Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FReep this poll - Should DC require the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?
Washington Post ^ | November 13, 2009 | Jodi Westrick

Posted on 11/15/2009 6:04:29 PM PST by wide meadow

The D.C. Council is considering a law forbidding discrimination against those in gay marriages. The law would apply to all groups that have contracts with the District, including Catholic Charities, one of the city's largest social services providers. The Archdiocese of Washington says that because of the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage, it would have to suspend its social services to the poor, the homeless and others rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

(Excerpt) Read more at views.washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; church; citycouncil; dc; homosexualagenda; poll; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: livius
moral objections trump state-imposed laws.

Really, now?

I have long had a moral objection to paying taxes to this spendthrift government, let's see how far I get with that...

41 posted on 11/16/2009 4:35:57 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

I’m not saying there will be no consequences! There actually were lefty pacifists during Vietnam who stopped paying their taxes because they objected to the war. While they were nuts, they did at least follow up on their conviction. Of course, the government got the money anyway, ultimately, and some of them also went to jail.

But I’m talking about laws that affect behavior that is considered to impact on one’s personal morality. US law is based on the Constitution, which is shaped by natural law theory. In other words, the state cannot simply come along and impose some idea that the state feels may be good for it but which has no justification or support in natural law. (Islam does not accept natural law, btw, which is why all of their “law” is basically ritual law and they regard the violation of ritual law as being on the same level with something that we might regard as a moral offense, such as murder.)

Until now, the US has always respected the individual conscience in moral matters: hence the conscientious objector status granted to pacifists.

But we are living in an era when the state is trying to take over every aspect of individual life and define even the bases of our behavior, completely independent of the moral law upon which this system was built. The Church must protest against this and should not accept it.


42 posted on 11/16/2009 4:53:07 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: wide meadow

Secular Humanists don’t have room for more than “the Church of Man.”


43 posted on 11/16/2009 4:56:56 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius; Izzy Dunne
-- moral objections trump state-imposed laws. Would [Izzy Dunne] have followed a law under Hitler that forced you to seize Jewish property, report on your neighbors, etc? --

I agree with your assertion, that push come to shove, most people will put a strongly-held moral belief above the law - even to the point of being in violation of the law. It's wishful fantasy on the part of many, if not most lawmakers, that the law is effective at changing hearts and minds.

The poll question isn't useful to discriminate where the responders would draw the line. Ask them if it's okay to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child, and the poll will yield the opposite result (even though stealing bread is against the law, and at bottom is, I think, immoral as well).

Should Catholic Charities be compelled to charity? Obviously, that's an oxymoron. Charity that happens only on account of compulsion, or threat of compulsion, isn't charity at all.

44 posted on 11/16/2009 5:14:42 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wide meadow

When you accept Ceasars gold, you also inherit Ceasars rules.


45 posted on 11/16/2009 5:42:11 AM PST by The_Repugnant_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy

Giving charity is Job #1 for the Church, ma’am. The right way appears to be complying with the law (which makes the Church ineligible to participate in any DC-generated charity effort) and to provide services on a go-it-alone basis, without reference to the DC ‘government’. I don’t know how that would be framed or constituted but behaving lawfully and obeying Jesus Christ is what the Church must do.

This is a power play on the part of the State to subjugate the Church. Has happened before and will happen again. Usual result is: Church suffers in the near term, State collapses and many people die in the long term.

Sure wish there was another way to correct this, but that’s the historical record in the matter. Just history repeating itself by aid of people who believe that history doesn’t apply to them (assuming they’re aware that history is available on the topic).


46 posted on 11/16/2009 6:16:24 AM PST by BelegStrongbow (I'm still waiting for Dear Leader to say something that isn't a lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: livius; Izzy Dunne; metmom; xsmommy; Cboldt
"...But I'm talking about laws that affect behavior that is considered to impact on one's personal morality..."

We have already crossed that Rubicon. Once you (we) have accepted the basic premise that government has the power to legislate on issues of personal perogative such as drug use, equal protection in private businesses, that choice has been made.

The first amendment does not speak to which laws the Church may or may not follow. There is no such thing as a "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.

