religous freedom cases

As my sig line says, error has no rights. I don't have time to make a long post on the Church's teachings, but it you are so inclined, I recommend two resources for you. The first is a talk from Charles Coulombe and William Biersach on the Syllabus of Errors. You can find it on this page:

That talk will run you an hour, but it's well worth it. The only problem I have with Coulombe is his Feeneyism, but it doesn't play a role on that tape. For something less time consuming, please see this article by Crean O.P.
Error may have no rights, but I object to a secular government deciding what is error and what is not.

So, if it's a choice between the federal government trying to stamp out what it thinks is error, as opposed to saying that religion is none of the government's business, I would always choose the latter.

Even if it's a Catholic government, it's not the Church itself that is doing the governing, and temporal rulers have often seen things quite differently than the Church does.

But even if you want to give that kind of temporal power to the Church itself, you do realize, I hope, that it is not some idealized "true Church" who would have that power -- it is the current hierarchy. While YOU might have complete confidence in the current hierarchy to make good decisions and not misuse their power, there are at least some people, even here on FishEaters, who would not trust the current crop of bishops as far as they could throw them. And they want to give these bishops police powers? Even, as the example was, power to inspect people's pockets?
Remember that the original question was about whether Christians could be fired from their jobs for wearing a cross or for refusing to do something against their conscience.
Catholics do have the right to "religious freedom", but people of other religions do not.  Popes even before Vatican II have used the phrase "religious freedom" for Catholics:
"Pope Pius XI, On the Church and the German Reich" Wrote:At a time when your faith, like gold, is being tested in the fire of tribulation and persecution, when your religious freedom is beset on all sides, when the lack of religious teaching and of normal defense is heavily weighing on you, you have every right to words of truth and spiritual comfort from him whose first predecessor heard these words from the Lord: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke xxii. 32).

My only point is that the concept of "religious freedom" is not entirely bogus - only the way it is understood today (and was condemned by other Popes).

The truth will set you free - and you must be free to follow it, but not to follow error.  Error may be tolerated, under some circumstances, but not treated as though it were a right.

ETA:  I think these general principles are right, but agree that their practical application today is extremely difficult, or virtually impossible.  We can't overcome current governments, and the freedom (even if wrong) of non-Catholics, and replace them by the current Church. We need to understand the principles and act prudently (easier said than done).
(09-06-2012, 05:25 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(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.

Well, I don't advocate the forcing of anyone to do anything.  All I'm saying is that error should be acknowledged in law.

Many Catholic states allowed for false religions to worship.  They allowed for people to reject Catholicism.  But they never claimed that it was man's God-given right to do so.  It was a practical decision and not a philosophical one.
(09-06-2012, 08:01 PM)NOtard Wrote: Error may have no rights, but I object to a secular government deciding what is error and what is not.

Well, that's getting to the heart of the matter.  Secular government shouldn't exist and if the First Amendment were thrown out tomorrow (with the correct intentions), then America would be that much closer to a Catholic state.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)