Those Who Deny Christian Principles
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 9, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo asked a blunt question when addressing the Synod of Bishops: “May access to Eucharistic Communion be allowed to those who deny human and Christian values and principles?”
The president of the Pontifical Council for the Family raised the question in connection with politicians and lawmakers. He answered his own question with a “no.”
“So-called personal option cannot be separated from the sociopolitical duty,” the cardinal said Friday. “It is not a ‘private’ problem. The acceptance of the Gospel, of the magisterium and of right reasoning are needed!”
“Today, the projects for laws and the choices made or to be made seriously imperil ‘the good news’ that is the Gospel of the family and of life, which form an indivisible unity,” he continued. “The future of man and society comes into play and, in many aspects, the genuine possibility for integral evangelization.”
“The social fabric is wounded in a serious way” as these laws attack the most fundamental rights, such as the right to life, “beginning with the abominable crime of abortion,” the Vatican official warned.
“As can be often heard, there is a spurious argument for a so-called free political choice, which would have the primacy over evangelical principles and also over the reference to correct reasoning,” he observed.
As a result, legislation has been introduced on de facto couples “which at least implicitly would constitute an alternative to marriage, even if these unions are simply a legal fiction,” added Cardinal López Trujillo, 69. It is “worse yet, when dealing with couples of the same sex, something unknown in the cultural histories of people and in law.”
He concluded: “Politicians and legislators must know that, by proposing or defending projects for iniquitous laws, they have a serious responsibility for, and must find a remedy for the evil done and spread, in order to be allowed access to communion with the Lord.”
Female Cheetah wrote:”As far as couples of the same sex go, people can not help the desires of their heart. Are you going to punish the sexual minority because there are different? That is called homophobia, evil child of sexism.”
Who is the sexual minority? Where do you draw the line if you use the standard of “desires of their heart” as the basis on which to base relationships and marriage?
If a sister and brother have a “desire of our heart” should that be allowed?
If I have a special “desire of my heart” for my cat should that be allowed?
What if I and several other women have “desires of our hearts” should we be allowed?
Wouldn’t you consider all these concepts types of sexual minorities?
Please go beyond the leftist buzz words to make your statements. It is not “punishment” or “homophobia” to not open up marriage to any combination that can be devised in the hearts and passions of people. There is a point that “NO” has to be said to groups for society’s good.
Also, marriage is more than just two people who claim love as the reason.
Finally, Jesus is compassion but He’s also not an antinomian. He still told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.
Female Cheetah do you believe in the concept of sin? And if you do you then believe God creates people to be sinful?
#3. Female Cheetah, the non-physical love between two men you descibe in your post has existed for centuries and been approved in all of them by all societies, except our own. It’s called “friendship.” Or am I missing something?
Another point: The undisciplined gratification of desires of the human heart leads most often to sin, and therefore to a debasement of human dignity. This insight is known and appreciated more often on the religious right than on the religious left. Please test the “rhetoric” of the right before judging it. Nobody here is a hellfire-and-damnation preacher.
What are your sources of information about God?
Cheetah states:
God made certain men to desire their soul mate to be another man.
Bill the question that underlies Cheetah’s comment is; what is it that determines whether someone is homosexual or not?
Those who’ve taken a pro-homosexual “rights” stance have attempted to shift the argument to a basis of “feelings”. That someone is homosexual because of some “inner desire of the heart” to love a member of the same sex (which raises the question if I love my brother does that make me homosexual?). That some how being homosexual is an ethnicity. That someone can no more choose to be homosexual as someone can choose to be left-handed.
Historically homosexuality has been defined as an action. That to be homosexual is to engage in sexual acts with a member of the same sex. It’s a modern interpretation to move from a physical act of identification to an emotional-based identity that opens up the interpretation of sexual ethnicity to a whole host of other sexual desires.
If society accepts as conclusive that homosexuality is somehow an ethnicity of desire — that being homosexual is based upon a predetermined genetic makeup –then what argument is there to dismiss any other group to identify themselves as a sexual ethnicity?
And if the argument is proposed that there needs to be an ability to consent to that sexuality, then it’s an admission that the sexuality is a conscious act and not an ethnicity.
