I think Mr. Loconte is making a theological argument, not so much a political one.

Yes, but oj's response can be put in theological terms too: it is the Catholic emphasis on the union of spirit and body, so that the incarnational supports the spirit, and if the incarnational is absent, so too will be the spirit. We need physical observances as well as spiritual ones.

For the evangelical it seems the "act"
of believing grants grace. This idea of reciprocity has become a powerful totem of their
belief system.

Modern catholic explanations of the doctrine
of grace clarify that grace is totally at the
mercy of God (thus the Catholic does not know
for certain the fate of non-believers). However
out of respect for God and (possibly as a backup)
acts and rituals are expected to be performed.

This would be similar to saying please and thank
you to ones parents when one is nearly certain that they would be taken care of anyway.

O.J., the "once saved, always saved" belief is
another error that modern evangelicals make
that would seem to logically limit God's free will.

Paul:

Yes, but the question is can the body politic survive without its theological basis--the example of the rest of the West suggests not.

J.H.:

Excellent point. You can't force God to save you just by saying you believe.

J.H. - Yes, grace is God's free gift, but as St Paul said "God desires that all men be saved" and therefore offers his grace to all. But men can reject it or accept it - "I set before you this day life or death, blessing or curse" - it is ours to choose. The choice is not conscious but it reveals itself in our will - thus "faith without works is dead" - because if faith, which is the gift of God that enables us to accept gifts from God, had been accepted, then we would receive from God the spirit to live well.

Though the decision to accept God's grace is unobservable and mysterious, we do believe that deciding well in little things - to affirm true moral beliefs, to act lovingly toward others - will help orient our spirit so that we become more likely to make the big decision correctly. Thus "acts and rituals" are not necessarily small things.

Likewise, saying "Lord, Lord," however sincerely, is no sure sign of faith, as Jesus himself pointed out.
Likewise

I don't have the experience of faith.

I can observe results. Which means that, for many, the system of laws and the Republic itself need not be functions of some particular set of theocratic notions.

Learning from results make it easy to resist the notion of overweening State power. Heck, its the same test you use

Jeff:

Where has an American-style Republic been established and sustained without such notions?

I grew up in a formally dry county. Most people drank anyhow, but a happy alliance of bootleggers and preachers kept the law on the books.

That's where Moore and all this sanctimony comes from.

You don't have to get into the theology of it, although Paul's statement about God offering his grace to all is not Catholic doctrine -- which teaches he does not offer it to all. Theology has nothing to do with it.

But if you want the shadow of morality instead of morality itself, by all means, go with Moore.

His way is much easier, too.

Harry,

In the sense that Catholic doctrine has no
belief in pre-destination there is the possibility of salvation for all. In other
words even for the Hindu, the "possibility"
exists. The concept of accepting or denying
this offer is long and complicated and would
get us into purgatory and original sin.

Jeff,

"Learning from results" is a lot like accepting
the laws of nature (therefore the laws of God).
This is what our Republic is founded on. It is
not about creating the world based upon new
principles, but agreeing to live as flawed
human beings (with all of the checks and balances
that go with it).

Harry:

Hypocrisy often serves the broad public well.

Jeff - Don't you think it would strengthen society if people not only support what works out of greed, but also because they believe what works is morally good and we are morally obliged to support it?

Harry - Of course the Catholic church believes in grace. See, e.g. Grace in Thomas Aquinas.

I didn't say the Church does not believe in grace. I said it teaches that not everyone is offered it.

I got all A's in religion, 14 years.

Orrin, you say hypocrisy often serves well. I'd say, rarely. In any case, not in this case.

Harry:

Have any personal habits you warned your kids off of?

No. I repeated to them the only advice my Dad gave
me when I left home-- If you get arrested, don't call me.

Would the ACLU have objected if Justice Moore posted the 95 Theses in the building? They are (almost) as arguably a historical benchmark as the Decalogue.

"Where has an American-style Republic been established and sustained without such notions?"

Where has a non-American Style government been established and sustained WITH such notions?

Plenty of places. All of South America for one. Spain, for another.

So maybe another set of notions is responsible, or something entirely different from notions: if the English Channel didn't exist, things would almost certainly have turned out very differently.

Correlation is not causation.

Mr. Guinn;

Your evidence suggests only that a theological underpinning is not sufficient, not that it is not necessary.

AOG:

Absolutely true. But given the wide range of societies with a similar religious basis--18th Century Poland v. 18th Century England, for instance--then it is also entirely possible to conclude that the religious basis is far from the most important ingredient, and may even be close to irrelevant.

Western civilization, theistic underpinnings and all, has "evolved" in a particular fashion which has resulted in a level of liberty and respect for human dignity which has no precedent in history,( regardless of the imaginary setting for Rousseau's "Noble Savage" )

Why the desire of so many to turn their backs to that history?

Tom:

Was that evolution because of, or despite, organized religion?