The trick is separating Left and State, while maintaining a democracy.

�There is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values. The dignity of the person and the defence of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavour and of every effort to bring it to fruition.�

and...

�This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.�

Who does he think is? Ayn Rand?
___

In another vein, whether Islam "reforms" or not seems to be entirely up to the West's will to reform it (instead of allowing it to metastize in our cultures).

The Cartoon Flap indicates that we are not up to the task of forcing the issue. What makes OJ so sure they are up to the task of reforming themselves?

Ali? OJ?

Au contraire, muslims living in Canada, Thailand, the Philippines, India, Afghaistan, the former Soviet republics, a number of African nations and the majority of the Arab Middle East, all of Europe (which I know you do not count as the West, but I do not surrender the Cathedrals so breezily, nor does Benedict)... muslims living in these "lands" seem to be having immense difficulty separating koran and state. Another thing - five years after 9-11 and the continued almost complete nonexistence of muslim condemnation of islamic terrorism is sobering. Meanwhile the West has begun to acommodate islamic threats of violence by giving up our traditions, includng free speech, and allowing sharia to outlaw females and males sharing a public swimming pool in Seattle, to cite but one frightening example. This is a religion of war we are in, and with one of the religions in this war -- islam -- YOU CANNOT DIALOG. Every one (including the Pope, Buddhists, Sikhs, bullet-riddled school children in Chechnya, and on and on) knows this and is frightened by it. I understand that the US president has to pay PR lip service to "the religion of peace" --- but it is not the religion of peace. It is a religion that intends to either convert us or kill us. Talk to me in 500 years and see how we did. But why someone as obviously perceptive and intelligent as you wants to engage in teleological wishful thinking about a religious war with an implacable foe interests me.

PS - I also am an anti-intellectual. All a fellow needs to know to understand islam is to observe how they treat their women. That they utterly despise them, have nothing but contempt for them could not be more obvious. We on the other hand adore and protect ours and have the famous last words to guide us as well: "Son, behold your mother."

Mr. Paz:

That's a counterfactual, not least because most of the Muslims living in predominantly Muslim states live in secular democracies.

Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Paz. The muslims who immigrated to those countries a generation ago did just fine. It's the children born in those countries and living on welfare, who are pushing a Leftism parody of Isam, who are the problem. They contempt they should women is also something they learned from the Left. Welfare, as OJ has taught, is the acid the Left uses to destroy communities. Learn to separate Islam as a religion(Good) and islam as an ethnic group(Bad). Please do not mistake the trappings for the faith.

Show, not should. Sorry.

Bruno:

Rand believed in the centrality of Rand, not of the person.

We can speed the Reform but we don't matter in the long run. Muslims are just like everyone else and will not tolerate a socio-political regime that can't produce wealth, which Islamicism can't anymore than communism could.

Allowing Sharia in Seattle by use of separating sexes in a local swimming pool.

I'd be really interested in your position on separate-sex private schools if you think the above is a "concession" to Islamists.

Thus, even before religion, there is the voice of conscience and we must all fight for moral values, for the dignity of the person, the defence of rights.

If someone told me that in my lifetime a Pope would admit to something so radical, I'd have taken him for a nutcase. I love how malleable, how putty-like absolute truth can be made to be in the hands of a master.

Robert: Humans are created to believe. Even you.

Robert: Read it again. That's not a quote from the Pope.

Religion after all is just a human construct.

But that is a summary of what he said. How far off is it? Here is what he said:

�This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.�

Is he saying that religion just gets in the way of a person's conscience, which is the true seat of morality? I'm about to faint!

Robert: Sigh. The whole "primacy of the conscience" thing was probably the most horribly misunderstood part of V2. There's lots of commentary to be found on what the Church teaches in this area--you should go read & ponder for yourself.

Interesting how no one seems to be able to answer Robert's question.

Robert:

Morality isn't dependent on the Church. The Church is dependent on morality. God required certain things of Man long before there was any religion. They haven't changed. Nor is Christianity an ideology. It's the Truth.

That's what every ideology says.

Religion, after all, is a human construct.
Morality is not dependent on the Church.

I'm glad you are finally seeing things my way. Your first statement above is in direct contradiction with Christian theology, at least Catholic theology. The Church, after all, is the Body of Christ. Are you saying that the Body of Christ is a human construct?

My conscience is the source of my morality. I don't know if religion would get in the way of it because I've had virtually no contact with it.

erp:

No, it isn't.

Robert:

You're either being willfully obtuse or just don't understand any of this at all. The Church does not say that morality only began with Christ. If it did there wouldn't be on Old Testament.

oj. What isn't?

Your conscience isn't the source of your morality. God is. Of course, He's also the source of your conscience.

I have no evidence to dispute that God is in control of my conscience, so I'll concede it could be so and if it is, so far he/she/it is doing a very good job

Okay, since I don't have evidence to the contrary, I'll concede the possibility that God is the source of my conscience.

One of the two comments above was written by my doppelganger.

Or maybe by your conscience, Erp!

My conscience is usually more circumspect, but all this unwarranted attention may have turned its head.

Your conscience isn't the source of your morality. God is. Of course, He's also the source of your conscience.

Even conceding that point to you (which I'm not), it still invalidates the need for the Church's intercession. And it invalidates the need to acknowledge God as the source of morality and conscience.

The Church is laying down a theology, that, if it continues along its current trajectory, will make God an optional component in the whole scheme. Gee, at some point I might actually be able to rejoin!

