www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Are there any Byzantine folks at the Center or Left of Center?

Righteous anger or seating oneself on the Throne of Judgement? Too many people concern themselves with the souls of the lost (and damning those souls to the fiery depths) to the point that they place themselves in the same jeopardy from which they are trying to save others ... judge not, lest we be judged.

Dear Dan,

Actually, you have a way with words . . .

I'm absolutely convinced there is a special place in Heaven God's stalwart servants like yourself!

I've never met you, but you must be a person with a tremendous zeal and focus on spirituality!

There's really only one Professor Dan!

Alex

Careful lest you wind up being what you curse.

Alex,

Thank you, kind sir. I pray that we meet someday. I have so many questions I wish to ask you but not on an open forum.

Dan L

[/QUOTE]Careful lest you wind up being what you curse. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Right back at ya' - I know I'm in no position to judge others (I pray this were my only sin), if only the same was true for all of mankind.

Dear byzorth,

Actually, I'd be nice to Dan for a couple of days at least . . .

I really would . . .

Alex

B?O?

This is already monotonous. You win.

Dan L

Dear Deacon John,

You have accused me falsely. I never said anything about lawful assembly of homosexual activists. Your accusation that I am hurling eggs, epithets and stones is a false.

If the people here actually accepted the teaching of the Catholic Church about homosexuality the posts would be about how to minister to homosexuals instead of always rehashing whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Instead we are repeatedly treated to a few conservatives upholding the Catholic position while the rest of the posters treat them as unenlightened pariahs.

CJ

While it's lovely to keep discussing how people's "rights" are being hurt by disallowing various activities or wishing such activities were disallowed, most of this sort of discussion usually devolves into a feelings oriented smoke screen that avoids the heart of the matter.

What is at the heart of the matter of free speech and public law dealing in matters of morality and ethics is whether certain activities are, in fact, rights and whether they should be given public light.

What is usually assumed is that something is a "right" to begin with without, in the least, looking into if it is or not. Second, what is assumed is that the government is in the business of protecting the individual or protecting society as a whole. As in, is government an institution whose primary focus is maintaining a just and civil society or is its primary focus maintaining the individuals "rights" or protecting the individual. Finally, depending on the answer for the second question, the matter boils down to how far a law can go to protect the individual or the society from others and themselves.

Looking at "rights" then, what is a "right"? It seems to me that the most common understanding is that people have the ability to do or think how they see fit. This is already a departure from a classical understanding of what "rights" are because rights have always gone alongside certain responsibilities. The right to vote always carried with it the duty of being a responsible and informed citizen and, in fact, voting. The right to education carried the responsibility of supporting the public education. The right to citizenship carries the responsibility of adhering to the laws of the country and so forth. In modern parlance, it seems that "rights" have been confused with personal liberty because they have been detached from any responsibilities.

But now the focus is shifted away from "rights" and onto personal freedom. What is man "free" to do? As it is, the common libertarian view is that a person is free to do whatever they want to do in private as long as all the individuals involved are consenting adults. "In private" however, is a key point in this understanding, however. If there is a public display, and another adult sees it and takes offense, then this is the involvement of another individual who has not consented to the display nor their being exposed to it. So then, should a man be free to perform public acts that others may take offense to?

Now, however, there is a conflict of personal freedoms and a scale must be created. Does the personal liberty of one person outweigh another, or another 10 or another 100?

Here is where the second part of the entire question comes in: what is the purpose of government and what is it's duty? Supporting the common good should be what is at the heart of government and to use a utilitarian metric, the common good is what protects the most people with the least harm done to individuals. *note: I say this with certain inalienable rights assumed as absolute and never to be infringed upon. But here is a minimalist attitude. This is a minimalistic attitude that involves protection against infringement, but does not necessarily promote any goods.

So, here we ask, is it for the good of society to allow public acts of lewdness at the expense of the freedom of some to walk down a public thoroughfare? If a group of adults is already free to engage in whatever acts they like in the privacy of their homes, there are no freedoms being infringed upon already. Why infringe on other's rights to the public land (because the "right" to be on public land includes the responsibility to taxes and the like)?

On several issues such as the sanctioning of homosexual unions, the third question I presented above enters in: are such laws protecting and promoting a just society or not? If we accept that the family is the basic cell of human society, then protection of the family is also a protection of society. It is also a protection of the society's future because the children reared in these families will become future citizens of the state. It would seem to me that this is grounds for the protection of the so-called "traditional" view of marriage as one man and one woman.

This matter also touches on what sort of speech is good for the society at large and what is detrimental to it. Since, however, speech in the public forum is a matter for discussion (as we are doing here) and not necessarily a tool for propaganda and indoctrination (as some would say modern media is), all manner of opinions may be expressed because we are all consenting adults participating in this action. This is decidely different situation that public acts on the street.

Since I'm not a professional writer, some of that may not have come across as clearly as I would have liked. Hopefully, however, it does clarify what questions we should be asking about "rights", "freedoms" and "free speech" and my own opinions got put in there as well.

When the orthodox (small "o") posters get accused of hurling eggs (none have done so, I would venture to say) or hurling epithets (I have not seen such on this forum, unless the definition of epithet here is such a low common denominator as to make intellectual discussion impossible) and when, of over 1700 posters, few if any come to their defense or join in defending the Catholic faith from homosexualist propaganda, it is hard to argue with your observation.

MJ,

Well put and easily understood.

Dan L

hmmm... I really should proof read things a bit more before I post them...

I sure use "however" a lot...

Doc Brian writes: "What is the difference between a sodomy-rights march and a pedophilia- or incest-rights march?"

Well, I have never attended any such march, nor do I plan to. I am not aware of any march or organization specifically seeking sodomy rights, of all things. But to the best of my knowledge, sodomy is legal these days in many jurisdictions of the US and in many other countries.

Sexual abuse of those under the age of consent (which is what is usually meant by pedophilia) is contrary to law, so a march demanding a change in the law, while legal in itself, would probably result in arrests for related offenses. There is at least one organization seeking such changes in the law; they are unlikely to succeed in this dubious cause.

I believe incest is against the law, though I'm not particularly knowledgeable in the matter. But I've never heard of any organized group - or, come to think of it, of any particular individual - agitating in favor of incest. On the other hand, there are said to be some places in the US where incest is practiced frequently. It is thought to have been the custom in ancient times in the Egyptian royal family. Not a good idea (you may have noticed the lack of any pharaoh these days).

As I keep repeating - if you don't like the present laws, nothing prevents efforts to change the laws. That is indeed the goal of pro-life; to have laws making abortion once again a criminal activity, and to ensure that such laws will have teeth. What is NOT lawful is to claim rights for oneself and then deny the same rights to others, regardless of the law.

Incognitus

Father Mike,

What would you classify someone an anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-"under God" (yeah, sorry y'all, I just don't buy the whole "under God" thing) Democrat? That's basically what I am; but really, is that even left of center?

But then again I'm a Latin Catholic, so maybe I don't count!

Logos Teen

CJ,

I did not mean to infer you were hurling eggs at anyone. "Hurling eggs and epithets" was a reference to another thread Those violent gays, eyh? , which I confused with this thread.


Dan,

your powers of reason never cease to amaze. I'm a little lost at your sarcasm and that you have inferred that my post is a recommendation to approach the priest without clothes. However, speaking for myself, I do strive to bare my soul to my confessor and spiritual director.


To no one in particular:

Jesus was not afraid to climb down into the mire and muck of a sinful humanity to redeem that humanity. Is it too much to expect that we, his followers, would do the same to present his invitation to live in communion with the Trinity to those who are in sin?

Rather than seeing "gay pride" parades as events to combat, why not view them as opportunities for evangelization and ministry? Sending gays back "into the closet" may appeal to our sense of propriety, but, how then do we minister to them? Jesus accepted Levi's invitation to partake of a great banquet (Luke 5:27-32), and there were "tax collectors and sinners" at table with the Lord. To the their accusations, the Lord replied to the Pharisees and scribes, "Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners." (Luke 5:31-32)