Religious Liberty

[Rack Em]

I have to agree with Wooly.

Question Wooly - if you had to make a choice, Trump as president with porn, or Hilldog without porn, who would you vote for?

Trump and Hillary doing a porno together called "Commander-in-Queef"

 

[Irish YJ]

Trump and Hillary doing a porno together called "Commander-in-Queef"

LOL. That would cure a lot of the sex/illegitimate stuff. I don't think I could get it up ever again if I were to see that.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The religious liberty issues today are more like the government requiring you to buy porn and supply it to your employees; requiring that you watch it yourself; and requiring that your kids watch it in school and forbidding you from removing them.

 

[Legacy]

No. Maybe that's how I came off, but I'm assuming that if:

(1) a religious people believes some action to be immoral (because of a religious tenet, a philosophical worldview, a rule, etc.), and

(2) you disagree with that belief and are willing to do or condone the action as acceptable, then

(3) they have a logical basis for considering you to be immoral.

Who is right or wrong? Well that depends on the moral code! And they certainly do differ.

For example, what about racism? Lots of non-religious people consider racism immoral and set a very high bar in that area. If a person said its "obviously reasonable to say that a thing can be OK in moderation or under certain circumstances but harmful if overindulged or in a different set of circumstances, but outright proscriptions on things like racial profiling and discrimination do not seem to serve any moral purpose at all." I bet lots of people would disagree, and consider that person immoral. You may disagree, but that doesn't make them wrong or their moral code necessarily irrational.

Now you are in a position of authority in the government - a judge, for many years. You have a case that differs with your moral beliefs - abortion, assisted suicide, a state has mandated contraception for their health plans, same sex marriage, ending life support, etc. Case law is clearly on the side that advocates an immoral action in your eyes and the arguments for the moral issue with which you agree are flimsy.

You have been a devotee of the rule of law and recognize that your decision will have long-lasting implications. You serve with two other judges with the same beliefs as you. The vote is 2-1.

Which way did you vote? Why? What do you think of the other judges' votes? Who is right and who is wrong? are you immoral if you voted in favor of the immoral action?

 

[irishroo]

I'll address your points in reverse order:

1. I have never argued that secular people are less moral than religious people. But I do tend to role my eyes when someone insists that "secular" morality is somehow different from the religious sort. It isn't, at all. When you state that, "A man ought to do this, but he ought not do that," you are advancing an ethical argument, which must be grounded in some sense of morality. And moral judgment always entails ideas about what a human being is, and what its proper ends are. So we're all addressing the same issues here, regardless of whether you go to church on Sunday or not. Rather than assert that religious people are more moral than secular people, I'd argue that secular people are much more religious than they're willing to admit.
2. Catholic doctrine has developed over time, just as our knowledge of the physical world has advanced. But as with the empirical method, developments must be congruent with what is already known. So the Christian doctrine of spiritual equality before God and the dignity inherent to the human person led the Church to condemn slavery and abortion, because neither practice is congruent with human dignity.
3. See above. The Catholic Church does incorporate new information and "evolve"; but it does so in a way that ensures new developments are congruent with what has come before. Which protects the Church from being carried away by the zeitgeist in favor of some evil fad.

I posted this in the BYU thread:



From a purely sociological perspective, Christian sexual ethics are concerned with channeling sex drives into stable relationships that strengthen society. One doesn't have to look hard to find ample evidence that liberal sexual mores--including the normalization of masturbation and pre-marital sex-- have been disasterous for the West.

I agree with most of your points, so just playing devil's advocate here. How do you address Steven Levitt's proposition (link below) that, from a purely sociological perspective, abortion has been very good for American society - crime rates have decreased sharply, and teenage pregnancy, drug use, and infanticide are down as well.

Abortion and crime: who should you believe? - Freakonomics Freakonomics

 

[NDgradstudent]

I agree with most of your points, so just playing devil's advocate here. How do you address Steven Levitt's proposition (link below) that, from a purely sociological perspective, abortion has been very good for American society - crime rates have decreased sharply, and teenage pregnancy, drug use, and infanticide are down as well.

Abortion and crime: who should you believe? - Freakonomics Freakonomics

First of all, there are serious questions about the accuracy of those claims.

Second, obviously those of us who think that abortion is morally wrong do not believe that it can be justified by the good consequences it might bring in some case. Christian ethics holds that some acts are always wrong, regardless of the consequences they bring about, and directly and intentionally killing the innocent is one of those acts. Even from a consequentialist perspective, however, the deaths of so many fetuses are simply not justified by the consequences they are said to produce. The harm of the killing dramatically outweighs the social improvements.

 

[Cackalacky]

Had to post this. Is this acceptable? Is this religious liberty? I am not on either side just a local story relevant to this thread. I would love to hear other's thoughts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/05/10/the-citadel-will-not-allow-an-exception-to-the-uniform-to-let-a-muslim-student-wear-her-hijab/

The Citadel will not allow a Muslim student to wear a hijab, an exception she had requested to the required uniform to keep her head covered, in keeping with her faith.

The Citadel considers first-ever uniform exception

The Citadel is considering a request from an admitted student that she be allowed to wear a hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
The family of the accepted student is now considering “all legal options,” according to an advocate authorized to speak for them.

