Bravo, Bishop Burke! (And a fine tradition he has contained in that name.)

Ditto. Is it possible somebody like the ACLU will try to test this in court? Should we hope they do? This strikes me as having great juridical potential to advance freedom of religion, but I could be naive.

The problem here is that the Catholic Church opposes ALL abortion, even in cases of rape or incest or where the mother's life is in danger. So, if you support abortion in these instances, do you risk excommunication? The Catholic Church also opposed the war in Iraq. Vehemently and, in my opinion, inexplicably. Do we Catholics who supported the war face excommunication? If you're a Catholic who disagrees with a political position the institutional church has taken -- as in, one not necessarily based on scripture -- do you risk excommunication?

The Catholic faith is wonderful, but the Catholic Church as an institution is in deep trouble. And this will not help.

The essence of abortion, i.e. the taking of innocent life, can be easily distinguished from decisions regarding the justice of a particular war or the constitutionality of capital punishment. Certain Catholic positions are absolute while others are not. The taking of innocent life has been uniformly and consistently condemned by the church. The innocence of children is beyond dispute in the teachings of Christ thus the stand on abortion has none of the nuance one might find regarding war or the application of capital punishment. The determinig factor has never been the circumstances regarding tthe conception of life rather it's innocence and it's humanity.

If all his congregants take him seriously, and are not hypocritical, then don't stand between the pews and the exit.

Tom C.,

You are correct in that the essence of abortion, i.e. the taking of innocent life, can be easily distinguished from decisions regarding the justice of a particular war or the constitutionality of capital punishment, but the institutional Catholic Church won't necessarily do so. Self-defense is allegedly permitted under Catholic teaching -- remember, the Catholic vesion of the Bible says, "Thou shalt not murder," not "thou shalt not kill," or at least my version does. Self-defense would justify abortion when the mother's life is in danger. The innocent life, in that sense, is not so innocent, because however unwittingly it is threatening the life of the mother. This is one of those distinctions the Church either can't or won't make. And they seem to be either unable or unwilling to make distinctions such as this in an increasing number of situations -- Iraq, contraception, divorce, etc. Using excommunication to support this is extremely bad precedent, and may be intended more to stifle dissent to the teachings of the institutional Church than to protect Catholic teaching. They will use it now, when there is some justification for it -- I won't argue that -- but that will give them cover to use it more often in situations where the areas are much, much grayer. I don't trust the institutional Church to not abuse this power.

JC

Are you THE JC?

I need to talk to you about that rich man thru the eye of a needle thing or was it a camel getting into heaven, I forget.

The Church, as a private religious organization, has every right to determine it's own requirements for membership. There is no Church/State implication. It would be an intrusion of the State upon the Church to limit who they could excommunicate, or for what reason.
I don't get it. I was a Catholic, and I never was under the impression that it was a democracy, or that I could treat the Church's teachings as a guideline or option. When I could no longer recite the Apostle's Creed with conviction, I left the Church. Why would anyone claim to be a Catholic unless they subscribed to the Church's teaching?

When I was a Catholic, we were taught that a Catholic doctor faced with a difficult pregnancy was not allowed to kill one party to save the other but was permitted to take actions to save one, even if that ensured the other would die.

The young priest who taught us made it clear he would expect the doctor to save the mother. We know, from history of the Vienna Lying-in Hospital, for example, that at other times Catholic doctors have taken the opposite course -- saved the baby at the expense of the mother.

Again we see that Catholic teaching does not pretend to be based on morality but mere fashion and expediency.

I wait to see what Burke is going to do about the criminal priests in his diocese who torture children after they have escaped from the womb? Can we expect him to turn them over to the authorities as any decent citizen would do, or will he continue to maintain the priesthood as a privileged caste?

H-man,

Nah, I'm a different JC. THE JC has a DSL connection with unlimited usage (for you Compost ... er, Comcast subscribers out there.)

Robert D.,

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Catholic Church is anything but a private religious organization. Therefore, there is no church/state implication. I, for one, am not arguing that the church is a democracy. It is not, nor should it be, but neither should it be a tyranny.

The institutional church's position is that if the flock disagrees with the church, then the problem is with the flock. My position is that the problem could just as easily be with the church. Not the faith, which is wonderful, but the institutional Church, which has a human element, and as anything with a human element has its imperfections.

