tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post9061009584166786587..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: Doug Mataconis on the Bishops, Religious Freedom, and Living in a Civil SocietyMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-71288775014833362192012-01-01T22:11:13.740-06:002012-01-01T22:11:13.740-06:00There are two approaches here . . . one is the irr...There are two approaches here . . . one is the irrefutable argument you seek. The other is to recognize that the argument theology is beside the point--the bishops simply don't want to acknowledge the possibility that same sex attraction being legitimate and a means of grace. That would through their whole belief system into unimaginable chaos.<br /><br />The irrefutable argument to the bishops was made by a catholic theologian, John Courtney Murray in the 1950s and 60s. He was addressing whether the Catholic Church should teach that non-Catholic religions deserve equal civil treatment as the Catholic religion. <br /><br />Since the 4th centuty the catholic argument was that since non-Catholic religions are untrue, in error (sin), they had no right to exist, and the state/church alignment enforced that position.<br /><br />In this view the state exists to support truth and human flourishing, not falsehood.<br /><br />Murray's argument was that while that position was justified in an ideal civil society and would prevail in God's heaven, no civil society on earth is ideal or can fully know God's truth.<br /><br />Therefore as a practical matter it is just and legitimate to allow non-Catholic religions and views to exist without legal disabilities.<br /><br />In the case of gays, the Catholic church teaches that same sex attraction is in itself not sinful, but that it is contrary to God's created order. For this reason, the bishops argue that condoning same sex genital activity in any way is an error (sin)-- but taking Murray's argument, we can say "yes, that may be what we believe it will be like in God's heaven, but in the this world, it is not legitimate to impose this standard on civil society.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06122296860896683957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-84875895607251783062011-12-30T20:40:07.897-06:002011-12-30T20:40:07.897-06:00What is the irrefutable argument to this claim by ...What is the irrefutable argument to this claim by the bishops? I've been trying to formulate it. Would it go something like this: Religions are presumed to favor the equal treatment of persons similarly situated. Fundamental fairness requires it and religions are presumed to favor fundamental fairness. If the civil law, therefore, requires equal treatment of persons similarly situated, what justification can a religion have for objection? Can a religion justify tenants that deny the dignity and equality of human persons? Does enforcement of the civil law requiring fair treatment of each person be a restriction of religious liberty? You can see I am having a problem zeroing in on the precise argument. Can anyone help?Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00135199120788030871noreply@blogger.com