The uniform is traditional, and central to the ideals of the nearly 175-year-old public military college in South Carolina, so the fact that it was considering an exception to it for an accepted student set off shock waves among alumni. The idea pleased some in the close-knit corps, who felt it could be an important symbol of religious freedom and inclusiveness. But it upset others who felt it would clash with the mission and ideals of the Citadel, where loyalty, teamwork and uniformity are paramount.

At the Citadel, students are expected to leave behind their individuality — and almost all of their possessions — and form opinions based on character rather than appearance. Allowing one student to wear something completely different struck many as antithetical to that mission. And some objected, as well, because exceptions have apparently not ever been made for other religions. Christian cadets have been told not to display crosses, for example.

That the exception was being considered at a time when the role of Islam in U.S. culture is so polarizing, when presidential candidates and national leaders are debating whether the fight against terrorists is not a fight against the Muslim faith, or whether the religion is fundamentally one of violence, made the issue particularly incendiary far beyond the Charleston, S.C., campus.

A statement from the college president, Lt. Gen. John Rosa, explained that the uniform is central to the leadership training at the college, as cadets give up their individuality to learn teamwork and allegiance to the corps, and its leaders concluded that they could not grant an exception to the required dress. Rosa emphasized their commitment to having a diverse and inclusive campus, and their recognition of the importance of cadets’ religious beliefs. There are several Muslim students enrolled.

(A spokeswoman for the Citadel, Kimberly Keelor, said that a former employee recalled a cadet being allowed to wear long pants rather than shorts for physical training, but they have not found records of that.)

The cadets’ commandant called the student Tuesday morning to inform her, according to Keelor. He also told her he hoped to see her on the grounds in August.

The student cried after the commandant told her, said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations who spoke with the family Tuesday morning. “She told the commandant it wasn’t fair that she has to choose between practicing her faith and going to the Citadel,” he said.

She had worked very hard and had been focused on going to the Citadel for a long time, Hooper said. “That’s why she was so heartbroken,” he said.

She will not attend, he said.

“A complete denial was very shocking,” he said. They had expected their request to be granted. “The father said, ‘We live in a land of laws. These outdated traditions violate that law’ ” that protects religious freedom, Hooper said.

“As far as legal action [is considered], all options are on the table,” he said.

Speaking for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Hooper said not granting religious accommodation was a bar to any practicing Muslim and was not acceptable at a public institution. “Obviously from CAIR’s perspective, as a civil-rights organization, we’re not going to drop this issue,” he said. “We’re going to view it as a continuation of the civil-rights struggles that allowed African Americans and women to have free entry and participation in these types of institutions nationwide.

“There are Muslim women wearing hijab in our nation’s military,” he said. “ … Whether it’s hijab or beards or turbans, to cling to these outdated ‘traditions’ merely out of a sense of not wanting to change anything is, I think, untenable in this day and age and in our increasingly diverse society.”

Asra Nomani, an author and co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement, applauded the Citadel’s decision. “Women and girls, of course, should have a right to wear — or not wear — the headscarf in society, if they wish, but it is truly an insult to the struggle for secularism and civil rights in this country to conflate the headscarf with the struggle for religious and civil liberties in the United States,” she wrote in an email.

She believes the hijab is not required for Muslims, but is an interpretation by “a fundamentalist, puritanical, political Islam.” In her opinion, “Including the headscarf in the Citadel uniform would be equal to including the side curls, or payot, worn by some men and boys in Orthodox Judaism.”

In a statement, CAIR senior staff attorney William Burgess said, “The Citadel violated the student’s right to a religious accommodation under the First Amendment and the South Carolina Religious Freedom Act, which makes it illegal for a state institution to place a burden on a person’s ability to practice his or her faith without the most compelling justification.

“We believe the desire to maintain an outdated ‘tradition,’ which was the same argument used to initially deny admittance to African-Americans and women, does not justify violating a student’s constitutional rights. Our nation’s military currently accommodates religious attire in the form of headscarves, beards and turbans. The Citadel should offer the same accommodations.

“No student should be forced to choose between her faith and an education that can facilitate future service to her nation.”

Nick Pinelli, who just graduated and who set off a social media firestorm when he wrote that the college was considering the religious accommodation, said in a message Tuesday morning: “I believe a thoughtful decision was made by the Board of Visitors, the Commandant of Cadets, and the President. The decision was made after the most careful consideration by all involved and with an immense amount of concern for both equality and reason.

“The Citadel continues to create leaders who are sought after by employers across the state and nation, and this decision is one that focuses on both the importance of freedom, as well as the importance of the 174-year-strong system that has bettered thousands of lives and has created thousands of leaders in the public and private sectors.”

On Tuesday afternoon, he said the reaction he has heard from cadets and alumni has been very positive. He added that he hoped the student in question knew he didn’t mean to hurt her personally or change her goals when he objected to the idea of making an exception. “I really hope that she comes in the fall,” Pinelli said. “Anybody gets a lot out of it – anybody who wants to come gets a lot out of it.”

Keelor said it was a difficult decision. “Though the college heard from many alumni,” she wrote in an email, “the decision was based on the fact that the standardization of cadets in apparel, overall appearance, actions and privileges is essential to the learning goals and objectives of the college.”

[Two Muslim women write about the debate over whether hijab is required; they choose not to wear it]

Tatjana Christian, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army, said, “The Army has a process in place that allows soldiers to request an exception to policy based on their religious practices. Any request for an exception to this policy is considered on a case-by-case basis, considering impact on unit and individual readiness, unit cohesion, morale, discipline and health and safety of the force. We will continue to review the merits of each specific request for religious accommodation.”