In response to Cheetah in #7: please get beyond relative post-modernism and learn that there are absolutes in Christian teaching.
My authority is no different than anyone else posting on an Orthodox website who professes Christ.
Also to Cheetah, there is only one concept of sin. There is no picking and choosing in Christianity about the concept of sin. The word in Scripture is hamaptia (n) there are not a series word. Just as there is only one term for repentance (metanoia), not a series of words.
Your statement is rather funny if you take it to it’s logical conclusion. Because what you’re suggesting is that Christ could only have died for some people’s interpetation of sin, but not any other’s interpretation.
Note 3. Cheetah, there is an element of truth and an element of confusion in your statement. Yes, men need communion with other men, but this communion cannot not be sexualized. In fact, the sexualization of same-sex relationships is a misdirected attempt to find this communion and aborts it from the start.
JBL, a minor correction to your post in #11. When transcribed into English, the Greek rho (which looks like a lowercase p) becomes an r. So the English transliteration is “hamartia.”
Regarding your response to Female Cheetah in #10: Moral (as distinguished from ecclesiastical) authority in the Church derives from Scripture and the Holy Tradition which contains the truth of Scripture. Anyone may quote from this, although it always helps to have a well-expressed argument.
JBL, great post in #9. I especially appreciate the insight in your last paragraph.
The current and pernicious concept of “diversity” is also germane to this topic. “Diversity” elevates the “rights” of a group over the rights of individual and opens the way for factions (or “ethnicities,” as you put it) to abuse individuals. Of course, these efforts to overturn the foundations of American society are disguised as “compassion” for individuals who were “born that way.”
Female Cheetah seems sincere, but I think she hasn’t worked through the implications of the rhetoric of the left, which is why she lashes out at the rhetoric of the right.
Bill: “JBL, a minor correction to your post in #11. When transcribed into English, the Greek rho (which looks like a lowercase p) becomes an r. So the English transliteration is “hamartia.”
Thanks for pointing out my error (I wish there was a way to edit posts). I was also thinking peccatum while typing the transliteration.
Bill:”Regarding your response to Female Cheetah in #10: Moral (as distinguished from ecclesiastical) authority in the Church derives from Scripture and the Holy Tradition which contains the truth of Scripture. Anyone may quote from this, although it always helps to have a well-expressed argument.”
My original question to her was not necessarily a moral one or a well-expressed argument. But rather a search for a paradigm. I was curious as to whether in her understanding she had a concept of sin. Not necessarily any particular sinful act, just a general concept.
But as you’ve seen from her response she didn’t answer the question while at the same time indicated a lack of understanding by her moral relative answer.
My response was to her relativism.
Cheetah why do you believe that post-modernism is “good”?
#20 It is very important that we discuss what the secular world does. Because Cheetah do you really believe that the secular world will let the Church not abide by the laws — contrary to Church teaching — that have been established?
#19. Female Cheetah, I suggest you work through rhetorical implications of both the left and the right by reading on both sides of each subject and applying your faculties of logic and sense. There are excellent articles in the archives of this website which can help you understand the conservative critique of the left’s assumptions. I recommend the following by Jay Budziszewski:
“The Problem with Liberalism”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BudziszewskiLiberalism.php
and
“The Problem with Conservatism”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BudziszewskiConservativism.php
As for liberal critiques of the right’s assumptions, I don’t know of any that don’t descend to the level of self-righteous name-calling which seems to pass for intellectual inquiry on the left these days, and in which you appear to be indulging in some of your posts on this blog.
Bill on your idea about misconceived “compassion” being the leading motivator for the left, I agree whole heartedly with you.
Their concept of compassion is almost Orwellian, that they need to distort truth to be understood.
If you think about it, the compassion that the left has for the homosexual agenda is based upon capitulation of any religious moral belief. That compassion is an antinomian freedom from God.
Many in the left will take it to such an absurdity that the homosexual will be “excused” from any wrong. That somehow the homosexual’s actions are pure.
But, the believer who calls the homosexual to repentence and to the fullness of grace is attacked by the left as the one who is committing the sinful act in society. The one accused of having no compassion.
