They are indeed pray for a TYPE of religious freedom and I support their right to do so.

 

I'm following you now.

 

Well would you prefer that the church had a prayer for "a type of religious freedom"? I call that splitting hairs.

 

Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers marched for Civil Rights. More often then not, he cited issues of segregation, and didn't necessarily address the issues involving Native Americans and the American Indian Reservation System all of the time. Should Dr. King have tried to remove the "civil rights" title from all of his marches, addresses, and other goings on, seeing as his primary agenda of segregation was only a TYPE of civil right?

I'm following you now.

 

Well would you prefer that the church had a prayer for "a type of religious freedom"? I call that splitting hairs.

 

Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers marched for Civil Rights. More often then not, he cited issues of segregation, and didn't necessarily address the issues involving Native Americans and the American Indian Reservation System all of the time. Should Dr. King have tried to remove the "civil rights" title from all of his marches, addresses, and other goings on, seeing as his primary agenda of segregation was only a TYPE of civil right?

 

Your analogy is not accurate unless you believe that MLK ONLY wanted civil rights for black Americans.

Your analogy is not accurate unless you believe that MLK ONLY wanted civil rights for black Americans.

 

I'm just saying...I don't have any problem with the Church praying for religious freedoms. They may be praying for their specific religious freedoms, but they ARE still praying for religious freedoms. One is a sub-heading of another as far as I'm concerned.

I'm just saying...I don't have any problem with the Church praying for religious freedoms. They may be praying for their specific religious freedoms, but they ARE still praying for religious freedoms. One is a sub-heading of another as far as I'm concerned.

 

Then just say in the prayer we recite weekly that we're looking out for ourselves and not religious freedom for all.

 

Disagree with "sub-heading." You're either for it completely or you're not. There is no sub-heading.

They are indeed pray for a TYPE of religious freedom and I support their right to do so.

 

Despite reading it numerous times I'm not completely following your 2nd paragraph.

 

 

 

No, there wouldn't even be a prayer for the ban because they agree. You can't say you're for freedom only if it's in line with the Church.

 

You can't say you're for Freedom of Speech unless it has offensive words. You're either for it completely or against it completely. There is no middle ground.

 

I am not in agreement with the all or nothing approach. Complete religious freedom has the potential to allow for human sacrifice (it could go that far as absurd as it sounds). In terms of free speech, there is the issue of the unprotected speech.

Well your logic in your previous post completely lost me...honestly.

He's good at that.

I am not in agreement with the all or nothing approach. Complete religious freedom has the potential to allow for human sacrifice (it could go that far as absurd as it sounds). In terms of free speech, there is the issue of the unprotected speech.

That's exactly the point I was making earlier. :thumb:

I am not in agreement with the all or nothing approach. Complete religious freedom has the potential to allow for human sacrifice (it could go that far as absurd as it sounds). In terms of free speech, there is the issue of the unprotected speech.

 

1. My examples deal with freedom in regards to laws that may be passed. On the outside and absurd chance a law was allowed to practice human sacrifice I'm confident the Catholic church would step up and be against it. Why? They're already against murder.

 

2. Unprotected speech doesn't apply here. We know there is unprotected speech. It's a universal truth and universally accepted.

That's exactly the point I was making earlier.

 

If that's the point you were trying to make you a) misunderstood the point I was making and b)came up with a bad analogy. No one said anything about "anything goes."

Then just say in the prayer we recite weekly that we're looking out for ourselves and not religious freedom for all.

 

Disagree with "sub-heading." You're either for it completely or you're not. There is no sub-heading.

 

I guess I just don't see the problem.

I guess I just don't see the problem.

 

No problem. Hard to always be clear with the written word despite my numerous efforts. It's all about being disingenuous to me.

No problem. Hard to always be clear with the written word despite my numerous efforts. It's all about being disingenuous to me.

 

Well if you were to sue someone for violation of the US Bill of Rights...you would cite them in your pleadings for violating that right. Isn't this just kinda praying that same way?

Keeping in mind the Catholic Church's ideology, doctrines, beliefs, etc, what ShOULD the Catholic Church be doing on this issue? What should they not be doing? How should they respond? What are they doing wrong that goes against their fundamental beliefs?

Edited June 25, 201214 yr by hoops5

Let's stick to something a little more real world. Stick with my example since there is no issue with Catholics and pork. I picked contraceptives for a reason.

 

You asked for an example where the Catholic Church would support a fight against infringement of rights when such an infringement did not include a teaching of the Catholic Church, I gave one. How is this example not applicable???? I provided pretty much exactly what you asked for in your post. Do you only downplay my example because it does not support your assertion?

You asked for an example where the Catholic Church would support a fight against infringement of rights when such an infringement did not include a teaching of the Catholic Church, I gave one. How is this example not applicable???? I provided pretty much exactly what you asked for in your post. Do you only downplay my example because it does not support your assertion?

 

I've already given a real-world example vs a far-fetched example like your pork.

 

Let's stick to real-world. Your thoughts?