I am beginning to believe that true Catholic faith, and probably many other religious traditions, are incompatible with the western idea of a free society.
I know I'm not the first person in the world to think this, nor will I be the last but here is my dilemma.
Section 1
Church teaching says we cannot vote for someone that is actively working for something that is intrinsically evil, whether that evil is our reason for voting for him/her or not. That makes sense.
That does however generally rule out anyone seeking to do the following:
(List not all inclusive)
Strengthen or maintain abortion rights
Promotes the equality of gay and straight unions, family units.
Wants to bring back/strengthen the death penalty.
Is opposed to a person's natural right to emigrate.
A preemptive strike based foreign policy.
Either financially irresponsible (Dems) or morally insensitive (Reps) style of health care.
The removal of God from the public sphere.
Etc.
And the list can go on and on. Those are things the Church considers evil.
However, the Church also teaches personal freedom. This doesn't mean all things are permissible and acceptable, but that people must be allowed to freely choose right, which means they must then be equally free to choose wrong.
We also believe in religious freedom, including a person's right to not have a religion. Or to have a jacked up version of Christianity etc.
Section 2
The way I've approached things for the last 7-10 years though is this.
I believe that Christ will for earth, his vision if you will, is attainable without legislation. If all Christians were better Christians, if we lived on the principles of obedience to God, charity and love etc., I think the whole world would eventually come around, even if it took millenia.
I believe that the best way to reach sinners isn't to admonish them and warn them about hell, but to befriend them and tell them about God's love and what he did for us, etc.
I believe that God's grace and active presence in the world can achieve this if we get out of our own way sometimes.
I believe that what consenting adults do, so long as it doesn't effect society or other individuals negatively, should be LEGAL, that doesn't mean its acceptable.
I believe burning a bible or koran should be legal, that doesn't make it good. And I believe that all points of view, no matter how extreme and evil, may be held and expressed by a free citizen, but that doesn't condone those views.
Section 3
So you see my dilemma here.
Should we attempt to balance freedom with what is right? Or rather should we only seek what's right, and freedom be damned? Or should we just roll with freedom because right and wrong are morally subjective terms, regardless of their objective existence?
I tend toward wanting a balance, but I'm not sure such a balance is compatible with a faith that I know to be true.
Is this just a case of me wishing something that is not acceptable were acceptable? I need to look into this more, pray on it some and bring myself to the correct view once I find it.
---
Anywho, I got a hunch that my two usual readers may have a thing or two to say on this. I welcome that of course as always, but I linked this blog to facebook because I want to know what others think.
Leave a comment below and I'll respond when I can.
___
About PETA:
PETA recently wrote to the Pope telling him to not have leather seats in the new Pope-mobile because leather is "hell for cows."
You should know very well that I do not support the legislation of a particular religion's morality.
ReplyDeleteWhy does it seem as though so many religious people have an overwhelming desire to force their beliefs onto other people? Is it because they are insecure about their religious convictions, and feel as though they would lose touch with what they believe in if other people are allowed to live their own lifestyle? Is it because they're too lazy to bother evangelizing, and desire a quick and easy approach to feeling as though they are amongst a fully Christian world?
I want to know why Christians feel the need to legislate their beliefs, especially if they feel people should have the right to choose what type of life they lead.
Heh...I started out talking about "religious people" and defaulted back to "Christian people."
ReplyDeleteI guess all roads do lead back to Christianity.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and all else will fall into place.
ReplyDeleteMatt, insecurity may be a factor for some, but for most Christians I think it's a sincere desire to follow what Christ asked them to do.
ReplyDeleteMatthew 28:16-20
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”
Now that doesn't say murder those who don't convert and ostracize the doubtful...but I don't think it's the majority that want to force things, just a sizeable minority.
They don't think they're being lazy, they see it probably as some kind of forced evangelization...I think.
Mom, sound advice of course, but it doesn't really answer the dilemma.
ReplyDeleteThis situation feels like a doublethink. Do you remember what that is, John? It's a term coined by Orwell in "Nineteen Eighty-Four." It refers to a persons ability to hold two conflicting ideas in his head, and to accept both as being true.
ReplyDeleteA Christian might hold the thought that free will is good. This, of course, should entail that the person has the right to accept or reject the faith. However, this same Christian might also believe it to be important to enforce the tenets of his faith through legislation.
Just something to think about.
-----
"Should we attempt to balance freedom with what is right? Or rather should we only seek what's right, and freedom be damned? Or should we just roll with freedom because right and wrong are morally subjective terms, regardless of their objective existence?"
Who are you addressing, anyway? Is there a secret society of influential Catholics who happen to frequent your blog? It certainly couldn't be Dungy or I, for I definitely do not agree with you, and I highly doubt Dungy would either.
I am also curious as to how you would intend to squash freedom? I mean, you talk so nonchalantly about the subject, I am almost led to believe you have a magic button capable of erasing the First Amendment from existence.