I would hold that Biblical teaching counsels against abortion except in cases of rape or incest or where the mother's life is in danger. But I am not a priest or a Biblical scholar, so some of the nuances are beyond me. Further, abortion is an emotional issue. Let's put that aside for something where the issue is more clear cut -- Iraq.

I don't have the link to it, but I remember somewhere, probably in December 2002, where the Pope specifically refused to invoke the doctrine of papal infallibility in opposition to the Iraq War (if someone can find the story I'd appreciate it or stand corrected if I am incorrect). Why was this even discussed for a political issue with a moral element? But it goes beyond that: apparently, the Vatican Curiae discussed whether those in support of the war should be excommunicated.

This is the abuse I am talking about. The institutional Church takes a stand on an issue -- a stand that, in my opinion, is not only NOT based on Scripture as it claims, but runs counter to it -- and tries to ram it down your throat through the threat of excommunication. Vatican curiae, New York Times editor, federal judge -- the arrogance are cluelessness are the same.

God wants us to be sheep following our shepherd, not lambs led to slaughter. Right now, the current leadership of the Catholic Church either doesn't know the difference or doesn't care. I don't know which possibility is more frightening.

Robert D.,

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Catholic Church is anything but a private religious organization. Therefore, there is no church/state implication. I, for one, am not arguing that the church is a democracy. It is not, nor should it be, but neither should it be a tyranny.

The institutional church's position is that if the flock disagrees with the church, then the problem is with the flock. My position is that the problem could just as easily be with the church. Not the faith, which is wonderful, but the institutional Church, which has a human element, and as anything with a human element has its imperfections.

I would hold that Biblical teaching counsels against abortion except in cases of rape or incest or where the mother's life is in danger. But I am not a priest or a Biblical scholar, so some of the nuances are beyond me. Further, abortion is an emotional issue. Let's put that aside for something where the issue is more clear cut -- Iraq.

I don't have the link to it, but I remember somewhere, probably in December 2002, where the Pope specifically refused to invoke the doctrine of papal infallibility in opposition to the Iraq War (if someone can find the story I'd appreciate it or stand corrected if I am incorrect). Why was this even discussed for a political issue with a moral element? But it goes beyond that: apparently, the Vatican Curiae discussed whether those in support of the war should be excommunicated.

This is the abuse I am talking about. The institutional Church takes a stand on an issue -- a stand that, in my opinion, is not only NOT based on Scripture as it claims, but runs counter to it -- and tries to ram it down your throat through the threat of excommunication. Vatican curiae, New York Times editor, federal judge -- the arrogance and cluelessness are the same.

God wants us to be sheep following our shepherd, not lambs led to slaughter. Right now, the current leadership of the Catholic Church either doesn't know the difference or doesn't care. I don't know which possibility is more frightening.

Robert D.,

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Catholic Church is anything but a private religious organization. Therefore, there is no church/state implication. I, for one, am not arguing that the church is a democracy. It is not, nor should it be, but neither should it be a tyranny.

The institutional church's position is that if the flock disagrees with the church, then the problem is with the flock. My position is that the problem could just as easily be with the church. Not the faith, which is wonderful, but the institutional Church, which has a human element, and as anything with a human element has its imperfections.

I would hold that Biblical teaching counsels against abortion except in cases of rape or incest or where the mother's life is in danger. But I am not a priest or a Biblical scholar, so some of the nuances are beyond me. Further, abortion is an emotional issue. Let's put that aside for something where the issue is more clear cut -- Iraq.

I don't have the link to it, but I remember somewhere, probably in December 2002, where the Pope specifically refused to invoke the doctrine of papal infallibility in opposition to the Iraq War (if someone can find the story I'd appreciate it or stand corrected if I am incorrect). Why was this even discussed for a political issue with a moral element? But it goes beyond that: apparently, the Vatican Curiae discussed whether those in support of the war should be excommunicated.

This is the abuse I am talking about. The institutional Church takes a stand on an issue -- a stand that, in my opinion, is not only NOT based on Scripture as it claims, but runs counter to it -- and tries to ram it down your throat through the threat of excommunication. Vatican curiae, New York Times editor, federal judge -- the arrogance and cluelessness are the same.

God wants us to be sheep following our shepherd, not lambs led to slaughter. Right now, the current leadership of the Catholic Church either doesn't know the difference or doesn't care. I don't know which possibility is more frightening.

Uh, sorry about the multiple posts. I had trouble getting it to post. Apparently, I was having less trouble than I thought.

