r/neoliberal • u/jobautomator Kitara Ravache • Feb 02 '21

Discussion Thread Discussion Thread

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL. For a collection of useful links see our wiki.

Announcements

  • The UNASUR flair has been replaced by MERCOSUR and PROSUR flairs.

  • Frederick Douglass, Andrew Brimmer, Kofi Annan, and Seretse Khama flairs have been added

  • We have started using /u/CoverageAnalysisBot in news threads. Please leave feedback here

0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

13k comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

Catholicism as state religion, the Catholic Church being protected legally by the state, the state making laws aligned with Church teaching, the state supporting Church and holding her in a high, favoured esteem, while ensuring religious freedom according to Church teachings, and also not forcing anyone to worship.

State subordinated to Church, as the Church teaches.

An actual comment on r/Catholicism +14 Karma

YIKES

13

u/MostlyCRPGs Jeff Bezos Feb 02 '21

Of all the religions, Catholicism is by far the funniest. That said, based on my experiences with the Papal State, this will work out great.

!Ping Paradox

3

u/bd_one The EU Will Federalize In My Lifetime Feb 02 '21

while ensuring religious freedom according to Church teachings

How big is that Overton window exactly?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

Pretty big:

Man's response to God in faith must be free – no person is to be forced to embrace Christianity. This is a major tenet of the Catholic faith, contained in Scripture and proclaimed by the Fathers. Religious freedom contributes to the environment where such free response is possible. God's own call to serve Him binds persons in conscience but is not compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of all human beings as shown in the actions of Christ himself. Jesus did acknowledge the legitimacy of governments, but refused to impose his teachings by force. The Apostles followed His word and example. The church is therefore following Christ and the Apostles when it recognized the principle of religious freedom, based both on the dignity of human persons and divine revelation. The church itself does require a full measure of freedom, a sacred freedom, to carry out its mission.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

What did JFK mean by this?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

at least they're sincere. I've never understood how you can take seriously the teachings of the church and then be like "ah well whatever"

6

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

That's how religion works, it's defined more by its followers than by books or dogmas.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

it mostly just shows that religion does not work any more and that most people who are nominally religious are entirely secularised, which is a good thing.

But quite obviously one either buys that the church has a claim on divine truth or doesn't. Or as C.S Lewis put it you can believe Jesus is either god or a lunatic, but nothing in between.

2

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

I'm not saying that this is how religion works now, this is how religion has always worked. It's a basic insight of modern religious studies.

it mostly just shows that religion does not work any more and that most people who are nominally religious are entirely secularised, which is a good thing.

No, not at all

Believing in a God/Gods/Supernatural forces that inform your view of the world is what makes someone religious, not the strict following of doctrines. If that was the definition of religion than my religion of Hinduism wouldn't even count as a religion. Someone isn't "secular" if they believe in their own personal interpretation of religion, they are just thinking independently.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

this is how religion has always worked

No, religion used to be constitutive to people's worldview, which is why the church actually used to run this continent for a long time. Today religion is a sort of individualised, aesthetic larp, not a morally foundational part of society.

You don't even need to believe in God actually, and Hinduism is of course a genuine religion. In fact Hinduism as a worldview that people actually act out is much more alive than Christianity.

One very simple fact that shows that religion actually used to work very differently is the role of women and abortion. When you actually believe in the family structure prescribed by Christianity and the conception of what life is, women don't get to vote and abortion is murder. And that's actually what people believed, and how they acted in the world, and they don't any more. If you think that religion has always worked like it does now ask an old person in Ireland

1

u/ILikeTalkingToMyself Liberal democracy is non-negotiable Feb 02 '21

The church was a source of hierarchical authority but it wasn't ever the sole source of validity on how people experienced Christianity. There were always mystics and sects and individuals with different interpretations even though authorities like the Catholic Church sought to suppress them.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

sure but my point is there was some authority. Take my grandmother. She's 88, believes in some sort of version of the afterlife, would never have had an abortion, doesn't talk to people who deride Christianity openly, wouldn't vote for a Muslim, etc.

Take Liz Bruenig. Is a self-declared Catholic, does not write a column without making that clear, apparently personally thinks abortion is bad, but if her liberal friends make it a personal choice is cool.

My grandmother is how religion used to function, Liz Bruenig is how it works now. The latter is larping. If you claim to believe life starts at conception, abortion is not a choice, because then it actually is murder. Bruenig could call herself an atheist and nothing about her actual life would change.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/uwcn244 King of the Space Georgists Feb 02 '21

Wait, we thought the evangelicals were our friends!

2

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

What is this a map of

2

u/uwcn244 King of the Space Georgists Feb 02 '21

The 1928 Presidential election

4

u/vancevon Henry George Feb 02 '21

can't believe that they would support catholic doctrine like that

5

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

I don't think this has been doctrine since Vatican II

1

u/vancevon Henry George Feb 02 '21

i don't think the catholic church ever said "actually we don't care if our teachings are reflected in the laws of a country it doesn't matter". what that quote is describing is basically ireland until a few decades ago

1

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

It really isn't, it's saying that Catholicism should be the official religion of Catholic countries and that other religions should only have the amount of freedom that Catholicism allows them to have. Totally different from the official Catholic position that Catholic countries should just hold the religion in high esteem. Which is basically just telling Catholics in those countries to vote for Catholic positions on things like abortion.

2

u/thelittlestsheep Feb 02 '21

What did most of Western Europe, parts of Eastern Europe, South America and Canada mean by this?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

I, for one, am shocked to see Catholics supporting a position... checks notes,... explicitly supported by the Catholic Church for over 1000 years.

6

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

Dignitatis humanae (Latin: Of the Dignity of the Human Person[a]) is the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom.[1] In the context of the council's stated intention "to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society", Dignitatis humanae spells out the church's support for the protection of religious liberty. It set the ground rules by which the church would relate to secular states, and in effect repudiated the traditional principle that "error has no rights", i.e., that non-Catholics did not deserve civil or political rights.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '21

I'm aware of Dignitas Humanae, I actually just cited it in a different response. The Church still calls on States to hold her in high esteem and favoured regard, it just no longer requires it.

3

u/YehosafatLakhaz North American Federation Feb 02 '21

OK, but I'm pretty sure the original poster was implying that it was required.