December’s Most Popular Blog- Rocking The Boat…A Little Bit
By SilentKnight
Georgia
A Rebuttal to this post has been written, to read the rebuttal click here.
O
k, so the elections are finally over. Many people are shocked that the incumbent got reelected after how much the economy declined over the past four years, although apparently that can be debated since he did actually get reelected. I’ve met Copts who said they voted for Romney, others strongly supported Obama.
So the question remains in my mind, who should we as Copts have elected? Which party?, Which person?; this debate can go on forever, but I’m initiating it; I don’t care. I want to know whether our church should start getting involved as in whether they should make a public statement as to what leader we should support or which party. Who should we as Copts support? Pope Shenouda our departed and beloved said it is our civil duty to vote. But he never specified specifically who to vote for. Although politics can get confusing and controversial, I think the fundamentals of each party is clearly spelled out, for us as Christians to see which is the right party to go by. I would say the Republican Party. They seem to not have as much confusion within their parties with regards to their identity especially after liberals had that fiasco at their convention. They first decide to remove God, yes, God, from their platform, then had a vote and changed their minds even the majority clearly did not want God in the platform.
So I beg the question, Should the Coptic Church here in America have a party to support? Are we not all supposed to be like minded in Christ as the Scripture says? Are we not supposed to show respect to the government as the scripture says, what’s Mine is Mine, and what’s Caesar’s is Caesar’s.
I will say the liberals used a couple verses in scripture such as ‘as you did to the least of mine, you also did it to me’ and then something else about ‘getting out of the darkness and coming into the light.’ I can’t recall exactly.
Here’s what I say, their use of verses adds to their confusion as they support blasphemies such as gay marriage and trying to remove God in schools and institutions. Can the darkness mix with the light? And I say this not saying we are perfect, but we strive to be. We all may have weaknesses we all need to work on, but as far as knowing what’s right is another story. Also we all strive to be perfect as it says, “Be perfect as your father is in Heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) Also it says “Be Holy because I am Holy.” (1 Peter 1:16).
Ok, so to make my point clear, I ask “should the church make a statement regarding which political party we should support?” I say Yes; it’s bittersweet.
the issue with that is you then fall into dangerous territories… you will find every Cult dictates who its members must vote for etc. i think the Church should however be more proactive, teaching our stance on the social and political issues. In doing this you can help direct the people to the right person. though this year it was ultimately a lose/lose id say its obvious that the republican part is more conservative and thus more “christian” however there are liberal conservatives, and conservative liberals… especially when we get into the social programs and other humanitarian fronts. many modern conservatives fall into the idea that these programs are beneficial and helpful and thats why its really not as cut and dry as it should be. many people dont understand the ideologies or how they function and operate.
I would like to pose a question to Columbcille’s claim: Should Christians give more weight to social issues in voting (gay marriage, etc.) or economic ones? What if our economic stance leans towards a Democratic viewpoint, and our social ones are more Republican?
there is no more weight than the other… both are equally necessary, I would say if your mixed you dont have a truly grounded understanding of the ideologies behind the partys… as they dont mix well at all..
“Should the Coptic Church here in America have a party to support?”
My humble opinion is no. No it should not. There is nothing more dangerous for the Church than her mingling in state issues, especially political ones.
The duty of the church is to teach what is morally right, not to try to infringe it in law upon the country. This is demeaning for the Church. The true power of Christianity is in the power of the Holy Spirit spreading the beautiful teachings of the gospel through the actions of the members of the church: When we as Christians live the gospel, the power that goes with that is stronger than any number of votes.
Using votes to try to influence the social issues of a country is demeaning for the Church. We are denying the true power and role of the Church, and trying to make up for it by messing with politics. It is like a prince leaving his kingdom to go on the streets and beg. It is true that social issues are important, but if we put our trust in the government to infringe our moral beliefs on American society, we will lose.
I welcome your rebuttal.
Then what standards do you use to vote?
they said the Church shouldn’t be involved, not we as Christians… we will obviously vote based on our own morality hopefully that which the Church has given to us. However as i said before you fall into lines with controlling cults when the Church begins to mandate and dictate the liberties of her members…
Unless however they are meaning we as members shouldn’t vote then i believe its simple negligence…
The Church is not voting, but the members of the Church are. ACVOR claimed that we should not use votes to influence the social issues. I pose the question again: If we do not vote for social issues, why do we vote? What are the standards?
i think you are not looking to the subject the post asks… the post i asking if the Church should dictate to the members who they need to vote for, this is unacceptable, the members should vote of their own liberty… i cant speak for acvor but this is my point.
