Posted on 06/15/2004 2:12:56 PM PDT by Fifthmark
You have a very educated point of view. You've obviously researched the matter thoroughly.
/sarcasm off/
If you read that encyclical I passed your way and realize that the Church has always taught the same system of faith and morals, I will do just that.
He has participated in rituals of various other religions, as well as making very positive statements about them, all to the great dismay of Catholic extremists. Search around FR, and you can find the threads where the more-Catholic-than-the-Pope nuts rail against his activities in this area.
I know he has been very clear that the Catholic Church was the true Church. The next closest were the Orthodox Churches, followed by any Christian Church. He lumped together all the rest that do not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God (Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Animists, etc.) as those farthest from the Truth.
If I didn't think our fallen nature and resulting tendency towards ignorance was an impedement to discovering the truth, then I would be all for Mill's notion of the "Marketplace." As it stands, however, our poor souls are in need of guidance and authority to help us attain that truth - the need for a Church - and the State should assist this need inasmuch as they are primarily concerned with the welfare of its citizens. You should really stop putting words in my mouth with the "going to kill me if I don't convert" talk - that is not how the Inquisition worked, not how Christendom worked, and it is not how I envision a Catholic State. The idea is to defend the truth, not simply make it one of many options. To what extent that defense is made is an arguable point, one that would depend upon your views of the severity of straying from the Doctrine of Christ. We could have that argument, but I'd rather go and discuss my opinions with those who wouldn't just label me "Taliban" and run. Good day.
I will be gone for the weekend, so unfortunately from my end the discussion ends here. Anyone interested in Catholic-baiting can meet me in the Religion forum during normal business hours.
If you could also convince those same people in that Marketplace of Ideas, that someone was born of a virgin and came back from the dead, just for you...then???
Thankfully, we live in a free society where he is free to promote his "moral vacuum" to his heart's content. Does that bother you?
Fifthmark, I still can't understand how, to use your own statement -- "The essential purpose of the State is to protect the welfare of its citizens. If you consider the salvation of each inhabitant through belief in the true religion revealed by God part of that "welfare," then the State has an obligation to support the true religion and repress public dissidence against it while allowing those who wish to privately hold their erroneous views to do so." -- is any different than the idea of the Moslems denying Christians the right to prosyletize or build churchs in Moslem countries.
It is your own words that I am using here .. repressing public dissidence .. that causes me the most difficulty. Wasn't this something done by the Nazis? By the Communists? By the Moslems? Repressing public dissidence of any "article of faith" of any group or culture is still repression and an abomination against free will.
And, by the way, I do resent your statement that I did a "hit and run" on you. I've been on this thread all day and your response to me at #125 was the first time that you pinged me all day.
No, I do not. Any American loyal to our Constitution and to American ideals cannot agree that the State has any business deciding the "true" religion of the people.
Remember- our 1st Amendment rights vis a vis religion are protected by our 2nd Amendment right to shoot anyone attempting to impose a theocracy on us.
Your love of theocracy puts you in the same camp as the mullahs. I would resist you like I would resist them.
The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of our Lord.
Speechless..
Authorities have no rights, only powers granted to them by the people. The people cannot, however, legitimately grant the authorities the power to violate inalienable rights. Any government that does that deserves nothing but violence and resistance directed at it and its representatives.
If the Nazis had been good Christians, maybe....
They can try. Our founding fathers knew that occasionally we would have to shoot a bunch of them, though.
Folks can have all the independent thoughts and ideas they want, they just can't claim that their OWN thoughts and ideas, which are actually against what the Church teaches, are what the Church teaches.
If these 'free thinkers' are confusing people and leading them away from the Church, without those folks realizing they are being led away from it, the Church has every right to call the 'free thinkers' on it.
Sure they can. The Church can't stop people from making such a claim, though it can present its side.
By all means, the Church can set the rules for those who freely associate within that church. If a "free-thinker", as you so put it, decides to advance an agenda that is against the teachings of that church, the church is most certainly able to turn away and shun that individual. However, that's the extent that it can go --- once it has excommunicated that individual from the fellowship of the church, it is out of the church's authority or ability to anything else.
No, actually, you've insulted Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and anyone who is NOT Catholic with your remarks. You have also insulted my country and my Constitution with your nonsense.
And you know what? YOUR opinion of "heresy" makes me laugh out loud. Other than that, it is meaningless.
Your views, as stated, are those of a fanatic. No sane, reasonable person reading them could think otherwise.
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.