You’re also right about Cheetah, she hasn’t gotten beyond leftist rhetoric (in particular, secularism). IMO her vision of the Church is an extension of a secular social gospel. That making people “feel” good about themself is the Church’s purpose, rather than Incarnational.
It’s almost a gnostic understanding, in the sense that acts of people have no consequence. That only “spiritual” experience is the only thing necessary.
Before I forget, thanks Cheetah for calling my arrogant.
JBL, Note 22
There are quite a few instances in Canada where Christians have been subjected to legal pressure when they expressed their moral dissapproval of homosexuality. Apparently the “tolerance” goes one way. IMHO gays want to push Christians in the “closet” as they leave it.
Today Christian parents are in conflict with many public school officials about the treatment of gay conduct in the lower grades. Children in elementary schools are being exposed to literature that normalizes gay lifestyles and gay parenthood.
Through all these discussions, I can’t help but notice that as we argue for various laws regarding this or that, it still seems to me that the ideal basis for legislating anything is that the individual freedoms (or restrictions) in question should be limited by the degree to which they impinge on the same freedoms of other individuals insofar as they co-exist as equal legal entities.
Example:
Smoking. No Constitutional right to smoke specifically, some say. However, I’ve yet to hear a substantive argument why an individual smoking a Marlboro in the privacy of their own home, by themselves, even can be a crime. What is the public interest in criminalizing this behavior? Public health? (We *could* outlaw eating french fries or drinking milk shakes in that case.) BUT … it could be a crime depending on who else is in the room. If there’s someone with lung cancer or asthma, smoking might be considered negligence. Litmus test? One’s freedom to smoke *stops* where someone else’s right to breathe clean air begins. Same concept for drinking alcohol. Not only shouldn’t it be a crime to drink at home, I personally don’t feel it COULD (at least until you get behind the wheel). If you go ahead and criminalize smoking, what “slippery slope” would that take us on? Whether or not the law is enforced seems irrelevant because it sets a precedent that could be enforced at some other time or place.
Interestingly enough, this standard comes out both for and against various liberal values:
a) Abortion: fails the test unless the life of the mother’s in jeopardy.
b) Hate speech laws: fails the test unless a direct threat is made
c) Passive physician assisted suicide: passes the test – using medication provided by someone else to terminate your own life (w/o the other’s direct assistance) does not infringe on the rights of another
d) Gay unions: partially passes the test – a state could concoct some type of generic living arrangement open to any two individuals and allow a gay couple to enter into it. Granting generic rights does not imply any endorsement of the nature of the relationship itself – it only creates certain protections and obligations regardless of whether the couple is romantically involved or not. It also does not inflict damage on married couples that exist or wish to do so.
Note 29 Adoption of your approach would reduce Constitution to a paragraph
JamesK, adoption of your approach would reduce the Constitution to a couple of paragraphs and invalidate decades and even centuries of law. It is an extreme reductionist libertarian approach. If adopted it would really destroy any sense of a common culture uniting a citizenry. Rather than citizens of a country who are united by a common culture, Americans would become a miscellaneous group of individuals who happen to be walking around on the same real estate.
Sorry, far too simplistic for me to take seriously.
#30 Cheetah, the articles you cite are not worth discussing because they’re horrible scholarship (and I use the term “scholarship” lightly in reference to the articles).
Why do you waste your time reading tripe like this? If you want something more indepth with better scholarship then read the articles Father Hans posts on the main site. And try these websites to start with:
http://www.firstthings.com
http://www.touchstonemag.com
#30 Cheetah also consider
http://www.peterkreeft.com
http://www.ccel.org
There are more writers in Touchstone than Frederica.
There are more writers in Touchstone than Frederica
For sure, but on the Touchstone spectrum FMG is a flaming liberal. I don’t believe they have a single woman on their editorial board at the moment, not even Frederica.
Cardinal Trujillo says: “”Politicians and legislators must know that, by proposing or defending projects for iniquitous laws, they have a serious responsibility for, and must find a remedy for the evil done and spread, in order to be allowed access to communion with the Lord.””