JC:

The Catholic church has over a billion members and is growing rapidly--it's only in the dying and demoralized West that it's experienced any decline. The white middle class is not the future.

JC,
No doubt that the Church is wrong on many things, and arrogant and clueless to boot. But to be a Catholic is to accept the Church's authority on all matters Scriptural and Moral. Once you begin to interpret Scriptures or decide moral quesions using your own reason and conscience, whether these decisions jibe with the Church's position or not, you are pretty much contradicting your professed Catholicism.

It is easy to be such a cafeteria Catholic nowadays because the Church, for all of its vaunted authoritarianism, rarely excommunicates anyone. Who was the last person to be excommunicated? Was it Charles Curran? If they won't excommunicate pedophile priests, who will they?

My question is, why would anyone want to be a cafeteria Catholic? Doesn't it debase your faith to override the authority upon which it is based?

Robert:

I guess it depends on how determined you are to have a mind of your own.

How self-important you feel.

Jeff
If one is determined to have a mind of their own, why foist themselves on the Catholic Church. Can't one do that on their own time?
What I presume started this thread was the proposed excomunication of politicians, who were pro abortion. It doesn't seem extreme on the part of the church to remove from their congregation those nominal members who undermine the doctrine of the church.

h-man:

Yes, but for folks like Jeff, who are pro-abortion, it is threatening to have anyone held morally responsible for such views.

Robert's statement reflects my understanding of being a Catholic. Submit, submit. Like Acton. Even if you know you're right.

Why, indeed, would anyone want to be a cafeteria Catholic?

JC, I did not see any report about an infallible (ex cathedra) statement on war in Iraq, nor would that be at all likely, even in discussion. Infallible statements are rare and limited almost (not quite) exclusively to matters of doctrine. For example, the Church has condemned modernity (lotsa luck, guys!) but not as a matter of faith or morals.

The Missouri bishop's position follows a long tradition in the church of winking at flagrant abuses so long as they do not give public scandal, so that the bishop would not consider himself obliged to tell his communicants to stop approaching the altar rail at communion if they have done abortions, because the church never objects to secret sin; but politicians are another matter.

Harry:

That is outrageous. Can you not see the qualitative difference between committing a wrong and promoting it, especially from a position of authority? The bishop is not acting because these politicians are having a lot of abortions.

That was just the latest shot in your argument that religion is wrong because its adherents don't lead blameless lives. It's fun, isn't it, to hurl accusations of hypocrisy when you don't believe in anything yourself and therefore have nothing to be hypocritical about.

Robert:
I was a little too terse. The Catholic Church is completely justified in excommunicating those who don't heel to doctrine. There was a kerfuffle over that prior to Gov. Granholm's election. She is personally against abortion, but recognizes the limits religious freedom places upon forcing sectarian doctrine upon others. She has yet to be excommunicated.

If you prefer to have a mind of your own, then you shouldn't be a Catholic. On the other hand, if you prefer to have other men do your thinking for you on these issues, then being a Catholic is fine. Unfortunately, given the number of Catholic in the US who give little regard to the Church's teachings on birth control, a consistent policy on excommunication would empty the pews.

That is something of a problem, isn't it Peter? Why doesn't the Church bar from communion anyone who uses birth control?

No, Peter, I can't see any qualitative difference.

My wife was watching at TV program last night about the priest Foley who impregnated a mentally ill woman, then (apparently) allowed her to die when she should have been saved by a phone call.

It quoted a letter in which he made exactly my point -- he told Cardinal Law his sins should be kept secret so that no scandal would come to the Church. Law bought it.

Exactly my point. The Church always behaves that way. It is antimoral.

Men are--the Church isn't. Else they'd not have to hide their sins.

OJ:

So why should I defer moral decisions to these men? After all, it is those men who presume to interpret Scripture for the rest of us.

Whether the Albigensian Heresy, or Foley, the Church acts precisely the same way as any secular political power does when threatened. And morality has nothing to do with it.

Harry/Jeff

I was just wondering. Given the choice, do you believe it would be preferable for the Church to just disappear or to stay around and conform to all the principles you atheists/agnostics believe in and think it should follow?

Jeff:

Just because they are flawed and hypocrites doesn't mnake their counsel wrong. Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue, or something like that. If we look to ourselves to determine morals we get the advice from men just as flawed and hypocritical--ourselves.

My question was not so much a criticism of the Catholic Church (though I have those) but of the people who remain Catholic but disregard the church's teachings. It is their hypocricy that bothers me. There is a name for Christians who decide moral issues for themselves - Protestants.

But if it is hypocritical of a Catholic politician to be pro-choice, it is also the case if he is pro-death penalty. The Church is an anachronism, a relic from feudal times. Protestantism has shaped the modern world, in the sense that every person in a democratic society considers himself a "priest" with the authority to decide moral matters for himself. It is the norm. We are all Protestants now.

Robert:

The death penalty is not a violation of Christian moral teaching--in fact, it's a necessary buttress of it.

OJ
The death penalty is a violation of the Church's moral teaching. A Catholic does not have the right to interpret Christian moral teaching for himself, he is bound to obey the teaching of the Church, who alone has the Divine guidance and authority to interpret God's word for humanity.

Robert:

But is it a moral teaching or just a bishop's letter type deal, like opposing the war?

It comes down from the Pope. From my understanding, which may not be totally correct, it is a moral teaching of the Church.

I believe that the Pope opposes the death penalty personally, not speaking authoratatively, but there appears to be some confusion on the issue:

http://www.catholic.net/us_catholic_news/template_article.phtml?channel_id=1&article_id=656

Peter:

I think it preferable the Church remain precisely what it is.

OJ:

The hypocrisy isn't exactly PhD level ethics. If they are going to excommunicate people for failing to oppose abortion, then they better be doing the same for those who fail to oppose, or use, birth control. If that is obvious to a morally blinkered materialist, then the Catholic hierarchy must really be at sea if they can't figure it out.

But, sarcasm aside, the point is more fundamental. Of course they are human, of course they are flawed. So what is the justification for deferring moral judgments to them?

And speaking of the death penalty, I thought the Pope was supposed to be inerrant--unflawed by definition--on these sorts of issues. Which means, if true, that it is impossible to separate his personal conclusions from church position.

Not being Catholic, though, I could have that completely wrong.

Jeff:

That's neat. If the Church followed your logic, it would be both preaching that man is sinful by nature and excommunicating anybody that committed a sin.

The Pope is--John Paul isn't. Sometimes he speaks as Pope, other times not. Similarly, George W. Bush may oppose something but not make it US policy to oppose it, though he could.

Jeff, as far as I have been able to figure it, infallibility is so wrapped in semantic qualification that it is impossible to actually prove that the Pope is ever in error, even when he is. Think Bill Clinton and parsing of the word 'is'.

It is illogical to contend that the church's morality is valid even though its purveyors are sometimes flawed. The church's teaching changes drastically from time to time and place to place.

That makes morality relative. That's my point, but it isn't yours.

If it's relative, then my opinion is as good as any bishop's.

I don't believe I have ever said so here, although I have written it elsewhere, that the Catholic Church fits all the RICO criteria of a continuing criminal enterprise, and if there were any honest federal prosecutors, it would be under indictment.

I was interested to read, in one of the N.Y. papers when I was there last week, a nearly similar statement from one of the lawyers representing children raped by priests. I was somewhat surprised to see it laid out in public.

People fear the church and compromise with evil by defending it.

Is it illogical to contend that science is valid even though experiments are sometimes fraudulent?

OJ:

That isn't my logic. They would excommunicate a politician that explicitly failed to adhere to Church doctrine regarding abortion.

Why stop there? As I understand it, birth control is every bit as much against Church doctrine as abortion. It only follows that Catholic politicians failing to oppose birth control deserve excommunication just as much as if they fail to oppose abortion

To contend otherwise is to conclude that Catholic morality is, well, relative.

Harry makes my point exactly. Even assuming there is a true objective morality, it can't possibly be such after filtering it through flawed humans. That leaves us with a choice: abdicate our moral decisions to flawed humans, or, as flawed humans, make them for ourselves.

On what basis is a bishop's opinion on morality superior to mine, or yours?

Their opinions aren't better. Their opinions have nothing to do with morality. Their opinions are those of men. Morality is of God.

Well, that's some admission. Clearly there's no use for religion, then.

Orrin, scientists are usually at pains to state that the interpretations of experiment are provisional.

This experiments are not equivalent to moral pronuciamentos from the church.

Also, the penalty for doubting the validity of an experiment is, at most, a little social unpleasantness.

As you have often told us, the penalty for doubting the validity of so-called morality is death.

