Political Crossfire Forums

[Knight]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Knight wrote:
How so? Why just for 'Christians' and not other religions?

We not only have the problems with the crimes of the Catholic church. We have Christian churches making their crusades to push their dogma on others. Most who don't want to hear it. Churches have the right to say what they think is wrong to themselves but to try and push that nationwide is another problem. Chruches often attack Islam, homosexuals, Jes and others constantly. I attended church most of my life and that was what was mostly preached. While in turn you have other religions who might occasionally say that they disagree but in the end ackowledge the need to be civil and to not judge. Many fundamentalist churches push that certain races are more "barbaric" because they subsribe to a different viewpoint. That's racism right there. Need I go on?

You are generalizing Christianity and all other religions. As for your 'attacks on Islam, homo, Jes, and others', I have never heard, seen, even felt, any of that (and I have been a Christian my entire life). Rule #1, do not make rash generalizations when debating.

[David Kelly]

Bush isn't an extremist? Why do you say that? Is it because he's not religious? None of the extremist are.

[connermt]

carlosox wrote: And why is there hatred between the Muslims and the Christians? Is it not because each believes that his religion is the only true one and that everyone else prays to the devil ? Does religion exist because of poverty ? Let's imagine for once that there is no poverty anywhere in the world. Everyone everywhere is completely self sufficient and all his/ her material needs are completely satisfied. Will religion matter then ? Probably not. Historians have always maintained that only the poor embrace religion. As a nation gets wealthier, religion goes out of the window, or is just a fashion statement as is in the West. The fact remains for now that the majority of humanity is divided into two opposing camps- each wishing the elimination of the other- and this is not good for the world. Should this enimity be reduced sufficiently so that it will only be a minor irritation by improving the economic status of all and sundry? Here again I run into a brick wall. Just look at what globalisation has done. The concept was initiated so that there will be an even distribution of wealth etc., but look at what it has done now? The poor nations have been driven into deeper poverty by the richer nations. There is no end to greed. Perhaps the results of enviromental destruction in pursuit of wealth will bring the richer nations to their senses. Only when mega tsunamis, hurricanes and tonardoes hit the earth will humanity learn.

Quote: And why is there hatred between the Muslims and the Christians? I'm not sure some of the extremist haters in both religions actually know why any longer. This has been going on for so long it is redicilouos

[Darth Tiberius]

Knight wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Knight wrote:
How so? Why just for 'Christians' and not other religions?

We not only have the problems with the crimes of the Catholic church. We have Christian churches making their crusades to push their dogma on others. Most who don't want to hear it. Churches have the right to say what they think is wrong to themselves but to try and push that nationwide is another problem. Chruches often attack Islam, homosexuals, Jes and others constantly. I attended church most of my life and that was what was mostly preached. While in turn you have other religions who might occasionally say that they disagree but in the end ackowledge the need to be civil and to not judge. Many fundamentalist churches push that certain races are more "barbaric" because they subsribe to a different viewpoint. That's racism right there. Need I go on?

You are generalizing Christianity and all other religions. As for your 'attacks on Islam, homo, Jes, and others', I have never heard, seen, even felt, any of that (and I have been a Christian my entire life). Rule #1, do not make rash generalizations when debating.

I am not generalising or making rash judgements. I am analysing that the bible provides no safeguard against this kind of abuse while the Koran does. That and my experiences are different from yours and a few others. Maybe it makes me think if others choose to just ignore these trencds that I see. I am not generalising all religions. If you read what I say I am methodically analysing.

[Darth Tiberius]

Eynon81 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: carlosox wrote: We fool ourselves into thinking that peace will one day exist between these two religions. It simply cannot happen, because each is committed to the idea that world peace will eventuate only when the whole world is converted to either Christianity or Islam, as the case may be. All talk of religious tolerance is mere hypocrisy. Each is just waiting to destroy the other. Prove me wrong, someone.

Regards

Once Christianity lays down trends of bigotry and imposing ideas and realise we are all human beings then we can go forward.

:lol: isn't that a bigoted statement :lol:

Not at all. A calculated opinion.

[Gilbert1908]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Knight wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Knight wrote:
How so? Why just for 'Christians' and not other religions?

We not only have the problems with the crimes of the Catholic church. We have Christian churches making their crusades to push their dogma on others. Most who don't want to hear it. Churches have the right to say what they think is wrong to themselves but to try and push that nationwide is another problem. Chruches often attack Islam, homosexuals, Jes and others constantly. I attended church most of my life and that was what was mostly preached. While in turn you have other religions who might occasionally say that they disagree but in the end ackowledge the need to be civil and to not judge. Many fundamentalist churches push that certain races are more "barbaric" because they subsribe to a different viewpoint. That's racism right there. Need I go on?