Emily Kelley, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, said in a statement: “The U.S. Military Academy values the diversity in the Corps of Cadets. Our Standards of Cadet Conduct and Appearance regulation allows for the wear of religious items that are not visible or apparent when in duty uniform, provided they do not interfere with the performance of the Soldier’s military duties, or interfere with the proper wearing of any authorized article of the uniform. Any requests for religious accommodation are thoughtfully and carefully considered on a case-by-case basis.” No cadet has requested an accommodation to wear a hijab.

The U.S. Naval Academy follows the regulations of the U.S. Navy, according to a spokesman. Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the Navy, said in an email that they support to the maximum extent possible the free exercise of religion and consider unit cohesion, alternatives, and other issues as they take each request on a case-by-case basis. Since the Pentagon updated its policy on religious accommodation in 2014, the Navy has had about 30 requests for religious accommodation.

No sailors have been permitted to wear a hijab while on duty.

No woman cadet at the Virginia Military Institute has worn a hijab, said Col. Stewart D. MacInnis, a spokesman, and he is not aware of any request to do so.

Rosa, the Citadel president, issued a statement Tuesday morning:

"An American Muslim student admitted to the Class of 2020 requested a religious accommodation to wear a head cover, called a hijab, with the standard uniform of the South Carolina Corps of Cadets. While we hope the student will enroll in the college this fall, the Commandant of Cadets, after considerable review, determined the uniform exception cannot be granted. Captain (Retired) Geno Paluso’s decision was made with my support and the support of The Citadel Board of Visitors.

As the Military College of South Carolina, The Citadel has relied upon a highly effective educational model requiring all cadets to adopt a common uniform. Uniformity is the cornerstone of this four-year leader development model. The standardization of cadets in apparel, overall appearance, actions and privileges is essential to the learning goals and objectives of the college. This process reflects an initial relinquishing of self during which cadets learn the value of teamwork to function as a single unit. Upon graduation, The Citadel’s graduates are prepared to enter a life committed to principled leadership in military service and civilian careers.

The Citadel recognizes the importance of a cadet’s spiritual and religious beliefs, providing services for specific needs whenever possible. For example, during the first week of school faith-based organizations on campus and from the community meet with freshmen cadets. Cadet religious officers arrange transportation to churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship for those without cars. Accommodations for prayer and dietary needs are common at the college.

The diversity of religions and cultural backgrounds represented in the Corps enriches the overall cadet experience and better prepares graduates to become principled leaders in all walks of life, underpinned by The Citadel’s core values of honor, duty and respect."

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Murdering the elderly after they've stopped producing would almost undoubtedly be good for America's finances, ER wait times would likely go down, Bob Evans would be less crowded. Something to think about.

 

[woolybug25]

Murdering the elderly after they've stopped producing would almost undoubtedly be good for America's finances, ER wait times would likely go down, Bob Evans would be less crowded. Something to think about.

Virtually no one driving slowly in the passing lane.

 

[NDohio]

I agree with most of your points, so just playing devil's advocate here. How do you address Steven Levitt's proposition (link below) that, from a purely sociological perspective, abortion has been very good for American society - crime rates have decreased sharply, and teenage pregnancy, drug use, and infanticide are down as well.

Abortion and crime: who should you believe? - Freakonomics Freakonomics

How many unwanted pregnancies(aborted and non-aborted) would be prevented if we simply followed Biblical guidance on sex?

 

[Rhode Irish]

There's a fast-growing scientific consensus that pornography is grave public health hazard. The overall American illegitimacy rate is ~40%, while it's over 50% for Hispanics and over 70% for African-Americans. The American divorce rate hovers around 50%. The native fertility rate of virtually every Western nation is significantly lower than replacement levels, and is continuing to drop. In short, there is a mountain of sociological evidence regarding the horrific toll the Sexual Revolution continues to exact on our societies, and yet it remains a sacred cow that Progressives defend with religious fervor.

From a purely sociological perspective, Christian sexual ethics are concerned with channeling sex drives into stable relationships that strengthen society. One doesn't have to look hard to find ample evidence that liberal sexual mores--including the normalization of masturbation and pre-marital sex-- have been disasterous for the West.

Couple things: first, maybe this is made clearer in the larger text, but in the quote you shared (which I have copied back into your post for reference) I see the mention of both pornography and statistics on children born out of wedlock, but I don't see any basis for connecting the two things - and I am struggling to imagine one. I get that children being born into families without two parents is not ideal, but I don't really get how that is related to the supposed Liberal Sexual Revolution.

Second, if you're going to take the position that sexual freedom can potentially have negative societal ramifications and so therefore the sexual impulse of people must be restrained to its logical conclusion, you end up not just telling people they can't masturbate but with the heartbreaking and nausea-inducing practice of FGM.

I suppose this is a philosophical question that goes beyond sex culture, but how do the interests of persons in spending their finite lives in the manner in which they choose compare to the interests of society at-large? To me, the answer is the old maxim that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Short of that, I don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my fist or any other part of my body. Yet religious morality clearly differs, at least from my perspective. If you believe premarital sex is sinful, don't have sex before you are married. I'm not going to interfere in that decision. And if you think that having homosexual sex is sinful, don't do that either. But I have a problem when those value judgments stop being guidelines for your own behavior and they are instead projected outward onto other people. The idea that the morality you want to enforce on other people might have some tenuous impact on human behavior at the macro level is not a good justification to enforce your morality on other people.

