BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion

Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:01 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27705755/


Does this mean that Catholics can not vote for a candidate who supports anything the Catholic Church bans without endangering their faith? No gays? No divorced candidates?

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:06 AM

He should shut up and get back to his natural role of buggering altar boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:18 AM

One priest at one parish in South Carolina, without approval of his bishop or anyone else, hardly establishes policy for the entire Catholic church.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Deckman
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:33 AM

This priest's action does NOT surprise me in the slightest. I've seen it coming for a long time. You only need to scratch a "deeply religious" person a little, and you'll see that their "faith" gives them the power to play god. No surprise there. CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:39 AM

Since he is, in effect, telling people how to vote the IRS could take a long, hard look at him.

So should his Bishop. Man's a damned fool. The Middle Ages ended two or three years back.

If my priest did this I'd walk out of Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:48 AM

"One priest at one parish in South Carolina, without approval of his bishop or anyone else, hardly establishes policy for the entire Catholic church."

I agree, Art. But his bishop needs to speak up fast and clearly re: the official church stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:54 AM

Problem is, the Bishop in Omaha started this stuff a few years back and some members of the Council of Bishops agree with it.

This is the kind of thing that would have kept JFK from being elected and gives 99% of the American Catholics a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:00 AM

Looks like a lot of the bishops agree with him. From the article...

"During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back."

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:31 AM

Well, the churches pay taxes in other countries...and it looks like they might be rendering unto Caesar right soon now....

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:33 AM

It means that despicable assholery is like cockroaches--even nuclear explosions don't wipe it out.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: EBarnacle
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:37 AM

The question is whether this is considered speech or political advocacy.

Inasmuch as Catholics seem to have gone strongly for Obama, I would say this is an illustration of the growing divide between the clergy and parishoners.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: MarkS
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:43 AM

Isn't there a case to be made that if you want to enjoy the benefits of being a member of the team, you need to abide by the rules set down by the coaches?

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Arkie
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:46 AM

Obama has not supported abortion. He addressed this issue several times. He recognizes that it is a moral issue and has stated a world with less abortions is a better choice. However, he has not supported legislation that would force an unbending moral law on every citizen. There are many Christians who agree with that position. The prophets of the Old Testament and the New Testament taught that God is honored when those who want a relationship with Him make moral choices out of free will rather than because they are forced to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:53 AM

Now, look, folks... You can't advocate American Catholics breaking away from Rome in one thread and be really surpised when they do just because one priest's rebellion against authority goes the way you don't want them to go. Either you want them charting a course themselves, and let them learn from their actions as we all do, or you want them in lockstep with their Bishops and Pope. The priest who did this is silly, but do you really think he has that much influence in his parish???

If you do, then IMO you don't know too many American Catholics real well. Start there. Get to know some people IRL, in areas that are not always comfortable to you. And listen to them with respect YOU want, before you reactively start telling them how wrong they are, and find out what they really, really care about. You will be surprised to learn that they care deeply about many of the same things YOU do.

Practice what YOU preach.

~Susan
~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:57 AM

In my interminable role as self-appointed logician, I will point out a couple of premises embedded in the priest's declaration.

1)The Catholic church should be the acknowledged authority on moral law in the world...for everyone.

2)Catholics are required to insert religion ahead of everything else, even in matters of choosing what is defined in the Constitution as a non-religious post. (I would assume that even if a candidate advocated nuclear bombing of Mecca, that would take 2nd place to his position on abortion.)(or maybe if the priest discovered enough evils in all candidates, Catholics would be prohibited from voting at all!)

3)He suggests that he is qualified to speak for the Catholic church on these matters.


ahhhh...never mind....how about "if you don't like abortions, don't have one"?

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: pdq
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:10 AM

"...Since he is, in effect, telling people how to vote the IRS could take a long, hard look at him..."

Does that apply to Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Jeremiah Wright also?

