|
Post by stoney on Jul 1, 2011 13:09:01 GMT -5
Well there you go. Just like it's legal to have an abortion, but it may be against some religions' view. It's legal to eat pork, but not cool in all religions.
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jul 1, 2011 13:19:58 GMT -5
And consider this~~In some states in the US it is legal to marry ones' cousin, while in others it is not. Not to single out any one group, but I know that it was common for Italians to pre-arrange the marriage of cousins while Catholocism was the norm.
[Consider this (in Toronto...)]
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 1, 2011 14:04:04 GMT -5
FA, I would tend to agree Grisanti's approach to the civil differentiation of church and state regarding gay marriage makes civil sense. And he stands on the shoulders of great moral mediators like Teddy Kennedy, Mario Cuomo and now his son. But some would ask him to first stand by his moral precepts before he would ask to lead us. We have too many representatives who think one way and vote another.
Stony, we do need to separate church from state and our laws should be the result of a majority consensus expressed through our representatives. Some here on the forum were disappointed to see Gay Marriage become law, but no one felt gays should be discriminated against, except some wanted gays to be excluded from civil marriage.
The real question here is: Is marriage just a civil contract? If so, then hardly anyone here was against gay marriage. But if marriage is indeed after 10,000 years warped into the structure and fabric of our society as an institution between a man and a woman, then some of us had doubts about whether the government ought be the agent to change that definition. As for religion, I didn't hear anyone here express any care for what the religions thought. (I did say I was impressed with the Catholic position, but I also said I did not agree with it from a civil point of view.)
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 1, 2011 14:06:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm starting to consider going back to computer programming. I don't have to interact with many humans doing that. And I can always turn off or disembowel a computer without facing criminal penalties. I think it was the Japanese back in the 70's who provided punching bags on each floor of some office buildings where you could stop in any time and beat the sh*t out of Tom, Dick or Harriet.
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jul 1, 2011 14:24:48 GMT -5
"Some here on the forum were disappointed to see Gay Marriage become law, ..."
I didn't pick up n that. Is it going to affect them somehow??
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Jul 1, 2011 14:28:50 GMT -5
{I must go & dance now. We finally got a new stereo to replace the HUGE & expensive one I've had for 17 years. I can't believe this one is smaller, cheaper, & has more watts!!! Pioneer~~be damned.}
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jul 1, 2011 16:01:39 GMT -5
Well, Dave, to a degree, he did stand by his moral precepts. He moved ahead with the bill because of the religuous protections they agreed to. I think his approach was probably the best case scenario. He held to his beliefs, understood the legal position of it and addressed protections for faiths that don't believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 1, 2011 21:44:25 GMT -5
Well, Dave , to a degree, he did stand by his moral precepts. He moved ahead with the bill because of the religuous protections they agreed to. I think his approach was probably the best case scenario. He held to his beliefs, understood the legal position of it and addressed protections for faiths that don't believe in it. You and I agree that for a person whose real mind we don't know for sure (because he didn't vote his conscience), the best case scenario for Grisanti the politician was to say he would do his job as a legislator. (He may be one of the few in Albany doing so!) But he did not hold to his beliefs. On that I disagree. A man who holds to his beliefs does not deny them and vote for the opposite. Although he may have done the best for himself and we'll assume honored the wishes of the majority of his constituents, he did not honor his beliefs. But that assumes he really believes marriage should be between a man and a woman.
|
|
|
Post by firstamendment on Jul 1, 2011 22:12:10 GMT -5
But how can he hold to his beliefs and ideals if he sees where the greater good of the people is at stake? I think his vote was an excellent compromise. He stated his beliefs, he reviewed the legal aspect, and clearly felt his religious beliefs per se were being protected with the religious carve-outs. By accepting the religious protections it ensured his beliefs stayed intact, while not projecting his beliefs onto everyone else.
See, they have to view it from their beliefs, those of their constituents, as well as the legal arguements of the issue. I think he did a great job balancing them all out and even putting it to words. I don't say this because he voted in favor of what I believe to be the right thing, I say it because I think he did a good job dividing up the different aspects of the issue. He went so far as to mention he did not think it fair to deprive others the same rights he shares with his own wife. And that says a lot about how he really views a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 2, 2011 6:48:26 GMT -5
Yes, I agree(d) he did his best from a "democratic representative" point of view. But I think we differ only in the definition of "hold to his beliefs." And by my lights, at least, someone who strongly believes in something does not divide up the different aspects of the case and come out a door that conveniently gets them elected. After all, some people have died for their beliefs. I don't suggest our legislators start dying for their opinions. To me, none ... including this issue ... are that important. In fact, this issue isn't important to me at all, frankly, so I don't know why I keep posting about it.
Except that even though I agree with the liberal point of view when it comes to allowing people to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone or society, it bothered me years ago when politicians began to play both sides of the street on issues, saying they believed one thing but that for the proletariat they were willing to let us steep in our own ignorance (and receive our votes.) There is something wrong with that manner of governance. I'd rather vote for someone whose beliefs I agree with. Too bad so many of them are dopes.