The first amendment speaks only to the right to freely exercise ones religion and the proscription against the state establishing any one religion as the state religion. The church must follow civil and criminal law or, if they choose not to, pay the legal price for their failure to comply with those law.

Freedom is a two-edged sword. You have the freedom to ignore any law, but you must pay the price for failing to obey it (unless you are a Democrat politician).

All laws impinge on the realm of "morality." It is our concept of morality that brought humanity to make laws. The church annot break or refuse to obey any law simply because it goes against its tenets without having to pay the price for that decision.

Izzy was correct in her analogy discussing Muslims. Another example; if the Church is offended by America being involved in some war, would it then be okay for its members to violate the laws against betraying your country? Certainly they could choose to act against the interests of our nation, but there would be a huge price.

The problem lies not in DC's decision to force compliance, but in the existence of the discrimination laws themselves. No private endeavor, whether it be religious or commercial should be forced by law to hire anyone. A private entity should be able to refuse to hire or do business with any individual or group it chooses for any reason it chooses and the government (at least according to the Constitution) should have no say in the matter whatever.

Of course this same church has been at the forefront of the civil rights movement and was instrumental in the passing of the very laws it is now attempting to side-step. The Catholic Church has been in the forefront of the "Social Justice" movement and now finds itself being hoisted by its own petard...ironic isn't it?
47 posted on 11/16/2009 6:25:52 AM PST by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: The_Repugnant_Conservative

Far more succintly put than my comment.../hat tip


48 posted on 11/16/2009 6:27:17 AM PST by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland

Rather than being forced to accept something antithetical to its teaching, the Church should instead withdraw from charitable works in DC and let the denizens thereof live with those consequences. Again, the misapprehension on this thread is that the CHURCH is somehow BENEFITING from this. The Ceasers gold you reference does NOT benefit the church, but rather the objects of Charity in DC.


49 posted on 11/16/2009 6:33:40 AM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: xsmommy
The idiotic wording of the poll question, which then became the title of the thread seems to be the problem: "Should DC require the Church to follow a law..."

The question should have been worded "Should DC have the power to pass a law mandating that the Church accept homosexuality". Because of the poor wording of the question, it could apply to almost anything controversial and mean something totally different. Like Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, "it's a BS question."

I think that is where some on this thread are coming from: Churches shouldn't be able to just decide which laws they consider moral and which ones they don't.

51 posted on 11/16/2009 6:57:09 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

even your question isn’t accurate. The question really is will the District grant an exemption in exchange for the charitable works that the Church performs. If Muslims wanted an exemption from a particular law in exchange for a service/charity that it performs, that would be a cost/benefit analysis that the governmental entity would have to perform, as well. The proponents have exalted the legal sanctioning of homosexuality to the exclusion of all else— fine, then they can do without the benefit of the charitable work that the Catholic Church does in DC and i assure you, it’s CONSIDERABLE.


52 posted on 11/16/2009 7:09:09 AM PST by xsmommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

More accurate wording would be
“Should Catholic Charities in it’s Contract with the District of Columbia (DC), be allowed to distribute DC funds (tax revenues) without regard to the rules of the DC.


53 posted on 11/16/2009 7:28:49 AM PST by The_Repugnant_Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

I guess you missed the part about Congress passing no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Catholic Charities is a private, religious, social services organization. Since when should there be a law dictating who they choose to help?

Religious organizations have been exempt from other laws they consider immoral.

People are allowed conscientious objector status for not engaging in combat or serving in the military. How is this any different?


54 posted on 11/16/2009 8:23:04 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dynachrome
ping this poll, please
A New Poll
Major Nidal Hasan is:

A terrorist.
Insane, by reason of Islam.
Was only doing his duty to his God.
These answers are all the same.
55 posted on 11/16/2009 8:26:44 AM PST by SouthWall (Obama. The Jimmy Carter of the new century. 2/27/09)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Morgana
yup... i grew up one block from the church, the convent 1/2 block away.

we still have a convent but we're down to two Nuns(i think)from eight when i was young(but then we had a head priest, two juniors and a monk) and as far as wearing the habit, feh. haven't seen one in years.

they don't even have a basketball team anymore.

56 posted on 11/16/2009 3:35:29 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson