|
|
Post by irishconfederate on Jan 15, 2018 20:03:09 GMT
I've just read quickly the Council document on religious freedom. People have the right to religious freedom 'within due limits' and provided 'that just public order be observed'. Also, government action is 'to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral code'. These norms arise...'out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality'.
I think this confirms the point I made that proselytising believers whose doctrine flouts the natural law should not have full religious freedom. For example, maybe Pro-choicers who publicly proselytise should be prohibited from doing so.
On the point of should natural law following religions be allowed to proselytise, that aren't Catholic, you were right. I think the the Council documents state that religious freedom includes the right to publicly proselytise.
But I don't get it? If a Muslim ruler sees his evil of Catholics effectively proselytising publicly in his dominion, he should somehow commit what seems to me a double-think and say 'yes they maybe greatly putting at risk the damning of the souls of my people for all eternity which is worse then killing them in bodily form but I'll let them do it as they have a right to it but forbid them from killing their mortal bodies'
Is this reasonable to expect rulers to think like this?
Maybe it is.
If I was a Catholic ruler I'd have the choice of letting Muslims put the souls of my people at risk or curtail one aspect of the Muslim community's religious freedom-public proselytism? I'm not convinced.
Muslims don't recognise the Council's document on religious freedom. They want a social order where they will curtail my religious freedom. So I would argue that Muslims should not have full religious freedom in a Catholic country and that this would comply with the Council document's qualification of a religious freedom 'within due limits'' and provided 'a just public order be observed'.
Islam doesn't aim for a just public order.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jan 15, 2018 20:33:18 GMT
But if you were to follow that logic through, wouldn't you be obliged to abolish free speech in its entirety, because you would be morally obliged to prohibit any exercise of free speech which you saw as detrimental to your subjects? It seems like a very attenuated concept. Freedom becomes freedom for what's good for you...according to those in power.
Having said that, I do consider it morally wrong that we are voting on the life of the unborn.
|
|
|
|
Post by irishconfederate on Jan 15, 2018 21:02:09 GMT
But if you were to follow that logic through, wouldn't you be obliged to abolish free speech in its entirety, because you would be morally obliged to prohibit any exercise of free speech which you saw as detrimental to your subjects. It seems like a very attenuated concept. Freedom becomes freedom for what's good for you...according to those in power. Not at all! The weighing of risk against liberty is what the courts do. This is how censorship decisions are carried out. Inter-marrying, associating, converting, discussing, having religious institutions, and so on, are all liberties which any size risk couldn't take away. Even public proselytism could be allowed when there isn't sufficient risk. Freedom remains within the remit of the objective moral order and its environs (environs-that which doesn't cause extremely grave risk). This freedom is not one shaped by those in power. It curtails them. Their rules that flout the natural law give the people the right to overthrow them with certain met conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jan 15, 2018 21:11:33 GMT
Whenever I have these discussions with Catholic integralists (and those of a similar mind), this is the assumption I always find myself encountering....the Catholic state is going to be an ideal state run by ideal Catholics. What if it's not? What if it starts out that way and is corrupted? How much power are you going to give your rulers? I think the wisdom of the American Revolution was to continually ask the question, How can authority be abused, and if it is abused, how can it be revoked?
I think we are all much safer with the maximum freedom of speech and assembly, with very limited restrictions.
Also, I'm not sure why the same principle behind a prohibition of proselytism wouldn't also apply to apostasy. Why let people apostasize and scandalize others?
In any case, I'm really just applying the principles we already extend towards other religions towards Scientologists. I'm not talking about a putative Catholic confessional state. Rightly or wrongly, we live in a society that values religious freedom, but do we apply that to everyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Jan 16, 2018 0:22:46 GMT
Scientologists (and everyone else) have freedom to operate in Australia, but there's no want of people, including politicians, who have often questioned whether there can be distinction between a religion and a cult. The debate on scientology can and does exist, not just in countries that are (nominally at least) Catholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 16, 2018 8:48:28 GMT
Holy Mother Church is of one mind, Which can not be changed. The mistakes and errors of recent Popes, Bishops, Priests, religious and laity in presenting doctrinal is heinous. The damaged caused is incalculable and religious freedom is just one of them. The problem is that secularisation has already begun before the Second Vatican Council. I'm quite sympathetic to your argument in many respects, but I think it can be overstated. The Council was actually responding to a changed situation. The era of confessional states was over anyway. I agree with you that the Second Vatican Council was a major part of this movement, but was not the only one. The fight has been going on a very long time and probably will continue on forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Jan 16, 2018 8:50:42 GMT
The problem is that secularisation has already begun before the Second Vatican Council. I'm quite sympathetic to your argument in many respects, but I think it can be overstated. The Council was actually responding to a changed situation. The era of confessional states was over anyway. I agree with you that the Second Vatican Council was a major part of this movement ( secularism, materialism, liberalism, individualism,etc), but was not the only one. The fight has been going on a very long time and probably will continue on forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jan 16, 2018 9:38:51 GMT
Scientologists (and everyone else) have freedom to operate in Australia, but there's no want of people, including politicians, who have often questioned whether there can be distinction between a religion and a cult. The debate on scientology can and does exist, not just in countries that are (nominally at least) Catholic. Yes, but it's a question of what premise we are arguing from. Catholics arguing from the premise that every religion other than Catholicism is objectionable are obviously arguing from a different premise than people arguing from a pluralist perspective. I'm very suspicious of the Scientologists myself. I'm just trying to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Jan 16, 2018 12:04:34 GMT
It became fashionable a number of years ago to protest outside their HQ in Perth city. They've since moved and are currently building a 'temple' in an industrial area surrounded solely by specialist businesses. It's curious that, when the protests went on, they had to hire a security firm to guard the entrance, who often sent Sikh employees for some reason (or none)
|
|
|
|
Post by irishconfederate on Jan 16, 2018 16:16:33 GMT
Whenever I have these discussions with Catholic integralists (and those of a similar mind), this is the assumption I always find myself encountering....the Catholic state is going to be an ideal state run by ideal Catholics. What if it's not? What if it starts out that way and is corrupted? How much power are you going to give your rulers? I think the wisdom of the American Revolution was to continually ask the question, How can authority be abused, and if it is abused, how can it be revoked? I think we are all much safer with the maximum freedom of speech and assembly, with very limited restrictions. Also, I'm not sure why the same principle behind a prohibition of proselytism wouldn't also apply to apostasy. Why let people apostasize and scandalize others? In any case, I'm really just applying the principles we already extend towards other religions towards Scientologists. I'm not talking about a putative Catholic confessional state. Rightly or wrongly, we live in a society that values religious freedom, but do we apply that to everyone? I'd like to reply in proper but I've only got a minute. Within the last year and a half thereabouts I've been promoting through a website and on forums for an anti-authoritarian, pluralist, federal, democratic (with direct democratic provision), republic of Ireland. I think that takes me out of the category of Catholic integralist described. And I don't think that's incompatible with expecting believers to work for their community's version of religious freedom in the society they live in. |
|