Since the Florida legislature has not changed the laws in Florida related to PVS patients, does that mean that Catholic memebers of the legislature should not be allowed to take communion? Doesn’t a failure to take action to change the law constitute a kind of defense of the law?
The Baptists know how to do it right. They basically hounded Judge Greer (of Schiavo case fame) out of the church. The editor of one of the Baptist journals noted that “It appears that Judge Greer has chosen to remove himself from the loving care of a biblically sound church rather than to submit to the biblical obligation to exercise his public duties in a manner that is consistent with his Christian faith.” (I guess the Christian faith contains specific guidelines on how Florida laws are supposed to be interpreted.)
The upshot of all this is that a Christian in public service is not supposed to do his duty as he sees best, or as he has sworn to do. Rather, the Christian public servant is supposed to generate the outcome that the church wants, even though the people, not the church, pay his salary. So the Catholic legislator is really there not as a representative of the people, but as a representative of the Catholic Church. The Baptist judge is not there to interpret the law to the best of his ability, but to interpret the law so as to please the local minister.
Is that how it works now?
The upshot of all this is that a Christian in public service is not supposed to do his duty as he sees best, or as he has sworn to do. Rather, the Christian public servant is supposed to generate the outcome that the church wants, even though the people, not the church, pay his salary. So the Catholic legislator is really there not as a representative of the people, but as a representative of the Catholic Church. The Baptist judge is not there to interpret the law to the best of his ability, but to interpret the law so as to please the local minister.
If this is really what some Christians want, then they (we) can’t have it both ways; we can’t pretend to be shocked and persecuted when some see the religion of a candidate (nominee, etc) as a reason not to vote for him/her. The scenario that Jim describes is resembles what some American voters feared back in 1960 with JFK, the expectation (which seemed quaintly bigoted not so long ago) that, with a Roman Catholic in office, the pope would be pulling the strings.
Note 42: Juli said: “If this is really what some Christians want, then they (we) can’t have it both ways; we can’t pretend to be shocked and persecuted when some see the religion of a candidate (nominee, etc) as a reason not to vote for him/her. The scenario that Jim describes is resembles what some American voters feared back in 1960 with JFK, the expectation (which seemed quaintly bigoted not so long ago) that, with a Roman Catholic in office, the pope would be pulling the strings.
By the same token, does this mean that a person who is anti-abortion has good reason to avoid voting for candidates who happen to be members of pro-abortion churches?
Missourian: I was purposely being overly simplistic, but I think it’s a useful yardstick nonetheless. The question is how pervasive the government can be in regards to the realm of individual autonomy. Is there nothing off limits? Can anywhere be deemed sacrosanct? Why not put surveillance cameras in the homes of every individual whether there is sufficient cause or not?
Most laws seem to regulate human interactions. No interaction, no law. I’m not sure how one is to define “liberty”, but this seems to imply that there is a realm that exists that cannot be intruded upon by legislation, no matter much it is desired by the ever-roving eye of a voyeuristic majority. It is the area that is known between an individual and their Creator only … no one else. So long as it involves no one else, I don’t see what “public interest” there is in creating legislation around it. What purpose does it serve? And if there is nothing we are free to do, say or think, what’s the point of pretending we have this freedom in the first place? The phrase as it’s mentioned in our Constitution and laws becomes meaningless.
Note 44,Perspective, Framework and Balance
JamesK, I will partially answer the question you posed in Note 44, but, first, you need to make note of my comments on perspective, framework and balance.
PERSPECTIVE AND FRAMEWORK
The intellectual vantage point from which you formulate your issues is disconnected from our American constitutional history and structure. I will try to find some good references on constitutional history and theory that are written for generalists rather than legal scholars and post them on this page.If any of your ideas are to be given life in the form of legislation, they have to take the existing constitutional and legal structure into account.
BALANCE:INDIVDUAL FREEDOM vs. INDIVDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
I would add that in most of my conversations with you, JamesK, your sole concern is for the freedom and automony of the individual, fair enough. I don’t think I hear anything about the responsibilities and duties that balance those freedoms. Freedom is only one half of the equation.