This is a very good point. First, there is an important difference between the Church’s official endorsement, and the members of the church choosing to vote with their religious values. Like Columbcille Dougherty said, the article is about the latter.
However in response to your important question, about what our standards are, I would refer to the Bible.
According to the article, Pope Shenouda said that it is our civic duty to vote. This is a great starting point. It is not our spirit duty to vote, it is our civic duty. The Bible talks about the civic duty in another context, paying taxes. The Jews asked Christ if we should pay taxes to Caesar or [to give the money instead to the temple.] The answer was clear: We give to Caesar what we need to because it is our civic duty to pay taxes. Our duty to God should not inhibit our civic duty.
Therefore, if we believe that it is our civic duty to vote, we should vote in a what we believe is in the best interest of the country to which we owe the duty. That should be our standard. If we believe it is in the best interest of the country to restrict certain behavior for the benefit of society, then that is how we should vote. If we believe it is in the best interest of the country to give people more freedoms, so that those who do evil and those who do good may both be given the freedoms to do so, then that is how we should vote. Although a truly Christian person cannot separate his religious values from social values [nor should he], he should separate his personal interests (even noble or spiritual ones (i.e. paying taxes to the temple)) from the interests of the country.
ACVOR,
You were doing fine until your last sentence.
When you pay taxes, you are told what to do under the law. When you are voting, you are not. You are choosing to vote, which is not required by law, and you are choosing what to vote for. There is no comparison here.
@ACVOR: Then is it wrong for priests do stand on the pulpit and tell us exactly how to vote on certain amendments? Should we obey the Church, or by our “civic instincts?”
I am glad we are thinking this through.
@A.Anise: Don’t forget the assumptions I am making here. I am assuming, as the article did, that it is our civic duty to vote. If that is a civic duty (you seem to disagree), then the choice we make in our vote should also be based on a civic duty.
For example, what if we went to vote and everyone decided to choose a candidate at random? Would that be a violation of our civic duty? I would think, yes. Therefore, there are standards that we should use in determining who we vote for, if voting is truly a civic duty. So the question becomes, if we have a duty to vote and a duty to choose who we think is the best candidate, what standard do we use? In that, I believe that “the coin to Caesar” is a precise comparison.
@sdawoud: You ask two questions.
Your first question is asking about how my opinion would affect the clergy if it were followed. It is a good question. Your example is a good one. I cannot respond to the question because I am not a member of the clergy, and therefore I find it unfitting to pass judgement on the clergy. However, I don’t believe it is relevant. I don’t believe it would stop us from searching for a truth in a matter. If we are truly searching for the truth in this matter, we would try to figure out what rule is right or wrong first, then apply it to the church. It is not proper to use the rule to pass judgment on the actions of the church, as a means of attacking the rule. If the rule is flawed, then rebut it on its own merits.
In response to your second question, if our clergy instruct us to do something, then we must follow it, despite our own beliefs. The clergyman becomes responsible before God for our action, we become responsible for our obedience. We are a church built on discipleship.
ACVOR,
Respectfully, allow me to rebut the rule on the merits. I don’t agree necessarily that it is our civic duty to vote. It is our right to vote, not necessarily our duty. This makes a difference. You say that you are assuming that it is a civic duty. Well, you can’t assume that, because I think that it is not.
If a politician tells us, “Jesus wants you to do this or that”, Absent anything else, will we believe him/her? No, we will probably say, “I will learn what Jesus wants me to do from my church” and we would be right. In the same way, what is or is not our civic duty is not to be determined by the church, but by our civic leaders. If our civic leaders say that we have a right to vote, not a duty, then it is not a civic duty. If it was our duty (like, for example, jury duty), then there would be laws requiring us to vote, or at least register to vote. There are none in America. If you want to say it is our spiritual duty to vote, that is another point.
Also,
“if the Church teaches us ABOUT social and political issues, we will be more informed and be capable of voting based on what we know. The Church shouldn’t tell us how to vote, per se, but rather what we are supporting if we vote either way”
- Jennifer
I agree with this.
