Politics & Religion, where do we draw the line?

Remove all ads!

How about a law banning torture? Or how does the Bush administration explain it as: "Enhanced interrogation techniques?" You want to know where to Draw the Line? How about if our leaders just start living up to any standards that might even appear to be remotely "religious?" And don't forget to destroy the tapes when you are finished....

 

Obviously we cannot separate our beliefs, religious or non-religious, from our political actions. If I believe that in something I will vote for the person whose actions and words most nearly reflect what I believe.

IE: I believe in the sanctity of the home therefore I will vote for someone that I believe will respect the home.

 

Tony Blair converts to Catholicism

An interesting addendum to this thread: Tony Blair - yes, he of former U.K. premiership and the Iraq invasion - has recently converted to Catholicism. Interesting, particularly, because of the legislation he voted for during his time in politics and which the Labour party under him produced. Support for abortion, single-sex relationships... all stuff which strikes me as distinctly opposed to doctrine. Of course, that may well explain why he left it until he had departed office to convert. But how does he reconcile past actions with current faith? I'm looking for an answer from chev or someone else similarly well-informed, here. Blair was long known to have Catholic sympathies - his wife is Catholic, his children have been raised Catholics and he told an Archbishop that he was "Catholic in his heart", which makes the dichotomy of policy and private conviction all the more puzzling.

Discussion of politicians' religion isn't usually done in the British system. Anecdotally, when Blair was asked a question about his personal faith shortly after being elected Labour leader, Alistair Campbell intervened, putting his hand over the microphone, saying: "We don't do religion." Recently, we've had the new Liberal Democrat leader "come out" as an agnostic, now this. Is the British system's disregard for religion amongst politicians healthier than, say, the American one, where only a card-carrying Christian has a hope of getting elected. If Blair was reluctant to convert during his premiership, could that be because he feared being pilloried for it? Generally, I think it is: religion and the state should keep a dignified distance, to avoid bias. But (as Montresor hinted) if this gives the appearance of over-secularisation, does it help? Minority religious groups in particular may feel doubly alienated. Islam stands out as the most obvious example, but there are others.

 

@Magpie: Joining the Catholic Church does not mean abandoning the idea of separation of church and state. Just because Blair voted to to legalize gay marriage and abortion doesn't mean he intended to marry another man or have an abortion.

 

That's not really what I was quibbling about, Drew. As I understand it, converting to Catholicism requires you acknowledge all Church teachings as "revealed truth" - since Blair has, in the past, voted against Church teaching, does that mean he's changed his mind on those issues? How would he vote now? I don't think at all he'd do either of those things you mentioned, I'm just pointing out the apparent hypocrisy in the two positions.

 

Yes, we can. Yes, it is hypocritical.

The answer is that we ought not to do that. There's no leeway for merely the fact a given moral issue lies within the scope of politics. Whichever action has any moral significance, by choosing it, we incur the moral responsibility. Some people claim morality doesn't belong in politics. Those people are wrong. Some other people claim a different morality applies in politics, but those are also wrong. One can't be for something and against something at the same time. Democracy is a political system, not a moral one. The fact democracy is the currently binding political model doesn't mean we ought to support what the majority supports, especially not in moral matters.

 

I've read the Catechism of the Church, and not even once does it say that legislators must pass the moral stances of the Church into law.

I'm curious to see your justification for why allowing people who do not follow your religion to behave in a manner other than what is prescribed by your faith is hypocritical.

 

If you're looking for that statement with the F3 button, I'm wishing you luck. The moral teaching is binding on all members, which means also on politicians who are members. Politicians who are members are, just like anyone, obliged to oppose abortion morally. There is no exclusion from this which would allow them to shed this moral opposition like a surface layer for the purpose of voting. Split identity is not an answer to a moral problem.

If you believe abortion is murder and you believe murder should be outlawed, believing that abortion shouldn't be outlawed is hypocrisy. It's a direct contradiction in one's beliefs.