BALANCE: INDIVIDUAL vs. SOCIETY
American constitutional law balances between the automony of the individual and the interests of society as a whole. I don’t remember you expressing any concern about the interests of society as a whole, which, sometimes outweigh the individual’s interest in autonomy.
MY PERSPECTIVE
My perspective is that of the Framers of the American Constitution. I consider it one of the greatest intellectual achievements of humankind. The Framers were truly learned men who were well versed in the Judaeo-Christian moral tradition, the intellectual legacy of the Classical Greeks and Romans, the great Christian thinkers, and the English Common Law.
SHORT ANSWER
Of course, the American Constitution places limits on the power of government. It does that in at least two important ways. First, it makes the federal government a government of enumerated (not unlimited powers) The power of the federal government is limited by the existence of substantial and potentially countervailing power in the state governments. Secondly, the constitution limits the power of government with respect to the individual, primarily in the Bill of Rights. The protections of individual rights found in the federal Bill of Rights are echoed in similar provisions in state constitutions. America was the FIRST country to establish intellectual freedom: freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
You might be surprised to hear this but our American Constitution since the enactment of the Bill of Rights in the 18th Century, STILL affords greater protection to criminal defendants in criminal proceedings and to individuals wishing to express their opinions than do the laws of either France or England.
Again, I will try to find some good generalist references on constitutional history and structure.
Maybe the “Federalist Papers” as a suggestion?
JBL
By all means!
I will continue to look for some accessible summaries of constitutional theory, but, sure, dive into the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were intended to be distributed to the public through flyers and newspapers. They demonstrate the level of public debate at the time, that is amazing standing by itself.
Note45, JamesK, Not Starting A Colony on Mars
If we were starting a colony on Mars we could cook up our constitution and laws entirely independently of what has gone before, however, living in America today, we need to take cognizance of our existing constitution and its logical structure.
Some short and admittedly, not very well fleshed out answers.
Your comment:
Missourian: I was purposely being overly simplistic, but I think it’s a useful yardstick nonetheless. The question is how pervasive the government can be in regards to the realm of individual autonomy. Is there nothing off limits? Can anywhere be deemed sacrosanct? Why not put surveillance cameras in the homes of every individual whether there is sufficient cause or not?
Missourian short answer:
See note 47 for a description of the constitutional limits of power with respect to state governments and individuals. Surveillance cameras inside private homes would probably violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searchs.
JamesK comment:
Most laws seem to regulate human interactions. No interaction, no law. I’m not sure how one is to define “liberty”, but this seems to imply that there is a realm that exists that cannot be intruded upon by legislation, no matter much it is desired by the ever-roving eye of a voyeuristic majority. It is the area that is known between an individual and their Creator only â?¦ no one else. So long as it involves no one else, I don’t see what “public interest” there is in creating legislation around it. What purpose does it serve? And if there is nothing we are free to do, say or think, what’s the point of pretending we have this freedom in the first place? The phrase as it’s mentioned in our Constitution and laws becomes meaningless.
Missourian;s short answer:
As I noted in some previous exchanges the Anglo-American legal system regulates CONDUCT, not INTERACTIONS. There may exist many cases where it is perfectly constitutional to regulate conduct by an individual which does not have an immediate physical effect on another human being. It is considered unconstitutional to attempt to regulate THOUGHT, BELIEF or to reward or punish STATUS. It is unconsitutional to penalize the “status” of simply being poor, which is why some (not all) vagrancy laws have been struck down. Conduct may be regulated. Government may constitutionally regulate individual conduct in the interest of promoting valid government interests in public health and public safety and other valid public interests. Exactly how and exactly to what degree is the topic of a library full of books.
Note 47: Sounds fine. One other note: you stated: “I don’t think I hear anything about the responsibilities and duties that balance those freedoms.”
Implicit in my comments is the idea that individual freedoms are constrained by the rights of others. I’m not sure I’d use the word “duties” since this emphasizes the use of the government to coerce a “positive action” as opposed to simply restraining a negative. It can justly do this to a degree as in cases where the collective good demands it, but only then, such as in the event of a military draft or taxation for the purposes of providing social services, etc. Where there is no collective good to be gained, I don’t see that government has either cause or ability to impose legislation around it. Admittedly, this can be open to debate. “No man is an island” and all that.