Honestly, I have a hard time buying that there is a real cause and effect between people masturbating or having premarital or homosexual sex and the downfall of western civilization. It seems much more likely to me that western civilization will experience some cultural entropy no matter what, and that people with antiquated puritanical beliefs are just ceasing every opportunity to blame aspects of reality they don't like on behavior that they also don't like without any legitimate grounds for doing so.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I agree with most of your points, so just playing devil's advocate here. How do you address Steven Levitt's proposition (link below) that, from a purely sociological perspective, abortion has been very good for American society - crime rates have decreased sharply, and teenage pregnancy, drug use, and infanticide are down as well.

Abortion and crime: who should you believe? - Freakonomics Freakonomics

As Veritate alluded to, there are surely some benefits to encouraging the poor not to reproduce. That was the explicit purpose behind Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League, which later rebranded itself as Planned Parenthood. That's what eugenics is all about-- culling the weak in order to produce a "stronger" society. But that doesn't make it right. It's tragically ironic that America legally dismantled apartheid and then immediately legalized infanticide.

Had to post this. Is this acceptable? Is this religious liberty? I am not on either side just a local story relevant to this thread. I would love to hear other's thoughts.

I'd side with the Citadel on this. Whether or not something is invidious discrimination hinges upon whether it lacks a rational basis. The military exists to prepare for and fight wars. There are eminently rational bases for, say, excluding women from combat roles and insisting that all soldiers dress alike. Those policies aren't "sexist" or "anti-Muslim"; they're just concessions to the reality of war.

Couple things: first, maybe this is made clearer in the larger text, but in the quote you shared (which I have copied back into your post for reference) I see the mention of both pornography and statistics on children born out of wedlock, but I don't see any basis for connecting the two things - and I am struggling to imagine one. I get that children being born into families without two parents is not ideal, but I don't really get how that is related to the supposed Liberal Sexual Revolution.

It was just a bunch of easily assembled statistics showing how our rejection of Christian sexual ethics has resulted in significant measurable harm.

Second, if you're going to take the position that sexual freedom can potentially have negative societal ramifications and so therefore the sexual impulse of people must be restrained to its logical conclusion, you end up not just telling people they can't masturbate but with the heartbreaking and nausea-inducing practice of FGM.

I don't see how that follows. Why then did FGM never become widespread within medieval Europe?

I suppose this is a philosophical question that goes beyond sex culture, but how do the interests of persons in spending their finite lives in the manner in which they choose compare to the interests of society at-large? To me, the answer is the old maxim that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Short of that, I don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my fist or any other part of my body. Yet religious morality clearly differs, at least from my perspective. If you believe premarital sex is sinful, don't have sex before you are married. I'm not going to interfere in that decision. And if you think that having homosexual sex is sinful, don't do that either. But I have a problem when those value judgments stop being guidelines for your own behavior and they are instead projected outward onto other people. The idea that the morality you want to enforce on other people might have some tenuous impact on human behavior at the macro level is not a good justification to enforce your morality on other people.

That's the great conceit of liberalism--that morality can somehow be privatized, and the public sphere can be governed in a "neutral" way. But neutrality is an illusion. Politics is the process of deciding how we ought to live together, and oughts always involve moral principle.

IIRC, you lean left politically. So you'd likely agree that it's harmful to society when corporations and the very wealthy act selfishly by evading taxes, hoarding their assets, etc. Christian scholars (at least before the Reformation) would agree with you. So why is it so difficult to understand that sex, which relates to some of humanity's strongest impulses and governs the propagation of our species, can also result in serious societal harm when selfish behavior is normalized?

Honestly, I have a hard time buying that there is a real cause and effect between people masturbating or having premarital or homosexual sex and the downfall of western civilization. It seems much more likely to me that western civilization will experience some cultural entropy no matter what, and that people with antiquated puritanical beliefs are just ceasing every opportunity to blame aspects of reality they don't like on behavior that they also don't like without any legitimate grounds for doing so.

It's not just sex. It's selfishness. Humanity progresses when we act less selfishly. Liberalism, which glorifies the autonomous individual, is selfishness politicized. And it has for centuries been corroding the Christian foundation of Western civilization. Now, as we're finally casting off from some of those most basic moorings, we're seeing various tipping points of instability-- economically, as inequality widens; socially, as individuals become increasingly isolated from one another; and sexually, as native birth rates continue to plunge and virtually every Western nation begins graying toward its death.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's the great conceit of liberalism--that morality can somehow be privatized, and the public sphere can be governed in a "neutral" way. But neutrality is an illusion. Politics is the process of deciding how we ought to live together, and oughts always involve moral principle.

IIRC, you lean left politically. So you'd likely agree that it's harmful to society when corporations and the very wealthy act selfishly by evading taxes, hoarding their assets, etc. Christian scholars (at least before the Reformation) would agree with you. So why is it so difficult to understand that sex, which relates to some of humanity's strongest impulses and governs the propagation of our species, can also result in serious societal harm when selfish behavior is normalized?

Couple things on this. Corporations cheating on taxes or contributing to environmental degradation is a much more proximate cause of societal harm than any of the things sexual morality is concerned with. Further, sexuality is an intensely personal thing, whereas corporations are participants in a public marketplace - and many of them are publicly owned companies - and so the interest in society regulating them is much more apparent than in regulating individuals sexual activity, or really any private behavior practiced by individuals which don't have any direct impact on anyone else - for better or for worse.

