www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Where are the Bishops?

>>>Sometimes I wish to use another hand gesture but it is not an option.....
David <<<

That's funny

Perhaps I will make one more comment about this.

How should we balance the fact that our LORD gave us freewill to commit immoral acts with governments's role in making certain acts illegal. We all agree that the behaviour discussed in this thread is evil and contemptable, but I guess the question is: How do we, as a society, deal with these things? Should we concentrate more on changing peoples' hearts instead of banning their behaviour? How big of a role does government have in legislating morality?

Remember, this is a two-edged sword. Islamic contries ban Christians from worshipping, reading Bibles etc.

JoeT,

How many times shall I ask forgivness before you grant it?

Again: I am sorry for likening your opinion to a NAZIs. It was wrong.

Columcille

Columcille,

I only deal with arguments. No need to seek forgiveness.

Now, your recent post is interesting. Did our LORD really give us freewill to commit immoral acts. Was that the purpose of freewill?

Did our LORD not accuse US (and not Himself) of wanting to be like Him?

Why do we blame things on God and the Government for our own desires and moral license? Does the Government really 'grant' us rights?

Certainly our LORD does not stay our hand everytime we sin. There are consequences, but G-D doesn't strike us dead the moment we commit sin.

The purpose of freewill is that we should seek after Him with all our hearts. The other side of the coin is that we are free to reject Him, if we so choose.

The very fact that we have freewill nullifies any attempt on our part to blame G-D for our sin. This is in contrast to Calvinism which believes in double predestination. In that case, you could see why one would blame G-D for evil since this doctrine makes Him the source of said evil.

Does the government grant us rights? This is an interesting proposition. I would say that government restricts our rights to the extent that we don't excercise those rights in a way that would harm another. Our "rights" are ultimatley given by G-D. By rights I mean that we can commit murder, rape, robbery etc. without G-D striking us dead. We can choose to do these things. However, doing such will land us in Hell.

Columcille

Columcille,

So what you are saying is that we only have to wait until the punishment of Hell for those who do such things in this life? Is this like the woman caught in adultery? What about the man who wasn't caught in adultery?

What do we do in the meantime to protect the unborn, innocent spouses of adulterous mates, pressured children of incestual relationships, and intimmidating clergy who take advantage of legal-aged boys in the confines of their bedrooms?

If all these activities are 'consensual' then should we simply stand aside?

Joe

Dear Friends,

These are all very important religious and political issues to consider!

Reading this thread, it, once again, came home to me how different Canadian political culture is from American - a real, ongoing education!

If I may make an observation in as dispassionate a manner as possible, I believe we sometimes identify completely the idea of "morality" in the secular, North American sense with "Christian morality.

There is more than one "morality" in our North American political culture. If someone doesn't agree with Christian morality - that doesn't mean that that person or society isn't "moral." Just an observation!

Yes, there are laws against what one may do in the privacy of one's own home.

But this is defined in accordance with prevailing morality as determined by the courts.

In Canada, our courts have tended to define what is "moral" in terms of "community standards" or what is morally acceptable in consensual terms.

And what is "consensual" and in accordance with community standards does not always mean what Christian morality means - and we all understand that.

Secular morality need not always be seen as libertine. Churches have committed grave and even institutional sins in history - and they still do.

While Christians (and not all) as well as others see abortion and homosexual acts as gravely sinful and immoral, the fact is that the legal system does not.

To argue against them from a religious point of view is getting increasingly difficult due to value shifts in mainstream society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't.

But if you say something against the gay lifestyle in terms of its morality, thereby implying its unacceptability, there are now legal penalties that can be exacted for that. And the "slippery slope" mentioned has to do with seeing the Bible itself and its pronouncements against homosexuality as part of the "unacceptable anti-gay bias."

But I think Cantor Joseph hit on an important point in terms of morality. If the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" herself could enforce its own religious code of ethics on her own members with respect to abortion and other issues, that would be most helpful in terms of her external witness.

