Quote:
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
So it's still a matter of the definition of devout. Evidently he feels that the definition doesn't require him to impose his beliefs on non catholics.
|
Is a person arguing in favor of their personal beliefs the same as the act of imposing them? A governor has to follow what his constituents demand of him, but it is impossible for the governor and the majority to agree on absolutely everything. Those situations where there is disagreement is where the governor should swollow his bile and back his constituents. But those situations are also the times when an governor that is honest with his beliefs would voice the fact that the stance is not in line with his personal beliefs. If he believe in the issue strongly enough, he should in some legal way attempt to swing public opinion towards what he believes, be this through debate, through joining and supporting specific organizations, through speaches, article, letter writing, any legal way.
Church and State should be seperate, but there is a narrow lane religious politicians must tread. If they believe in a certain religion, then they are going to have certain religious views and also some moral views. The religious views can't ever become part of the state, but the moral views can and do become law. I can name a few moral views that have laws- why is drinking legal and pot is not, why is poligamy or bestiality not legal, why is so much violence allowed legally on televison but a boob is not? Moral views are held by everyone, religious or otherwise. In general, morals views should never be imposed on others, but is that always the case? Allowing the death penalty when some people disagree with it means that that view is being imposed on those people and the government is killing in the name of the whole country or state, why then would this be allowed?
Politicians have a great deal of influence, they should never use it against the wishes of their constituents, but they do have the right to voice and defend their moral views. Those that profess a religion might find themselves obligated by its tenants to defend by all means possible(morally and legally acceptable means that is) certain moral views. The bishops and the Pope are calling the Catholic politicians on not defending their moral views to the extent that they could. By not doing so, they are being bad Catholics, or at least less than perfect Catholics. You say they should not impose their religious views on others. They shouldn't, but if their religion obligates them to explain, defend, proselytize, and support a set of moral views, then if they want to follow their religion then they should- as long as it is within legal means. If they don't, they shouldn't consider themselves followers in good standing of that religion.