Revision to "An ideology of evil"
Awhile after posting my entry on the Catholic Church (my first entry), I had a discussion with my girlfriend about it. She sucessfully refuted some of the points that I made, and I felt compelled to revise the initial entry. So that the initial entry can serve as a comparison to what I now feel, I have decided to keep the first entry in its original form and write the two revisions I'd like to make here:
1. For me to say that the Catholic Church didn't think the Holocaust was a big deal at the time it was occuring is historically innacurate. They apparently recognized the horror of the situation, but maintained a policy of neutrality. Whether or not this was the best policy towards ending the Holocaust is debated among historians. I still think though, that a policy of neutrality during the Holocaust is probably indefensible, and I criticze countries such as Sweden that maintained this policy as much as I do the church.
2. The reason that the Pope calling gay marriage part of "an ideology of evil" did not receive much criticism was not necessarily the media's fear of criticizing the church. It may have had more to do with the fact the Pope is not a political figure (to most at least), and therefore his views on American political issues are not covered as much by the news media as the views of American politicians. Nevertheless, I still think that the Pope should have received more criticism for the statement since although he is not a political figure, he has significant influence on American politics via the Catholic Church's influence on American public opinion. Although, as my girlfriend brilliantly pointed out, even if the church causes people to think of gay marriage as evil, that has no bearing on the consitutionality of the issue and incidentally should not effect public policy. Of course, religious view points may very well effect public policy, even if they shouldn't.
Further criticisms and/or comments are very much welcomed.
1. For me to say that the Catholic Church didn't think the Holocaust was a big deal at the time it was occuring is historically innacurate. They apparently recognized the horror of the situation, but maintained a policy of neutrality. Whether or not this was the best policy towards ending the Holocaust is debated among historians. I still think though, that a policy of neutrality during the Holocaust is probably indefensible, and I criticze countries such as Sweden that maintained this policy as much as I do the church.
2. The reason that the Pope calling gay marriage part of "an ideology of evil" did not receive much criticism was not necessarily the media's fear of criticizing the church. It may have had more to do with the fact the Pope is not a political figure (to most at least), and therefore his views on American political issues are not covered as much by the news media as the views of American politicians. Nevertheless, I still think that the Pope should have received more criticism for the statement since although he is not a political figure, he has significant influence on American politics via the Catholic Church's influence on American public opinion. Although, as my girlfriend brilliantly pointed out, even if the church causes people to think of gay marriage as evil, that has no bearing on the consitutionality of the issue and incidentally should not effect public policy. Of course, religious view points may very well effect public policy, even if they shouldn't.
Further criticisms and/or comments are very much welcomed.
posted by Larry R. Friedman at 5:04 PM
4 Comments:
larry this has nothing to do with anything in your article..I'm just amazed no one had taken imonlyblogging.blogspot before you..seriously
-Em
The Pope (God rest his soul) was absolutely correct. Abortion is a holocaust. Numerically speaking, it has been worse than Hitler's holocaust or the millions Stalin murdered. (Isn't it interesting liberals never mention Stalin's killings?)
Gay marriage is another form of evil. It promotes an intrinsically disordered behavior and elevates it to a level equal to that of a heterosexual union. No Western society, let alone a Christian society, has recognized such an abomination in the past 2000 years.
And the argument that somehow the Constitution demands such an atrocity is so ridiculous it is almost beyond the pale of legitimate discourse. The idea that when Madison was penning the founding document of our nation he intended it to give legal benefits to sodomites is completely insane. The only people who believe the Constitution requires gay marriage are those who believe in the magical, mysterious "living Constitution". As columnist Walter Williams noted: "Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush."
As long as America is a moral nation governed by laws and not by the whims of judicial tyrants there will be no such thing as gay marriage. Given the great successes of anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in this past election, perhaps this is one battle the armies of God can actually win.
In response to anonymous . . .
1. Yes, numerically speaking, more humans (I hesitate to use the word "people" for reasons you can figure out), have been killed as a result of abortion than as a result of the holocaust. But my problem with the comparison is that the the goal of the holocaust was to wipe out entire races/groups of people. Even if you think abortion is murder, the goal of abortion is not mass murder, and I think that intent counts for something. The implication of equating abortion with the holocaust is that a woman who gets an abortion is morally equivalent to a nazi, and I find that troubling.
And yes, Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, if not worse, and that's something that liberals should acknowledge.
2. What about homosexuality is "intrinsically disordered" aside from the fact that it's not the norm?
It may be true that no Western society has recognized homosexual unions in the past 2000 years, but I don't see why that is relevant. It is only in recent human history that slavery has been almost universally accepted to be an abomination; custom often has little to do with morality.
3. "Strict interpretation" of the Constitution is at least as problematic, if not more, problematic than the "living Constitution". Some of the Constitution is somewhat vague and my guess is that that has to do a lot with the fact that the founding fathers disagreed with one another on many things. I would imagine that Jefferson's "strict interpretation" of the Constitution would be different than Hamilton's "strict interpretation" of the constitution. Anyway, if you're so concerned with keeping things the way the founding fathers supposedly wanted them to be, then consider the fact that Jefferson liked the idea of a revolution every 20 years.
1. Equating abortion with the Holocaust makes the abortionists the Nazis, not the women. Women are also victims of abortion.
2. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered because it denies two essential characteristics of human sexuality: complimentarity and possibility of reproduction. From an evolutionary biology perspective, it is a genetic dead end. Christian condemnation of homosexual behavior is not simply a custom. It is condemned numerous times in the Holy Scriptures and this teaching has been reinforced throughout 2000 years of tradition.
3. Strict interpretation is the only means of governing our society by law rather than judicial fiat. If judges can simply insert their personal opinions and mandate that the populace to conform to their sick and twisted views (as was done in Massachussetts), then we no longer live in a democratic society. As for Jefferson wishing for revolution every 20 years, that probably isn't such a bad idea. I wouldn't mind a fresh start on this nation we have here.
Post a Comment
<< Home