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:14 AM

The assumption that the most effective way of working to avoid abortions is to have laws making abortion illegal is that, an assumption.

It is quite possible to argue that it is liable to be ineffective and damaging, and that a more promising approach is to work to get rid of the factors in society which make abortion seem the best choice, or even the only choice, for many women.

Thus a candidate who is opposed to the introduction of laws restricting the availability of abortion may support other policies which would offer the hope of reducing abortions overall.   And a candidate who is in favour of laws against abortions may support policies which would overall rend to increase abortions.

In those circumstances, anyone voting on the basis of a moral opposition to abortion would choose to vote for the former candidate. And it seems likely that millions of Catholics in the USA took that view, and voted for Obama in perfectly good conscience. No priest or bishop has the right to override that conscience - and that is totally orthodox Catholic teaching.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:22 AM

Anyway, he probably wasn't speaking ex-cathedra. He has no means of knowing who voted for whom, as the ballot is secret, and asking them to refrain is appealing to their conscience- which if they've voted for Obama they've already squared anyway. I seem to recall Irish priests making much the same pronouncements in the past over the national struggle (long before it was "terrorist") with feck all effect.

I remember dear departed Father Tom O'Shaughnessy (now in hell) telling my parents that while it wasn't his place to tell them who to vote for, the Labour candidate was a Protestant, and the Conservative a Good Catholic and a Knight of St. Columba.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:38 AM

Abortion. "Satan loves an unwanted child."

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 10:47 AM

Yet again the assumption that all abortions involve children who are unwanted is just that, an assumption. There are numerous pressures in society that can force women into having abortions which they would rather not have.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 11:47 AM

"Satan loves an unwanted child."

Well, so does God, for that matter.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 12:09 PM

Of course, that assumes you believe either one exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 12:35 PM

When an unwanted child knows it is unwanted, he/she is more apt to become anti social than a wanted one.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 12:35 PM

And if you don't, this entire discussion seems kind of stupid!

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:15 PM

I started the thread questioning the validity of this priest's claims. Belief in the existence of the Catholic Church is the only belief required to discuss the issue.
M

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:16 PM

Why not just tell 'em that it's okay if they voted for Obama as long as they wear paper bags over their heads while squawking like chickens for fifteen minutes, followed by the ritual kissing of a black cat on the ass while standing under a ladder and throwing non-iodized salt over one's left shoulder?

If people are gonna let their lives be led by a bunch of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, why not make it some real superstitious mumbo-jumbo? It's still bullshit, but it's lots more fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 01:36 PM

And if you're aren't a member of the Catholic Church then it doesn't mean shit to a tree { to quote Paul Kantner }.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 02:11 PM

If there were any real prospect of denying tax-exempt status to churches where the preacher strays into political territory, Catholic churches would be safer than most from censure.

That's because Roman Catholicism is unique among world religions it its degree of unity, as dictated by its authoritarian hierarchy. All that would be necessary would be for the Pope, or the National Council of Bishops, to declare that any directive to support particular candidates or parties is against Church policy, inferring that any individual priest who commits such an offense is a "renegade," not representative of the Church itself (and not important enough, or authoritative enough, to cause the Church as a whole to lose its preferential status).

On the other hand, many of the worst-offending preachers of political partisanship are independent pastors of their own "non-denominational" churches (or megachurches). They have no superior officers to cover for them the way a bishop, cardinal, or the Pope himself can claim higher authority than any individual Catholic priest.

These guys, who are basically CEOs of their own highly profitable business enterprises and personal feifdoms, could probably be denied their tax-exampt status much more easily than any pastor (no matter how politically oriented, inflammatory, offensive, or whatever) who is affiliated with one of the larger and more-tightly-organized denominations.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 02:20 PM

That raises an interesting question. If an individual Catholic church (or Baptist, or Presbytarian, etc.) engages in overtly political behavior, and the government decides it wants to withdraw the tax exempt status of that church (congregation), would the government have to go to the people at the top, or could they just slap the judgment on the individual congregation separately from the church heirarchy or the other individual congregations within the larger church?