John, I needn't remind you the United States is not subjected to mob rule. There are safeguards in place to ensure that minority groups are guaranteed their rights.
I don't think it's double think. It may well be that a free world where people reject right is better than a less free world that brings more people around....I'm not sure yet.
ReplyDeleteAs for who I am addressing, I'm talking to myself. This is a blog post of some of my own internal debate on the matter.
I don't think we can eliminate the freedom Matt. However is a legislative agenda is the best way to go, then one could work to change the laws, not squash things
"I don't think it's double think."
ReplyDeletePerhaps not for you. Not yet, anyway. Yet I'm sure you can agree there is some level of incompatibility between, "being able to accept or reject the faith is great (ie free will)," and, "being able to coerce people into following the tenets of my faith (though they may not actually believe a word of it) is great."
Right now you seem to support the former position, but the fact you're so concerned about this issue demonstrates that you give the latter position at least some level of creditability.
"It may well be that a free world where people reject right is better than a less free world that brings more people around"
Bring more people around, huh? As you may know, I prefer a slightly less politically correct term - coercion. You seem to think some sort of good can be accomplished out of this, but all I see is a horrendous evil. You would be forcing people to hide their true beliefs in order to:
A) Avoid punishment
B) Achieve political/financial gain
Of course, the latter is a problem we face under our current system, but it would be all the worse if Christianity were the only legitimate lifestyle.
But perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions? You haven't really gone into much detail as to the extent you would be willing to go if, by chance, you were to decide the legislative approach were the way to go. After all, the interests of secularists and religious people of all types are not always mutually exclusive.
Still, I highly suspect there is going to be some conflict in opinion here.
No I do not think that being about to coerce people is great. But there is a difference between setting up a legal system that promotes what I know to be right actions, and forcing people to believe in the reason for those rules.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing that that type of government would make sense. In fact I'm not really arguing anything. I'm considering things.
No one would have to hide their beliefs in any system I would propose, but certain actions might be prohibited, like gay marriage perhaps. People could believe anything they like.
Also You seem to have a hostility toward religion I'm not sure I understand. Coercion's annotation can be used to show it's comparability to religion but it's connotation is that of blackmail.
But what we're talking about is so much bigger than that when we're discussing God.
John - Your resistance to legislating morality is an example of western, democratic values. Specifically, the value that liberty is essential, and should be restricted by legislation only to promote a stable, peaceful, and indeed, more free society for the collective good.
ReplyDeleteThis value does not trace it's roots to Christianity or Judaism. It's foreign to that tradition.
This is not a dilemma between different aspects of Christianity, but rather a conflict between eastern and western traditions. If you feel that your first loyalty is to God, then it's pretty clear where your position should stand..
But it isn't that clear. I can't speak to the history of this in the Christian world, but in my religious education we were taught that belief, not just one's actions, were needed for salvation.
ReplyDeleteThat being considered, forcing people (through legislation) to avoid certain bad actions might not have that much of a gain, if any at all.
So it's not so clear cut I don't think.
If that's so, then what is the conflict?
ReplyDeleteWhy would the church prevent the faithful from voting for a Democrat who would loosen abortion laws? Or a Republican who favors insensitive health care laws?
It seems clear to me that despite the necessity of faith in salvation (red herring), the church does engage in coercion, which extends at least as far as legislating against what they perceive as immoral acts.
I believe you when you say that you are in conflict, and mentally wrestling over this question. But are you perfectly certain that your valuation of free will and liberty are orthodox? When did the church teach you this? From what source? From the outside looking in, the Church's position seems clear to me from the very premise of this blog. The requirement of believers to vote for only candidates who are in favor of moral action seems sufficient evidence AGAINST an attitude of liberality.
Are you sure that your notions about free will aren't heresy?
I am not sure about that. I learned that way of thinking at a Catholic school but I may have had a bad teacher.
ReplyDeleteI will look into this.
"Also You seem to have a hostility toward religion I'm not sure I understand."
ReplyDeleteLook, I said I might be jumping to conclusions because I'm trying to keep an open mind as to what you are trying to say. You brought up the prospect of legislating your religious values, but you didn't go into much detail as to what this would entail.
Honestly, I've never seen you as the type of guy to consider voting for a pro-lifer or a supporter of gay marriage, so my initial reaction was to think that you're struggling between the ideals of liberty and some sort of theocratic fascism.
---
Am I hostile towards religion? I might be. I don't see why beliefs based on faith should justify limiting the liberty of other people. I don't like to see religious people try to do this, and it tends to get me fired up.
I have only voted for a couple of pro-choice candidates and pro-gay candidates. On abortion, its not a person's right to kill their child so it's not a personal liberty issue there.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason I didn't vote for any other pro-gay candidates is because I tend toward voting for conservatives on other issues and most of them are anti gay marriage.
I am having some struggle here to figure things out. But safe to say I don't want a Christian Third Reich.
I'll comment on the last part later.