Note 49 Recognition of An Actor Called “Society” or of an interest called “society’s interest”
JamesK. You have come close to what I am talking about but you aren’t quite there. In note 49 you refer to the idea that individual freedoms can be justly contrained by the existence of other individuals who also have rights.
This is close but not the same as the concept of “society’s interests” in certain generally agreed good things, such as public order, public safety, public health, honest elections, fair administration of the laws, etc.
Again, it isn’t just about individuals and their relationship to other individuals, it also about individuals and their relationship to society as a whole. The concept of society is a placeholder for the idea of civilization, as opposed to a barbarous society where only force rules or a tyranny where the whim of the tyrant rules.
Number Mix-Up
Here is the sequence of posts that JamesK and I have been passing back and forth.
Note 30 JamesK
Note 32 Missourian, I meant to refer to JamesK note 30, I mistated Note 29
Note 45 James K
Note 47 Missourian responding to Note 45, not note 44
Note 50 Missourian
Note 51 James K
NOte 52 Missourian
Nutshell, JamesK, the Supreme Court has expressly reviewed and decided what may be the proper object of legislation. It has rejected regulating thought, belief or status and expressly affirmed that conduct is the proper object of legislation. Relationships are just not part of the constitutional nomenclature.
It is certainly acceptable to take other people’s rights into account when discussing the proper extent of individual autonomy but failure to consider a distinct entity “society” will result in a hyper-libertarianism which would cause the collapse of society and the end of real civilization if it were ever to be instituted in the real world. Hyper-libertaranism is an extreme and extremes don’t produce good results.
A workable, living and productive society is more than a collection of human beings living on the same real estate. A successful society needs the binding power of a common culture and a set of values. Is there room for individual variation? Sure. Is there room for change? Sure. But in order for a society to produce the kind of civilizational achievements that we admire, we need to have a cultural base. A car needs a frame that holds everything together, although, it can also have shock absorbers that allow the car to move and adapt to changes in the underlying pavement. Capice? [I am Italian for a day]
I maintain that we have already created a very fine cultural base, that we have much to preserve and be proud of. We have much to lose if we do not value our unique American culture.
Note 47 applies to Note 45
Sorry for the mix-up. I need to be more careful.
FC said:
FMG is a flaming liberal?!
Lord, no. She is conservative. I said she is a FL *on the Touchstone spectrum*, that is, relative to some other TS folk.
Missourian was responding to an earlier note. You will often find on blogs that posts are not direct responses to the latest comment … it sometimes takes a while to formulate a response to an earlier comment, so the response appears delayed.
Iow, this ain’t IM.
Missourian, I’d say our approaches overlap at points. What types of conduct can be legislated is where I think we disagree. I’m thinking that you approve of laws that are “pedagogical” in essence, meaning that they’re not intended to be enforced as a general rule but simply uphold, as you say, “cultural values” as an entity. My concern is that such laws can be enforced in ways that are intrusive. Smoking, drinking, extramarital sexual relations, etc. … I realize that these currently may be legislated against even when they’re “victimless”. Personally I don’t think that NOT legislating against them implies a stamp of approval. It simply says that government is indifferent to your own personal vices so long as you keep them contained and out of others’ hair, so to speak. It’s certainly a more practical approach.
Again, it’s the degree of government involvement that makes me nervous. There may be a “public interest” in not just one person having “a” job, but having a specific job. Too bad. The freedom of the individual to make that choice takes precedence, IMO, at least in this country.
A delicate balancing act between individual rights and public responsibility to be sure. I certainly don’t think I’m going to solve what greater minds have argued over for years.
Note57JamesK, not everything is an open legal issue
JamesK, again, we aren’t founding a colony on Mars. Nearly all of the issues that you have raised HAVE BEEN addressed by the Supreme Court in constitutional literature. Most of them (97%)are settled law. You seem to think that every conceivable legal issues is open for debate. As a practical matter, they are not. I can understand how the misconception arose but it remains a misconception.