If you are a constitution bound citizen out its a duty as it is our duty to ensure the government fulfills its purpose… to the point of revolt if necessary, constitutions words not mine…
Dougherty,
I took two semesters of U.S. Constituional Law, I never ran across that clause.
Citation?
Dougherty,
The constitutions words? U.S. Constitution?
Citation Please…
Sorry, Dougherty, for the double reply, I though I canceled the first one. I don’t wish to sound angry.
Anise im not able to reply to you for somereason:-p
Sorry i was thinking of the Declaration of Independance as well as several state constitutions that were in favor of the duty to revolt. obviously the duty comes when the govt as i said begins infringing on the liberties and the rights of the people, when its no longer serving the people but lording over them
In my opinion, I don’t think our Church should “suggest” us to vote in any way by making a public statement; this is not the Church’s role. But I do agree with Pope Shenouda’s view that it is our civic duty to vote. Although we are first and foremost members of the Church, like Christ said, we still ought to respect our governing authorities and perform our civic duties (i.e. paying taxes, voting). I agree with what Columbcille said: if the Church teaches us ABOUT social and political issues, we will be more informed and be capable of voting based on what we know. The Church shouldn’t tell us how to vote, per se, but rather what we are supporting if we vote either way. Also, I do believe that you can have liberal views on one aspect and conservative views on another, I guess at this point it’s up to you to decide what is more important.
You must certainly can have conflicted ideals… but the ideologies do not mix so that’s again not a solid grounding in the ideological functions…
most* was on phone sorry :-p
Ok, after reading your heated debates, I think I have come up with my own conclusion:
First of all, I COMPLETELY disagree with A.Anise who says “It is our right to vote, not necessarily our duty.” Pope Shenouda said its a duty; argue it all you want, but as for myself, I’ll assume that what is said by God’s chosen shepherd is the right thing to do. Personally, I don’t like to complicate things. Christ instructs us to give to Caesar what is his; Pope Shenouda (who obviously appointed by Christ) told us to vote. He only reaffirmed what’s written in the Bible.
Also, I definitely agree with Jennifer, who says, “The Church shouldn’t tell us how to vote, per se, but rather what we are supporting if we vote either way.”
Now, if the priest of my church went up to the podium and said, “This person/party is wrong and violates the rules of Christianity” I wouldn’t complain a bit, rather, I would be glad that I can place my vote with a good conscience. Its no different than the analogy I made before. Christ outlines for us what is right and what is wrong; Abouna (also a symbol of Christ) tells us what is right and what is wrong–the rest is up to us.
ACVOR, I COMPLETELY disagree with your stance regarding voting based on social issues. If you vote for a politician who endorses something that is clearly against the Bible, then you are indirectly endorsing the sin.
Wow, I came back to see if maybe someone responded and I find an explosion. Nice.
We have some really smart people here with really good arguments. It is important that we can disagree and discuss but keep it respectful.
@A.Anise: I get the feeling we will be disagreeing often
First of all, like @sdawoud, you did not rebut the argument on its merits, you rebutted my assumption. That’s a nice politicians trick, but it doesn’t work. The whole idea behind an assumption is that we are assuming that it is true, without going through and proving it. However, because you brought it up, I will side with @Anthony Nagib and repeat what I said before: “We are a church of discipleship.”
Do you know what a civic duty is @A.Anise? A civic duty is a social duty, not a legal one. I invite you to look it up. The government is not the only group that can recognize and teach it. It is a duty of members of society. The Church can and should instill in us to perform civic duties. Voting is a civic duty even if it is not required, just as it is our civic duty to treat people fairly and not be racist, but nobody can stop us if we choose to ignore that. If the Pope of Alexandria wishes to instill in the church the civic duty to vote, he has every right.
@Anthony Nagib: I get the feeling we will be disagreeing often, too.
You said that “[i]f you vote for a politician who endorses something that is clearly against the Bible, then you are indirectly endorsing the sin.”
That is where the “give to Caesar” argument needs an explanation. The reason the Jews put Christ in such a position, was because they believed that paying Caesar taxes would be endorsing the oppressive and pagan empire. It looked like Christ was endorsing their sin. Giving it to the temple, they thought, was to oppose the government. They were trying to corner Him. However he was clear. Give to Caesar what is his, give to God what is God’s.
Because it is our civic duty to vote for the candidate that will do what is in the best interest of our country, just as it is our duty to pay taxes, we are paying our tax by voting for that candidate. It does not necessarily mean we are endorsing his moral views, morality is for the church, not the government. Also, the country’s best interest is not necessarily against our beliefs. We just have to be clear about the standard that we use. That is all.