So the bottom line is that I don't know which is better for democracy .... voting your own opinion and belief, knowing it was confirmed by those who elected you because you were open and forthright in your campaign about your beliefs and opinions, or voting the way you think your constituents feel you should. (In a way of course, one way is democratic and the other is republic-an in nature.) But I wouldn't say he held to his beliefs if he voted against them.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 2, 2011 10:38:18 GMT -5
Yes, I agree(d) he did his best from a "democratic representative" point of view. But I think we differ only in the definition of "hold to his beliefs." And by my lights, at least, someone who strongly believes in something does not divide up the different aspects of the case and come out a door that conveniently gets them elected. After all, some people have died for their beliefs. I don't suggest our legislators start dying for their opinions. To me, none ... including this issue ... are that important. In fact, this issue isn't important to me at all, frankly, so I don't know why I keep posting about it. Except that even though I agree with the liberal point of view when it comes to allowing people to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone or society, it bothered me years ago when politicians began to play both sides of the street on issues, saying they believed one thing but that for the proletariat they were willing to let us steep in our own ignorance (and receive our votes.) There is something wrong with that manner of governance. I'd rather vote for someone whose beliefs I agree with. Too bad so many of them are dopes. So the bottom line is that I don't know which is better for democracy .... voting your own opinion and belief, knowing it was confirmed by those who elected you because you were open and forthright in your campaign about your beliefs and opinions, or voting the way you think your constituents feel you should. (In a way of course, one way is democratic and the other is republic-an in nature.) But I wouldn't say he held to his beliefs if he voted against them. I disagree. He strongly believes gay marriage is counter to his religious understanding. But he also strongly believes he was elected to represent the people who voted him there. So by acknowledging his own belief that it was not right and voting in favor anyway, he held to his beliefs that his constituents come before his beliefs!
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 2, 2011 12:21:20 GMT -5
Dave, your views don't surprise me in the least. You are an Irish Catholic, brought up in a time when the church and your religion were truly and integral part of family life. A time when GOD and FAMILY were the foundation, and those beliefs truly guided the rest of your life. Times spent with people most likely much like my grandparents. Given a choice of having to follow the guidance of one person, they would have leaned strongly toward the Pope or the parish priest, rather than politicians.
You were brought up attending parochial schools, with Catholicism a part of your every day. You and your parents most likely attended Mass faithfully and regularly.
I remember my grandparents and my dad's aunts and uncles spending more time saying the rosary than they did watching television. They spent EVERY holy day observing the appropriate customs and attending mass.
Nobody found abortion acceptable. The Democratic party was still the party of the working man, and not the party of the "entitled" non working, and the far left.
Cable news networks didn't influence children with biased opinions, half truths, and blatant lies. Our political opinions and principles were only influenced by our fathers and grandfathers through listening to conversation at a family level. Religious and moral beliefs far outweighed secular or political opinion.
If one had to choose one of the two, abortion, or same sex marriage, I would be inclined to vote against abortion. No lives are lost by allowing same sex marriage.
My father was not an actively practicing Catholic in adulthood. He seldom attended mass, and in later years he attended churches of other denominations. He was never biased or bigoted in speaking of gays or people of other races, and we were brought up to treat all people as equals, but I would be willing to bet that he, like you, would fall back on his lifelong Catholic beliefs where the subject of same sex marriage is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 2, 2011 19:03:24 GMT -5
Yes, I agree(d) he did his best from a "democratic representative" point of view. But I think we differ only in the definition of "hold to his beliefs." And by my lights, at least, someone who strongly believes in something does not divide up the different aspects of the case and come out a door that conveniently gets them elected. After all, some people have died for their beliefs. I don't suggest our legislators start dying for their opinions. To me, none ... including this issue ... are that important. In fact, this issue isn't important to me at all, frankly, so I don't know why I keep posting about it. Except that even though I agree with the liberal point of view when it comes to allowing people to do what they want as long as they don't harm anyone or society, it bothered me years ago when politicians began to play both sides of the street on issues, saying they believed one thing but that for the proletariat they were willing to let us steep in our own ignorance (and receive our votes.) There is something wrong with that manner of governance. I'd rather vote for someone whose beliefs I agree with. Too bad so many of them are dopes. So the bottom line is that I don't know which is better for democracy .... voting your own opinion and belief, knowing it was confirmed by those who elected you because you were open and forthright in your campaign about your beliefs and opinions, or voting the way you think your constituents feel you should. (In a way of course, one way is democratic and the other is republic-an in nature.) But I wouldn't say he held to his beliefs if he voted against them. I disagree. He strongly believes gay marriage is counter to his religious understanding. But he also strongly believes he was elected to represent the people who voted him there. So by acknowledging his own belief that it was not right and voting in favor anyway, he held to his beliefs that his constituents come before his beliefs!But of course those are two different sets of beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 2, 2011 19:40:00 GMT -5
