T1B

Today at Mass, during the "Prayers of the Faithful," one of the congregation tossed in a bit about praying for the American and Iraqi dead on both sides of the "unjust war."

Now, my wife and I were discussing that later on at coffee hour and both agreed that, regardless of one's stand on the Iraqi War, that the term "unjust" had no freaking place being used at that particular point. Couple of other folks, OTOH, felt that it was the parishioner's "duty" to stick that word in there. In fact, they believed that it was our "bounden duty" (to use that Anglican phrase) to push our Christian agenda -which they naturally interpreted as leftist- into governmental action.

The conversation basically turned into one in which people were debating/discussing how we try to balance our patriotism, political views, and our faith. When "push comes to shove," does being "American" trump the pulpit, or does one's religious/denominational orientation trump national interest/patriotism?

So far, I've refused to let the Episcopalian preachin' (which, as I've mentioned, is big into leftist politics) interfere with my free market, pro-capitalism, American citizen bit. In fact, I resent when my denomination (or any denomination) tries to push its particular interpretation of Scripture in secular law or governmental action. IMNSHO, the U.S. government is not a wing of "God's righteous judgement," so I want 'em to keep the economic redistributionist crap or controlling-consenting-adult-behavior-in-the-name-of-sin crap out of the legal sphere.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote: When "push comes to shove," does being "American" trump the pulpit, or does one's religious/denominational orientation trump national interest/patriotism?

As the two are completely at odds with each other, it would seem to be a no-brainer. Which faith is stronger, spiritual or national? Spiritual being your operating set of moral guidelines, or national being your own real world, self-interest.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
When "push comes to shove," does being "American" trump the pulpit, or does one's religious/denominational orientation trump national interest/patriotism?

"Render unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s; render onto God, that which is God’s”

If push comes to shove, I suggest you go with the one which will last the longest. :wink:

Interesting that this is coming from an Episcopalian. Isn't your church an offshoot of the one that Henry VIII created to demonstrate the supremacy of the state over the clergy? My feeling as a Christian is that the mandate is to 'be in the world, not of it'. To respect the government and its laws (render unto Ceasar) as long as it doesn't conflict with clear scriptural teaching. As an American, the mandate is that the government has no buisness telling me what to believe, or ( 'seperation of Church and state' bullshit notwithstanding) how to practice my faith.

As far as individuals like your fellow parishoner on the one hand or someone like Randall Terry on the other claiming that supporting their political positians is a 'Christian duty', they strike me as falling somewhere between hypocricy and blasphemy. Just as someone claiming you need to leave your faith at the door when you look at the issues seems to be embracing a profoundly unamerican creed.

But that's just me talking, not the Founding Fathers or the Apostles.

Why would you pray for the dead anyway? Prayers aren't really going to do them a whole lot of good.

If praying is your thing, why not pray for the families of the dead (both Iraqi and American) or the soldiers who are fighting this "unjust" war.

I know this wasn't the original point, so if Dio wants to break this off as a separate thread, I understand. It's just that the whole "praying for the dead" part struck me as odd.

I'll leave that up to MtLR, it's his thread. It seems more of an aside than a diversionary tactic ( and I'm more of a crusader than an inquisitor).

I'm not an Episcopalian or Anglican, I don't know their beliefs on purgatory, the only thing I know about prayers for the dead is that Catholics believe (used to?) that the prayers of the faithful would help to atone for sins of the dead who were in purgatory. Which lead to indulgences, which lead to the reformation...

Again, if Mike wants to clarify his church's position he can speak to it better than me, if he wants to put this in a seperate thread, let me or SCS know.

mvscal wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:When "push comes to shove," does being "American" trump the pulpit,

It had better or you're no different then the psychotic diaperheads we're fighting.

Not unless they're preaching Jihad in Episcopalian churches nowadays. Actually what should 'trump the pulpit' is the scriptures, just as the Constitution trumps the will of the government. Just because the clergy misappriates scripture or their 'authority' is no reason to not stand for what is right, any more than absurd court rulings are a reason to ignore or deny what the Founding Fathers actually said and meant.

Diogenes wrote:I'm not an Episcopalian or Anglican, I don't know their beliefs on purgatory, the only thing I know about prayers for the dead is that Catholics believe (used to?) that the prayers of the faithful would help to atone for sins of the dead who were in purgatory. Which lead to indulgences, which lead to the reformation...

I'm a convert to the Anglican/Episcopalian denomination. I was, like most Italian-Americans, raised RC. Lapsed during college, and when wife and I looked for a regular church, we tried out the denomination of her family, the Episcopal Church. I liked the liturgy ("smells and bells") and the Popelessness of the situation...

AFAIK, the prayers on behalf of the dead is not a case of shaving time off Purgatory, since the Episcopalians don't believe in Purgatory. I believe it's more a case of remembrance and hoping that the departed are in the presence of God. I concur with Mike that prayers for the comfort of the families of the departed is more meaningful (and if those families happen to be at the service when their loved ones are mentioned, the prayers "for" the departed may also comfort those living...).

Diogenes wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:When "push comes to shove," does being "American" trump the pulpit,

It had better or you're no different then the psychotic diaperheads we're fighting.

Not unless they're preaching Jihad in Episcopalian churches nowadays. Actually what should 'trump the pulpit' is the scriptures, just as the Constitution trumps the will of the government. Just because the clergy misappriates scripture or their 'authority' is no reason to not stand for what is right, any more than absurd court rulings are a reason to ignore or deny what the Founding Fathers actually said and meant.

Agreed. There are issues in which clergy and laity have rightfully used religious reasoning and "pull" to argue strongly for national action -abolition of slavery being the biggest one in my mind right now.

