us mortals, somebody has to call the
shots. No matter who is given the authority, there is a possibility
of error and misuse. But for that authority to be effective, it
must have the power and the right to be binding. This is why the RC
church has taught that one is right to obey a command that is false.
(This assumes that the one in authority has the right to be in
authority). The bad effect due to occasional false commands is less
than the anarchy that would result if nobody had any authority at
all.
I find it fascinating to observe what sort of authorities people
will accept. With Math, there is the belief that a concensus can
be reached and that correct answers can be shown to be correct. If
I grade something badly, chances are that the student can convince
me of my error or find another prof who can. There is still the
general belief that logic is objective and universal, that there
is a generally held body of mathematical truths and that someone
who has gone through the system to the point of being a university
prof is likely to be right (where a junior course is concerned)
and thus is granted the authority of saying "this is all wrong".
With ethics, and this is where our political difficulties arise,
there is not a concensus in North America any more. We differ
over particulars (like abortion and euthanasia) because we differ
over essentials ( do I live for myself, or do I live for others,
for the community, for God? Who owns my body?). It has always
been said that a nation requires one (and only one) religion
to thrive and to be governable at all. Those who rule the
public debate (the media et al.) seem to think that a nation can
be grounded upon the twin pillers of bread and circuses. My own
feeling is that such a policy in the long run does not even
deliver the bread and the circuses, and that sooner or later,
Christians end up as part of the performance.
Where a nation is truly divided, political action to assert one
view point over the other tends to lead to violence. But there
is another way. We can be patient, and try to convert people
one at a time, with compassion. As the ruinous consequences of
bread and circuses make themselves felt, people may reconsider
the value of that kind of political theory.
Sooner or later it is not people who have the authority to say
what is wrong, but nature. The bridge collapses, the Challenger
explodes. At that point people will listen to you when you
suggest a return to the drawing board.
Catherine Dalzell.