From: Stuart d Kirkley [mailto:email@example.com]
Stuart: Yes, it was not only an attack, but it was
essentially a condemnation
of that lifestyle, something the Catholic church, the moral majority
and conservative Christians are especially good at.
AT: This is the most antiCatholic post that I have seen on
this forum. Please explain to me what is so wrong about condemning an
immoral behavior? With your argument, one would also have to put
Jesus into the same category.
Stuart: No, absolutely not. I strongly hold that individual
action should be
tempered by how it impacts on society at large. THe exercise of Free
speech and Free association, if untempered by a social conscience, is
socially irresponsible and self serving. My question is, who get's to
determine what the social ethics are? The Catholic Church? THe
Government? It is up to the individual to determine what is right or
wrong in their own way, and God himself will lead everyone to this
determination throught his infinite wisdom and care for all his
AT: The flaw in this line of reasoning is that even Hitler
himself (and his supporters) could have used it for his defense.
Stuart: FOor any institution to try and ram morality and ethics
down the throat of the people is tyrannical and not in the spirit of
Christ's charity, which states" Whatsoever ye would have done to you,
do it also unto others"
AT: Come, let us reason, Stuart. Does the official
pronouncement of an institution or group constitute coercion? Do
conservatives hold guns to people's heads? Please explain the way in
which you perceive the actions of conservatives to be an act of
ramming morality down someone's throat.
Stuart: The Catholic church is not being asked to give up
it's values. They
are simply being asked to recognise the rights of the individual to
free expression, free speech and free association.
AT: Does the Catholic Church not have a right to free speech
also? Why is it wrong to pronounce condemnation on what she believes
to be immoral behavior? The Catholic Church has been one of the most
ardent defenders of human rights, especially that of the weakest
members of society. There are numerous encyclicals and letters which
have condemn various attacks on human freedom and dignity. Have you
read any? Where do you get your data from?
Stuart: They are being
asked to participate in democracy and honour the civil liberties of
the individual. They don't have to agree with the lifestyle of that
individual, but they should consider the morality of censuring human
rights and civil liberties as their statement against any immorality
AT: Again, I would ask you to explain how the Catholic Church
has "censured human rights and civil liberties".
Stuart: Only the individual can determine if their actions
are right or wrong, and they do this by being honest with themselves
and searching their soul for the right ideas, which God will provide
when they are honestly sought. No institution has the right or moral
authority to force anyone to do this. God is the only power and
authority. As I said before no one has the right or moral authority
to judge or condemn other people, unless their actions are criminal.
IN this case, there is nothing crimi!
about this, and like I said, if people don't learn how to 'live and
let live', then there will always be division, strife, discord and
war in the world.
AT: By this reasoning, it appears that only governments are
allowed to define moral standards since no other body has the
authority to define criminality. What is wrong is whatever is
criminal. Thus one can readily accept abortion on demand, premarital
sex, adultery, viewing pronography etc. But when one travels to
another country, the standards may change. This is a blatent denial
of the absolute morality.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 14:10:52 EDT