How should religions honour the freedom of conscience of their members?

[metis]

Three quick things:

1.Churches, like all other organizations, deal with and teach what they think is right.

2.Regardless of what a Church or any other organization may say, one always has the right to leave.

3.The Catholic Church no longer teaches that those who may leave are automatically condemned to hell. If it did, I'd leave in a heartbeat.

 

[metis]

Another thread targeting the Catholic Church? Like I said in the other thread, if they don't like it, they can leave. I left the Church because I no longer agreed with its teachings or believed in it. A gay guy who joined at the same time as me and brought a bunch of his family and friends into it left and became a Satanist, along with his family (go figure). You have to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're mature enough to make their own decisions. The Catholic Church can teach whatever it pleases. It's not going to change its teachings over homosexuality so people might as well accept that reality.

Yep.

The choir director at our Catholic parish was gay, and yet he held this position for almost 30 years.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Three quick things:

1.Churches, like all other organizations, deal with and teach what they think is right.

2.Regardless of what a Church or any other organization may say, one always has the right to leave.

3.The Catholic Church no longer teaches that those who may leave are automatically condemned to hell. If it did, I'd leave in a heartbeat.

My experience in Christianity was largely with local JWs which left a very sour taste in my mouth. Because they intentionally isolated you from non-JWs, and used disfellowshipping and shunning as a threat, as well as punishment. So people rarely choose to leave or they leave behind the only community they've ever known. They're usually forced out, then cut off in super traumatic ways.

I understand not all or even most Christian churches behave this way, but I can see the worry over it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They can accept the reality that the church is against gay marriage now but will revise in the future, and work to talk about their beliefs within the Catholic Church if it's important for them.
It's not like the Catholic Church has never changed its teachings on things people swore up and down would never change.

"I am a Catholic but I have a couple notable exceptions to mainstream Church doctrine as follows" seems perfectly reasonable and healthy.

That begs the question, though, why would the church (and any god-religion) change their theology for people over their god?

If the theology said "go kill all gay people" that would be a problem. The Church says we only bless male and female marriages doesn't signify harm to anyone nor does it promote anything illegal.

I mean if you could bring the Church to court (in this analogy to make a point), what would you charge the Church for if their criteria does not imply or explicitly state to do anything illegal against the hurt party?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yep.

The choir director at our Catholic parish was gay, and yet he held this position for almost 30 years.

The problem isn't being gay in the Church. It's that gay catholics are prevented from doing a lot of things that their catholic peers can do because and only because they are gay.

I read awhile back that a gay priest could not identify as gay as a priest. Most catholics wouldn't consider a priest gay even though I'm sure many are. It goes a lot deeper than choir positions. I'm sure catholic gay people hand out the Eucharist as well as teach sunday school. It's more about catholics being denied the sacraments based on their sex not their commitment to christ.

That's the argument. The catholic church is the only church I came across that really didn't care that you were gay insofar that you did not take sacramental positions such as being a priest or getting married.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That begs the question, though, why would the church (and any god-religion) change their theology for people over their god?

If the theology said "go kill all gay people" that would be a problem. The Church says we only bless male and female marriages doesn't signify harm to anyone nor does it promote anything illegal.

I mean if you could bring the Church to court (in this analogy to make a point), what would you charge the Church for if their criteria does not imply or explicitly state to do anything illegal against the hurt party?

For the people within the church who are pro-official gay marriage, it's not a matter of getting the church to change for people. It's getting the church to realize the problem is people's interpretation, not God. Same with how many churches changed their policies on anti-interracial marriage.

 

[1213]

...
TLDR: if a gay person doesn't feel free to leave the Catholic Church (for example) because the Church has inculcated them from birth with the idea that they must stay, has the Church also taken on an ethical duty to accept the person's sexual orientation and the things that go along with it (e.g. a same-sex partner)?

I think that works both ways. Should Church and its people reject their beliefs to make room for people who don’t agree with them? I think, if person can’t accept the rules, he seeks another group and don’t force the other group to change to his desires.

Also, if the person doesn’t believe what God says in the Bible, why would he believe he must remain in the church?

Would it work also in the case or murderer or pedophile, or any other person who goes against what God said? Should all Biblically wrong things be accepted?

I think it is ok, if Church allows people who have done wrongly to be part of it, but I think it is wrong to require it to accept all things it thinks are wrong.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here's the problem with this, though.

I think that works both ways. Should Church and its people reject their beliefs to make room for people who don’t agree with them? I think, if person can’t accept the rules, he seeks another group and don’t force the other group to change to his desires.

The Church (relationship with god) isn't a social club. Gay catholics are part of this Church because they love christ and their god. If they "find another group" they are being told that the group they are with is wrong (thereby their relationship with christ is wrong) and they need to be exiled into a group that accepts them.

In a golf club or so have you, it would be unethical but not spiritually criminal. But in one's relationship with christ???

Also, if the person doesn’t believe what God says in the Bible, why would he believe he must remain in the church?

Many gay catholics do. That's the problem. Unless catholics (and christians in general) believe god blindly, there is going to be some friction involved. Unless people are slaves to god?

Would it work also in the case or murderer or pedophile, or any other person who goes against what God said? Should all Biblically wrong things be accepted?

This is why gay people leave the church or christ.

Gay people are being compared to murderers and pedophiles.

Why would anyone want to follow christ if they are being compared to murderers and pedophiles?

I think it is ok, if Church allows people who have done wrongly to be part of it, but I think it is wrong to require it to accept all things it thinks are wrong.