In other words, if one specific congregation engages in such behavior, does the government have to deal with the church as a whole, or can it deal with just that specific congregtion?

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 02:29 PM

Carol I'm guess that it would be tough to prove in court. To blame the entire denomination would be akin to racial profiling. Why blame everyone for the actions of a few. That's what the Muslims have to put up with anyway...

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Art Thieme
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 02:47 PM

If a thousand people do a stupid thing or take an ignorant position, and ten people vote otherwise, the majority has STILL taken an ignorant stance. The 10 people are correct, but they lose the erection.

Art!

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Art Thieme
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 03:09 PM

Use Viagra.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 03:27 PM

I was thinking more along the lines of if an individual congregation was doing it and they didn't lose their tax exempt status because it wasn't approved of or imposed on them by the church heirarchy. It looked like a poster up thread was suggesting that it might work that way. And I was wondering if an individual congregation could lose their tax exempt status for such behavior despite what the home office did or did not approve or impose.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 03:30 PM

It does, Wesley, if the church is assuming the power to control the votes of its congregation with the threat of withholding of communion, mortal sin or eternal damnation.

New meds, Art? Can I have some?
Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: PoppaGator
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM

I think that an individual congregation's legal culpability on the tax-exemption issue (if any such case were ever actually persued) would be very likely to depend upon its degree of independence.

Some churches are unaffiliated, and would seem to be the most vulnerable to such prosecution for that reason.

Individual congregations that are part of some larger entity would be better able to hide behind Mama's skirt, as it were. And, among religions doing business in the US, none is more tightly controlled by a hierarchy than Catholicism.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: olddude
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 03:51 PM

Sins
I am catholic and that is truly not the way the church is suppose to act. I don't get any of the churchs that have to meddle into politics. You would think after the spanish inquisition and all the other wrongs that have occured in history from all denominations, that all churches would simply focus on the spirit and not on politics. I think our founding fathers really got it right with the separation of church and state.   I hate to see a priest, minister, preacher whatever they are called trying to force their political views on anyone. It is bad for everyone, bad for the church and I think goes against God.

I was always proud of my local priest who when asked said " my work is with God not Politicans". I guess some others in my church are not wise enough to follow that my friend.

I think it is terrible and that priest should be ashamed just like many of the evangelicals who try to force others to vote the way they like because of their position.

No religious figure as I see it has the right to ask people to give up their right to vote as their heart tells them. Their place is the business of God not Man as I see it.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:19 PM

I am an ex-catholic, old due , and understand exactly what you are saying. I am hoping that the bishop, arch-bishop and powers that be squelch this.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: maire-aine
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:35 PM

I wore my O'Bama (like Mick, I can't help myself) button to my local Catholic church all through the campaign, and never go any flak. I was appalled by some of the anti-abortion propaganda that they printed in their bulletin, though.

Maryanne

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: olddude
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:36 PM

They higher ups in the church really should take that priest to task my friend. I would go to a different church before I would give up my right to vote as my heart believes.

It is a shame that there are people like that. I think that is how we got into this mess in the first place. Religious leaders saying GW was a man of God and telling them how to vote. It is not right, they should just stick to matters of the soul and not politics

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:38 PM

There's a Baptist chruch near here that has a sirn outside proclaiming "Abortion is an Obama-Nation".

I think what will really happen in this situation is that this priests parishioners will read his letter and ignore it. Or he will drive more of his folks away from his church and into another.

Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion
From: Genie
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:54 PM

[[Bill D: In my interminable role as self-appointed logician, I will point out a couple of premises embedded in the priest's declaration.

1)The Catholic church should be the acknowledged authority on moral law in the world...for everyone.