@ACVOR: What is something that you consider to be in the best interest of the country that does not coincide with Copts voting from a moral standpoint? Just curious. Also, I have to disagree that we are not endorsing a candidate’s views by voting for him. Au contraire, we choose to vote for a candidate because he supports the same views we do. Thus, we are endorsing his views because they usually coincide with our own. Just how I see it.
Welcome back! I hope your exams went well.
Allow me to respond.
Take this scenario:
You are on a plane with four people. The pilot is incapacitated. It is just you, an atheist fighter pilot, and a spiritual monk who has never even driven a car.
You are in charge to choose a replacement for the incapacitated pilot, but you cannot choose yourself. Who do you choose?
Obviously the atheist, right?
Does that mean that we are endorsing his atheism? No, we are giving him the charge to do what we believe is in the best interest of our safety. That is all.
Let me make it more difficult:
What if he is a Muslim, and he insists on praying to his God the whole time? Are we endorsing him for choosing him to fly the plane?
No, he is doing what is in our collective best interest.
Still easy? How about a bit harder:
How about a Satanist who prays to Satan and thinks that Satan is supporting him as he flies the plane to safety. However, he does not require us to join his prayer, though (clearly, if that was the case, we would need to choose to die as martyrs).
Would it be our duty as Christians to take our chances without the Satanist?
I would think not. We become close-minded and fanatical. Instead, we must differentiate between endorsing someones morals and choosing to elect someone who will be in the country’s best interest.
I am of the opinion, when we choose to vote for a politician, we are not voting for his morals, we must vote for what we believe is in the best interest of the country we live in. It’s a civic duty. Our goal must also be civic.
Good points ^
Amen
Anthony Nagib,
A civic duty is a legal duty, nobody here is arguing that it is a spiritual one.
Do you think that the Pope of Alexandria has anything to do with a legal dispute of the rights and duties of citizens in the United States?
avcor is arguing, and ill agree, that its a social duty not a legal or spiritual duty…
ill copy/paste what i tried to reply to you with before that i had to reply to myself with (this is an awkward site format)
“Sorry i was thinking of the Declaration of Independence as well as several state constitutions that were in favor of the duty to revolt. obviously the duty comes when the govt as i said begins infringing on the liberties and the rights of the people, when its no longer serving the people but lording over them”
Constitutionally however we are given the charge to remove powers by impeachment which is in very much the same territory, just the preferred peaceable terms
I will respond to ACVOR soon (I also have a final tomorrow afternoon),
I am looking for binding U.S. law that recognizes a duty of citizens to vote between two candidates, not in times of anarchy or marshall law, but in regular times.
You are right about the duty to revolt, but that is still not a duty to vote, and that is a special duty that some states have against state governments only. The U.S. Constitution explicitly takes the opposite approach giving citizens the RIGHT to PEACEABLY protest the government. (First Amendment).
Impeachment is performed by the court and the legislature, it in not the duty of citizens.
@A.Anise: I look forward to your rebuttal.
May God be with you guys on your exams.
Don’t give this a priority. Study, I am not going anywhere.
A.Anise,
First of all, he’s the Pope of ALEXANDRIA (last time I checked, thats in EGYPT). So, he does have plenty to do with the rights and duties of citizens of Egypt (he even appointed Anba Bola to be in the committee for the new Constitution)…. and we happen to be Egyptian, in fact, we happen to be Coptic Orthodox as well. Why can’t it apply to the Copts in the United States as well?
@Anthony Nagib: I think you make a good argument, but, as a side note, we can go without the sarcasm. You will make a better argument if you stick with the logical and academic arguments so that we may reach conclusions.
If you will take these disagreements personally, I think you are in the wrong place. I look forward to where this argument is going though.
Let’s cool it down a bit… I don’t think Anthony’s comment was meant to be sarcastic or illogical.
Allow me to use this opportunity to say that all comments are being monitored, and while this site is young, anything out-of-line will be removed.
I’m not insinuating that it has happened yet, but just in case things get really heated up…
Oh, not trying to get anyone in trouble here or remove any comments. If we all choose to establish and exercise our collective and mutual civic duties of a high level of respect for one anther, we will never need to resort to legal remedies.