For instance, there is no realistic chance that the entire jurisprudence of our country is going to undergo a volcanic upheaval and reject the American Anglo tradition going back several hundred years, as well as our entire Constitutional jurisprudence and adopt a legal theory based on a regulation of “relationships” as opposed to “conduct.” There is no realistic possibility of that happening. That is why I am not particularly interested in debating that point.
You seem to have a strong interest in legal issues. I would recommend reading about Constitutional history. Again, I will try to come up with some good references to get started with.
Note 57 Not “my” approach
JamesK, one last effort here. What I have been explaining to you are the broad outlines of American constitutional law. This is not “my” approach. The ideas that you described as “my apporach” are actually the product of the working of some of the greatest minds in history: Madison, Marshal, Hand, Cardozo, Holmes and many more. It is the “approach” of the Framers who created our Constitution and all of the constitutional scholars and judges who have followed in their steps. Some of the concepts I have explained have their roots far back in the English Common law, as old at 900 A.D. Other concepts have held steady since the signing of the Constitution. There is no equality of “approaches” here. Your “approach” is not a genuine competitor to what you call “my approach.” This is because your “approach” is, again, totally disconnected from American legal tradition and would require a rewriting of 95% of all the laws of this country. Unlikely to happen in our lifetimes and, I think, undesirable.
Again, most American law is not really open for debate, most law is firmly settled. Law, in order to serve it purpose of providing predictable order, must remain steady across long stretches of time. The press covers some controversial decisions, but, what you don’t see are literally thousands of decisions which are made daily which ENFORCE and do not CHANGE our essential American law.
I am curious as to why you seem uninterested in actually LEARNING about the Constitution we actually have in place. I explained to you that the “camera in our homes” scenario is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps you should actually acquaint yourself with the Fourth Amendment if you are going to discuss issues which relate to it. You ignore the new information that I have provided you and simply repeat your initial formulation. So be it.
There is alot of legitimate literature out there on legal and constitutional theories. There is a great deal more to governing and building a just society than a few ultra-libertarian concepts can provide. There is a intellectual banquet out there and you are munching on pork rinds.
FOR JBL
I am currently swamped with a big project that will take me about a month to complete, however, I just ordered some single volume works on constitutional history and theory. I will go through them and see if I can pick out 3 to 5 to recommend.
Of course, anyone can go to their local library and pick out a few books for themselves, that would be a good start.
Regards
Missourian
Female Cheetah: “I know FMG is a conservative. Why somebody on this blog sent me to Touchstone I don’t know.I am a flaming liberal.”
I recommended Touchstone to expand your paradigm.
“Flaming liberal” or not to be better rounded, to grasp the depth of the conversation of the church you need to read ideas that already support your beliefs and those that challenge them.
Remember von Goethe,
“Ignorant men raise questions that wise men answered a thousand years ago.”
and
“He who is ignorant of foreign languages, knows not his own.”
Cheetah: “How do you know my paradigm is not expanded? I think you misjudge me. I choose to reject conservative rhetoric consciously.”
I understand you better than you realize. I should clarify that I’m not a conservative in a modern sense, it would better to understand my views more in a confessional understanding of the church. If this makes me appear conservative to the modern world, then so be it. My concern is you reject things that appear conservative because they disagree with pre-conceived notions you have about faith. My suggestion is give up on worldly ideas and fully embrace the teachings of the church.
Cheetah: “And know I do not remember von Goethe. Where are these two quotes coming from?”
They are general quotes attributed to von Goethe that I’ve carried with me since studying his works in university. If you want to understand him better I recommend reading his writings in particular “Faust” and “The Sorrows of Young Werther”
Cheetah: “Have you read In the Image and Likeness of God by Vladmir Lossky? Have you been to SVS?”
I’ve not read that book by Lossky. I haven’t been to SVS either. And your point for asking these questions?
All I can do is ask you to reject any concept of liberal/conservative and read for truth.
