FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: religous freedom cases
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Four British Christians have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. All of them lost cases regarding job problems for what they say are their religous beliefs.
The four are British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, relationship counseler GAry McFarlane and registrar Lillian ladele.
Eweida was suspended from her work as check-in clerk at British Airways in 2006 for wearing a small cross around her neck.
Chaplin was also moved from her job as a ward nurse for wearing a cross.
MacFarlane was fired for refusing to give relationship advice to homosexual couples.
Ladele, a marriage rregistrar for Islington Council in London, was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil parrnership ceremonies.   
Religious freedom is an evil idea which pollutes the minds of men into grave error and endangers their souls.
(09-06-2012, 02:46 AM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]Religious freedom is an evil idea which pollutes the minds of men into grave error and endangers their souls.

Noooooo...you're ruining it!

We simply have to read the Syllabus, Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, any orthodox theologian or manual from before the Council, even Pius XII in 1953 (Ci Riesce) in a different light. Religious liberty is actually a human right!
Are you saying that British Airways is right, and that the four Christians do not have any right to wear crosses, etc.?
(09-06-2012, 11:18 AM)NOtard Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying that British Airways is right, and that the four Christians do not have any right to wear crosses, etc.?

Nope.  They do have the right to wear crosses.  They do not have a God-given right, however, to wear a Hindu aum symbol, a Wiccan necklace, or to carry a miniature Buddha in their pocket.
(09-06-2012, 11:22 AM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2012, 11:18 AM)NOtard Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying that British Airways is right, and that the four Christians do not have any right to wear crosses, etc.?

Nope.  They do have the right to wear crosses.  They do not have a God-given right, however, to wear a Hindu aum symbol, a Wiccan necklace, or to carry a miniature Buddha in their pocket.

In this case, it was Christians, two of whom were punished for wearing crosses, and two of whom were punished for refusing to do other actions based on their religious beliefs.  Do you at least believe in religious freedom for Christians to be able to do this?  It doesn't say that they were Catholics, but they could well have been. Do you at least believe in religious freedom for Catholics?

The problem is that I don't want a secular government deciding, and trying to enforce, what they think is, or is not, a God-given right.

In fact, whether or not anyone has a God-given right to carry a miniature Buddha in their pocket, I really don't want to give the government the power to check people's pockets.  Perhaps this might work in some sort of ideal world, but in the real world, it is just as likely to be turned against Catholics.
(09-06-2012, 12:31 PM)NOtard Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2012, 11:22 AM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2012, 11:18 AM)NOtard Wrote: [ -> ]Are you saying that British Airways is right, and that the four Christians do not have any right to wear crosses, etc.?

Nope.  They do have the right to wear crosses.  They do not have a God-given right, however, to wear a Hindu aum symbol, a Wiccan necklace, or to carry a miniature Buddha in their pocket.

In this case, it was Christians, two of whom were punished for wearing crosses, and two of whom were punished for refusing to do other actions based on their religious beliefs.  Do you at least believe in religious freedom for Christians to be able to do this?  It doesn't say that they were Catholics, but they could well have been. Do you at least believe in religious freedom for Catholics?

The problem is that I don't want a secular government deciding, and trying to enforce, what they think is, or is not, a God-given right.

In fact, whether or not anyone has a God-given right to carry a miniature Buddha in their pocket, I really don't want to give the government the power to check people's pockets.  Perhaps this might work in some sort of ideal world, but in the real world, it is just as likely to be turned against Catholics.

Practically speaking, yes, this can be turned against Catholics, but just as we can't use sin to bring about evil, so too can we not use error to bring about truth.

The First Amendment is an Enlightenment ideal which uses the law to emphasize the philosophical claim that all men have a God-given right to practice whatever religion they want.  This has always been condemned by the Church because error has no right to exist.  Why?  Because the only thing that has a right to exist is truth.  Error and untruth only lead to greater confusion.

The First Amendment, then, is a scandal which leads one to believe that man's rights supersede the First Commandment.  It's nothing but an acknowledgment of religious pluralism.
(09-06-2012, 01:38 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]The First Amendment is an Enlightenment ideal which uses the law to emphasize the philosophical claim that all men have a God-given right to practice whatever religion they want.  This has always been condemned by the Church because error has no right to exist.  Why?  Because the only thing that has a right to exist is truth.  Error and untruth only lead to greater confusion.

The First Amendment, then, is a scandal which leads one to believe that man's rights supersede the First Commandment.  It's nothing but an acknowledgment of religious pluralism.

I've always understood it as saying, rather, that the secular government has no business making decisions in this matter.  I have to answer to God for my beliefs, but I shouldn't have to answer to the police.

We do, after all, live in a society together with many different kinds of Christians, as well as Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Mormons, atheists, Jews, etc.  The police, which you would have enforce religious laws, are not even necessarily going to be Catholic, and quite possibly not even Christian.  Why should they have a right to enforce proper religion?  They don't even necessarily know what it is!  Their idea of the proper religion to enforce might well be quite contrary to Catholicism!  Do you want to go back to the times when Catholics were persecuted for not attending heretical church services?
(09-06-2012, 03:53 PM)NOtard Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2012, 01:38 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]The First Amendment is an Enlightenment ideal which uses the law to emphasize the philosophical claim that all men have a God-given right to practice whatever religion they want.  This has always been condemned by the Church because error has no right to exist.  Why?  Because the only thing that has a right to exist is truth.  Error and untruth only lead to greater confusion.

The First Amendment, then, is a scandal which leads one to believe that man's rights supersede the First Commandment.  It's nothing but an acknowledgment of religious pluralism.

I've always understood it as saying, rather, that the secular government has no business making decisions in this matter.  I have to answer to God for my beliefs, but I shouldn't have to answer to the police.

We do, after all, live in a society together with many different kinds of Christians, as well as Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Mormons, atheists, Jews, etc.  The police, which you would have enforce religious laws, are not even necessarily going to be Catholic, and quite possibly not even Christian.  Why should they have a right to enforce proper religion?  They don't even necessarily know what it is!  Their idea of the proper religion to enforce might well be quite contrary to Catholicism!  Do you want to go back to the times when Catholics were persecuted for not attending heretical church services?

I sort of see it between you and Walty.

Error has no rights, only Truth. But the Church doesn't have to necessarily exercise her right to demand that this be enforced in every way possible.

In the United States or in any European country right now, it's not just practical to enforce liberty for Catholic practices but not for others. States are secular and evil, and the best policy seems to be "non-Catholic states should keep their paws off religion."

So Buddhists should be allowed to do whatever Buddhist stuff, but not because they actually have the right ... but because as a matter of practical policy the State shouldn't get involved in religion unless it's a Catholic State.
That's reasonable.

There are Muslim states, like Saudi Arabia or Iran, and atheists states, which attempt to enforce their idea of "truth". Much as we deplore this behaviour, there's not a lot we can do about it. Catholics have the option of staying well clear of such places, not practicing their faith, practicing it underground, or puttng their lives at risk (or some combination thereof). Not a good situation.

I object to Walty wanting to let the Church of England esatablishment, or the Obama administration, or any other non-Catholic government, in charge of enforcing Catholicism as they might decide it should be.

In fact, wasn't there a thread here a while ago, where people were OBJECTING to the government enforcing Catholicism by silencing (I don't remember the details) a sedevacantist priest for claiming that he was a Catholic priest? And that's when the government IS enforcing Catholicism, rather than atheism or some other ism.
Pages: 1 2