A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Friday, February 24, 2012

United Methodists, Catholics, and Religious Liberty

United Methodist professor and blogger, Richard Heyduck responds to Jim Winkler on the HHS Conscience Clause. Richard is spot on. He writes,

How would United Methodists feel if they were required to use their apportionments to fund the construction of new casinos and weapon systems? Would we just say, "Caesar says we have to do it, so we’ll be good citizens and pony up the cash?"

I'm half tempted to add my own editorial, but I have been in the fray long enough. It is time for some other voices.

Richard's entire post can be read here.

6 comments:

Dennis Sanders said...

I'm still waiting to hear part two of your first post. I really think you are getting going on something.

That said, Richard's was good as well. It's interesting that we can talk about Empire when it's things we don't like (war, capitalism), but seem to like Empire when it serves our interests. Of course, there are those that like Empire when it does the reverse as well.

I think what is missing is a good discussion on ecclesiology. What is the church, and how does it respond to the world around it?

Allan Bevere said...

Dennis,

Thanks for the encouragement. I am going to get to it. I just needed to step away from it for a while.

I wrote a post a while back on the totalizing agenda of empire and that we are only concerned about empire when it does not forward our own political agenda.

Dennis Sanders said...

Hmm...I'm going to look it up. Thanks for letting me know!

Allan Bevere said...

Dennis,

Here it is-- http://www.allanbevere.com/2011/04/totalizing-agenda-of-empire.html

PamBG said...

The analogy of apportionments is wrong.

A nominally Catholic employer who has no legal right to insist that all it's employees be Catholic because it is not actually engaged in a religious activity is nowhere near the same thing as taking money given by Catholic worshipers at a Catholic Mass.

And none of this would be an issue if, in the US, we thought that everyone deserves healthcare instead of viewing it as some kind of luxury job perk that a beneficent employer might grant to their employees if they so choose.

Allan Bevere said...

A nominally Catholic employer who has no legal right to insist that all it's employees be Catholic because it is not actually engaged in a religious activity...

What nonreligious activity are you speaking of?