Dear George,

You wrote: "Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI argues for the necessity of certain moral principles for maintaining a free state, and for the importance of genuine reason and authentic religion, rather than what he calls "pathologies of reason and religion", in order to uphold the states moral foundations."

The moral principles of the above mentioned cleric are of no more interest to the secular state than mine. I suspect that "pathologies of reason and religion" are merely words to describe those views he doesn't agree with.

There is a distinction between morality and legality expressed by Geoffry Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury. "In a civilized society all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and should not be treated as crimes. Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone."

In a secular state the morality of its citizens are of no more concern to the state than their religious conviction. The state asks its citizens to obey the laws, but their morals are their own business.

Benedict XVI's moral principles are irrelevant to the secular state.

Dear david f,
>>You wrote: "Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI ...<<
These are not my words but the description of the book by ammazon.com. I am aware that you do not agree with Benedict.

>>Benedict XVI's moral principles are irrelevant to the secular state.<<
This may be so, although Jürgen Habermas, probably the most prominent of living German philosophers and sociologists, does not agree otherwise he would not dialogue with the pope. I think it again boils down to respecting other opinions even if they look immoral, irrational or just irrelevant from my point of view.

This was also implicit in my question: whether the views of the representative of a billion of formal (baptised) - and some tens, if not hundreds, of millions of self-professed - Catholics, seen as a moral authority on e.g. social justice by many others, might be deemed to be irrelevant to a state run by (atheist) secular humanists. As I said, Habermas does not seem to think such a society would be a good solution even for open minded atheists.

Regardless of the number of communicants who follow the pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, the Chief Rabbi of East Jipip or other esteemed clerics their views are not relevant to the actions of the secular state. The secular state regards the religious views of its citizens as none of its business. In return various religious groupings do not pursue their sectarian agenda through the power of the state.

The US had Prohibition, a disastrous experiment in trying to enforce morality on its citizens. Its repeal saw alcoholism as a medical and not a moral problem. Hopefully drugs will be treated the same. A secular government is not a source of morality.

You are concerned about the possibility of Christians having to go underground. Christians of all kinds have freedom of worship. However, that does not mean they can use the power of the state to push their religious practices on other people.

I personally think the pope is not an adequate moral guide. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/pope-led-coverup-of-child-abuse-by-priests-7220621.html tells how he covered up systematic child abuse by clergy under his jurisdiction. Although his morality is inferior to mine since I would neither engage in sexual abuse nor cover it up if I knew of others who did it I would not pose myself as a moral guide.

However, the secular state is not a moral guide either. If it tries to be it exceeds its charter.

I think the US is wrong in having a representative at the Vatican.

Dear david f,

Sorry, I wanted to call your (and others) attention to Habermas and his solution of the problem of secular society, not the Pope whose views I did not expect you to share.

I referred to the Pope as an authority on social justice not on how to handle child abuse, which opens another, irrelevant to this thread, can of worms [I said whatever I thought I could say to the question of child abuse by Catholic clergy in the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10333&page=0; see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5422#148086. As to your link to an obviously one-sided report, here is one http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0325.htm#013, probably also one-sided, from the other side. It at least - unlike the report you linked to - contains a link to the document they are talking about.]

I agree that the secular state is not a moral guide, and I do not think Habermas thinks otherwise.

Also, I do not know how do Christians (in contemporary Western countries) “use the power of state to push their religious practices on other people”, except using facilities, available in a democracy to any other group, to promote their solution - admittedly often too conservative, i.e. reflecting the generally accepted state of affairs from a few decades ago - of a particular problem concerning the whole of society. (Of course, unfortunately not only the number of supporters but also economic and financial strength decide which group is more influential than others, however this does not apply only to Christians.)

>>I think the US is wrong in having a representative at the Vatican.<<
And I think they would not, were this the majority opinion in the US. This is also democracy, I suppose.

Dear George,

Where the United States decides to have diplomatic representation is not decided by a democratic vote of the people. We don't know whether a majority of the US population wants it or not. My feeling is that a US representative to the head of any religious body violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The pope is the head of the Catholic Church. However, I see him as opposed to social justice. The human race like any other species cannot increase indefinitely. The resources of the planet are limited. Environmental problems cannot be solved without control of population growth. Education of women, access to contraception and abortion are all means to achieve this end. As far as I know the pope has no objection to education for women although the Catholic church is male dominated with a male clergy. The pope's position on birth control, condoms and abortion make him unfit to be a voice in achieving social justice which is incompatible with uncontrolled population growth. He also is a voice of intolerance. One example was his objection to letting Turkey join the European Union as he wished to preserve the Christian nature of Europe.

No one advocates that churches be told who they can and cannot marry. However, the pope does not want the state to recognise same sex marriages even if the marriages are civil and have nothing to do with the church. If it were up to him there would be no divorce.

The selection of a pope is an undemocratic process since he is elected by the cardinals who were chosen by previous popes. Of course Catholics may stay with their church for whatever reason they choose. However, I see no reason that the rest of us need give his medieval mumbojumbo any weight.

We agree that the secular state is not a moral guide. In my opinion neither is the pope.

George,

I apologise in advance for the length of this response, but there is just so much to be said.

<<That is fine, it is the same with me, except that I listen to other’s opinions, perspectives, in order to both refine and broaden my own perspective.>>

And I don’t?

One of the reasons I like to debate theists is because it helps me to refine precisely why I don’t believe.

But I am fundamentally coming from a sceptical standpoint, not from a position in which something is being asserted. Ultimately, my view, here, is one of scepticism. So until someone comes up with a convincing argument (whether or not they are trying to convince) regarding anything supernatural, the only thing I have to broaden is my understanding of what some others believe and why.

The above is just one of the many examples that demonstrate how theism and atheism cannot be equated. There are far more differences between the two than you've ever been willing to admit on OLO (as I have mentioned many times in the past when I pointed out the fact that theism and atheism are not just two equally opposing views). You err so many times because you treat the two as if they are on equal footing on both a practical and philosophical level, and fail to realise that the two require/justify very different responses to many situations because of these differences. I remember, in the past, so many of your sentences being in the form of, "I wouldn't [insert action here], just as I wouldn't expect an atheist to [insert action here]", in situations where the two cannot be compared in such a way.

Much of your discussion with David and Pericles was due to this fundamental misunderstanding and I think your starting of this thread was a result of it too.

Similarly, you said to david f, “Where we differ is the application of the adjective “respectable”: I can respect other world-views that differ from mine…” On the surface, this sounds virtuous and I’m sure it was meant to as well.

Continued…