You are generalizing Christianity and all other religions. As for your 'attacks on Islam, homo, Jes, and others', I have never heard, seen, even felt, any of that (and I have been a Christian my entire life). Rule #1, do not make rash generalizations when debating.

I am not generalising or making rash judgements. I am analysing that the bible provides no safeguard against this kind of abuse while the Koran does. That and my experiences are different from yours and a few others. Maybe it makes me think if others choose to just ignore these trencds that I see. I am not generalising all religions. If you read what I say I am methodically analysing.

Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

[Darth Tiberius]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

[Gilbert1908]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

[Darth Tiberius]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

[Gilbert1908]

Darth Tiberius wrote:

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

I feel sorry for you and pray that you grow out of this historically destructive and intellectually oppressive philosophy.

[Darth Tiberius]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote:

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

I feel sorry for you and pray that you grow out of this historically destructive and intellectually oppressive philosophy.

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm going by what I see as logical and to be best for all. If anyone proves me wrong then my views will change. But please don't pray for me.

[Gilbert1908]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote:

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

I feel sorry for you and pray that you grow out of this historically destructive and intellectually oppressive philosophy.

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm going by what I see as logical and to be best for all. If anyone proves me wrong then my views will change. But please don't pray for me.

Too late

[perdidochas]

David Kelly wrote: Bush isn't an extremist? Why do you say that? Is it because he's not religious? None of the extremist are.

Bush isn't an extremist. Pat Robertson is an extremist.

[perdidochas]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

The only way the rights of the collective society can be protected is if the rights of the individual are protected.

[Darth Tiberius]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote:

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

I feel sorry for you and pray that you grow out of this historically destructive and intellectually oppressive philosophy.

Don't feel sorry for me. I'm going by what I see as logical and to be best for all. If anyone proves me wrong then my views will change. But please don't pray for me.

Too late

The thought that anyone is praying for me just makes me angry so please don't. Plus you don't know me tht well, why do you care?

[Darth Tiberius]

perdidochas wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

The only way the rights of the collective society can be protected is if the rights of the individual are protected.

But when the individual threatens the society then society must be protected.

[eynon]

Darth Tiberius wrote: perdidochas wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

The only way the rights of the collective society can be protected is if the rights of the individual are protected.

But when the individual threatens the society then society must be protected.

individuals never threaten society, only other individuals :hy:

[perdidochas]

Darth Tiberius wrote: perdidochas wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

The only way the rights of the collective society can be protected is if the rights of the individual are protected.

But when the individual threatens the society then society must be protected.

No, it's when an individual threatens other individuals that that threatening individual should be incarcerated.

[Darth Tiberius]

perdidochas wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: perdidochas wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

The only way the rights of the collective society can be protected is if the rights of the individual are protected.

But when the individual threatens the society then society must be protected.

No, it's when an individual threatens other individuals that that threatening individual should be incarcerated.

That cannot happen if it is more than one individual

[eynon]

Darth Tiberius wrote: perdidochas wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: perdidochas wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Can you agree with this?

"First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."27

It depends on what the common good is. I would say that respect for religious freedom is necessary like the you said. But under certain conditions. When religion invades our common good we need a balance. The government must make sure the balance is kept.

Quote: Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.28

I don't see then why religous influence is necessary to make sure all get what is needed to sustain human life. The social well-bing must be the responsibility of the people to the society. Development, yes, is important. And development must be to the views of the people. Unfortunately religion requires that development doesn't happen in society to hold true to what they believe is right or wrong.

Quote: Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

The common good does require peace, yes. But what is morally acceptable must be decided by the people and what basic human rights are. Basic core human ethics.

Quote: Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies."

It really depends on what the common good is. And when the common good is threatened or is in potential of being threatened then steps must be taken while still ensuring human rights and the right to live in society.

It is leaving to the society what the common good is, the statement is addressing the security of the individual and his beliefs being kept at the forefront in order to guarentee his/her liberty. The entire premise is that each civil society may have slightly different definitions, but each individual's personal beliefs must also be respected.

So do you have any objections to this philosophy?

I believe we must think of the collective and not the individual in the highest importance. A person should have their beliefs high to them but not at the forefront cause the liberty cannot be decided on that. On a general principle I'd say, yes that everyone's beliefs must be respected. But when it causes harm to society or attempts manipulation of the system then something must be done.

The only way the rights of the collective society can be protected is if the rights of the individual are protected.

But when the individual threatens the society then society must be protected.

No, it's when an individual threatens other individuals that that threatening individual should be incarcerated.

That cannot happen if it is more than one individual

elaborate...... :think: