Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cdalzell@kean.ucs.mun.ca Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Separation of Church and State or Christianity vs Civil Laws Message-ID: Date: 16 Aug 90 16:52:05 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada Lines: 61 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , kodak!gerwitz@atexnet > In article , > garth!dbarnes@unix.sri.com (Dave Barnes) writes: > :> Actually the issue is not with abortion per se, but with the greater > :> issue of being a Christian and believing God's laws have sovereignty over > :> the laws of man when there is conflict between the two. As an American > :> we are to respect others' views, and our religious views are not to be > :> mandated for everyone. But what if others' views are in opposition to > :> God's views (as we interpret them) on certain issues? > :> > :> I've been really struggling with this over the last few years. > :> How have some of you out there reconciled this? I'd appreciate > :> hearing from you. > :> This is something we never stop struggling with, since it touches on every aspect of the Christian's life in the world. With all due respect, your question has something of a Protestant flavour and I think that the traditional Catholic position has something to offer here. It turns on the notion of natural law. That is to say that God's law for man and civil society is something that can, in theory, be discovered by experience and reason. In practice people will often fail to discover it because sin and self interest get in the way. Christian morals are, by this view, human morals. An exception would be in something like Sunday closing laws, which on could not justify to a non-christian population very easily. Abortion, theft and other issues can be shown to be wrong to those who are prepared to see. In argueing against abortion it is not a question of a Christian view against a non-christian view, but of the right view against the wrong view. (Jews and Muslims are also opposed to abortion after all). But politics is the art of the possible. If a substantial proportion of the population want abortion or murder, euthanasia or what have you, then there is not much you can do, except plug away trying to talk them out of it, but you are in for the long haul. Legislation is not going to solve anything at that point. No one should be happy about this. Another aspect of the Catholic theory of natural law is that bad practice has bad effects. Things are not bad in some totally theoretical way. They are bad because they cause suffering, and badness tends to spread. A country in which the majority see no evil in abortion is, in my opinion, not a country that has long to survive in any condition worth talking about. Central to the legalization of abortion is the denial of the notion that society can expect certain sacrifices from its citizens, so we have a society based on hedonism. Are Americans really supposed to respect each other's views? I pity you if that is the case. Your days are numbered. Surely what you are supposed to respect are the people holding the views. Hate the sin, love the sinner, is the old formula, and that applies to sins of the intellect as well as plain ignorance. IN matters where you care about truth you don't respect error. For instance it would never occur to me to respect the mathematical errors of my students, since these are deserving of the red pen treatment, but I have great regard for my students and for their capacity to do better and learn. keep up the struggle, Catherine Dalzell. Memorial University of Newfoundland. > +----------------------------------------------------------------------------