I can also understand why devout individuals get active in the abortion debate. If one truly believes that human life begins at conception (something that science has not and CANNOT determine one way or another, since the issue is a spiritual one...), then opposition to abortion, IVF, and embryonic stem cell research makes total sense. The out of hand, knee-jerk dismissal of devout Judeo-Christian attitudes regarding abortion is not only unfortunate, but wrong. It all comes down to consistancy in one's beliefs. There is no logical way to reconcile a "pro-choice" attitude with the belief in "life beginning at conception." In this area, it makes sense that churches would serve as a center of "political action," even if folks outside their church disagree with their original premise (life at conception).

Mike Wrote:
I can also understand why devout individuals get active in the abortion debate. If one truly believes that human life begins at conception (something that science has not and CANNOT determine one way or another, since the issue is a spiritual one...)

Seems to me that science has sold it's soul when it comes to the life reality of conception.

Could science not solve this question simply by reproducing conception in a lab setting, observe the results of this staged conception, and determine whether life of conception evolves or not?

Life is Life - Death is Death; personal preferences should not scientifically alter facts.

mv wrote:
That process has been observed many times.

It isn't a scientific or spiritual issue. It is a political issue.

More like; the fact that there is life at conception has been denied many times.
This same hypocritical lot who betray man to rot, would gladly proclaim some minuscule outter space partical collected from the surface of Mars to be life.

Abortion is a political issue, sellout science should not ease the poli-conscience of such a murderous act via complicity.

tough love wrote:Seems to me that science has sold it's soul when it comes to the life reality of conception.

Science has no soul. Period.

Could science not solve this question simply by reproducing conception in a lab setting, observe the results of this staged conception, and determine whether life of conception evolves or not?

No. Whether or not the zygote/embryo is "alive" is not the issue and never was.

The issue is whether that life deserves consideration as a human entity and if not then, then when? And how is that demarcation chosen? These are questions in which science is completely useless, since they are about the nature of humanity, the soul, etc.

It's not a cop-out. Science only deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Souls and spirituality are outside the proper realm of science. To try to condemn science for not taking "a stand" on the issue shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of science.

Mike Wrote:
It's not a cop-out. Science only deals with the natural

IMO:
Life is life, or it is not...Science complicating the issue is the cop out.
My guess is they go with the side of the bread that gets the butter, which would support mv's take on the subject being political, I suppose.

Life begins at conception, after that no matter what sellout science conveniently decides to name it; the lie develops while the natural life evolves, or is selfishly snuffed out.

Life is life, or it is not...Science complicating the issue is the cop out.

Science isn't complicating anything. Religion and politics ARE.

Like I said, no one is disputing whether they're alive, not even militant pro-choice folks.

That is not and has never been the issue.

Hell, the egg and sperm are each individually alive prior to fertilization.

The skin cells of my arm (from which can be cloned entire organisms) and my adult stem cells are alive. Just as alive as an embryo.

The issue is whether the zygote (and subsequent early stages) are truly HUMAN BEINGS with HUMAN RIGHTS.

My guess is they go with the side of the bread that gets the butter, which would support mv's take on the subject being political, I suppose.

Some scientists, perhaps. But having worked in science and knowing many scientists very well, I can tell you that my experience disagrees with your unsubstantiated conjecture.

Life begins at conception, after that no matter what sellout science conveniently decides to name it;

Under your incredibly naive definitions of "life," life begins PRIOR to conception. What of those cells? Are their deaths not also worthy of bereavement? Or how about the 1/2 to 2/3 of fertilized human eggs that wind up miscarried in the normal course of human reproduction?

Your definitions are simplistic and your insistence in categorizing scientists as purely money-motivated is irrational.

To get the thread back on track - I can understand why individuals who sincerely believe in humanity beginning at conception feel compelled to push for political means to support their beliefs in ending abortion. It doesn't make them "religious nuts" any more than folks citing Scripture to end slavery or fight for civil rights were "religious nuts."

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:To get the thread back on track - I can understand why individuals who sincerely believe in humanity beginning at conception feel compelled to push for political means to support their beliefs in ending abortion. It doesn't make them "religious nuts" any more than folks citing Scripture to end slavery or fight for civil rights were "religious nuts."

Agreed. The problem (with all three cases, and other hot button issues we need not get into here) is when they declare their political agendas to be Christian agendas, and that those who oppose them are heretics or 'non-Christians'. That and when groups view the pulpit as a political tool, it leads to the secularization of the Church, and undermines its effectiveness.

Truth is Truth:


And the truth is you're off topic.


Feel free to start a new thread or add that to the one with abortion in the title.

Fair enough, Boss.
My bad.

Mike the Lab Rat wrote:
To get the thread back on track - I can understand why individuals who sincerely believe in humanity beginning at conception feel compelled to push for political means to support their beliefs in ending abortion. It doesn't make them "religious nuts" any more than folks citing Scripture to end slavery or fight for civil rights were "religious nuts."

I agree.

Now What?

I agree.

Now What?

CRICKETS


'Dat's what I thought.

Thread Evolution
Many a archived thread started off differently from how it ended.

MTLR Wrote:
I can understand why individuals who sincerely believe in humanity beginning at conception feel compelled to push for political means to support their beliefs in ending abortion.

And when politics fail humanity???
Can you understand why some would do something about what they consider to be mass murder of the innocent?

btw...the question is on topic...it's a freaky big topic. :wink:

The same with the oppression or enslavement of the innocent, as per MtLR's other examples. Either you seperate it from the ministry, or you are politicizing and secularizing the pulpit. The medival Catholic Church was chock full of good intentions, it is when it devolved into a political entity you got inquisitions, indulgences and crusades.

Not in that order.

It's an example of original sin in the name of a higher good. The original sin being Pride. Now that could make a good segue...