| Click here to go to the original topic View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Darth Tiberius
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 2001
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Eynon81 wrote: 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:
When a ideal or belief by a group hurts society and the majority vote for it to be changed then the opinion must be at least countered. And safeguards must be in place to prevent beliefs from influencing politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gilbert1908
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Posts: 5249
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Darth Tiberius wrote:
When a ideal or belief by a group hurts society and the majority vote for it to be changed then the opinion must be at least countered. And safeguards must be in place to prevent beliefs from influencing politics.
Yes we would hate to have BELIEFS influencing politics, God forbid THAT ever occurs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Darth Tiberius
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 2001
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote:
When a ideal or belief by a group hurts society and the majority vote for it to be changed then the opinion must be at least countered. And safeguards must be in place to prevent beliefs from influencing politics.
Yes we would hate to have BELIEFS influencing politics, God forbid THAT ever occurs.
Biased beliefs. Religion has NO place within government. It is biased in nature. It is corrupting in nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
eynon
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 19778
Location: Minneapolis......
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote:
When a ideal or belief by a group hurts society and the majority vote for it to be changed then the opinion must be at least countered. And safeguards must be in place to prevent beliefs from influencing politics.
Yes we would hate to have BELIEFS influencing politics, God forbid THAT ever occurs.
Biased beliefs. Religion has NO place within government. It is biased in nature. It is corrupting in nature.
Marxism is a strong belief, with much to do with faith :wink: |
|
| Back to top |
|
mojo
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 5521
Location: Dreamland, NC
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote:
When a ideal or belief by a group hurts society and the majority vote for it to be changed then the opinion must be at least countered. And safeguards must be in place to prevent beliefs from influencing politics.
Yes we would hate to have BELIEFS influencing politics, God forbid THAT ever occurs.
Biased beliefs. Religion has NO place within government. It is biased in nature. It is corrupting in nature.
If religion is corrupting wouldn't people be corrupted. That is far from the case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Darth Tiberius
Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 2001
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
politicalmojo wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote:
When a ideal or belief by a group hurts society and the majority vote for it to be changed then the opinion must be at least countered. And safeguards must be in place to prevent beliefs from influencing politics.
Yes we would hate to have BELIEFS influencing politics, God forbid THAT ever occurs.
Biased beliefs. Religion has NO place within government. It is biased in nature. It is corrupting in nature.
If religion is corrupting wouldn't people be corrupted. That is far from the case.
Many have been corrupted. Look at fundamentalism. And look at the Vatican. Look at the televangalists. Need I go on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Click here to go to the original topic |
|