If people were strangled at Las Vegas every time they put a quarter in the slot and it didn't come up 3 cherries, I bet they'd spend all their time drinking.

Whoa! I'm incommunicado for the weekend and look at what I missed!

Let me try to sum up my argument here:

1. "Cafeteria Catholics" is a misnomer, and an insulting term. God wants us to think for ourselves. That's why he gave us a free will. I agree with the Church on the most fundamental issues. AND I agree with it on abortion, for the most part. But am I to be excommunicated because I think it should be allowed in cases of rape, incest or where the mother's life is in danger?

2. Some positions the Church takes have nothing to do with the fundamental tenets of the Church. If the Pope took a position on the technological uses of DVDs, we wouldn't be required to follow it.

3. The Church's position HAS changed over time. The death penalty, which it endorsed for 2000 years, is an example. Note that even today the Church does not technically oppose the death penalty, but it says there is no instance where it can be used, which is a distinction without a difference.

4. The institutional Church is increasingly delusional. The unconscionable oppositon to the War in Iraq is but one example. Unfortunately, they are intent on imposing that delusion on the rest of us. This just reinforces the negative stereotypes of Catholics who allegedly have divided loyalties between country and Pope. I had hoped that JFK had put that to rest, but this bishop just brought it back.

Harry:

Then why do they teach science in schools?

""Cafeteria Catholics" is a misnomer, and an insulting term. God wants us to think for ourselves. That's why he gave us a free will. I agree with the Church on the most fundamental issues. AND I agree with it on abortion, for the most part. But am I to be excommunicated because I think it should be allowed in cases of rape, incest or where the mother's life is in danger?"

JC, you can think for yourself, but as a Catholic you cannot decide issues of faith and morals for yourself. If you are offended by the "Cafeteria Catholic" label, could we call you a "for the most part" Catholic?

Robert:

You don't actuallt get to think for yourself, which would leave you like Jeff/Harry, saying everything you do is morally right or else you wouldn't do it, but to decide for yourself, whether to behave in the moral pattern laid down by God. Thus free will.

Acton didn't get to think for himself.

The question is not whether I can think for myself but whether a Catholic can.

Harry:

No one can. We just make choices.

OJ Dowd:

"which would leave you like Jeff/Harry, saying everything you do is morally right or else you wouldn't do it."

I'm going to say this one more time; perhaps you can take it on board: What Harry actually said, and I agreed with, was that it had been decades since he got out of bed with the intent of doing something immoral that day.

NOT that everything he does is morally right.

He acknowledges mistakes, but denies intent. Your repeated misquotation (against my repeated corrections) consistently gets it backward. Please stop.

How long has it been since you intentionally did something immoral?

I doo immoral things every day. Everyone does. Some can acknowledge it., Others invent their own version of morality rather than face themselves.

OJ:

You dodged my point. Harry acknowledged doing immoral things, but not with malice aforethought. You have completely perverted his meaning, and your response proves it.

I don't lie, cheat, steal, bear false witness, murder, commit adultery, or covet anything I don't already have. Well, except for my airline job back, but I don't think that is exactly what the Commandments had in mind.

If the Ten Commandments are your source of morality, then I will bet most of the posters here get through most of the days of their lives without doing anything immoral.

What do you propose it is Harry, or I, or you, for that matter do routinely that qualifies as immoral?

I forgot my last question.

When was the last time you intentionally, with malice aforethought, did something immoral?

Jeff:

You, for instance, support the killing of babies. Now, you avoid moral responsibility by saying they aren't human, just as slaveowners said blacks weren't human. But anytime we objectify our fellow man in such a way we are behaving immorally.

I did something immoral today. I coveted Patricia Heaton:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/cr/2004/001/1.18.html

Well, no. I support freedom of decision because abortion, as bad as it may be, is less bad than the alternative.

That is an opinion of the balance between two evils, not support for abortion per se.

Picking the lesser of two evils is not immoral; however, the basis of the choice could be wrong. There is a difference.

But that's as may be. I remember Harry's quote pretty well, and your use of it perverts his meaning.

Actually, your argument demonstrates its meaning--you behave immorally but insist it can't be immoral because you choose to behave that way. Thus no action of yours can ever be immoral, even if it leaves 40 million dead.

OJ:

Whoa. What are we talking about here, opinions or behavior?

Your mangled assertion of what Harry said was: "which would leave you like Jeff/Harry, saying everything you do is morally right or else you wouldn't do it."