It's not just sex. It's selfishness. Humanity progresses when we act less selfishly. Liberalism, which glorifies the autonomous individual, is selfishness politicized. And it has for centuries been corroding the Christian foundation of Western civilization. Now, as we're finally casting off from some of those most basic moorings, we're seeing various tipping points of instability-- economically, as inequality widens; socially, as individuals become increasingly isolated from one another; and sexually, as native birth rates continue to plunge and virtually every Western nation begins graying toward its death.

I just think this a philosophical difference between us, and likely a lot of people that fall on either side of the political spectrum. Throughout all of human history individuals were subjugated by the State - the majority of people were not free in any real sense. That that arrangement was better for States is neither surprising nor a compelling argument for reversing course. The "liberalization" (in its definitional sense) of society has been a remarkably good thing for individuals. There has never been a better, safer, more prosperous, more fulfilling time to be alive in the history of our planet. That certain old-world institutions may suffer and even face extinction as a result is not troublesome to me - that is the natural order of things.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Now you are in a position of authority in the government - a judge, for many years. You have a case that differs with your moral beliefs - abortion, assisted suicide, a state has mandated contraception for their health plans, same sex marriage, ending life support, etc. Case law is clearly on the side that advocates an immoral action in your eyes and the arguments for the moral issue with which you agree are flimsy.

You have been a devotee of the rule of law and recognize that your decision will have long-lasting implications. You serve with two other judges with the same beliefs as you. The vote is 2-1.

Which way did you vote? Why? What do you think of the other judges' votes? Who is right and who is wrong? are you immoral if you voted in favor of the immoral action?

There may be times where being a judge and enforcing the law is immoral. If the law said you had to put a soldier to death for, say, refusing to obey an order of a superior officer to kill an innocent civilian, that law would be unjust and you would be immoral for enforcing it.

In that case, as an arm of the state, the judge is part of the immoral activity: using state power to kill an innocent person (here, the soldier). He is the one that judges the facts, and the murder is actually done upon his authority. You would probably either have to give up your position or refuse to enforce the law in order to avoid becoming complicit.

In other cases, the judge may not actually have a hand in the immoral activity. If someone challenges, say, a state statute de-criminalizing prostitution on constitutional grounds, and the constitution does not actually mandate the prohibition of prostitution, then the judge could decide that case without ever being involved in the prostitution. No prostitution may ever occur under that statute and no one is being forced to sell themselves.

But the bigger point is that people shouldn't be so shocked at being considered immoral under other people's worldviews. Why should I care what Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons or Pentecostals or Universalists think of my lifestyle?

Some couples might think its fine to have an open marriage. They might both agree that it is fine and be very careful and respectful about the arrangmeent. But Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and I imagine other religions, says that is immoral. So, from that perspective, those people are immoral.

The "liberalization" (in its definitional sense) of society has been a remarkably good thing for individuals.

There has never been a better, safer, more prosperous, more fulfilling time to be alive in the history of our planet.

That certain old-world institutions may suffer and even face extinction as a result is not troublesome to me - that is the natural order of the world.

How do you know any of these three things?

How do we know that people weren't happier before? What did the polls in 1325 say? Are we talking about aggregate happiness of all people? What does that mean? Are we talking the highs being higher, the lows not being so low, or the mean being higher?

If people are really happier, how do you know technology, and not liberalism, is the reason? Maybe we are happier because we have antibiotics and safer because of nuclear deterrence and police surveillance?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Couple things on this. Corporations cheating on taxes or contributing to environmental degradation is a much more proximate cause of societal harm than any of the things sexual morality is concerned with. Further, sexuality is an intensely personal thing, whereas corporations are participants in a public marketplace - and many of them are publicly owned companies - and so the interest in society regulating them is much more apparent than in regulating individuals sexual activity, or really any private behavior practiced by individuals which don't have any direct impact on anyone else - for better or for worse.

When a society's birth rate plummets far below the replacement rate, and when an increasingly large % of its citizens are raised in unstable broken homes (due to selfish decisions made by "sexually liberated" adults), the harm is going to be much more proximate and widespread than that caused by corporations.

I just think this a philosophical difference between us, and likely a lot of people that fall on either side of the political spectrum. Throughout all of human history individuals were subjugated by the State - the majority people were not free in any real sense. That that arrangement was better for States is neither surprising nor a compelling argument for reversing course. The "liberalization" (in its definitional sense) of society has been a remarkably good thing for individuals. There has never been a better, safer, more prosperous, more fulfilling time to be alive in the history of our planet. That certain old-world institutions may suffer and even face extinction as a result is not troublesome to me - that is the natural order of the world.

That sentiment is widespread among those who share your politics, but it doesn't survive even a cursory study of human history. Civilization is a fragile and hard-won thing. All the accomplishments of the West-- the peace, tolerance, technological advancement, wealth, etc.-- are the fruits of centuries of Christian peoples making selfless decisions. Just look at how "successful" we've been at transplanting Western political institutions in the soil of the Middle East...

Unfortunately lots of modern people in the West take that all for granted, and assume it will just carry on as before regardless of what they do. So, like trust fund babies without a clue as to how one accumulates and maintains wealth, they piss that hard-won patrimony away. We might be able to get away with that for a generation or two, but it's obviously unsustainable.