Dave, your views don't surprise me in the least. You are an Irish Catholic, brought up in a time when the church and your religion were truly and integral part of family life. A time when GOD and FAMILY were the foundation, and those beliefs truly guided the rest of your life. Times spent with people most likely much like my grandparents. Given a choice of having to follow the guidance of one person, they would have leaned strongly toward the Pope or the parish priest, rather than politicians. You were brought up attending parochial schools, with Catholicism a part of your every day. You and your parents most likely attended Mass faithfully and regularly. I remember my grandparents and my dad's aunts and uncles spending more time saying the rosary than they did watching television. They spent EVERY holy day observing the appropriate customs and attending mass. Nobody found abortion acceptable. The Democratic party was still the party of the working man, and not the party of the "entitled" non working, and the far left. Cable news networks didn't influence children with biased opinions, half truths, and blatant lies. Our political opinions and principles were only influenced by our fathers and grandfathers through listening to conversation at a family level. Religious and moral beliefs far outweighed secular or political opinion. If one had to choose one of the two, abortion, or same sex marriage, I would be inclined to vote against abortion. No lives are lost by allowing same sex marriage. My father was not an actively practicing Catholic in adulthood. He seldom attended mass, and in later years he attended churches of other denominations. He was never biased or bigoted in speaking of gays or people of other races, and we were brought up to treat all people as equals, but I would be willing to bet that he, like you, would fall back on his lifelong Catholic beliefs where the subject of same sex marriage is concerned. Clip, that's a fairly accurate description of many Catholic families in days gone by, but not nearly adequate to describe their opinions or mine. I believe you left out anything about the inherent pluralism of Catholicism (beyond Catholic schools) and the fact that most of us have since traveled a unique path to where we are today in our spiritual thinking. In short, it's hard to describe a Catholic and that may be why we often fall back on stereotypes. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear, although I don't think I've misstated anything in my posts. So, for the record: 1. I believe in God or his reasonable representation. I have no proof of his existence, but I know that some of us get it and some of us don't. 2. I don't think God cares if you're hetero or homo. 3. I don't' care if you're hetero or homo. There are more important things in life to concern myself with. 4. I am not a practicing Catholic, nor do I ever intend to be. 5. I am not against the acceptance of gay marriage in civil society. 6. I have no opinion whether the Catholic Church or any church should accept gay marriage ... that's up to them. However, I am impressed when an institution ... any institution ... holds to its beliefs. 7. I believe in principles and I believe a person should hold to them if he or she expects me to believe he or she is a principled individual. Yes, the nuns did teach me that. 8. Despite all of your excellent arguments, I cannot accept that a person would "hold to a belief" and vote against it. This is not a theological or sociological argument, but simply a logical argument. Beyond that, I've been struck with how our society readily accepts this discontinuity. Society would not have accepted it not so many years ago. I accept a man who believes in a certain precept, is open about it (some have not been unless it was convenient) and then announces he feels it is his duty to vote against his belief and instead vote the conscience of his constituency. But I cannot say he held to his beliefs. And frankly, I wonder what he was thinking when he first considered public office and knew he would face that challenge. Did he say to himself, "Oh, well, I'll just vote what everyone else believes?" But that's up to him. By the way, if anyone cares about my spiritual walk, it is much like Brother Jesse's in Monk In The Cellar, although not exactly of course, since he is a fictional character. Myself, I think I accurately summarized my own walk here: www.windsweptpress.com/worry.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 2, 2011 23:52:32 GMT -5
Of all of your stories that I HAVE read, I wish I had not missed "A God to Worry About". It would have prevented such a faux pas.
My apology for "assuming" the Irish Catholic thing. I guess you came away from childhood Catholicism with some of the same unpleasant memories of purgatory, and hell, and punishment and fear that I did. When I was old enough to choose for myself, I ran like the wind, as fast and as far from the Catholic Church as I could.
We may quite well believe much the same, although you are more eloquent in describing it. I simply profess to have a deep faith in the diety that I choose to call God, and in the power of prayer, yet don't subscribe to any "specific religion".
The diety that I put my faith in is the one that I perceive as having allowed me to gain sobriety and happiness. I simply hold more to the principles I began to learn from a 12 step program 35 years ago this month than to any religious doctrine. I have not always followed those to the letter either, but those principles and the people that introduced me to them, saved my life and that is good enough for me.
We also might believe somewhat the same when it comes to death I think. I personally prefer to envision a hereafter and to think my mom and dad have been reunited there, but I don't worry too much about it. I guess if there is no hereafter, we will all simply become compost, and will be dead so we won't give a damn. Whatever comes at the end of life is beyond our control so why lose sleep over it. The extent of my worrying about my mortality, or about death, is that I live every day like it could be my last, and never go to bed angry or with any unresolved issues with my soulmate. If I don't wake up tomorrow, it has been a hell of a ride, lol.
As for the politician in question. You speak of logic and discontinuity in the man holding to his beliefs yet voting against them. I guess I simplify it much more. I don't see him as being conflicted to a point of spending any time worrying about his stance on the issue. I simply see him as just another double talking hypocrite politician, but at least he voted for what he thought was the wishes of those that elected him to serve and I don't really give a damn whether he is holding to any religious beliefs or not.
Again. I am sorry that after all this time knowing you, I had not learned what your true opinion on religion and God actually are. My apology for my errant perception of your position on the subject of God, Catholicism and religion.
|
|