My concern though, is you’ve stated in other places that you are new to the faith and then you reference books by Lossky, etc. From your statements you continually show a lack of understanding about the teachings/history of the church. You reference articles that are blasphemous in their context, in particular the article suggesting that The Incarnate Word, through whom all things were created, participated in sexually anti-creation activities while present in the world.
If you’re new to the faith you should walk before you run. You should spend time reading and developing a solid foundation first, before trying to grasp questions about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
JBL, recommend Teaching Company
Wouldn’t you agree that great works have context which needs to be appreciated in order to fully understand them? A great writer’s mind was influenced by the culture which preceded him, but, obviously not the culture that followed him. It was also influenced by the religious milieu around him and the political culture. The medieval mindset is quite different from the “modern” mindset. [I am not asserting that there are not universal truths that transcend historical and cultural periods, quite the contrary.]
Picking up Goethe without the guidance of a good teacher to help put his writings in perspective could result in misunderstanding. I don’t want to discourage anyone from picking up great literature, but, I think this is a warning for the self-taught. I include myself in the “self-taught” group.
The Teaching Company publishes series of lectures by leading scholars. Many libraries have them available for free. Thier website can be found here http://www.teach12.com. The lectures are provided in video and audio form. Many of their courses are surveys covering large sweeps of cultural history. These can provide some kind of framework for the study of individual great writers and thinkers. Of course, if you have the time and money for formal study, do that, instead. Check with your local library, many libraries stock these in their collections or can borrow them from other libraries for you.
#66 Reading Goethe was part my undergraduate literature program when I studied overseas.
As far as new to the faith, it’s taken from your own statements about being a convert.
And concerning theology I read a wide range. Recently I’ve been spending time in the issues of the 19th century with the anti-theology of Feurbach and the reaction to his thoughts.
#65 I keep forgetting about the Teaching Company, I’ve gone through a couple programs.
There are also programs available from Barnes & Noble called the Portable Professor. There’s a great one by Peter Kreeft entitled “What Would Socrates Do?” They’re under $40 and the topics cover literature, science, history, and philosophy.
In literature the advantage is that there are a number of literary criticisms out there that will guide a reader through the classics of civilization.
C.S. Lewis for example, has a couple works on medieval and renaissance literature (Discarded Image for one). Cambridge University Press has a great series called the Cambridge Companion, they cover literature, religion, music, philosophy and can be used to guide someone through different subjects (there’s even one on Goethe and his writings). There’s also an Oxford Companion series (it doesn’t have as many specialized books), Routledge Press has some great books on background information on a wide variety of topics (in particular their key guide series). And, Blackwell Publishing has some background books also (one of my favorite authors Alistair McGrath is published by Blackwell).
You’re right about putting literature into historical perspective and being guided to do that. Some of the publishers have put in good introductions into classics explaining the work, the author’s background, the history at the time the work, and the impact the literature had on people and events.
I’m a big fan of studying history along with literature. Reading about the events that happened around an author, or the philosophical questions that were asked at the time, can open up a work significantly (Who can read London’s Sea-Wolf without thinking of Nietzsche?).
It’s a matter though of wanting to learn and seeking out those sources that can help in the process. Or more specfically it’s reading substantial writing to expand horizons. In other words, getting beyond the National Enquirer’s columns.
I suggested Goethe because of Cheetah’s comment “no I do not remember von Goethe”. It was a reflex response. I originally used the quotes to point to truths that were evident in her postings.
It still amazes me (even though I shouldn’t be surprised) when people are not familiar with influential figures of western literature. It’s from Goethe that we get this phrase of a “faustian bargain”. Yet, few Americans know this because they’re not really taught anything anymore. They’re not taught to think, rather they’re required to absorb and to repeat for the test. And what they’re absorbing is rather incomplete.
In a religious context many people lack a foundational understanding of faith. And instead of seeking to build a base of understanding, they read theological writings that are beyond their comprehension. This does more to confuse than to make clear incarnational revelation.
Maybe it’s done because of not knowing where truth is located. That’s it’s not found in any inward spiritual journey, rather it’s a reality that is outside of self. Truth is and begins with Christ and it’s in Him that we begin our understanding of it. Any truth that starts with an inward spiritual journey of self will always end in frustration and misunderstanding.