But please. Go ahead and take a sledge hammer to civilizational pillars like the nuclear family and sexual complementarity. You obviously know better than the combined wisdom of thousands of previous generations.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Whiskey - my genealogical, intellectual and cultural forebears were undoubtedly Christian, but I don't know if that was their defining feature or more of a historical accident. I'm also not sure that, natural resources being what they are, a slowing of the population growth is a terribly bad thing. Nor am I sure that enough people are being born into untenable home situations to cause the downfall of society, even though I do recognize the emergency of the situation on an individual level. I am sure that I am not nearly as concerned as you that a post-religious culture will be unable to continue the progress of human civilization well into the future. I do not want to take a sledge hammer to anything, but if some institutions fall when others rise I'm not going to fret about it.

Domina - I don't know of any available public polling from the 14th century, but I do know that based on my (admittedly non-PhD level) knowledge of how the average person has lived throughout the course of human history, I would not trade places with a one of them.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey - my genealogical, intellectual and cultural forebears were undoubtedly Christian, but I don't know if that was their defining feature or more of a historical accident.

If not Christianity, what was the overriding feature of the society your forebears grew up in? Put another way, do you have a theory for why Christendom gave the world its first universities, hospitals, the scientific method, etc., when no other civilization managed to produce anything comparable?

I'm also not sure that, natural resources being what they are, a slowing of the population growth is a terribly bad thing.

Wooly and I discussed this in the BYU thread. "Over-population" is a function of both demographic numbers and consumption patterns. If we fixed the latter, the former wouldn't be an issue at all. Regardless, if we don't find a way to increase our birth rate and raise future generations of Americans in a more stable and civic-minded fashion, our problems (funding the welfare state, defending our nation, etc.) will be much more immediate than resource scarcity.

I am sure that I am not nearly as concerned as you that a post-religious culture will be unable to continue the progress of human civilization well into the future. I do not want to take a sledge hammer to anything, but if some institutions fall when others rise I'm not going to fret about it.

This brings us back to the issue I brought up initially in this post-- we have very different understandings of what makes civilization possible. I think there's a very strong case that Christianity is the foundation of Western civilization, and that it's directly responsible for much of what we enjoy today. Which is why I'm anxious to see us aggressively de-Christianizing. The ideologies that are replacing Christianity as the culturally normative forces in America are clearly not up to the task of instilling virtue and forming a citizenry that is able to overcome passion and prejudice in the interest of the greater good.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Got some thoughts on this, too. But unfortunately I have to duck out. Hopefully the conversation has not moved on too far by the time I get back.

 

[woolybug25]

If not Christianity, what was the overriding feature of the society your forebears grew up in? Put another way, do you have a theory for why Christendom gave the world its first universities, hospitals, the scientific method, etc., when no other civilization managed to produce anything comparable?



Wooly and I discussed this in the BYU thread. "Over-population" is a function of both demographic numbers and consumption patterns. If we fixed the latter, the former wouldn't be an issue at all. Regardless, if we don't find a way to increase our birth rate and raise future generations of Americans in a more stable and civic-minded fashion, our problems (funding the welfare state, defending our nation, etc.) will be much more immediate than resource scarcity.



This brings us back to the issue I brought up initially in this post-- we have very different understandings of what makes civilization possible. I think there's a very strong case that Christianity is the foundation of Western civilization, and that it's directly responsible for much of what we enjoy today. Which is why I'm anxious to see us aggressively de-Christianizing. The ideologies that are replacing Christianity as the culturally normative forces in America are clearly not up to the task of instilling virtue and forming a citizenry that is able to overcome passion and prejudice in the interest of the greater good.

Re: your second paragraph, I never got a chance to respond last time. I disagree with your premise here. Overpopulation is certainly a component of both number of people and consumption, but that's not the story here. The countries with the highest levels of consumption aren't the countries a) being effected most by the results of overpopulation and b) the ones with the highest rates of reproduction. Americans couldn't just become "good Christians" and consume less and have the problem disappear. That won't actually fix the problem in the countries being effected most.

Regarding your other points, I also disagree that Christianity has a stranglehold on morality. What makes western civilization great is democracy not Christianity. You could say they are intertwined, but I would simply give you Isreal as an example. You could say that much of what we enjoy was brought to us by Christianity, but I would remind you that things like philosophy, astronomy and modern architectural principles were all brought to us from non Christian societies.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Re: your second paragraph, I never got a chance to respond last time. I disagree with your premise here. Overpopulation is certainly a component of both number of people and consumption, but that's not the story here. The countries with the highest levels of consumption aren't the countries a) being effected most by the results of overpopulation and b) the ones with the highest rates of reproduction. Americans couldn't just become "good Christians" and consume less and have the problem disappear. That won't actually fix the problem in the countries being effected most.

We've been talking about the West. The countries where "overpopulation" is most pressing aren't western; Christians do not make up a significant portion of their populations, and they've only recently begun to imitate western political institutions. And there, as here, the problem is being exacerbated by current patterns of consumption (increasingly western). I think they'd be better off promoting more local, sustainable and communitarian modes of living alongside Christian sexual ethics; imposing western solutions on eastern civilizations hasn't worked well lately, but they likely can't cause more harm than China's birth control policies have already done.

Regarding your other points, I also disagree that Christianity has a stranglehold on morality. What makes western civilization great is democracy not Christianity. You could say they are intertwined, but I would simply give you Isreal as an example. You could say that much of what we enjoy was brought to us by Christianity, but I would remind you that things like philosophy, astronomy and modern architectural principles were all brought to us from non Christian societies.

