Friday, April 22, 2005
Argh! A big long philosophical rant! Turn back while you still can!
Following on from Bob's recent post about absolutism versus relativism - currently a hot topic following the pope-ification (what's the correct term here?) of avowed absolutist Benedict XVI - I would like to add my own nominal amount of US currency.
Yesterday the Guardian published an "in his own words" feature on various issues on religion, marriage, homosexuality, abortion and so on, most of which were regrettably predictable. The one that caught my eye, though, was the following quote:
"The church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin... the Evangelium Vitae [a Vatican edict] states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection ... In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it"."
In other words, if a state law exists that conflicts with Catholic dogma, then Catholics are obliged to disobey that law. This really surprised me. Clearly in the case of abortion or euthanasia there is no conflict - a good Catholic wouldn't want to make use of these laws anyway. But the implications of this are that Catholics are not obliged to obey state laws, and presumably would be obliged to condemn them wherever possible.
A similar situation may exist within Islam, in that some adherents claim to put their religion before their nationality, though I don't know whether this is a formal edict or not and so won't comment further. But my point is: by acting in this way, organised religions (whether of East or West) can become disruptive influences on society and democracy, and in my opinion this is precisely why religion should have no place on politics whatever. I would never vote for a politician that condemned or oppressed religious adherency - I am a liberal. But at the same time, to say that godless states and societies are corrosive and flawed is pretty hypocritical when you are actively encouraging your followers to corrode them.
Personal beliefs are fine - I believe people should be able to live how they like as long as it doesn't harm those around them. Also, at a personal level religion has got a lot going for it - all the Christians I know are gentle, kind people, and I love the peaceful atmosphere of churches. But absolutism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. I guess it comes down to change. Change and progress are human, and therefore permanence and stasis are godly. But change is not only human, it is also natural, and nature is also presumed to be godly. I'm going to end up tying myself in philosophical knots if I'm not careful, so I think I'll stop there. I hope I've made at least some kind of intelligent point! ;)
Edit: Just realised that I've missed out something important! Where does the unchanging, godly authority for Catholic dogma come from? Nowhere in the Bible are issues such as euthanasia, contraception/abortion and homosexuality laid bare in an unambiguous, Ten Commandments type way (oh, and Leviticus, schmeviticus!). It's all down to interpretation, which can never be static.
Yesterday the Guardian published an "in his own words" feature on various issues on religion, marriage, homosexuality, abortion and so on, most of which were regrettably predictable. The one that caught my eye, though, was the following quote:
"The church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin... the Evangelium Vitae [a Vatican edict] states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection ... In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it"."
In other words, if a state law exists that conflicts with Catholic dogma, then Catholics are obliged to disobey that law. This really surprised me. Clearly in the case of abortion or euthanasia there is no conflict - a good Catholic wouldn't want to make use of these laws anyway. But the implications of this are that Catholics are not obliged to obey state laws, and presumably would be obliged to condemn them wherever possible.
A similar situation may exist within Islam, in that some adherents claim to put their religion before their nationality, though I don't know whether this is a formal edict or not and so won't comment further. But my point is: by acting in this way, organised religions (whether of East or West) can become disruptive influences on society and democracy, and in my opinion this is precisely why religion should have no place on politics whatever. I would never vote for a politician that condemned or oppressed religious adherency - I am a liberal. But at the same time, to say that godless states and societies are corrosive and flawed is pretty hypocritical when you are actively encouraging your followers to corrode them.
Personal beliefs are fine - I believe people should be able to live how they like as long as it doesn't harm those around them. Also, at a personal level religion has got a lot going for it - all the Christians I know are gentle, kind people, and I love the peaceful atmosphere of churches. But absolutism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. I guess it comes down to change. Change and progress are human, and therefore permanence and stasis are godly. But change is not only human, it is also natural, and nature is also presumed to be godly. I'm going to end up tying myself in philosophical knots if I'm not careful, so I think I'll stop there. I hope I've made at least some kind of intelligent point! ;)
Edit: Just realised that I've missed out something important! Where does the unchanging, godly authority for Catholic dogma come from? Nowhere in the Bible are issues such as euthanasia, contraception/abortion and homosexuality laid bare in an unambiguous, Ten Commandments type way (oh, and Leviticus, schmeviticus!). It's all down to interpretation, which can never be static.
# posted by Pgd @ 9:17 am 
Comments:
<< Home
And just to point out that despite the fact that the Church teaches that monogamy is the only moral way to live... Abraham, one of the most important people in the Old Testament, essentially had a harem, he had children with a concubine, etc. And yet God favoured him, and his descendants multiplied across the land. In fact most characters in the Bible are polygamous, as in fact most cultures throughout history have been. But I won't get into all this now!
Well, at least your Birdseye Takeaway Chicken Tikka Masalla Ready Made Meal For One didn't come with ricin instead of rice
Post a Comment
<< Home
