Listening: "Dizzy," Orgy

Note: I wrote this a while ago somewhere else.

I don't have time to really get into this but it's something that's been on my mind recently.

How much of a responsiblity do individuals have of seeing the strictures and limitation/expression of their faith be writ into the ethics/morals of the surrounding community?


It's obviously a hugely contentious issue in our society and while I think of it from the position of my society and my state I think that religions shouldn't dictate the rules of the state. As the argument goes if you legalize drugs most people aren't going to run out and buy and use a bunch of heroin, for much the same reasons we're not constantly drunk. Ergo there doesn't need to be an organized religion dictating how and when killing a person should be wrong and the perpetrator has committed a crime. We don't need a Bible or a Veda or something to tell us that murder is bad.

But I wonder about less clear moral lines. Catholic teachings state that dating is best used as a method for finding a suitable marriage partner and therefore one shouldn't waste time/effort dating with no intention of marriage. Ergo, coupling is not only intended for the sacred state of marriage, those marriages that are not permitted should not be persued as couplings...so no homosexual pairings, QED. On a personal level I don't have to explain to most of you that I think this is utter hooey, but that is the teaching as I understand it.

But I was thinking about advanced Western states that have really pulled free from basing laws on religious teachings, for better or for worse. Clinically, technically, they're not exactly suffering. Women aren't (or don't seem to be) explioted by marriage and the assumption that they will find fullfilment as mothers and wives. They don't seem to be getting used up by men who aren't interested in marriage; neither gender is really facing epidemics of VD, there aren't children growing up uncared for.

But the pro-religion side points out that in places like Sweden and (I think) Germany where homosexual marriage is legal and domestic partnerships are standard, abortion is legal and safely available, health standards are high as is health education then... the native population is actually plummeting creating problems with funding of programs for older generations, a falling off of numbers in educated people (there's still an influx of immigrants but they're not ready to take up highly technical jobs) and subsequently a falling off of numbers of voters to maintain this lifestyle as immigrants gain voting rights and are more than willing to vote for their more traditional "values." I use quotes because the word is loaded in our common parlance that I want to be clear that value is a noun and the actual important part is the adjective.

anyhow. What I'm thinking about is why it should be up to the faithful to not expect adherence to the law as a natural expression of faith. It's something that the modern generation of the Protestant tradition that is most loudly calling for a marrying of state & relgious tradition because the opposite is a Culture of Death, of immorality and ultimately a lack of humanity. That without morality we are no better than animals.

But it strikes me as curious taht it's the Protestant movement that originally struck a chord for personal enlightenment and salvation, insisting that blind adherence to Church laws couldn't truly bring about God's grace if we only abstained from immorality but did not embrace the spirit behind moral action.

My abhorance for picking to bring the state's laws in line with a religious practice is it's far from certain that it would be a religion that I like. Additionally I would hate to impose rules borne of tradition on people who have had no exposure to the same traditions. I've long said that if I hadn't been brought up as a cradle Catholic the chances that I would have either become or stayed any other sort of Christian are very, very small.

But if, as the Catholic Church seems to believe, it pleases God that we either commit ourselves to lifelong celibacy and a complete lack of romance, or dedicate time to finding our one single (heterosexual) partner for marriage and the creation of a family then would that really solve the issue of falling populations and help stablize society? With the dynamic movement and evolution of societies I'm fairly skeptical. Even if it would please God, would it be as good in His eyes if we all did it because it was the law (however else the state could possibly enforce it...but that's not my point)? There is no state enforced giving of alms, but we believe that it pleases God. You could call taxes giving alms but the fact that both taxes and alms were seperate concepts in Biblical times and that the definitions are quite seperate both in technical and ecclesiatical terms then one simply can't be substituted for the other.

I know I'm arguing to really back up my own point. I occasionally do wonder about places where the laws have gone wholly against the relgious/traditional majority and embraced a "look if you feel like it, do it" ethos. But I've only heard about communal salvation and bringing society into rightness with God from Catholic canon. I had always thought that the Reformation was decidedly against the notion, prefering to allow and encourage individual communion with God.