- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,181
- Reaction score
- 15,235
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
To be clear, I get what you're saying, but the question is wrong.
Possession has no place in religion.
Preferences have no place in religion.
The law follows grace, not the other way around.
When you understand these points, you'll get what I'm really saying.
But I did not ask a question: I stated a fact. That your aim is to use the law to favor only your religion (your sect of that religion)above all other religions/denominations.To be clear, I get what you're saying, but the question is wrong.
Irrelevant to the discussion of whether a religion should be mandated.Possession has no place in religion.
Preferences have no place in religion.
Untrue (human law and grace have no connection and neither follows the other).The law follows grace, not the other way around.
The problem is that I’m not sure what your premises are, and your view of history does not conform to any version of history I’ve ever heard of. You seem to be looking at European and American history since the Reformation entirely as a conflict between Catholicism and various Protestant denominations. I’ve never heard of any actual historian even consider that position.When you understand these points, you'll get what I'm really saying.
What EXACTLY would you recommend other than Jefferson’s “separation of church and state”?
Again, that doesn't help. That statement can be made whether an adequate answer has been made or not.More doubletalk. Just answer the question for a change.
What you stated was a hasty conclusion which ignores how Catholicism's universality has no preference nor possession. It also ignored how the law has purpose. It is not simply a set of words. It has force because we believe it should.But I did not ask a question: I stated a fact. That your aim is to use the law to favor only your religion (your sect of that religion)above all other religions/denominations.
Irrelevant to the discussion of whether a religion should be mandated.
Untrue (human law and grace have no connection and neither follows the other).
The problem is that I’m not sure what your premises are, and your view of history does not conform to any version of history I’ve ever heard of. You seem to be looking at European and American history since the Reformation entirely as a conflict between Catholicism and various Protestant denominations. I’ve never heard of any actual historian even consider that position.
I also find it curious that you have not given any response to Pope Prius XII’s condemnation of mandating Catholicism.
Again, that doesn't help. That statement can be made whether an adequate answer has been made or not.
Calling someone out for not discerning between what is and what's not is not an excuse.And yet another excuse for not answering the questions straight up. In other words, more obfuscation.
Calling someone out for not discerning between what is and what's not is not an excuse.
It's like when some people clamor about historical systemic prejudice because they don't want to discern between the oppressed and non-oppressed, the oppressive and non-oppressive.
You can’t really say I’ve “ignored” an argument you haven’t made. Perhaps you could actually explain. In what way would mandating Catholicism and eliminating freedom of religion not give preference and dominance to one religion over all others?What you stated was a hasty conclusion which ignores how Catholicism's universality has no preference nor possession.
In what way do you think I said anything contrary to that?It also ignored how the law has purpose. It is not simply a set of words. It has force because we believe it should.
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom in 1779. It was finally passed in 1786, largely through the efforts of James Madison. It disestablished the Anglican Church in Virginia and declared freedom of religion in Virginia.Of course, one also needs to realize that Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with the creation of the Constitution.
During that time (1787-1789) he was Foreign Minister to France, a position he held since 1784. He did not return to the US until after the Constitution was adopted, and President Washington became the first President. This is because he was recalled to be the first Secretary of State.
So I find this entire thread to be silly, as he had nothing to do with it at all.
I've already explained.You can’t really say I’ve “ignored” an argument you haven’t made. Perhaps you could actually explain. In what way would mandating Catholicism and eliminating freedom of religion not give preference and dominance to one religion over all others?
In what way do you think I said anything contrary to that?
That is not an explanation, only vague pronouncements. You say no preference or possession over faith, but that is contradicted by your desire to allow only one form of religion. So please try again and explain in practical terms, what your vision is. How would you mandate Catholicism, how would you effect the millions of baptisms of those who do not wish to be baptised, what would be the penalties for non-Catholic worship, etc?I've already explained.
To be Catholic is to be universal. It is to not have preference or possession over faith. It is to remember grace before law.
There is an underlying essence at hand which cannot be reduced down to tolerance, equality, and diversity of institutional labels.
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom in 1779. It was finally passed in 1786, largely through the efforts of James Madison. It disestablished the Anglican Church in Virginia and declared freedom of religion in Virginia.
To be Catholic is to be universal. It is to not have preference or possession over faith. It is to remember grace before law.
Exactly. Jefferson’s Statute was the inspiration for the 1st amendment. So while he was not directly involved with the constitution, he clearly influenced it, and therefore his ideas on religion are relevant when discussing freedom of religion and the constitution.All of which is in the pre-Constitutional Era.
I have no idea how you think I’ve done that.Therefore has no real application to this at all as you can not blame or accuse something that happened before as being caused by something that happened after.
He's been dead for over 200 years.
Discussing them is fine. Being bound to them though ... I would rather be free.Yup, and just like every single legal document out there, the words in the document and the way they are interpreted is all that matters. Intent does not matter. You can't say you meant this or that. That's why you have to be clear. That's why legal documents are so long and wordy. If you write a contract and there is a dispute, the language and how the judge interpret it is all that matters.