A little bit more of an explanation: there are various people who believe they're in their right killing someone. This is not made legal for them just on the basis of their belief. Neither with homicide, nor with any other crime, for that matter. Making a singular exception for abortion would be a hole in this, an ungrounded exception for the purpose of casting aside moral prescripts for the sake of convenience. That's a very clear example of hypocrisy.

A paedophile who believes he truly loves the child can forget it. A thief who thinks the goods are truly his can forget it. An employer who thinks he can chastise his employees corporally can forget it. I see no reason why exceptions should be made just because someone doesn't believe abortion to be homicide.

Another example of hypocrisy is that laws of countries not outlawing abortion still outlaw the killing of an unborn by a third person as homicide. Therefore it's homicide when someone else kills it, but it's not when the mother does. For the purpose of punishing an external perpetrator, the foetus is a human and benefits from the same protection as an adult. But for the purpose of evaluating the mother's action, nah, nada, it's suddenly no more a human. That is hypocrisy.

 

That it may but it really does not force them to legistlate it. They might hold some value in the plurality and controversy that surrounds the issue. They might oppose it on personal level while still accept it on legistlative level. If this is not acceptable then the pope has some serious excommunicating to do.

In my opinion the legistlators should not constantly be out to promote their own moral views, they are representing the public and not their church, something they would do well not to forget while in office. Otherwise every catholic politician would be more or less bound to the Vatican.

 

That sounds like some serious schizophrenia, to be honest.

The Pope prefers not to probably because such strong, extreme means would bring him no joy, but rather a disheartening discomfort. There haven't been so many excommunications lately. However, some bishops have warned politicians who support abortion not to receive Communion. This is already a reason for sadness - that someone should be denied Communion, much more so if someone were to be declared completely cut off from the Church. If I were the Pope, I wouldn't wish to have to do that.

That's not a market of values. The Catholic system is absolute, not relative, so it doesn't work like my views, your views et cetera.

And the politician you speak about can always choose not to claim Catholic affiliation. That's only fair. If he doesn't hold Catholic views, why call himself Catholic? Can't have a cake and eat it.

 

Might be, but I suppose there is a major schizophrenia going on with a large part of the catholic legistlators considering that in many if not most Catholic European countries there are only minorities seeking to ban abortion completely. In my view it's more like accepting that others too are entitled to their opinions and making choices in such an controversial issue.

The Catholic system might be absolute but democracy I'm afraid is not. Not being absolute is often a fine way of catching votes in modern politics.

Plenty of people who are Catholic or call themselves Catholics probably have a very different view on abortion than the pope. If they are not wanted in the Church then they should be excommunicated, until that point they are as Catholic as you are.

 

The catholic church considers lying, swearing, using the Lord's name in vain, pre-marital sex, and adultery a sin. Does this mean that politicians who fail to pass legislation banning lying, swearing, using the Lord's name in vain, pre-marital sex, and adultery are sinning?

Abortion is too easy. You are absolutely correct in stating that it would be hypocritical to side with the right to choose if you felt that abortion were murder. I'd point out, though, that a Catholic who really thought abortion was murder wouldn't be be pro-choice. Pro-Choice Catholics are usually Pro-Choice because they disagree with the Church's opinion. All that aside, try using this justification with an issue like gay civil unions and see how it works out. It won't.

This is absolutely true in the US, where a profound majority of Catholics have voted for the democrats despite frequent admonitions never to vote for a pro-life politician ever since JFK ran for president (before JFK, Catholics were a major republican voting block). The catholic church also considers contraception like the birth control pill equal to murder (because they stop implantation rather than conception), but American Catholics have shown their disagreement on this issue over and over again. Not only do most American Catholics (like most Americans) believe contraception should be legal, but most will use contraception at some point in their lives, too.

 

It asks them to vote according to the tenets of their faith (Usually reserved for major issues, like abortion or same sex unions). If they are out voted, so be it (And a stern criticism usually comes from the religion afterwards), but if they lobby and vote as their faith demands, then they have done their duty to God and the Church.