Robert:

Yes, the Church doesn't need to intercede. It suffices that God Created you with a conscience and dictated the morality you're required to follow. Religion is just a human institution to organize believers. How you're tossing God out is inexplicable. Christ managed to be a good Christian even without the Church.

"But sinful pride has rule inside�ay, mightier than my own.
"Honour and Wit, fore-damned they sit, to each his Priest and Whore;
"Nay, scarce I dare myself go there, and you they'd torture sore."
Mr. Duquette and Mr. Erp, like Mr. Hughs and Mr. Jackson before them, are above the petty crowds, and need no help as they make their way through life.

Mr. Duquette: Your last response makes no sense. oj states that your conscience & morality come from God, and you state that if you concede that point it "invalidates the need to acknowledge God as the source of morality and conscience." Say what now?

b

The only think we need to know is that we have a conscience. Where it comes from is a matter of speculation. OJ says God, I say it is an evolved aspect of human nature. Knowing the exact origin is not a necessary prerequisite to acting on your conscience.

For an analogy, there is a debate as to the origin of fossil fuels. Most people say they are the decayed remains of plants and animals, some people say that it is generated abiotically in the earth's crust. But whatever you believe about the origin, it will still make your car go. Knowing the origin is not a prerequisite for making use of it.

"Knowing the origin is not a prerequisite for making use of it."

Um, that's the point David and oj have made repeatedly above.

Mr Mitchell,
You are being a little presumptuous. It isn't about pride and it isn't about not needing help to get through life. I can use all the help I can get. It's just that I recognize no theological preconditions for either getting through life or receiving help.

The point I was trying to make above is seems that the Catholic church is moving more toward my point of view. Just look at this paragraph quoted from a FirstThings article by Avery Cardinal Dulles:

The conviction of earlier theologians that relatively few are saved rests, I suspect, partly on the assumption that faith in Christ, baptism, and adherence to the Church are necessary conditions for salvation. The first two of these conditions are clearly set forth in the New Testament, and the third has been taught by many saints, councils, popes, and theologians. But these conditions can be interpreted more broadly than one might suspect. In recent centuries it has become common to speak of implicit faith, baptism �by desire,� and membership in the �soul� of the Church, or membership in voto (�by desire�). Vatican II declares that all people, even those who have never heard of Christ, receive enough grace to make their salvation possible.

So if the Church helps you get by in life, more power to you.

Robert:

Sure, that's the pride par, your refusal to recognize that it is theology that gets you through. Everyone else can see it. Your hatred of the Church as an institution has left you to unbalanced to deal with your own faith in its tenets.

Like Robert, I need all the help I can get. If there is a God, I welcome his/her/its help, however, I am quite sure I neither want nor need help from any religion with which I am familiar.

Mr. Mitchell, since from your comments, you seem to believe the male of species the superior in reasoning ability, I guess I should be flattered to be referred to as Mr. Erp, however, my newly empowered conscience has forced me to reveal that my preferred term of address is grandma.

erp:

Where were you raised and by whom?

Robert:

One problem with your analogy, in either case the fossil fuels were Created.

Mrs. Erp, sorry if I offended, but I can't bring myself to refer to people at It, so I default to Mr.
As to the other point, I believe women are equal to men in reasoning ability, which is why the idea that women can not be held responsible for their actions so offends me.

Robert, you didn't offend me at all. I didn't correct you because I found it amusing and I came out now because I thought it would be a little joke on the conscience meme.

oj. Thanks for asking. I was born in 1934 of Albanian Orthodox, immigrant parents in Queens, one of the five boroughs of NYC. Father was a small businessman, mother didn't work outside the home. I was sent to the nearby Catholic grammar school in the first grade although we weren't Catholic (long story) with no advance warning that they were speaking a different language from the one I knew.

I caught on quickly and loved school and learning ever since largely because of the truly selfless and holy nuns for whom I still have a great affection all these years later. The priests were the polar opposite and I have great contempt for them in large part because of their overbearing attitude toward the nuns and their anything but charitable attitude toward the students and parishioners.

Don't put too much emphasis on my dislike of priests because the first ones I knew were truly horrible. I've read and learned a lot since first grade and nothing I've learned has proved my first impressions wrong.

I've had an interesting life and the blogosphere has become an unexpected and delightful place to spend my retirement years. I couldn't have imagined "conversing" with so many witty and learned and polite people from all over the world from the comfort of my back porch in sunny Florida and I thank you for the privilege of allowing me to participate in the debate.

Thanks for asking.

Right, so, contrary to the assertion that "I am quite sure I neither want nor need help from any religion with which I am familiar." You are simply a product of the religion with which we're all enormously familiar.

oj. Give me a freakin' break. I wasn't a communicant, but an observer of the church until 8th grade after which I had a lot of other experiences for like fifty plus years. My statement stands. I wouldn't bet against the existence of God, but I reject any any religion of which I am aware, and I especially reject any clergy who claim to speak for or to said God.

No, you don't. You live by the rules you were taught and which completely dominate your society. Pretending to rejhect religion while living by it is merely posturing.

Actually I was far more influenced by the morals in the movies I saw while growing up, so if I am living what I was taught, it isn't Catholic morals but the morals of the immigrant Jews from Mittel Europe whose worldview dominated the cinema in the 30's and 40's. I rejected their Communist propaganda though, even at an early age I realized it wouldn't work.

Yes, you're nothing more or less than a product of Anglo-American Judeo-Christian culture. The notion that you're a product of your own conscience is ludicrous.