2)Catholics are required to insert religion ahead of everything else, even in matters of choosing what is defined in the Constitution as a non-religious post. (I would assume that even if a candidate advocated nuclear bombing of Mecca, that would take 2nd place to his position on abortion.)(or maybe if the priest discovered enough evils in all candidates, Catholics would be prohibited from voting at all!)

3) He suggests that he is qualified to speak for the Catholic church on these matters.]]

Embedded in the priest's declaration is also the premise that:

4) If the Catholic Church disagrees with ONE policy of candidate X, a Catholic cannot in good faith support candidate X over candidates Y and Z -- even if candidate X's political stances are more in keeping with The Church's teachings than candidates Y's and Z's are.

Even a Catholic who believes all abortions should be outlawed at all stages of pregnancy, regardless of concerns for the mother's health or life, might still in good conscience support a Presidential candidate who believes in "abortion on demand." (Obama does not, by the way.) Abortion is not the only issue that has "moral" or religious implications and ramifications.   

If a Protestant Church engages in blatantly political activity, that church can be stripped of it's tax-free status without the entire denomination being so penalized. Some churches have, in fact, been threatened with such action just for openly advocating an end to the occupation of Iraq.    I would think that the parish of this particular priest could similarly be stripped of tax-exempt status for such openly partisan, political actions.   

Barnacle, I don't see how this priest's behavior could be seen as mere "speech" and not "political advocacy."   He is not merely expressing his own opinion (which he is entitled to do, in an unofficial capacity -- and even from the pulpit if it's opinion on issues, rather than candidates or parties). He is going beyond "advocacy" to actually punishing parishioners for their political preferences/voting.   That's about as clear an attempt at "establishment" of a state religion as you can get.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 05:13 PM

I'm an atheist and used to be very much in favour of abortion and the wishes of the mother.

As I've grown older and seen society change, I have become more uneasy about my position.
For the young,sex now seems to have become a leisure pursuit and pregnancy a bit of an inconvenience.
The feotus has become simply matter for disposal. How can anyone who believes in god as the giver of life support this situation?

Even I as an unbeliever have great difficulty coming to term with it...Ake

Subject: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Genie
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 05:54 PM

Ake, I'm sure we have plenty of other threads where the very complicated "abortion" issue has been debated.   

The point, for the purposes of this discussion, is that Barack Obama's stated policies re abortion/choice are fully in compliance with the laws of the United States of America and with his own state, Illinois.   For a church, or its representative, to advocate against him politically because the laws of the US and/or some of its states do not fully line up with those of the Catholic Church is to overstep the rules of a tax-exempt religious organization.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: EBarnacle
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 06:10 PM

In this specific situation, perhaps the IRS would be imaginative and simply make any local church to which this individual is attached, now and in the future, tax liable. It is specific to the personal action and is not mass punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 06:11 PM

Some religious people feel that the abortion issue is of much more importance than Mr Obama's policies, or even the laws of the United States of America.

This situation applied to other historical "causes", for example womens sufferage and civil rights.

In some cases, laws exist to protect wrong doers

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Commun
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 06:14 PM

Why, I do believe that this priest has gone medieval on us! From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."

    Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.

1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "We must obey God rather than men":

    When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

    Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

    We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 06:41 PM

Well, it was said in the beginning of this thread, and I think it warrants saying again - this was one priest in one parish in heavily conservative South Carolina. If you can get a thousand priests, or a dozen bishops, to bar Obama supporters from communion - then I'd be worried.
As it is, it sounds like an isolated idiot.

I saw just about the same headline on the Website of our local television station, and I got concerned because I got the impression it was a local story.

Do they even HAVE Catholics in South Carolina?

Take a look at the article about the priest in the local newspaper where he serves in a downtown parish - GreenvilleOniline.com. Note that the priest said he would not refuse communion to anyone, but thinks that Obama voters should not receive communion. Note also (click) that the priest's superiors appear to have repudiated his statement. The Website of the diocese is here (click). A PDF copy of the statement of the dioces is here.