In general, however, politicians who invoke what is perceived to be religiously-based morality in their speeches tend to be looked upon cynically, even by religious people.

I have worked for those whom I know have blatantly used religion for their own ends. Their speeches resemble sermons even though religion meant very little to them, but they know that to get reelected, one needs to tell people what they want to hear.

I know this because I have worked more with the Bible in my political career than I do at home or in Church.

I believe that Christians must get involved politically in society, but that simple support for this or that politician, whose motives for invoking morality can be questionable at all times, just doesn't cut it.

There is the strong pro-Life lobby in the U.S. and smart politicians must recognize their political clout.

And that is the way to go. Politicians react to one thing and one thing only - voter support. As for everything else - they are amenable. . .

Politicians don't change society. But we can. It takes a lot of work, a lot of evangelizing and a lot of convincing at the grass-roots.

But if we truly want to implement the principles of the Gospel in our society, there is no other way.

Alex

Alex,

Despite hypocrisy and the overlapping or confronting laws of State and Religion, does consensus serve as an umbrella of protection?

Can people get hurt, physically, mentally, and spiritually while under that umbrella?

I am not advocating government rights to intrude on our private lives per se, but am concerned that any black-and-white solution, especially in their extreme forms, are equally dangerous.

Now that we worked our way past all that unpleasentness, I think we have a good discussion going.

With that being said I have two comments.

I must disagree with this. You say that the government restricits your rights to the extent that you can't exercise your rights in a way that would harm me. That is wrong, if you could exercise your rights in a way that would harm me would them be violating my rights.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

I do not think there is such as think as "North American morality" as the basis for our two governments are different (IMHO).

The Laws and the Constitution of the United States of America were formed from Judao-Christian values.


David

What is inacceptable is discrimination against individuals sinply because they are gay. An individual has every right to voice his or her opinion against homosexuality but when this crosses the line to discrimination in jobs or housing or to hate crimes, then it is unacceptable.

Dear Cantor Joseph, David and Brian,

I agree with what you say.

My main point is that the only way we are going to get our government to change its perspectives is via the grass-roots and serious political involvement that holds politicians and government leaders accountable to the people and to what they hold to be truly moral.

If they make judgements based on "community standards," we need to be up front and in sight with our own.

There are many things in what you raise that are capable of much discussion and even book-writing!

I'm basically telling you what politicians are like and that voting for the one who quotes the bible the most doesn't cut it.

Alex

Brian,

No one should support hate crimes, but do you think homosexuality should be promoted in the schools and in the churches?

I see two obvious problems here where rights hit up against perceived discrimination:

First, women in the U.S. have legal 'rights' to an abortion. Yet, many abortions do not happen because nurses refuse to scrub in preparation for them. I know of some physicians who were voted down with nurses voting with their feet. Should one's right be reason to force a nurse to assist in an abortion? Here, we have a conflict between the civil legal sphere and the religious conscience of health-care providers. Which side should give in? Is one more right than the other? Some legislators wish not to allow parents to be informed about their underaged teen daughter having an abortion, yet children in that same legal system are considered our legal responsibility until a certain age.

Second, on one hand there is a dislike for 'discrimination' against homosexuals, yet on the other we do not carry our logic to its extreme by promoting it in our grade school text books. Some school systems have tried to use the public school forum to promote alternative lifestyles, but were met with angry parents who pulled their children out of the classroom. Which side should give in? Is one more right than the other? Were the parents guilty of discrimination?

In both cases, opinions on both sides mattered.

Do we freely use the word "discrimination" for anything we want to do in the privacy of our home just so its under the umbrella of consensus?

As for Alex's important notes about grass-roots, those nurses who simply refuse to scrub and walk out of an attempted abortion and those parents who remove their children from schools promoting alternative lifestyles has the trump card.

