tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post206398553041246515..comments2024-01-17T03:08:25.317-06:00Comments on The Progressive Catholic Voice: Archbishop Nienstedt on Religious Pluralism and the "Tragic Flaw" in the Separation of Church and State DoctrinePCV Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12519134580470262558noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-5560260676534968742010-01-07T00:05:13.839-06:002010-01-07T00:05:13.839-06:00Hi, Tom and John. I'm glad you tuned in. Maybe...Hi, Tom and John. I'm glad you tuned in. Maybe you can enlighten me on the problem the Archbishop is seeing. Isn't it now possible for him or anyone else to express religious beliefs? Is there any question about the free practice of religion? And isn't it also possible for anyone to express values and try to persuade other citizens to his/her point of view? What isn't allowed is the establishment of a state religion. When government officials of the majority religion introduce their religious symbols into public policy, documents, or law, it amounts to a de facto establishment and is oppressive to minorities. What is the problem with disallowing this? Do you honestly believe it is a "tragic flaw" in our system?<br /><br />It sounds like you and the Archbishop have a general complaint about secularism, narcissism, and greed in the US society. You are no doubt right, but is the cause of that separation of church and state? <br />Or is the problem about resistence to religious language? I think that if religious leaders really wanted to communicate with fellow citizens, they would use reason, common values language, combined with compassion expressed in common human language. They wouldn't use divisive religious language. As you point out, John, there is a common language to communicate "worship of Mammon." What if religious leaders tried communicating seriously with the godless horde in a language they respected? Until they start practicing what they preach though, they have no credibility in any language.Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00135199120788030871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-8389960165347196032010-01-06T22:50:13.413-06:002010-01-06T22:50:13.413-06:00Post sent by John Carrigan:
Paula,
I seem to find...Post sent by John Carrigan:<br />Paula, <br />I seem to find myself in the embarrassing position of agreeing with the archbishop and disagreeing with you. Not sure, but what I can make of it so far.<br /> <br />I agree with you that the polular understanding of separation has been that there is a wall between church and state. You'd never know that if you looked around the capitol and saw all the religious references, but they're not going to get rid of all those embarassing contradictions. I do think though that the real reference in the constitution has to do with non establishment of religion and that is what the early settlers in this country were so concerned about. <br /> <br />Clearly, I think, all politics is based on values as the linguist George Lakoff of UC Berkley insists; political progressives and conservatives focus on different values. As I assumed in the article I sent you on the Morals of Mammon, I think this country has gone wildly off course precisely because it has preferred the worship of Mammon as in the gospels, but the same value is espoused in many religions such as Judaism and Mohammedanism as well as in humanism, which basically say it's bad for some to hoard while others go hungry. <br /> <br />I think there is a place for religions of all traditioins to insist upon such values, and I really don't think they are or should be prohibited by some popularization of the constitutional non establishment clause. Peace, J. <br /><br />John Carrigan<br />jaycarrigan@earthlink.net<br />Why Wait? Move to EarthLink.Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00135199120788030871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-10375986077789872832010-01-06T09:20:30.371-06:002010-01-06T09:20:30.371-06:00If I may offer two areas of comment:
1) Any cursor...If I may offer two areas of comment:<br />1) Any cursory study of the founding fathers of this country would reveal the concern that "what to do about the propensity of religious people to force their religions on others" was not a primary concern. Far from restricting people from practicing their religion, the religious freedom clause was to allow people to freely practice their beliefs without fear of oppression. Furthermore, all of the founding fathers were religious men themselves. They created a system that allowed them to express their deistic beliefs (as evidenced in the documents and symbols of the U.S.). <br />2) Following the definition of religion that the Archbishop gave, “religion” is “a cause, principle or belief held to with faith and ardor” there is nothing confusing about labeling Mr. Hitchens as an advocate of a distinct religion. According to the definition, and the pattern that Mr. Hitchens has displayed in his thought, it is quite clear that his cause is one of principles that he firmly believes in with a steadfast ardor, hence, a religion in and of itself.tomschulztehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15897529366408648406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-6692551929347659692010-01-05T06:21:55.202-06:002010-01-05T06:21:55.202-06:00Could Archbishop Nienstedt's column on this ma...Could Archbishop Nienstedt's column on this matter be a perfect example of Catholic leaders not approving of "moral relativism", yet making very good use of it in their "pastoral" practices? There seems to be some picking and choosing going on there. How very interesting that they can use it quite freely thinking that the Lay people who see these things, do not see what is going on.Br. Anselm Philip King-Lowe, OSBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02153443604460189234noreply@blogger.com