See how I worked that in
Brilliant:)
I just used you as an opportunity to tell everyone this isn’t a free-for-all. We are all about connecting to God and to each other in a spirit of fellowship, unity, and RESPECT. May Christ increase this spirit of fellowship in all youth.
You know I don’t think I have ever seen a debate in which sarcasm was not involved. But, ACVOR, if you are sensitive to sarcasm, I apologize. And what I said is very logical.. the Pope, and especially Pope Shenouda III, has plenty to do with the rights of the Copts in Egypt. During the Egyptian revolution he instructed the Copts to avoid protesting, he told the Copts to vote in the first so-called “democratic” elections, and Anba Bola is part of the Constitution committee. We are Copts as well who just so happen to be governed differently. Of course I know the United States government is completely different than that of Egypt’s (if you consider it a government in the first place), yet we are all united in one church.. the church headed by the Pope of Alexandria (which, in all respect ACVOR, is in Egypt).. so, I am asking, what makes us different than our brothers in Egypt? Why can’t the Pope’s words to the Copts in Egypt apply to us as well? We have always had democratic elections; they thought they were having a democratic election as well and so I don’t see what makes us special enough to reject the Pope’s words. He said its our duty to vote, means its our duty to vote. Period.
@Anthony Nagib: Yes, I agree with you on this point, its a good argument. I believe it was @A.Anise who asked you the question initially.
I will also call it a night, got to be up bright and early.
Evening chaps.
Anthony Nagib,
I don’t believe you understood the question. Allow me to clarify.
“First of all, he’s the Pope of ALEXANDRIA (last time I checked, thats in EGYPT).”
That was my point. Yes, he is in Egypt. When he says that we have a duty to vote, he is making decisions about legal issues between the United States Government and its citizens, devoid of spiritual reasoning. Do you believe that this is ok or do you agree with ACVOR that our civic duty is a social one or do you have a third alternative?
AVCOR,
As far as your issue with sarcasm, I believe that you are trying to impose on this blog a standard of relation as between intellectuals in which sarcasm would not be appropriate. This is not a blog of intellectual professionals or college professors. Its a youth blog, students mostly. So although I will happily choose to submit to your standard, I would think that it would impose too high a burden to place it on all. As far as what standard of respect should be used, this is best left for moderators. See my response to you below.
I’m loving this.
I wish I could sit here and argue with everyone, but I have a molec and cell exam first thing tomorrow morning that’s gonna be the end of me… Prayers please!… And try to keep this hot till tomorrow:)
AVCOR,
Exam was fine, thanks.
Now let’s talk about your civic duty = spiritual duty argument:
Let me start by agreeing with you: our duty to not be racist is a social duty. However, a civic duty does not equal a social duty. I suspect you found an online definition for civic duty that used the word social or society and equated the two. An example of a social duty is a duty to bring a present when you are invited to a birthday party, it is what we do to maintain our social relationships.
A civic duty is the duty of every citizen in a state or country for the safe and peaceful functioning of society. For example it is our civic duty to obey the law. If we did not have that duty, we would fall into anarchy. That is why the law gives us protections so that people choose to follow the law (i.e. punishments for not doing so).
The purpose of the government primarily is to keep order. If a government does not enforce civic duties, it is failing in its most fundamental function. If there is such a duty in this country, as there is in other countries, then the government would have the responsibility to enforce that civic duty in the law, just as it enforces other civic duties, and just like other countries do who consider voting a civic duty. Not the U.S.
Therefore, civic duties are not social ones, they are societal duties which the government has the duty to enforce in law. That makes civic duties legal not social.
Well, the rebuttal is up! Let’s see how ya’ll like that one:)
A.Anise,
You asked me the following question:”Do you believe that this is ok or do you agree with ACVOR that our civic duty is a social one or do you have a third alternative?”
Yes, as I said before, I do believe it is ok, thats what I have been saying the entire time. As far as what ACVOR believes, I do believe that social issues should play a major role in influencing our choice.
Now let me ask you a question, I understand the Pope is not perfect, yet he is chosen by God Himself. Plus, he told the Copts to vote in like his 40th year as Pope. I think 40 years is enough experience (if the fact that he was chosen by God doesn’t convince you enough…). See how nice and simple we can make it? Why do you seem to disagree with the Pope? The Pope said so.. then it is! There are many things we may not understand in the Bible, yet we still follow the commandments of the Bible just because God said so..didn’t Christ once tell St. Peter that he won’t understand certain things at the moment? So, rather than debate the words of HH, I think we should trust in his God-given wisdom. What do you think?
Anthony Nagib and AVCOR,
First of all, I am not disagreeing with the Pope. We are assuming that he said that “Voting is a civic duty.” We are assuming that he meant this to refer to everyone in every country, specifically the United States. We are assuming that this was a civic argument and not a spiritual one. We have no idea why or in what context he said it. None of us can know all of this for sure (and I think that, most likely, His Holiness did not mean it the way we are all assuming).
For the sake of your argument, let us take these assumptions as true.
You said: “I understand the Pope is not perfect”
Let me agree with you. Yes, that is the teaching of the Coptic Church, and it is very powerful and important for us to understand.
Then you say:
“The Pope said so.. then it is!”
“I’ll assume that what is said by God’s chosen shepherd is the right thing to do.”
“So, rather than debate the words of HH, I think we should trust in his God-given wisdom. ”
If you say this, then you are assuming that the Pope is perfect. This is the argument of a Catholic person who believes in the infallibility of the pope.
Then you say:
“There are many things we may not understand in the Bible, yet we still follow the commandments of the Bible just because God said so.”
This part is very important so read it carefully: The words of the pope are not the same as the words of the Bible or the words of God. Although it is important to give the pope’s words a presumption of accuracy, it does not excuse us for not thinking it through, for not asking questions, for not searching for its reasoning or evaluating counter-arguments. Forgive me Anthony Nagib, that is simply intellectual laziness, and I imagine that Pope Shenouda in heaven now is agreeing with me. This is especially true when he is making a statement outside of his domain. Completely outside. When you infringe a legal duty upon the citizens of another country, you are not making a spiritual or dogmatic proclamation. It is legal. That is not the place of an egyptian cleric even if he is the patriarch. My argument is an intellectual one, a legal one, not a spiritual one, not a biblical one by any means.
Let me change AVCOR’s scenario above (because he seems to agree with you). Imagine that the spiritual monk in the plane was the pope of Alexandria, yet you choose the fighter pilot’s expertise rather than the pope. Is that ok? Of course it is. Why? It is not the pope’s domain to fly the plane. Is is also not the pope’s domain to to make legal proclamations in the United States.
Many legal jurists agree that, in the U.S. voting is not a legal or civic duty, it is a legal right. You are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with people who study this stuff for a living. Some countries consider voting a legal duty. As such, they require, by law, that every citizen vote. In the United States, if we imposed that on people, legal jurists believe that it would be unconstitutional. Voting is a right. Actually, less than a right, it is a privilege.
For the sake of full disclosure some jurists disagree and say the voting is a civic duty. On this blog I am arguing against them, not against the Pope’s proclamation. Saying the the Pope in Alexandria believes one side or the other in a legal dispute in the U.S. Constitution without giving LEGAL reasoning is not helpful. Again, I imagine the Pope Shenouda would not disagree. At least, Dougherty attempted to use the Constitution to explain his/her reasoning. I understand your point, don’t get me wrong, but, respectfully, I don’t believe it is rational.
Ok, my $.2: I think this discussion has gotten a little too technical. Is voting a civic “right” or “duty?” I don’t know. I do know that voting is the right thing to do. Pope Tawadros has been saying that his wish is to have the youth of the Church more involved in society, as the Church is a spiritual institution (first and foremost), and one that exists in society. Does it matter that the society is in Egypt or America, I don’t think so.
Voting is one way in which we can participate and have our say in society, to better it. And who/what we vote for may be something we will be held accountable for in front of God. So the Church should ADVICE us how to vote, but leave us with the ultimate decision.
I have not been following this thread too closely lately (some of you all write way too much), and recently, I only skimmed comments for appropriateness. Perhaps some of my points have been refuted/spoken of above, if I am being redundant, my apologies.
Just as a side-note, @A.Anise,
The name is ACVOR, not AVCOR.
I let it go the first time, but you are a repeat offender. I have to put my foot down here.
It looks like I came late to the party, so I missed the fun. Here are my thoughts.
First, you all agree that the church should not endorse a party or candidate. I agree.
