Showing posts with label injustice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label injustice. Show all posts
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Friday, June 26, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Love and Justice Both: Losing Sight of the Big Picture
In dealing with the concepts of the love of God and the justice of God, it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. It’s easy to get so caught up in focussing on one thing that one forgets that there are obligations to the other side of thing which God calls us to do. We are called, for example, to love those who hate us and to admonish the sinners.
For example, one of the things I notice when it comes to people being offended by the Church is that they tend to be too close to the issue to consider it objectively. It’s natural to feel threatened when someone is personally affected by an issue. But the problem is, when a person takes it too personally, they may lack the objectivity to listen to what needs to be said. It’s important to note that this is not limited to one faction or another. It’s not something that only happens to other people. Each one of us can feel attacked by something we need to hear and respond by refusing to listen. It’s common to hear things like, “God doesn’t care about your rules,” or “you need to stop being legalistic."
This becomes a problem when it comes to denying Church teaching because, as Catholics, we believe that the Church teaching has authority because Christ Himself gave the Church authority to teach, and so the denial of the Church is a denial of Christ. For example, if Jesus did tell Peter in Matthew 16:19 and the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18:18 that what they bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, then God does care about the rules of the Church.
Of course, God also cares about how we apply His rules. While we cannot set His commandments aside, it is possible to forget about the side of compassion and mercy required in teaching His commandments. The possibility of being so focussed on punishing the guilty and worrying about somebody “getting away with” things is dangerous. The possibility of a past mistake or sin repented of is not seen as relevant. If Bishop X once held a problematic position, he cannot ever be trusted again and whoever considers the possibility is not to be trusted either.
So it seems there is a problem with people confusing both what truth requires and what compassion requires. It seems like certain people think that God being loving and merciful cannot condemn the actions being done. From that error, it becomes easy to make one of two opposite false conclusions. Either the person...
- wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church cannot say things we do are wrong.
- wrongly assumes that compassion and love means the Church is failing to teach right and wrong.
That’s the danger of becoming so rigid or so attached to one’s sins that one loses sight of the big picture—that God is both loving and just. Ignoring one of these in favor of the other is going to give a person a distorted view of God and what we are called by Him to be. Losing sight of God’s justice means expecting God to just turn a blind eye to our sins. Losing sight of God’s love means viewing the sinner as an enemy to oppose instead of a person in need of salvation that we have to reach out to.
Both views need to be opposed. The person who does not want to change his or her ways, and thinks of Church teaching as “manmade rules” are creating a false image of God and risking their souls over a lie. The person who thinks of the sinner as “the enemy,” are claiming the role of judge that they are not allowed to have, risking becoming alienated from Christ and His Church. We need to realize that the role of the Church does not embrace either extreme. Rather, the Church loves the sinner, while rejecting the false ideas the sinner clings to. The role of God’s teaching is to lead us in living according to His will. Those who have not fallen into a particular sin are called to help their brethren who have and love them—even if the response we receive from them is hostile.
We are called to love and follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that means heeding the Church He established (Matthew 18:17). That also means serving in love in doing so. We can’t just point to the failures of the “other side.” We have to consider our own actions in relation to these two pitfalls.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Umm, Religious Freedom is Not Just Freedom From Being Jailed…
According to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
According to the definitions in Title VII
The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.
What seems to follow from this, as I see it, is that our religious beliefs in faith and morals cannot be used as grounds for limiting our advancement, firing us or refusing to hire us because our religious beliefs require us to hold that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, for example.
What this tells us is the current argument used by some is invalid. Our religious freedom rights are not merely referring to not being jailed for our beliefs. Neither the government, nor the employer, nor the union organizations can discriminate against us for our beliefs.
According to law, our freedom of religion – which affects all areas of our lives – cannot be used as a basis for ostracism. We're allowed to vote according to our beliefs. We're allowed to donate to political causes according to our beliefs. We're allowed to call for legislation which is in keeping with our beliefs. We can't be fired or demoted or harassed for our beliefs.
Of course, the question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (Who polices the police?) comes up here. Yes, according to law, we can't be persecuted for our beliefs. But in practice, we are. The mobs who call for people to be boycotted or fired because of their religious beliefs get away with it. Companies cave in. Judges enact unjust rulings. Politicians enact unjust laws. All in the name of "tolerance."
