Posted on 09/04/2015 9:53:45 AM PDT by wagglebee
Well said!
Great.
What about an elected official sheriff arresting men and women who have affairs because that is a sinful act which violates the Ten Commandments?
What about the same elected official refusing to put her name on a Certificate of Occupancy or Public Housing lease for a couple “living in sin.”
Is the same elected official permitted to refuse a business permit to a restaurant open on Saturday if that elected official is a Orthodox Jew or 7th Day Adventist..... because in both faiths, it’s a sin for ANYONE to work on the Sabbath.
Can a Muslim elected official refuse a business permit for Peter’s House of Perfect Pork Dinners because it is a sin for anyone to eat pork?
Law and religion; always a bad mix.
I was saying that divorce did not involve the principle of natural law to the effect that Sodomism did.
However, I read here that I was probably wrong in that. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm
We got in this mess by giving ground in so many other areas, like divorce and contraception.
So based on that finding, a Catholic clerk could choose to not issue licenses for fear of promoting adultery, right?
The difference with all these hypotheticals and Kim Davis is that the law changed on her after she was elected to perform those legal duties.
I fully understand that some religious beliefs contradict some lines of work. A Baptist would be foolish to seek employment in a liquor store, a Quaker — to enlist in the military, or a Catholic to license remarriage after divorce. Those people either should avoid such duties or make some compromise with their faith.
Kim, however, ran and won the clerkship elections under the legal system that she found compatible with her beliefs at the time (she is Christian but not Catholic; many Christian denominations allow for remarriage after divorce). She is upholding the law which she was sworn to uphold.
She is an American hero.
I’d want to consult a moral theologian on that, but yes, it seems a Catholic could not do that.
-— Could a Christian 7th Day Adventist Country Clerk demand the Clerk’s Office be closed from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday? -—
No, because the particular day of the Sabbath isn’t part of the natural law, knowable by everyone and written on the human heart, as opposed to the perverted, unnatural act of sodomy being declared “marriage.”.
Letting an elected official decide which laws they will obey and which they will not is anarchy.
Slipping away from the purely legal overview, I have some trouble accepting religiously-driven legal dogma from a “Christian” woman who has been married 4 times, who had twins 5 months after her divorce from her first husband, fathered by her third husband.
#2 must certainly have felt left out.
But Adventists would argue a Saturday Sabbath is very much God’s law. They point to something very basic, from Genesis 2:3 to Exodus 20:10 commanding it, to the 4th Commandment requiring it, not advising it it, but requiring it of all.
It even goes so far as to require it of your “manservants and maidservants, your sons and daughters.” By the literal Bible, there is no “wiggle room” here.
But I’m not arguing the day of the Sabbath here. I simply don’t want any public official placing her religious beliefs on me. My relationship is with God is very private, and at Church, not at the County Courthouse.
I would agree with you homosexuality is not ‘natural’ as it cannot lead to reproduction of the species, but the moment we let officials decide to let God tell them which laws to obey and which to refuse to obey, we all have problems. It’s called anarchy.
This woman is basing her refusal on “God’s Law,” not natural law, and for a woman who has ignored God’s laws so many times in having 4 marriages, and twins 5 months after her divorce from her fist husband, fathered by her 3d husband, seems to me that a “whole lot of coveting” has been going on.
I have trouble taking spiritual advice from such a woman.
By the way, returning to the legal matter that this is, the underlying LEGAL problem with denying marriage to gays is that we allow certain LEGAL benefits to married couples, but deny them to single people living together.
The first among them is in the filing of tax returns. A married couple filing jointly have tax advantages over two singles filing. This creates a LEGAL problem of government endorsing a religious concept, ergo religious discrimination.
I am far from advocating gay marriage, but simply showing the LEGAL problems created by banning it.
Move someplace that troubles you less.
Kim Davis does not "decide which laws [she] will obey and which [she] will not". She is upholding the same Kentucky law she swore to uphold when she was elected.
Her character has nothing to do with that either. I have trouble accepting character judgment from a guy on the internet about a woman who was elected by the people she serves.
Marriage is both a natural and sacramental institution.
For Catholics, the Church holds the authority to "bind and loose," a term inherited from ancient Judaism meaning ultimate ecclesiastical authority. The Church has the authority to determine the validity of marriages voluntarily brought before the Church by petitioners for declarations of nullity.
The Church does not claim legal jurisdiction over the marriages of those who do not submit themselves to the authority of the Church.
So what is the Church's position regarding marriages performed by the State?
Natural marriages, performed civilly, fall under the jurisdiction of civil authorities, with the object of legislation being the welfare of families.
Laws designed with this objective fall within the prudential judgement of the relevant civil authorities.
For example, divorces could be contested or uncontested. Adultery and fornication could be criminalized or decriminalized.
In these examples, either criminalization or decriminalization could be justifiable according to natural law, in certain circumstances, since as St. Thomas said, a particular vice can be legally tolerated if the harm done by criminalization would be worse than the vice itself. (St. Thomas cites as an example the moral permisibility of the legalization of prostitution under certain circumstances.)
So a Catholic would not be violating his conscience in participating in civil divorces or remarriages.
On the other hand, since sodomy is an unnatural act, intrinsically evil, and wholly unrelated to marriage, it would be immoral for a Catholic to sanction it. Similarly, a Catholic could not sanction the marriage of underage children, the mentally impaired, etc.