Like I say, it was one priest in one parish - and his superiors say he was wrong.

-Joe-

Subject: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion
From: Genie
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 06:45 PM

Akenaton: {{Some religious people feel that the abortion issue is of much more importance than Mr Obama's policies, or even the laws of the United States of America.}}

That's their right. But it doesn't follow that all members of their church, in good conscience, will agree with that stance.

And even the laws of the Catholic Church encompass far more issues than just abortion.   If one considers all the Church's laws, a candidate who is "pro-choice" may support more of those principles than does another candidate who is "pro-life."

This priest is still, unequivocally, engaging in practices that violate the laws that give non-political charitable organizations tax-exempt status.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communion
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 07:11 PM

Yes Genie, I see your point, I'm not supporting the priest, just noting what may be motivating his actions.
I suppose he should not refuse communion to anyone who wishes it? Is this the case?

Still can't get my head around how religious folks can believe in god yet be "pro choice"tho'.

Subject: RE: BS: Priest bars Obama Supporters from Communio
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 07:20 PM

here are three domains here which are intersecting much more heavily than they have reason to.

One is the domain comprising all our baked, half-baked, and completely gooey raw postulates and assumptions about the spiritual aspect of existing. Some put God in there, others put wood-sprites and naiads and thunder-gods.

The second is the domain of moral judgments about right action, wrong action and "don't care" action weighed in our many different scales of goodness and badness. People often conflate these two, asserting that God dictates their moral choices, which is tricky, but their business.

The third is the civil domain where the dynamics of how we are to live with each other naturally fall. Every law and regulation governing personal liberty, personal obligation to the community, obligations among groups within the nation, transactions among states, individuals and corporations, fundamental rights, what shall be subjected to rules and what shall not be, fall here.

It is madness to inject godhead (zone 1) into civic regulation, a lesson we learned in the centuries prior top 1750. Despite this lesson, Porposition 8 in California wa slargely defended by some on "spiritual" grounds; I would argue the word received serious abuse in this context.

Defining right and wrong actions (the nature of moral judgements) based on godhead is one step away from that madness, but still very much in the color of it. To allow ancient codes and decrees to dictate to you what is right or wroing, regardless of what you see and think for yourself, is to subordinate your ability to know to an authority not closely linked to your own experience--even if it is a parent. This means you are committing yourself to adulterating your own integrity in order to get along with an authority, a slippery slope indeed.

Injecting zone 2 into zone 3 is probably inescapable, since people want to live under laws they believe or moral. It is unfortunate that the difference between authroitarian moral decrees and moral/ethical decision based on live thinking attention are not differentiated among, but they aren't. Regardless, the remedy we have evolved in our country is to require a coherent framework of ideals with which all regulations should align, called the Constitution. One of the key precepts of such a system is to leave to individual decision those powers that do not actually have to be centralized for the public good. Likewise, the Consittution specifically leaves to the States jurisdictions not named as belonging to the Federal government. The principle of leaving such decisions to the lowest level at which they can be made is a very wise one, because, by its nature, it maximizes the self-determination of individuals in States, and of States in a Federation.

When citizens are unwilling to allow others to exercise free choice in one or another subject, the first question that has to be asked is whether public harm (rather than moral appropbation) is being caused. That is why anti-miscegenation laws are now dead, and absurd. No actual public harm. Similarly, there is no public harm in letting women vote as equals, or in requiring equal rights among citizens of different colors. There is hterefore no grounds for a State to ge tinvolved with them under the principle mentioned above.

There is no public harm, either, in two people receiving legal., civic recognition of their intention to become a couple under the law, regardless of their color OR their sexual orientation OR their religion OR their income OR their breakfast cereal. It is an unconscionable reversal of the best of our Great American Experiment in freedom to decree that their is, and a sorry manifestation of either ignorance, confusion, or ill-will on the part of those who have confused these three distinct domains with their ill-considered votes.


A