Judeo-Christian values also explain Israel quite well, which actually supports my argument. And I never meant to claim that Christianity "has a stranglehold on morality"; the ancient Greeks and Romans also made unprecedented advances in civilization, which medieval Christendom assimilated into its philosophy. So when I tout "Christendom" as the foundation of Western Civilization, I'm referring to those achievements as well-- Augustine's Romanism, Aquinas' Aristotelian fusion, etc.

But even if you want to focus only on the pre-Christian ancients, it's only going to build the case against liberalism. Pietas was a primary virtue for both the Greeks and the Romans. The concept of an "autonomous individual" would have been completely incomprehensible to them.

 

[Legacy]

There may be times where being a judge and enforcing the law is immoral. If the law said you had to put a soldier to death for, say, refusing to obey an order of a superior officer to kill an innocent civilian, that law would be unjust and you would be immoral for enforcing it.

In that case, as an arm of the state, the judge is part of the immoral activity: using state power to kill an innocent person (here, the soldier). He is the one that judges the facts, and the murder is actually done upon his authority. You would probably either have to give up your position or refuse to enforce the law in order to avoid becoming complicit.

In other cases, the judge may not actually have a hand in the immoral activity. If someone challenges, say, ....

DN,
I thought there'd be some value in hearing your responses if you were in the position of a judge faced with the challenge of choosing the rule of law over his moral beliefs while knowing his choice would have long-lasting consequences. Pick any of those issues - abortion, same sex marriage, withdrawing life support, bathroom laws, etc

Perhaps you think case law and your moral beliefs on all issues are the same.

Or perhaps you could never be a judge knowing that at some time in your career you would have to decide against what you believe is moral.

 

[Legacy]

Whiskey,
We are not a theocracy, never have been, never will be. We allow anyone with minority religious views to worship as they please. Should you or anyone wish to challenge judicial decisions brouht on issues perceived as moral issues, you have that right, but risk decisions that you may disagree with. That doesn't mean they are immoral or that those judges are immoral. That's the reality when religion crosses into government. That's the trouble with evangelical conservatism inflicting beliefs through government. We are not condemned by other countries with dominant religions unless you regard ISIS as an entity. You would find yourself on the same footing as them. When religion becomes the dominate driving force in some legislators, we've seen federal government obstructed. The primary obligation of legislators is to govern effectively. That's not liberalism or any other ism. This victimization some espouse gets old fast. Wars on whatever disrespect those who believe otherwise.

Just to clarify. Your porno link article does not cite the stats you followed up with, as you seem to indicate. Stats can be useful but you are not indicating that some racial groups are less moral than others? Or that a decrease in those stats means an improvement in their mores? Your causative argument is weak in my opinion. I trust you will not apply liberalism to this.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey,
We are not a theocracy, never have been, never will be.

Where did I argue for theocracy? I'm a big fan of the separation of Church and State, mostly because it protects the Church from corruption.

We allow anyone with minority religious views to worship as they please.

Where did I argue otherwise? Though you'll note that the First Amendment protects the "free exercise" of religion, and not merely the "freedom of worship". Progressives have been aggressively trying to drive religion from the public square by defining the former down to the latter.

Should you or anyone wish to challenge judicial decisions brouht on issues perceived as moral issues, you have that right, but risk decisions that you may disagree with. That doesn't mean they are immoral or that those judges are immoral. That's the reality when religion crosses into government. That's the trouble with evangelical conservatism inflicting beliefs through government. We are not condemned by other countries with dominant religions unless you regard ISIS as an entity. You would find yourself on the same footing as them. When religion becomes the dominate driving force in some legislators, we've seen federal government obstructed. The primary obligation of legislators is to govern effectively. That's not liberalism or any other ism. This victimization some espouse gets old fast. Wars on whatever disrespect those who believe otherwise.

This is all over the place, so I won't bother addressing it point by point. My argument is this: all political problems are religious disputes at root. The political principles enshrined in our Constitution are uniquely Christian, and as John Adams stated: "[It] was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

You recently quoted Tocqueville about American greatness being tied to the morality of its citizens. Here's the full passage:

“I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers – and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce – and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution – and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

Everything that is good about this country was inherited from Christendom. And as Tocqueville noted nearly 200 years ago, our only bulwark against tyranny is a virtuous, self-reliant citizenry. Today, our society is rapidly de-Christianizing, and the secular ideologies being offered in its stead are manifestly insufficient to forming the virtuous, self-reliant citizenry we require to keep our republic intact.

I am not calling for a papist conspiracy to overthrow the government, nor do I miss the days of Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority". But I do think Americans of all political persuasions need to think very hard about what makes our country special, why our forebears were able to build such a remarkable republic, and how those things can be maintained going forward.

 

[GoIrish41]

Though you'll note that the First Amendment protects the "free exercise" of religion, and not merely the "freedom of worship".

I've been lurking in this thread for a week or so, and have enjoyed the discussion. It helps me to more fully understand where people are coming from. To that end, I'd be interested in what you see as the differences between "free exercise of religion" and the "freedom of worship." Is one the ability to actively pursue a life in which the principles of the religion can be put into practice, and the other more akin to permitting people to participate in the rituals of their faith, but not necessarily the ability to practically apply the princciples? I'll admit, I would typically not see much space between "free exercise ..." and "freedom of worship," but I'd like to understand how you see it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I've been lurking in this thread for a week or so, and have enjoyed the discussion. It helps me to more fully understand where people are coming from. To that end, I'd be interested in what you see as the differences between "free exercise of religion" and the "freedom of worship." Is one the ability to actively pursue a life in which the principles of the religion can be put into practice, and the other more akin to permitting people to participate in the rituals of their faith, but not necessarily the ability to practically apply the princciples in practice? I'll admit, I would typically not see much space between "free exercise ..." and "freedom of worship," but I'd like to understand how you see it.