It's not about that. It's about christianity putting gay people in a shoebox and justifying it by their interpretation of the bible (as if they are god) rather than supporting that gay person (love the sinner) without comparing and accusing him or her for criminal things even When he hasn't "committed a crime."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For the people within the church who are pro-official gay marriage, it's not a matter of getting the church to change for people. It's getting the church to realize the problem is people's interpretation, not God. Same with how many churches changed their policies on anti-interracial marriage.

I think the church acknowledges it but won't call it a marriage. Once they call it a marriage and bless that marriage between gay catholics, it becomes less about a person's interpretation, and more of breaking god's laws.

To the church, the sacrament of marriage isn't a policy. The church has changed many policies since Vatican I and II (order of liturgy etc) but not the sacraments themselves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Three quick things:

1.Churches, like all other organizations, deal with and teach what they think is right.

2.Regardless of what a Church or any other organization may say, one always has the right to leave.

3.The Catholic Church no longer teaches that those who may leave are automatically condemned to hell. If it did, I'd leave in a heartbeat.

Isn't that why the Church teaches purgatory?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Where are you getting that from? That doesn't necessarily follow.

It comes from the idea of freedom of conscience that I touched on in the OP.

There are really two ways to protect freedom of conscience:

- ensure that activities that might violate a person's conscience are voluntary, or
- ensure that mandatory activities accommodate the conscience of the participants.

Any group that doesn't take either approach is basically giving a big middle finger to the idea of freedom of conscience, which is valued highly in most western societies.

It also misses the point of many religions, especially Christianity.

If you mean that many religions are fundamentally unethical, I'd agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that works both ways. Should Church and its people reject their beliefs to make room for people who don’t agree with them?

If the group is trying to force the person to stay, then yes: they should do what's needed to make room for the person.

I think, if person can’t accept the rules, he seeks another group and don’t force the other group to change to his desires.

Entirely reasonable... if religion is completely optional.

Do you see your religion as optional?

Also, if the person doesn’t believe what God says in the Bible, why would he believe he must remain in the church?

There are as many versions of "what God says in the Bible" as there are Christians.

Would it work also in the case or murderer or pedophile, or any other person who goes against what God said? Should all Biblically wrong things be accepted?

Why would you think that freedom of conscience should include doing harm to others?

I think it is ok, if Church allows people who have done wrongly to be part of it, but I think it is wrong to require it to accept all things it thinks are wrong.

Even when the whole reason that the dissenting person who stays in the church is only there because the church has insisted that the person can't leave?

It's a situation of the church's own creation. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to suggest that it should be the church to bear the cost to resolve the situation.

 

[Clara Tea]

The usual way that churches honor freedom of conscience is to enslave it.

Fear and lies (Satan's tools) enslave.

California missionaries enslaved scared Native Americans (Indians) to build their missions, often beating or killing them.

Modern Christians are enslaved by fear of the fires of hell, and are supposed to tithe to the church.

 

[Mister Emu]

Pfft.

What else does this extend to? Murderers, rapists, child molesters? Does the Church have to accept animal abusers as they are and change their teachings to say that's okay, too?

Or is it only things you think are okay that the Church has an ethical obligation to change its stances on?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pfft.

What else does this extend to? Murderers, rapists, child molesters? Does the Church have to accept animal abusers as they are and change their teachings to say that's okay, too?

Or is it only things you think are okay that the Church has an ethical obligation to change its stances on?

Are you this dismissive of freedom of conscience generally, or only in the context of church?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Does Bahai support same-sex marriages?

I know the Church neither agrees with them nor supports them as a marriage. They do acknowledge it as a legal commitment but not a religious sacrament.

The Baha'is take a similar attitude to the Church as you present it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The freedom within a religious path comes when one follow the teaching, when a person study the teaching and begin to live the teacing. In the beginning there is hardship because one do not understand why everything is so strick. But it is strick because what a person do in a religious practice is to peel away every bad habits, every wrong way to speak, act or think. and this prosess is not done over one day, it may take years. And every day the believer who focus his/her attention to what they do, say or think (not what others do,say or think) during every day, they know what has to be done to get the freedom.
When a person stop focusing on the fault of others but only focus on not doing wrong them self,that is when freedom arise.

What others do in their life is not our issues to solve. of course if asked for advise, give advice if you can, but do not judge the other, because you may do much worse your self.
the teaching you follow say what YOU should do in your life, not what others who do not follow the same teaching should do.

A religious teacher, Imam, priest, or other religious leaders can guide you within their teaching, but they should not force you to stay if their teaching is not for you.

 

[metis]

Isn't that why the Church teaches purgatory?

Yes, but there's no way to determine who might be "eligible". In my case, I'm planning on buying a house there because I doubt I'd only be there for a short time.

 

[Shakeel]

That's the Church's problem to figure out.

I'm saying that once you've coerced people into staying, you have an ethical obligation not to threaten them.

They haven't been coerced to stay. They stay because they believe in something. I.e. they want to stay and the church is under no obligation to approve of their sins.

 

[1213]

...
Do you see your religion as optional?

Yes, I think all religions are optional.

...There are as many versions of "what God says in the Bible" as there are Christians...

That is interesting claim. I think there is only one version of what is said in the Bible and everyone can read it. But, there may be many interpretations, which is not the same. And generally, I think interpretations are not necessary or good, people should allow Bible to explain what it means, without making own version of it.