Thoughts are not actions. Thoughts are not behavior. In order for my opinion to become behavior, I would have to act on it. Tithing to NARAL, for instance, would qualify.

So you may well conclude my thoughts immoral, but that isn't what Harry was talking about. And since they are his--and by extension, my--words, you don't get to choose a different meaning for them.

Thoughts aren't often illegal but are frequently immoral.

That is as may be. Harry was specifically talking about intentional, planned, actions, not thoughts.

You morphed that into "...everything you do is morally right..."

How about addressing that morphing, please.

Yes, you two maintain you never engage in "intentional, planned, actions, not thoughts" that are immoral because if you thought it was immoral you wouldn't do it. That's absurd.

No.

I mean that it has been decades since I intentionally did something you would find immoral, using the 10 Commandments as a guide.

"... because if you thought it was immoral you wouldn't do it."

Precisely. Isn't that as good a reason as any?

Perhaps you could give me an example, since I clearly can't see it for myself, of something immoral I have intentionally done?

As I've pointed out, yyour advocacy of abortion is immoral, but I don't have any idea what else you do in your personal life. I do know that your belief you've done nothing immoral is a function of your redefining morality to make immoral actions acceptable. Agreeing to kill your wife and yourself when either becomes an inconvenience would be another example.

OJ:

You are evading the point. What Harry spoke about was actions. In my agreement with him I specifically stated it had been years since I had purposefully done something immoral. In fact, "It has been years since I intentionally did something immoral." Is pretty close to an exact quote.

That is absolutely different than "which would leave you like Jeff/Harry, saying everything you do is morally right or else you wouldn't do it," because we never said any such thing. As well my "belief [I've] done nothing immoral" is grotesquely wrong. I don't have that belief, and not one word I have ever typed here would contradict that.

Your moral opinion of what I think is utterly irrelevant, because Harry and I specifically addressed actions, as did your distortion of what we said.

"... your advocacy of abortion is immoral" is also completely wrong. Here is what the dictionary says regarding the word "advocacy:" the act or process of advocating. My stating that choice is less bad than imposition of an absolutist position is a belief, an opinion. Voicing one's opinions is not advocacy.

But, finally, that just doesn't make any difference. You have repeatedly, manifestly distorted what Harry and I said.

The next time you print this assertion, you had best find the direct quote and print it. It is Dowdification at its finest to put words into others mouths that they never said.

In advocating abortion you are part of the great immorality of your times, just as surely as those who were pro-slavery without owning slaves. In agreeing to kill and be killed with your wife you've entered into an immoral compact. So, you simply state that abortion and euthanasia aren't immoral otherwise you'd not advocate them--that's the point.

OJ:

Wrong, you miss the point entire. The words I and Harry used have specific meanings and our intent was clear. You have perverted both meaning and intent.

If you were to directly quote what Harry and I said, rather than putting words into our mouths, no reader would come away with anything like the meaning you have asserted.

That, my friend, is Dowdification at its finest.

Jeff:

You said "I specifically stated it had been years since I had purposefully done something immoral."

That's either a lie or a tautology.

OJ:

The operative words are "purposefully" and "done." Meaning that whatever you might define as thought crimes do not apply, by definition.

So, within the context of Christian morality, it is absolutely true.

Jeff:

Exactly, the man without morals can never be immoral on purpose--thus the tautology.

Let me put it to you this way.

My words came with a specific meaning--that I had not intentionally done anything to violate one of the 10 Commandments for a long time.

Those are my words, my meaning, not yours.

You do not get to morph that into "... everything I do is morally right." That is one Dowdification.

Your crack about being without morals is irrelevant. I was using your professed moral yardstick. So, unless you can demonstrate how my assertion is wrong--since you don't know me except by pixels, you can't--then you are simply making it up.

Dowd squared.

You are, if nothing else, an idolator, no?

No, I am not. The prohibition is against worshiping false Gods, not failing to worship anything at all.

The fact remains, you traduced what Harry said, and I agreed with.

My agreement was, although true, with malice aforesight: I was certain you would misrepresent those words in precisely the way you did.

I would have preferred to be wrong.

Of course you are, you worship Nature, attributing to it properties that are God's. But, I'll make a deal with you--you repent of evil, as in your support for abortion and your murder pact with your wife, and we'll start you with a fresh slate.

I do not "worship" anything.