So its pointless discussing intentions of people long gone
Exactly. Jefferson’s Statute was the inspiration for the 1st amendment. So while he was not directly involved with the constitution, he clearly influenced it, and therefore his ideas on religion are relevant when discussing freedom of religion and the constitution.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Your 100% correct. And yes, the founding fathers were anti-catholic. They deplored French settlement in the New World and invaded Quebec. Most Catholics, whom were denied of rights, fought for the King, especially the Irish in Upstate NY and Vermont.What do you know about Robert E. Lee’s religious faith?
Gregory Elder writes about less well-known aspects of the still-controversial Confederate general’s lifewww.redlandsdailyfacts.com Entry | Timelines | US Religion
Details On People, Events or Movements for a US Religion Timelinewww.thearda.com
For those who don't know, the Lee family (as in the family of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee), has a notorious legacy which goes back to the French and Indian War from its ancestors founding the Ohio Company of Virginia which sparked conflict along the midwest frontier. Not only did they settle in lands long claimed by the French, but their abuse of native populations gave the French a justification to declare war to defend those abused. A lot of people will reduce this down to simple colonial imperialism, profiteering, and racial prejudice, but it's not that simple. The reality was the Lee Family has always been a low church Episcopalian family. It explicitly condemned the sacraments of Anglo-Catholic tradition as it came to be known under the Oxford Movement which again has implications when considering the Catholicism of the French.
The problem Jefferson had is he overreacted to this problem when pursuing the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Instead of filtering between the low and high church to understand where oppression really came from, he treated religion in general as a problem. He couldn't be bothered addressing the spirit of faith, but rather overgeneralized by simply blaming the institution of faith. This is quite the shame when considering how Jefferson had such French sympathies as well.
Pragmatism comes from Calvinism, not Catholicism, and focusing on forms is idolatry, not spirituality.That is not an explanation, only vague pronouncements. You say no preference or possession over faith, but that is contradicted by your desire to allow only one form of religion. So please try again and explain in practical terms, what your vision is. How would you mandate Catholicism, how would you effect the millions of baptisms of those who do not wish to be baptised, what would be the penalties for non-Catholic worship, etc?
Are you suggesting that Virginia should have an established religion? To what end?What do you know about Robert E. Lee’s religious faith?
Gregory Elder writes about less well-known aspects of the still-controversial Confederate general’s lifewww.redlandsdailyfacts.com Entry | Timelines | US Religion
Details On People, Events or Movements for a US Religion Timelinewww.thearda.com
For those who don't know, the Lee family (as in the family of the Confederate general Robert E. Lee), has a notorious legacy which goes back to the French and Indian War from its ancestors founding the Ohio Company of Virginia which sparked conflict along the midwest frontier. Not only did they settle in lands long claimed by the French, but their abuse of native populations gave the French a justification to declare war to defend those abused. A lot of people will reduce this down to simple colonial imperialism, profiteering, and racial prejudice, but it's not that simple. The reality was the Lee Family has always been a low church Episcopalian family. It explicitly condemned the sacraments of Anglo-Catholic tradition as it came to be known under the Oxford Movement which again has implications when considering the Catholicism of the French.
The problem Jefferson had is he overreacted to this problem when pursuing the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Instead of filtering between the low and high church to understand where oppression really came from, he treated religion in general as a problem. He couldn't be bothered addressing the spirit of faith, but rather overgeneralized by simply blaming the institution of faith. This is quite the shame when considering how Jefferson had such French sympathies as well.
I’ll try again. You say you think that Catholicism should be mandated and that there should not be freedom of religion. You have not explained what precisely you mean by that.Pragmatism comes from Calvinism, not Catholicism, and focusing on forms is idolatry, not spirituality.
The way you're directing the conversation literally doesn't make sense.
Again, preciseness is not Catholic.I’ll try again. You say you think that Catholicism should be mandated and that there should not be freedom of religion. You have not explained what precisely you mean by that.
How would this mandate be implemented?
Would you require everyone to be baptized Catholic?
Would non-Catholic Christian denominations and non-Christians be barred from their religious practices?
And for fun: which of the 24 particular churches in communion with each other under the Pope would be allowed? And what would be the status of Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics not in communion with Rome?
I'm saying Jefferson oversimplified the problem because he couldn't be bothered analyzing the spirit of faith among different denominations.A
Are you suggesting that Virginia should have an established religion? To what end?
Now you want to choose peoples' religions for them?The problem Jefferson had is he overreacted to this problem when pursuing the disestablishment of the Church of England in Virginia. Instead of filtering between the low and high church to understand where oppression really came from, he treated religion in general as a problem. He couldn't be bothered addressing the spirit of faith, but rather overgeneralized by simply blaming the institution of faith. This is quite the shame when considering how Jefferson had such French sympathies as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?