Freedom of worship refers to what happens within the confines of a church, mosque, synagogue, etc.; and it's never (at least not yet) been controversial in America. But freedom of religion is a much broader thing, that can involve what one eats, how one dresses, when one works, etc. All things that involve the public square. So Progressive attempts to define "freedom of religion" down to merely the "freedom of worship" are rhetorical attempts to strip religion of its constitutional protections in the public square.

 

[GoIrish41]

Freedom of worship refers to what happens within the confines of a church, mosque, synagogue, etc.; and it's never (at least not yet) been controversial in America. But freedom of religion is a much broader thing, that can involve what one eats, how one dresses, when one works, etc. All things that involve the public square. So Progressive attempts to define "freedom of religion" down to merely the "freedom of worship" are rhetorical attempts to strip religion of its constitutional protections in the public square.

Someone should have told my grandmother that the 30 minutes of prayer she did every day at home didn't count because she wasn't in the church.

I understand on a conceptual level, but I'm having trouble thinking of examples in which these types of controls have been placed on Christians in this country. Are people being told they can't eat certain things, or wear certain clothing? Is it that people have to work Sundays? I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I don't understand where the actual problem is. I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that Christians are being persecuted. I see a lot of people talking about it, but I'm not really clear what they are talking about. Nothing that is obvious to me tells me that this is a real problem. But, when I see guys whose opinions and intellect I have respect for making these arguments, I think that maybe I'm missing something.

I understand, even if I don't agree with, the perceived problem with Obamacare forcing Catholic hospitals to provide birth control, and even the baker who doesn't want to provide a cake to a gay wedding. But these persistent arguments about religion being cast aside by liberals (many who are actually Christians) seems like a reach to me. But again, maybe I'm missing something even though it is staring me in the face.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Freedom of worship refers to what happens within the confines of a church, mosque, synagogue, etc.; and it's never (at least not yet) been controversial in America. But freedom of religion is a much broader thing, that can involve what one eats, how one dresses, when one works, etc. All things that involve the public square. So Progressive attempts to define "freedom of religion" down to merely the "freedom of worship" are rhetorical attempts to strip religion of its constitutional protections in the public square.

Could you provide some examples of religion being stripped of these rights in the public square?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Could you provide some examples of religion being stripped of these rights in the public square?

Sure. Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shutter its adoption services because the Church teaches that children are entitled to both a mother and father, and that's apparently invidious discrimination against same-sex couples.

Then there's King v. Burwell, in which the Obama HHS attempted to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide their employees with birth control and abortofacients.

And the ACLU is currently suing Catholic hospitals to force them to perform abortions.

And in light of today's joint edict from Obama's DoE and DoJ regarding bathroom access for the gender dysphoric, who knows how much longer Catholic grade schools will be able to operate according to Church teachings that secular Progressives equate with rank bigotry?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Could you provide some examples of religion being stripped of these rights in the public square?

(1) The HHS mandate;
(2) The recent effort in Wyoming to remove a judge from office who would not perform same-sex marriages as part of her discretionary duties;
(3) The EEOC attack upon religious schools' employment practices (stopped for a time by the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC but likely to come around again).

These are things that have happened already; much more will come. In the academy, proposals are regularly made to deny tax-exempt status to churches and institutions that do not toe the government's line on various issues.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Someone should have told my grandmother that the 30 minutes of prayer she did every day at home didn't count because she wasn't in the church.

I understand on a conceptual level, but I'm having trouble thinking of examples in which these types of controls have been placed on Christians in this country. Are people being told they can't eat certain things, or wear certain clothing? Is it that people have to work Sundays? I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I don't understand where the actual problem is. I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that Christians are being persecuted. I see a lot of people talking about it, but I'm not really clear what they are talking about. Nothing that is obvious to me tells me that this is a real problem. But, when I see guys whose opinions and intellect I have respect for making these arguments, I think that maybe I'm missing something.

I understand, even if I don't agree with, the perceived problem with Obamacare forcing Catholic hospitals to provide birth control, and even the baker who doesn't want to provide a cake to a gay wedding. But these persistent arguments about religion being cast aside by liberals (many who are actually Christians) seems like a reach to me. But again, maybe I'm missing something even though it is staring me in the face.

In addition to the examples given above, there's also the speech code for lawyers recently proposed by the American Bar Association. My oldest son is an argumentative little sh!t (much like his dad was), and I'm sure he'll make a fine lawyer himself someday. I'd love to hand my practice over to him when he's older, but it's conceivable that orthodox Catholics, Jews and Muslims won't be permitted to serve in publicly sanctioned professions at that point because our views on sexual ethics conflict with liberalism.

I'm not interested in inflicting my religious beliefs on anyone else. But the powers that be are very interested in persecuting Catholic institutions for adhering to Catholic doctrine. I don't think it's too much to ask that we be allowed to maintain the religious freedom necessary to run our institutions in line with our beliefs, particularly in light of all the good that Catholic charities accomplish.