Here's the deal: don't misrepresent what I say.

You view it as your Creator, invest it with powers, place analysis of it beyond reason, etc., etc., etc... It is your God.

I view it as the most coherent, persuasive material explanation of observed material circumstances, not as a God. And nothing I do with respect to evolution even comes close to warranting the word "worship."

As I said above, no matter how difficult you may find it to comprehend, I don't worship anything. Period.

I would be all too happy to find out some God really is responsible for it all, and that there is something to look forward to beyond this life other than eternity in oblivion. Unfortunately, despite that desire, I can find no grounds for belief. The Commandment condemns false worship, not disbelief.

I do, however, admit to being guilty of placing unreasonable analysis of it beyond reason.

But it's incoherent and you still have blind faith--so it's a religion. There's nothing wrong with that by the way.

Even granting your point, if religion it be, then it is one devoid of both God and worship. Hence, it has nought to do with the First Commandment.

So, I stand by what I said. It has been years since I intentionally did something immoral. Further, if the 10 Commandments are the yardstick, it has been years since I have done anything immoral at all.

That, to me, is a singularly unremarkable statement. I would be willing to bet it is true of virtually everyone who posts here: when was the last time you lied, cheated, stole, bore false witness, committed adultery, failed to honor your parents?

blasphemed, coveted another's property, coveted another man's wife, failed to observe the sabbath, failed to love another as He loved us, etc. I've done all of those things--except adultery--rather routinely. We all do--we're mere mortals.

True enough. But did you plan to blaspheme?

This is what the dictionary says about coveting: to wish for enviously; to desire what belong to another inordinately or culpably. Somehow, although I obviously don't know you personally, I doubt your appreciation of another's property, or wife, amounted to coveting.

And I know that when some lane dodger cuts me off on the freeway, I fall well short of loving that driver as He loved us.

But I didn't get out of bed that day with the goal of reacquainting myself with road rage. Which is precisely the modest idea Harry was trying to get across--he didn't start his days with a plan on how to out and violate himself some Commandments.

Unfortunately, the words you put into his mouth clearly stated Harry never does anything immoral, which is as good an example of traducing someone else's words as I have heard in awhile.

Cain didn't wake up one day and say: Today's the day Abel gets it. Immorality need not be premeditated at length--it suffices that you engage in it and know you are, no matter how sudden. You and Harry are arguing that you don't behave immorally because you wouldn't do so. That assertion is a function of either massively inflated ego or morality so relativist as to be unworthy of the name.

If you'd like you can restate your and Harry's position and we can save it so I can rip into a direct quote.

I really think you are reading far more into what he and I said than is there.

Harry and I (to the extent I may be so bold as to speak for him) acknowledge behaving immorally, but we claim to have achieved enough moral maturity so that we no longer anticipate an immoral act, then go ahead and do it anyway.

Maybe a metaphor will help clear things up. Say I'm out flat-hatting in my F-111, consistently flying at about 50 feet above ground level (AGL), despite a rule that says 250' AGL minimum. While crossing a road, I so startle a motorist that she runs off the road, hitts a tree and ends up in the hospital.

That is a crime.

Rewind the tape. While maintaining 250' AGL, and a little uncertain of my position, I look down at my chart a little too long. While doing so, I inadvertantly descend to 50' AGL, with the same result as above.

That is a mistake.

When I was a nugget, I committed some crimes--intentionally violating flight restrictions. Thankfully, and luckily, so far as I know, none had any results that warranted even a phone call.

As I matured, I got to the point where I committed no crimes. But that doesn't mean I was free from mistakes.

All Harry and I were maintaining was that we had reached a level of maturity where we make mistakes, but commit no crimes.

I suppose the last sentence is the distillation, but it is so unremarkable I can't see it being worth the bother.

BTW.

I am using your standards for moral actions, absent the odd exception that doesn't apply: a non-believer observing the sabbath just doesn't make sense.

Also. I find a great deal of J-C morality admirable because it so closely aligns with the world and both human nature and potential.

In essence, it is right because it works. All the God gloss in the world won't fix a moral system that doesn't work materially. Islam, in its current incarnation, is a classic example.

Immorality isn't criminal--it's treating people as objects rather than subjects and disrespecting your Creator. That we all do every day.

As for criminality---you haven't gone over 65mph in ten years or fudged your taxes, etc.? I''ll notify the Pope to begin your canonization.