The only problem is, this behavior sanctified by the label of "tolerance" is remarkably similar to kinds of infamous injustice: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade etc. in which people could point to Supreme Court rulings and declare that what they did was legal.
This is what happens when the elites of a society, political and cultural, become corrupted and seek to benefit their own views and use positions of authority to hinder or harm those they disagree with. This is the kind of system where we need to stop thinking "Democrat or Republican" or "Liberal or Conservative" and start electing people who think in terms of "is this true or not? Is this just or not?"
Otherwise our claims to freedom in America are a sham.
Umm, Religious Freedom is Not Just Freedom From Being Jailed…
According to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
According to the definitions in Title VII
The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.
What seems to follow from this, as I see it, is that our religious beliefs in faith and morals cannot be used as grounds for limiting our advancement, firing us or refusing to hire us because our religious beliefs require us to hold that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, for example.
What this tells us is the current argument used by some is invalid. Our religious freedom rights are not merely referring to not being jailed for our beliefs. Neither the government, nor the employer, nor the union organizations can discriminate against us for our beliefs.
According to law, our freedom of religion – which affects all areas of our lives – cannot be used as a basis for ostracism. We're allowed to vote according to our beliefs. We're allowed to donate to political causes according to our beliefs. We're allowed to call for legislation which is in keeping with our beliefs. We can't be fired or demoted or harassed for our beliefs.
Of course, the question of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (Who polices the police?) comes up here. Yes, according to law, we can't be persecuted for our beliefs. But in practice, we are. The mobs who call for people to be boycotted or fired because of their religious beliefs get away with it. Companies cave in. Judges enact unjust rulings. Politicians enact unjust laws. All in the name of "tolerance."
The only problem is, this behavior sanctified by the label of "tolerance" is remarkably similar to kinds of infamous injustice: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade etc. in which people could point to Supreme Court rulings and declare that what they did was legal.
This is what happens when the elites of a society, political and cultural, become corrupted and seek to benefit their own views and use positions of authority to hinder or harm those they disagree with. This is the kind of system where we need to stop thinking "Democrat or Republican" or "Liberal or Conservative" and start electing people who think in terms of "is this true or not? Is this just or not?"
Otherwise our claims to freedom in America are a sham.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Thoughts on the So-Called "Freedom From Religion"
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The freedom of religion is normally understood to be an important part of American life. It's enshrined in the Constitution as something the government cannot infringe on. The government can't tell me I must belong to a state approved religion. Nor can it tell me that I cannot belong to the Catholic faith... which is certainly a change from pre 19th century England, pre Constitution America or modern China or Vietnam.
In America, such a right meant that I was free to live my life as a member of the Catholic Church, supporting and opposing laws and politicians, running my business in accordance with my beliefs. In doing so, I do not force Catholicism on others. I do my best to convince others of the truth, but I do not coerce people to do what they believe to be evil.
Unfortunately, we seem to have had a total breakdown on the concept of religious freedom. Politicians who act in accordance with their religious beliefs, laws passed by a majority of citizens who believe certain behavior cannot be sanctioned by civilized society are attacked by a vocal minority that has the support of the political, cultural and media elites. This elite has the opinion that the freedom of religion means the freedom from religion, and that is a gross perversion. It is imposing beliefs the Christian not only disagrees with, but also believes is evil to do.
The reason this is an imposition is because of this difference: The freedom OF religion means I may live all aspects of my life in accordance with what God demands of me, including my right to vote. The freedom FROM religion claims that a person has the right not to see religious activity in public... or to be affected by laws or behavior that people with religious motivations follow.
The results of such behavior is that when a majority of a state pass a law which defends the long held understanding that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, a judge can take this distortion called "freedom from religion" and declare such laws violate the "separation of Church and state." Why? Because the motivation is alleged to be solely based on religion and because of the establishment clause, as misinterpreted by judges, laws passed are ruled "violation" of Church and State.
But that's nonsense. The establishment of religion clause means that nobody can be forced to belong to a religion against their will. But when Christians, Jews and Muslims vote in favor of a law defending the common understanding of marriage, nobody is forced to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew. Rather, it means Christians, Muslims and Jews agree that in light of distortion, the definition of marriage needs to be made clear in law. THAT'S the free exercise of religious freedom.