A.Anise, voting is both a social duty and a legal right/privilege. The church may impose on us a social duty to vote, it is not getting involved with law as you say. Also, although the Pope is not infallible, we should not question church orders. Obedience to the church trumps all. However, acvor and Anthony Nagib, I don’t believe Papa Shenouda gave this out as a church order. So, I agree with A.Anise that if people choose not to vote, they are not disobeying the church. But if they do vote, I agree with sdawoud and acvor that we are accountable for how we vote.
Acvor, I like your argument and your airplane analogy. The problem is that it might only work in a world where the government does not get involved with morals. The reality is very different. The government makes moral and religious decisions every day, and most voters vote for the candidate that is most similar to their morals, as Jennifer said. If we don’t do the same, we are at a severe disadvantage.
Jennifer and sdawoud, you seem to be saying almost the same thing. I agree that we should vote based on our values and moral, and the church should teach us morals. However, the church should not dictate who we vote for.
Anthony Nagib, you are the heated one. I like that you are trying to keep things simple. But be careful because oversimplifying is the cause of many heresies. Acvor, trying to fit the church into formulas and rules is the cause of many other heresies.
Thank you all for a fun and interesting discussion. May God bless you all in America. Pray for Egypt.
A. Anise,
“Forgive me Anthony Nagib, that is simply intellectual laziness, and I imagine that Pope Shenouda in heaven now is agreeing with me.”
Yes, the Pope agrees with referring to someone as intellectually lazy because this person does not wish to argue the Pope’s words but take them as they are.
sdawoud said, “I think this discussion has gotten a little too technical.” Thank you very much, you are right, the technicality is the part I’m trying to refute.. but, Ive noticed everyone here makes very sophisticated arguments. I’m no reader nor debater, so its a lose-lose for me…although I’m still in complete disagreement with A.Anise.
But, A.Anise, you said, “This is especially true when he is making a statement outside of his domain. Completely outside.” Why is it outside… sdawoud said that the church has a societal role, what makes this outside his domain. Forgive me A.Anise, but you have been making assumptions and generalizations that you treat as though they are guaranteed to be true.
Post # 50…wow
Anthony Nagib,
Thank you so much for your post. You are right. I am making an assumption that I did not expressly explain. Let me do so now:
I am assuming that this discussion is an intellectual one (I mean this seriously, not sarcastically). To take the Pope’s word for something as true, is not lazy or wrong, don’t get me wrong. However in an intellectual analysis of a statement, it is intellectually lazy to skip the analysis based on the credibility of the author (no matter how credible he is). The whole point of this intellectual discussion is to evaluate the statement “voting is a civic duty” in a logical, objective, and intellectual manner. Saying the statement is true because the Pope said it is fine in a nonintellectual debate. Not here, not because we are skeptical of the Pope’s words, but because that is not how an intellectual analytical process works. Does that make sense?
That said, intellectual argument often get technical, that does not make them wrong. In the same sentence, you imply that you don’t understand my technical arguments but that somehow you understand them enough to be “in complete disagreement” with them. I don’t think anyone here is born a debater, if you don’t understand something I am arguing, I am happy to explain further. You have my email if you don’t want to ask publicly.
Finally I was arguing (against ACVOR, not you) that a civic duty is legal, not social. Despite what Pope Tawadros says about the church being more involved in society, this is not society: This is law. The laws of America are outside the domain of the Pope of Alexandria. Where am I losing you so I can clarify?
“Despite what Pope Tawadros says about the church being more involved in society, this is not society: This is law.”
What proper society exists without law? Why did you separate the two, though the two are inseparable?
I agree with Anthony Nagib.
A. Anise,
“I don’t think anyone here is born a debater, if you don’t understand something I am arguing, I am happy to explain further.”
I only meant Im not as sophisticated in my arguments and may not have enough resources to back up my statements due to my lack of reading (which I’m working on though)
“Saying the statement is true because the Pope said it is fine in a nonintellectual debate. Not here, not because we are skeptical of the Pope’s words, but because that is not how an intellectual analytical process works”
I just want to point out that some youth who are probably in their late teenage years or early twenties who try to debate the words of an 88 year old patriarch with 50+ years of monasticism might not quite work out..Sometimes, I just feel like we need to accept things as they are and trust in the words of our wise patriarch. Once St. Anthony the Great kept questioning God…”Why are the rich living happily while the poor are miserable? Why do some young children die at such an early age?..etc.” He heard a voice that told him not to worry about these things.. although these issues are clearly seen as unfair and many people have left Christianity because they cannot accept a God who allows such hardships to occur to his creation. So, maybe we don’t want to accept the Pope’s statement as well, yet I still believe that God speaks through the mouth of those whom he has chosen to shepherd is people. I understand the analogy with St. Anthony may be a bit extreme, yet I think its a suitable one that can cover a range of topics and controversial issues, including this one.