Islam works fine as a moral system--it's a failure as a political and economic system.

You, not surprisingly, misunderstand the sabbath.

Re Islam: The doctrine of predestination obviates morality.

Re the Sabbath, from the dictionary: the seventh day of the week, Saturday or Sunday, observed as a day of rest and worship by Jews and Christians.

So, not surprisingly, I do understand the meaning of the word Sabbath. It makes as much sense to a non-believer as Sanskrit does to a pony.

Never mind that. Does my crime/mistake metaphor clear things up any?

Jeff:

No. I've listed some of your likely crimes and certain sins--the mistakes I assume are your way of excusing behavior even you know to be reprehensible.

The Lord doesn't command us to just rest one day but to keep one holy.

OJ:

I am talking actions here, not thoughts.

No matter what you think of the cost-benefit trade off between freedom of religion and imposing an absolutist sectarian position, or continuing pointless, intrusive medical care instead of letting nature take its course, it doesn't matter. Because, so far as I am concerned, to date, they are my thoughts, not my actions.

It was my comment using common English words consistent with their accepted meaning. Those words do not include thoughts, so you don't get to arbitrarily throw them in the mix.

I am quite happy to stack my behavior, mistakes and all, up against the 10 Commandments (absent the irrelevant to me Sabbath)--if you were to be a fly on the wall, you would find virtually nothing to object to, and none of that planned.

If you care to broadcast that I haven't intentionally violated a Commandment in years, that is accurate. And unless, absent the irrelevant to me Sabbath, you can demonstrate otherwise, then you are just going to have to take my word for it.

On the other hand, if you broadcast that I think everything I do is right, that grossly traduces my meaning, all accepted rules of logic and syntax, as well as the accepted meaning of common words.

Jeff:

You are still talking about crimes, not morality. It's perfectly legal for you to advocate for abortion, but it is evil.

As for your belief that you've gone ten years without doing anything morally wrong, except for moral rules you don't believe you're bound to obey, well that one answers itself.

No, I am talking precisely about morality.

I am talking about distinguishing between moral and immoral actions, moral mistakes from moral crimes.

Your insertion into this discussion of my opinions regarding choice is utterly irrelevant, and demonstrates you have no regard for words' meanings, or writers' clear intent, when you decide to score some cheap polemical points.

So, no, it doesn't answer itself. You tell me. What immoral acts have I intentionally committed over the last ten years?

(Emphasis added. You keep failing to take on board that operative term.)

Advocacy--even thought--is action. Had Hitler never gotten to gas Jews would you call him a morally blameless man? Note that the commandments include prohibitions on thought.

Thought is not action--pick up your dictionary and see if you can find even the concept of thought anywhere in the definition of "act." That you still equate the two speaks volumes about how little respect you accord the meanings words have. And how much in common you appear to have with totalitarians.

You keep losing sight of what I said--the statement I made was limited solely to actions, not thoughts. You may prefer otherwise, but my words and clear intent do not support your preference.

I have the Protestant, Catholic, and Hebrew versions of the10 Commandments at hand. Two conceivably relate to thought: worshipping the wrong God (how is one to know?), and coveting.

So, ignoring for the moment (as you so often have) that my statement clearly limited the discussion to action and not thought, it still takes an extremely creative reading of the Commandments to conjure up the conclusion my opinions on matters regarding the beginning and end of life stand in violation.

(1) I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

(2) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

(3) Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son or your daughter, or your manservant or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

(4) Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you; that your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you, in the land which the LORD your God gives you.

(5) You shall not kill.

(6) Neither shall you commit adultery.

(7) Neither shall you steal.

(8) Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.

(9) Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife.

(10) And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.

Restricting ourselves to the Commandments, I count at least seven that you violate openly--I'll not delve any further into your private life than the facts you've revealed.

As an agnostic, the first three don't apply, although I try my best not to violate #2. It doesn't mean a darn thing to me, but it likely will to others. As I mentioned above, the first commandment is utterly silent about giving God a miss entirely.

I honor my parents.

It has been over a decade since I killed anyone.

I have never committed adultery, nor stolen, nor bore false witness, nor coveted my neighbor's wife (or even the wife of someone not my neighbor), nor desired to possess something belonging to my neighbor.

So, if you want to go public haranguing Harry and me for not observing the Sabbath, go right ahead. Although I suspect most are going to wonder if you have a point.

I'm still dying to know which the other six are, and how you know.