|
Edited on Thu Sep-22-11 07:07 AM by No Elephants
Isn't the ONLY issue whether he was allowed to practice his religion freely?
No. The ONLY issue is whether he has grounds to be allowed to remain in the
country past the limits for visitors.
No kidding, but that totally begs the question.
Inasmuch as he requesting asylum on the basis of religion, the question becomes what would be the correct issue for government? To decide that every "real" Catholic, even a Chinese one, would "surely" know the name of Mary's mom, even if it not mentioned in the Bible and is not a Hebrew name anyway?
Or should government limit itself to deciding whether or not this man was ever actually persecuted for, or prevented from, practicing his religion?
I stated my view that government has no business deciding what "every 'real' Catholic" would know or believe.
Rather than respond to that directly, you've stated that not knowing something that is not even in the Bible proves he is not a devout Catholic. But, you did not support that claim, either.
Furthermore, it appears that even though he "insists he is a devout Roman Catholic", he doesn't know enough about the faith he is claiming to be "devout" about.
Nothing in the OP article suggests he does not know about the central tenets of Catholicism.
What the alleged name of Mary's mother supposedly was is not the least bit central to the Catholic faith. Now, if he had failed to answer, "Who was Jesus's REAL father" correctly, you MIGHT have a point because the divinity of Christ is indeed central to the Catholic faith. However, that still leaves us with the issue of government deciding what every "real" Catholic knows. And that is too much entanglement for me.
I've already explained why I thought the question about "Ann" in particular proved absolutely nothing. You've said nothing specific in rebuttal.
Do you have a case to make that every "real" Catholic would know that someone some centuries ago decided the name of Mary's mother was "Ann," even though the Bible says no such thing? Because the court said that denying him on the basis of trivia was inappropriate.
You also did not try to prove his answering one way, rather than the other, as to transubstantiation means he is not a Catholic.
Transubstantiation is indeed a more important issue than the fictitious name of Mary's mother, but it is also one of the more esoteric and controversial issues in all of Christianity. And also not central to the Catholic faith.
I do know what the official Catholic doctrine is as to transubstantiation, but I also know that many of my Catholic friends who attend Mass every Sunday don't believe it. Nor do they believe that priests must be men (or chaste). Yet, they very much consider themselves "real" Catholics and would be truly heartbroken if they could not practice their faith. And, in my view, it is not the place of government to tell them otherwise.
This distinction, too, is not explained in the Bible. A person would have to have Catholic religious instruction to know it, and to know the name "Ann;" and Catholic religious instruction might not have been available to this man.
Do you have a case to make that one cannot possbily be a "real" Catholic (whatever that means) unless one believes that the wafer or bread IS the body of Christ instead of believing that it represents the body of Christ? Because the court said that denying him on the basis of nuance was inappropriate.
There is a world of difference between "no religion is recognized" and "suppression".
Who said there wasn't? My post expressly said that I assumed religion was not recognized in China, but that I had not researched how Catholics were treated in China. Which part of that said to you I was asserting that Catholicism was suppressed in China?
My substantive point was that, no matter what religion he is, he would be entitled to asylum on religious grounds only if China was indeed preventing him from practicing his religion. And that is a matter of fact into which government can properly inquire.
That is very different issue from whether knowing or not knowing the name "Ann" makes him a "real" Catholic or not.
As for the photo, what does that prove as to whether this particular individual could freely practice his religion in China? If it did prove any such thing, the immigration officials could have won their case by simply showing the court the photo. Guess it proves nothing about this individual, one way or the other.
Fear not, no agent of the U.S. Government was involved: it was a Canadian case ...
Doesn't really matter. In my view, no official of any government, and no government, should be deciding what qualifies someone as a "real" Catholic or a "real" Jew or a "real" Buddhist or anything else. Do you disagree on that substantive point?
If your goal was to nitpick my post while steering clear of all substance, congrats. I am not sure what else you accomplished, though.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