Unfortunately, defiant nurses and angry parents will unsuccessfully get their tax dollars back from those organizations that use them for such activities. This is another issue. Free Choice is only for abortion rights, not freedom to choose the education for one's child(ren). Follow the money.

Joe

If gay sex itself was promoted in the classroom (along with early heterosexual sex) , then that was very wrong. But, if the instruction was to lessen the very real bullying that does occur against youth perceived to be gay then that is very important for the schools to be involved in. I know from experience and from the experiences of others of being not only taunted for being gay but for being beat up for being perceived as gay. That is horrible and schools should have a role in lessening this and promoting tolerance.

A very good question.

Laura Jakes Jordan, a reporter for the Associated Press, changed Senator Santorum�s remarks by adding the word �gay� in his comments. I have no doubt that this is purposeful. Reporter Laura Jakes Jordan is married to the campaign manager of John Kerry�s presidential campaign. This seems to be yet another purposeful distortion of the words of a Christian in order to promote a deviant moral agenda. This is not about bigotry. It is about politics and getting rid of a Christian who won�t cave in to those pushing acceptance of deviant moral behavioral choices.

Why do you believe that Senator Santorum should resign for publicly stating Christian moral teachings and the fact that he believes in them?

Would you also decry any prejudice against those who claim that there is nothing morally wrong with adults and children engaging in sexual relations as long as it is consensual?

Why do you not also decry prejudice against Christians (like Santorum) for promoting Christian morality?

Do you believe that Senator Santorum and other Christians must be forced to forfeit the moral teachings of Christianity in order to participate in government?

Does freedom of speech not apply to Christians but only to those opposing traditional Judeo-Christian morality?

Aren�t you in the process of becoming Orthodox? Even though the Orthodox Church doesn�t speak out on social issues that much its teaching is identical to the Catholic Church regarding the sinfulness of all sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage. How do you reconcile your obvious rejection of Orthodox morality on these issues with your requirement to accept the teachings of the Orthodox Church before fully uniting yourself to her?

Friends,

As a Pittsburgher I want to say a few words in defense of my senator, Rick Santorum. I have met the Senator in the past, and one of my childhood friends is his aid. Whatever his flaws and imperfections may be, he is seriously dedicated to the pro-life cause and is very, very serious about his Catholic faith. Nor does he hide this fact.

Indeed, a few years ago his commitment to the pro-life cause and to Catholic teachings were personally tested. He and his wife were expecting a child, when tests revealed that the baby had a fatal birth defect and wouldn't live more than a few hours out of the womb. Given such a prognosis, many couples would choose to have an abortion. Instead, the Santorums continued the pregnancy, and when the child was born they held him in their arms for two hours before he died. They have seven other children.

Thus, whatever his flaws may be we should respect him as a heartfelt champion of the pro-life cause. Everyone who knows him personally will tell you that for him this is a driving personal conviction, fueled by his Catholic faith. I wish that we had more senators like him.

Anthony

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this about legality and not morality? If so, then there must clearly be states where the police can come into somebody's house and arrest them for committing adultery. What states are those?

Senator Santorum was quite clear in stating that �I have no problem with homosexuality I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships." You have stated that he should resign. Since he clearly was respecting of homosexual individuals and only spoke against their free choices to engage in homosexual activity your remarks can only be interpreted as supporting an activity considered to be sinful by the Orthodox Church you are in the process of joining.

Where do you draw the line? Is homosexual activity to be considered protected? How about other forms of deviant behavior? Do you also support job and housing protections for people who support adult-child consensual relations? If not, how can you support onewith out logically supporting the other? You cannot reject Judeo-Christian teaching in order to enact special protections for a homosexual lifestyles and then appeal to it to continue a ban on adult-child consensual sexual activity.

Acceptance of the homosexual sexual lifestyle is being promoted in many public classrooms.

Agreed. No believing Christian would support bullying of people who might be or who are homosexuals. Acceptance of individuals can occur while rejecting sinful homosexual sexual activity.