They have a natural right to interpret the Bible as they see fit, but the Sabbath date is a matter of divine revelation, not natural law that is knowable by everyone.
I simply don’t want any public official placing her religious beliefs on me.
Not a belief derived from revelation, or a truth that is unknowable by reason alone.
Religious belief and natural law overlap. For example, the Ten Commandments, which were divinely revealed, include prohibitions against theft, adultery and honoring one's father and mother, all of which are part of the natural law, and held by people of all faiths, or no faith at all.
I would agree with you homosexuality is not ‘natural’ as it cannot lead to reproduction of the species, but the moment we let officials decide to let God tell them which laws to obey and which to refuse to obey, we all have problems. It’s called anarchy.
The opposite is true. "Homosexual marriage" is a meaningless term. To call two homosexuals "married" is to propose an absurdity or an unreality. Law that is not based on reality is an absurdity or anarchical.
This woman is basing her refusal on “God’s Law,” not natural law,
In this case they overlap.
and for a woman who has ignored God’s laws so many times in having 4 marriages, and twins 5 months after her divorce from her fist husband, fathered by her 3d husband, seems to me that a “whole lot of coveting” has been going on.
That's a reasonable presumption, but irrelevant to the nature of the "homosexual marriage" law.
By the way, returning to the legal matter that this is, the underlying LEGAL problem with denying marriage to gays is that we allow certain LEGAL benefits to married couples, but deny them to single people living together.
Yes, because the object of marital law is the preservation of families for the good of the children, first and foremost. The left frames "homosexual marriage" as a human rights issue, but it is a children's issue. Children have a right to be raised by their natural parents. (See my previous post above).
I am far from advocating gay marriage, but simply showing the LEGAL problems created by banning it.
There aren't any that I can see. There haven't been any legal "homosexual marriages" in human history until now. What have we missed out on?
Kentucky law also approved of slavery, and denied votes to women and Blacks. So you are Ok with that too?
But a practicing Catholic giving a license to marry to people still married in the eyes of the Church would be using her official position to promote adultery and bigamy under your standards.
Law and religion, a bad mix.
1: The moment you give civil servants the "right to interpret the Bible as they see fit" and then base legal decisions on that, you give every person who believes in the Bible, or the Koran for that matter, the right to do anything they want, based in their personal religious interpretation, and enforce it upon the rest of us due to their official position .
How about a new "Biblical interpretation" by a Baptist tax collector that all non-Baptists houses of worship should not be exempt from property taxes, if the tax collector claimed that's what her Bible tell her is just?
2: Half the the psychotics in mental hospitals for criminals will tell you "God told them" to commit their crimes. Who are we do deny them their "interpretation"?
3: If the Sabbath is a matter of "Divine Revelation," how come some Christians think it is Sunday, and others Saturday? Are Catholics and Protestants not worthy to receive Divine Revelation, or is it the 7th Day Adventists who are not 'real' Christians?
In Matthew 22: 20-22 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" The issuance of a State marriage license by a state employee is Caeser's work.... unless, of course, you know more than Matthew and the Bible.
-— 1: The moment you give civil servants the “right to interpret the Bible as they see fit” and then base legal decisions on that, you give every person who believes in the Bible, or the Koran for that matter, the right to do anything they want -—
I think you missed my point entirely.
Divine revelation, as opposed to natural law, refers to truths that are revealed by God (i.e., the Trinity) but which are not derivable from unaided reason. They are a matter of faith.
These beliefs should not be forced on non-believers.
(Mohammedans regard the Koran to be divine revelation.)
Natural law refers to moral principles that are known by people of all faiths. And though it’s disputed, the existence of God is also a matter of natural law. There is no Law without a Lawgiver.
All people are accountable to the principles of natural law.
I still worry about one set of people interpreting natural law one way, others in another way.
A question: At one time, Kosher and Halal were natural law, as 2000 years ago meat from animals with the cloven hoof was much more likely to spoil and create deadly food poisoning. They were ‘smart” laws; laws of self-preservation.
But now, with modern refrigeration, there is no need for such precautions.
Are they still natural law, or simply reminders of obedience to God’s Word?
I have asked this of rabbis and received three answers:
1: It’s still God’s Law,
2: It is no longer Natural Law, but a reminder and respect for what was God’s Law,
3: A little of each.
Your thoughts?
Be well.
I always thought that “Natural Law” superseded any particular religious belief or teachings.
A man is created as a free person.
He is not owing to or obligated to any other person.
He is not above or below any other person in status.
He is free to exercise his own beliefs (or dis-beliefs).
That kind of thing...
So in my mind kosher and halal are not a part of “Natural Law”,
but they are beliefs/teachings of particular religions.
He is not owing to or obligated to any other person.
He is not above or below any other person in status.
He is free to exercise his own beliefs (or dis-beliefs)
My beliefs:
He is not owing to or obligated to any other person, ACCEPT BY HIS OWN ACTIONS OR CHOICES IN LIFE.
He is not CREATED above or below any other person in status, but may place himself there by his actions in life.
He is free to exercise his own beliefs (or dis-beliefs) SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT IMPOSE ON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER.
Be well.
I am absolutely OK with the law officers of the Antebellum South to uphold the laws that they were sworn to uphold in general, even when I might disagree with the content of some of these laws.
To ask a state official to switch the understanding of the law he or she was elected to uphold is not America. Savages do that. Civilized nations have a rule of law. You are advocating savagery, where the law bows to whoever’s got power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.