Posted on 10/23/2010 1:50:52 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Washington Post, in an editorial on March 22, 1931, said of the Federal Council of Churches' endorsement of Lambeth:
“It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the ‘ scientific’ production of human souls.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘ careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”
This is an apple.
The only faith in the world with lineage of priesthood, and unity of hierarchy, and continously kept creeds, doctrines, and history, is the Catholic Church".
This is an orange. (Assuming this is even true)
Wanna see what it might look like if you compared apples to apples?
What they call Judaism today is like Protestantism, all divided, no hierarchy, no creeds, no priesthood lineage.
This is an apple.
What they call Christianity today is like Judaism, all divided, no hierarchy, differing creeds, no priesthood lineage.
This is apple.
You're right. We are on different pages. I believe in logical integrity, and you (who I will remind you, writes for Catholics), are willing to forego that.
You ASSume too much.
This is the Religion Forum. Reading the minds of other posters is highly frowned upon, and misrepresenting their opinion based on your mind reading is verboten.
That the government HAS the authority (at either the State or Federal level), and that the decisions striking down laws against birth control were poorly decided (and thus, using logic, that they should still be illegal).
What does the Commerce Clause cover? The regulation of Interstate commerce, not the regulation of every act or non-action that could conceivable have any influence at all upon interstate commerce. Notice the difference?
I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.
Do you think a State law could abridge your freedom of speech? Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law....”. Do you think that a State law abridging your freedom of speech would be compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man?
It doesn't take any mind reading to conclude from someone arguing against “Roe vs Wade” that they think such is a bad decision and it should be changed.
But you argue against the decisions striking down laws against birth control, and suddenly I am reading your mind to conclude that you think it is a bad decision and (ideally) should be changed?
Sorry but your ASSumtion of the necessity for mind-reading is preposterous.
But please, let me know that you are arguing AGAINST the decision, but do not support any repeal of the decision. That would clarify things if in fact my argument was not sound.
The only argument I have advanced is that birth control has always been seen among Christians as sinful, and that the societal acceptance of the contraceptive mentality is philosophically and in jurisprudence linked to the legalization and societal acceptance of abortion.
Any other conclusion comes solely from your imagination, not in anything I have posted on this thread.
Any other laws out there that you disagree with and yet are not interested in seeing changed?
Is this an impression or has someone on this thread actually suggested that such laws be returned?
That the government HAS the authority (at either the State or Federal level), and that the decisions striking down laws against birth control were poorly decided (and thus, using logic, that they should still be illegal).
Are you actually trying to make a point here?
What does the Commerce Clause cover? The regulation of Interstate commerce, not the regulation of every act or non-action that could conceivable have any influence at all upon interstate commerce. Notice the difference?
Fine, so what SPECIFICALLY do you think it covers?
I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.
So, what do you think should happen to Roe v. Wade?
Also, where did extra-marital sex, contraception and sodomy become a "natural right"? Where do "natural rights" come from?
Do you think a State law could abridge your freedom of speech? Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law....”. Do you think that a State law abridging your freedom of speech would be compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man?
This has nothing to do with the topic.
This thread is not about law, its about morality.
Which is essentially libertarian kryptonite.
If you would like to argue that from a Christian perspective, contraception is morally licit, please do so.
It is effectively IMPOSSIBLE for a question to be mind reading.
as are your dodges around why your arguments against the law as it stands were not arguments that the law should be changed.
Do you think that morality is somehow determined by whether or not something is permissible or how many people are doing it?
Yes, you concluded right, your “apples” are the same, that’s because they are both false religions all divided, no hierarchy, no creeds, no priesthood lineage. Just like all the other false religions of the world. There is only one true religion, the Catholic faith.
CHRISTIAN. A name first given to the followers of our Lord at Antioch (Acts xi, 26). Since the rise of Protestantism the name has been used in so many different senses as to have become almost meaningless: it may indicate a Catholic or a Unitarian, or even be applied to an infidel who displays some virtue which is associated with Christ. It may reasonably be applied to the members of all the ancient churches whether in communion with the Holy See or not, and to those Protestants who profess, explicitly -or implicitly, the Nicean creed in its traditional Interpretation. The Church puts no definite official rneaning on the word, as she does on Catholic. (Catholic Dictionary, Donald Attwater, 1958, TAN Books)
The midwife’s story does not change the facts of my sister’s diagnosis or the real threat that she has lived under for her entire life. The brush you paint with is very broad and I don’t believe you understand the medical implications that I brought up.
Have a good day.
Mileage my vary, but I have yet to hear someone make an argument against a legal decision and not have that person also advance the argument that the law should be different. Most people seem to think the law should be correct - and thus if they are arguing that a law is in error- they argue that this error should be corrected.
Is anyone here making an argument for the preservation of incorrectly decided law? Would such an argument be logical?
Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.
Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.
The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.
So State law is on topic when you mention it, but off topic when I mention it and you are unable or unwilling to answer a simple question about Constitutional jurisprudence?
Okay.
Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.
So, they can regulate alcohol, but not drugs?
Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.
And what should happen then? Please be specific, should abortion be abolished nationwide or should the states get to decide?
The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.
I brought up state laws to illustrate the FACT that ALL states had morality laws two centuries ago and NOBODY questioned them. Libertarians seem to think that the Founding Fathers would have been aghast by morality laws and that is simply false.
Not being under the Law of Moses we are not required to marry our dead brother’s wife.
And Jesus’ words about allowable grounds for divorce didn’t have anything to do with contraception.
Who said they could not regulate drugs? Buying into your own “mindreading” about me being a supposed libertarian so much now that you are basing your arguments (twice) upon such a delusion?
And I brought up the 1st Amendment to illustrate the FACT that our right to free speech means nothing if State law is under no requirement to recognize that right.
So far from being off topic, it was exactly ON topic.
Two centuries ago people thought that State laws outlawing interracial marriage was compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of mankind. That thinking carried on for a long time until quite recently actually when it was found to be Unconstitutional - do you think their finding was in error, and do you think it should be a matter for States rights?
Yeah, we are on different pages. I would actually say, planets. Islamics say the same thing. Y'all look crazy as he(ck) to me.
We can stop conversing right about here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.