Log in

No account? Create an account


I’m neither a liberal nor a conservative. I’m a Catholic.


i suppose that might be a position in Ireland - but if you vote you have to make a choice

here religion (except for the evangelicals) does not determine your political choices
religion should not into it
A Catholic must always be prepared to say: "But maybe one should consider ........
a catholic should be able to put the good of all the people of the community/nation above his particular beliefs

the religious belief of any one group should not/can not be the determinate for the whole

it is what we struggle with here as the religious right wing seeks to impose their views on the whole
When one reflects on it, who is actually imposing their views on the whole? The whole purpose of Separation of Church and State is to protect Church freedom. One of our Irish politicians proclaimed in Parliament the other day that "the Catholic Church should be cast into the rubbish bin".
Ireland is not my country
the scandals we have heard of were quite dreadful
apparently the state sponsored the institutions involved - at least that's what we heard
we've had religious institution scandals also

i don't know how Catholic Church freedom is being threatened in Ireland

obviously, some in Ireland think the Catholic Church had too great a hold on the institutions and culture of the country
a catholic should be able to put the good of all the people of the community/nation above his particular beliefs

What do you mean by that? Can you give an example of it?

Bearing in mind that "A Catholic does not vote according to MY beliefs about what is the good of all the people of the community/nation but his own" is not, in fact, an example, but an unsubtle attitude to impose views.

it is what we struggle with here as the religious right wing seeks to impose their views on the whole

As opposed to what anyone else participating in politics does? It's not like you would try to impose someone else's views.
ah but here in the USA the religious right does seek to impose it's views against what is the law of the land

they proclaim that they will make legislation making it impossible for a woman to exercise her legal right to a medical procedure
You contradict yourself in the space of two sentences. By definition, changing the law is entirely within what is within the law of the land. By your definition, everyone engaged in trying to get a law change is not only imposing a view but doing so against the law.

Now, civil disobedience IS by definition against the law of the land, so you should be excoriating the civil rights movement, not the religious right.

Edited at 2017-06-11 03:36 (UTC)
dear mary
as usual, you totally misunderstand me

there is a BIG difference between individual people of any religion making their opinion known
and a church - be it an individual church or a large denomination speaking as as an organization

civil disobedience is done with full acceptance of the consequence of the act -
those who protested segregation were not only jailed but beaten - they were "civil secular martyrs" - as well as those who gave their lives for the cause
Nice try. Did you really think opening with an insult would keep me from noticing that you aren't even addressing what I said, and more to the point, what you said?

And I have already pointed your curtailment of your claim doesn't help your case at all: the civil rights movement was full of churches speaking as organizations.

And your last paragraph is totally irrelevant. You can't have vapors about someone (who, incidentally, is not going against the law of the land) on the grounds they are going against the law of the land without laying down the principle that it is wrong. Gushing about people who actually do go against the law of the land only raises the question of why you argued from that principle, and indeed the question of whether you believed it at all, or just thought you could use it to silence people.
religion should not into it

So the Civil Rights Movement was entirely wrong headed? I mean it had a leader -- a minister no less -- telling people how to vote and quoting the Bible about it.

Edited at 2017-06-10 22:22 (UTC)
every one has the right to an opinion
ministers and other religious can have strong opinions - and do
they can lead movements that try to influence voters
but it is the voters who decide

the official church should stay out of it
Even with the drastic curtailment of your claim, it doesn't let the civil rights movement off the hook. Official churches were officially involved in it. Indeed, the Catholic Church excommunicated legislators for voting for segregation bills.
A very interesting discussion. Thank you both very much.

In a Politcal Party meeting the Catholic will be the one who makes the room groan when he speaks. Political Parties want true believers with flexible consciences. They don’t like people with more fundamental and binding loyalties than the party.

Edited at 2017-06-11 10:44 (UTC)
things are very different here in the USA
the N Y Times has a front page article today about the influence of religion