It is to be assumed that the public knew of their moral beliefs during the election process, and that enough of the people that care have affirmed that view, therefore voting according to their conscience should not be a problem. Hypocritical behaviour, on the other hand, would be dishonest to their constituents...

If I understand the use of the terms in a Catholic sense, denial of Communion leaves the door open for repentance, and seeking forgiveness for these grievous sins. Excommunication carries with it a promise of damnation.

They are doing as their faith requires, but if they are in the minority, then they will fail. Not Schizophrenia, but behaviour consistent with their faith, even though they know that they've lost before they open their mouth.

Promotion of any of the above would be a sin, but opposing them, even if they fail, is obedience. I am, ultimately, only accountable for what I say or do, not for anyone else.

Sexual relations are, under Christianity, reserved exclusively for legally married couples, with marriage exclusively defined as a man and a woman (Polygamy is simply a case of multiple such covenents made by the same man). By this logic, same sex unions are morally wrong, and supporting it is hypocritical if you profess such religious convictions. Your faith would simply ask that you do not support this, and take whatever action you can to oppose this. Since I live in Canada, I'm stuck with only the option to piss and moan to any who will read my words. I know that is not likely to work, but it does not mean I am excused from sharing them.

 

They are quite free to ask and the Catholic Church has been quite active in their asking. However the laws of the Church is not the laws of the land and the legistlators are free to ignore the Church if they so wish, which is what they very often do. This of course is only a good thing, I'd hate to see a EU ruled from the Vatican.

I'm not very sure where this is getting at but obviously a candidate should very openly express what he represents and what his moral views are and let the voters make their decisions. What I'm saying is that being Catholic and pro-choice is not mutually exclusive. If it is or is supposed to be then the Catholic Church should be clear about them not being wanted in the Church and excommunicate the bunch lest they themselves seem hypocritical to say the least. The hypocracy cuts both ways you know.

I really don't know what this had to do with anything I said. My point was that many Catholic legistlators in Euorpe and US are pro-choice but still never consider abortion on a personal level and to say that I did not consider them very schizophrenic.

 

It's called politics. Say what you think will get you elected then do as you bloody well please if it works. I've lived through decades of majority governments where scandal and social change can take place with little to no significant challenge...

The candidate should, if he's actually honest, follow the tennets of his faith. Abortion is against the Catholic faith. I think you're suggesting that the politician would personally oppose abortion, but believe it to be none of his business what others do. Chev has pointed out the fallacy of this logic.

I have a lot of trouble understanding the Catholic church. Perhaps this is a logical fallacy that is not understood...

 

Or perhaps it's a 1500+ year history of using "salvation" as a bludgeon to manipulate governments and further its own wealth and power...

 

It works if you get elected the next time, that is the way politics work. A candidate would not be re-elected time and time again if he opposed abortion but showed very different voting behavior atleast if his voters were also pro-life and prioritized the matter highly. If however they prioritize it low then perhaps the candidate will survive. In the end it's about the electors and not the legistlators.

Accepting plurality in society is in my opinion neither schizophrenic nor illogical, it's pefectly logical for modern day catch-all parties that wish to get votes from all social groups and not restrict them to a certain special interest group. From a votemaximizing point of view it's perfectly logical. Politicians reflect the people in one way or the other not the church, if the people are Catholics but still accept abortion it's more than obvious that the politicians will be the same. You could of course go and call the electorate dishonest but that line of argument will not get you very far.

Also I allready pointed out that being Catholic does not necessary mean that you need to accept all Catholic teachings, being a Catholic means being a member of that particular church.

 

Actually, according to the Catholic Church, being Catholic DOES necessarily mean that you accept all Catholic teachings. That is what I have professed in the past that I am a very poor Catholic, because I don't do this.

Of course, nothing ever comes of this. They don't excommunicate me, they don't prevent me from receiving communion, or having my son baptised. They even take my money I offer them in my church envelopes.

 

Being a good Catholic and being a Catholic are too different things. Even a nominal Catholic is a Catholic. I doubt Kennedy was exactly the poster child of Catholicism yet I think most people would identify him as Catholic.