What do you think?
I believe my argument got lost in all of the side issues here. Let me explain. The question is: Is there a civic duty to vote in the U.S.?
1. The first part of the analysis is whether the duty already exists in this country. That is what I did above citing legal jurists who say that it is not a civic duty because forcing everyone to vote would be unconstitutional. It is a legal privilege to citizens (who are not convicted felons). Dougherty did a nice job of arguing against me here.
2. The second part of the analysis is to say, if the Pope says that “voting is a civic duty,” does that make it a civic duty (even just for the Copts). That is when ACVOR and I were arguing whether a civic duty is social or legal. Why? If it is social, then anyone can impose it. Social duties are usually established by citizens. If it is a legal duty, then the government must imposes it, foreign citizens like the Pope of Alexandria have no say.
a) ACVOR argued that it is social. The Pope has a right to instill in us social values such as voting.
b) I argued that it is legal. Therefore, it is not the Pope’s domain to create U.S. laws for us to follow.
c) Victor Khalil took a third approach saying that “voting is both a social duty and a legal right/privilege.” Therefore the church may impose it as a social duty (and the government may enforce it as a legal right, presumably).
Let us focus on (b) for a sec. Anthony Nagib seems to want to argue with me that it is the Pope’s domain to decide what is or is not U.S. law. I believe sdawoud’s argument is actually more consistent with (c).
Anthony Nagib,
As far as your lack of resources: Debates are some of the best times to learn. I often do research before I respond, I don’t know this stuff off the top of my head.
I understand your analogy, but (again) it does not work because you equate the actions/words of the Pope with those of God. If you wish not to debate the phrase, nobody would blame you, but if others wish to pursue an intellectual analysis, even if we do not appear qualified, your continued objection is unfounded (see my previous response for reasoning).
I decided yesterday that if we reach 50 comments I will reveal this, so here it goes.
Sometimes, when people argue, the goal is not to win or even to argue what they believe in. The goal is to explain the issues and get people thinking. That is what I’ve been doing with the “A.Anise” character on this comment stream. Don’t believe me? Think I got stuck in an argument and looking for a way out? Well, ACVOR, A.Anise’s nemesis stands for “A Coptic Voice of Reason.” I was using that character to do the same thing and argue against A.Anise. I was playing both sides to spark debate and get the youth thinking. From the beginning, neither of them were supposed to be correct or to win, but they were supposed to make valid arguments. Think that is weird? That a person arguing against himself must have nothing better to do? Well you are probably right. However, it is because I have more important things to do (namely exams and papers before graduation) that I have to cut the fun short.
I did not think this would last this long or that both sides would be able to argue their way out well enough to stay alive, but you all kept me on my toes. Also, if the arguments were very technical and A.Anise and ACVOR seemed to be the only ones that fully understood each other’s arguments, now you know why.
So what is my real opinion? Well what better place to put it than in another alias.
Congratulations on the establishment of this new blog. May God bless it to be a tool to bring the Coptic youth closer to God and to each other through Him.
Sincerely,
Anthony Anise
______________
“ACVOR” a.k.a “A.Anise” a.k.a. “Victor. G. Khalil”
You do realize only 2 people are reading this and 3 of them are you.
Actually, you comment makes five commenters besides my aliases.
Why do you assume that only people who comment read this blog? By that logic, most of the posts here have never been read. As someone who runs his own blogs, I find that there are often thousands of page views on an article with few comments. Also, as this blog gets more popular, what’s to stop people from coming back to read this blog post later.
Even if there were no other commenters, it would not have stopped me from my initiative. Most people comment to give an opinion. My goal is different. I believe that it is more important for people to think through an argument and understand opposing sides than to take a stand on something in ignorance. Therefore, I offer both sided. Socrates was famous for this. Some of his published works were compilations of conversations. This thorough understanding of idealogical and political stances is lacking.
The purpose of my comments was to provide that.
I invite you to explain to me what purpose your comment has.
Take a look at the “Legalizing Marijuana” blog posted today. The author has a different outlook on what was discussed here thus far.