On the other hand, judges who rule that homosexual relationships can be marriages and that Christians must treat them as such or face charges on violating "civil rights," that's interference with religious freedom to live as God calls us to live... which forbids us to assist the sin of another.
Likewise the contraception mandate. The Catholic believes that artificial contraception is a sin. To require the Catholic to participate in assisting another's sin by paying for contraception via health insurance for his employees is interference with a person's right to live according to God's commands.
The response from the "freedom from religion" mindset is that an employee shouldn't have to give up her right to contraception (begging the question) just because she works for a religious employer.
But that argument shows the unjustness of "freedom from religion." The woman's constitutional rights are not violated by having to pay for her own contraception. But the Catholic employer is having his constitutional rights violated by being forced to provide such contraception --as condemned by his religion-- or face fines of $100 per employee per day.
Once upon a time, people would realize the injustice of these incidents of judicial activism. But today? Now believers are portrayed as bigots simply because they defend their rights as believers.
This injustice will continue until such a time that people recognize that the "freedom from religion" is a counterfeit right that violates true rights
Thoughts on the So-Called "Freedom From Religion"
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The freedom of religion is normally understood to be an important part of American life. It's enshrined in the Constitution as something the government cannot infringe on. The government can't tell me I must belong to a state approved religion. Nor can it tell me that I cannot belong to the Catholic faith... which is certainly a change from pre 19th century England, pre Constitution America or modern China or Vietnam.
In America, such a right meant that I was free to live my life as a member of the Catholic Church, supporting and opposing laws and politicians, running my business in accordance with my beliefs. In doing so, I do not force Catholicism on others. I do my best to convince others of the truth, but I do not coerce people to do what they believe to be evil.
Unfortunately, we seem to have had a total breakdown on the concept of religious freedom. Politicians who act in accordance with their religious beliefs, laws passed by a majority of citizens who believe certain behavior cannot be sanctioned by civilized society are attacked by a vocal minority that has the support of the political, cultural and media elites. This elite has the opinion that the freedom of religion means the freedom from religion, and that is a gross perversion. It is imposing beliefs the Christian not only disagrees with, but also believes is evil to do.
The reason this is an imposition is because of this difference: The freedom OF religion means I may live all aspects of my life in accordance with what God demands of me, including my right to vote. The freedom FROM religion claims that a person has the right not to see religious activity in public... or to be affected by laws or behavior that people with religious motivations follow.
The results of such behavior is that when a majority of a state pass a law which defends the long held understanding that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, a judge can take this distortion called "freedom from religion" and declare such laws violate the "separation of Church and state." Why? Because the motivation is alleged to be solely based on religion and because of the establishment clause, as misinterpreted by judges, laws passed are ruled "violation" of Church and State.
But that's nonsense. The establishment of religion clause means that nobody can be forced to belong to a religion against their will. But when Christians, Jews and Muslims vote in favor of a law defending the common understanding of marriage, nobody is forced to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew. Rather, it means Christians, Muslims and Jews agree that in light of distortion, the definition of marriage needs to be made clear in law. THAT'S the free exercise of religious freedom.
On the other hand, judges who rule that homosexual relationships can be marriages and that Christians must treat them as such or face charges on violating "civil rights," that's interference with religious freedom to live as God calls us to live... which forbids us to assist the sin of another.
Likewise the contraception mandate. The Catholic believes that artificial contraception is a sin. To require the Catholic to participate in assisting another's sin by paying for contraception via health insurance for his employees is interference with a person's right to live according to God's commands.
The response from the "freedom from religion" mindset is that an employee shouldn't have to give up her right to contraception (begging the question) just because she works for a religious employer.
But that argument shows the unjustness of "freedom from religion." The woman's constitutional rights are not violated by having to pay for her own contraception. But the Catholic employer is having his constitutional rights violated by being forced to provide such contraception --as condemned by his religion-- or face fines of $100 per employee per day.
Once upon a time, people would realize the injustice of these incidents of judicial activism. But today? Now believers are portrayed as bigots simply because they defend their rights as believers.
This injustice will continue until such a time that people recognize that the "freedom from religion" is a counterfeit right that violates true rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)