As a Citizen of the United States, I Can Do Many Things.

[MineralMan]

I have certain rights and responsibilities. Among my rights are the right to vote in elections to choose those who legislate and enforce the laws of the United States and my own state. Another right is my right to petition the government for redress of wrongs. I can exercise those rights whenever I wish and whenever an election is held. Further, I have the right to speak my mind and to attempt to convince others to agree with me and vote and petition with me. Those rights allow me to work to correct wrongs and injustices that may occur during the operation of the government of my country.

If I were a Roman Catholic, I would still have the same rights with regard to my country. However, I would not have those rights within the organization of that church. There are no elections for the hierarchy of that church that are open to individual members. There is also no freedom of speech within that organization. If one speaks in ways that offend the hierarchy, that hierarchy can expel a member at their whim. If a member begins to organize other members to petition the church for change, the entire group may be sanctioned at the will of the hierarchy. Even official members, such as orders of nuns, face those sanctions if they disagree publicly with the church's hierarchy.

That is the difference between the United States of America and the Roman Catholic Church. That is a crucial difference. In one, the individual has a voice in governance. In the other, the individual has nothing but a responsibility to follow the dictates of the hierarchy. In one, I can criticize the leadership at any time and in any medium. In the other, I have no legitimate voice.

Making comparisons between the two systems begins with recognizing the differences between those systems. One is not like the other. One is controlled, in the end, by its citizens. The other controls its members. The two are completely different.

[Fresh_Start]

1. I think you are correct on the fact that both constituencies can criticize their leadership

But I think that neither our government nor a religion is controlled by its constituency: like most organizations they are controlled by the leadership not by the membership.

A religion can limit their constituency but only a government can control them.
The church can kick me out as a member but it can't imprison me.

While the leadership of a religion can make statements about the policy of the organization, they cannot enforce those policies without the assistance of a government (be it, local, state or national).

Its the wedding of the religious beliefs with the power of the government where we all lose.

[GeneStoney]

2. You can leave a religion.

If you don't like a religion then you can leave it, or even start up a new one that "does it right" - that was the entire reason for Protestant religions.

I think if you tried to start up a new country in the middle of America then The Man would come and stomp on you pretty quickly. There aren't many oceans left for us to cross to escape from governments we don't like anymore.

That's an important difference between government and church. You give up your rights because you choose to give them up when you join the church (or stay in the church when you're old enough to decide).

[liberal_at_heart]

3. No one does it right. No religion. No non-religous philosophy. No country. No political party.

No person. I guess that means there isn't a single good religion, philosophy, country, political party or person on this Earth.

[olddots]

4. hopefully humans are a work in progress

the argument being we have a right to not progress so you are correct but it makes me sad.

[GeneStoney]

6. But are we right to let them?

Because you don't always know why they won't progress. Maybe they're ill, they aren't smart enough to understand or they are just mistaken. I think sometimes the responsible thing for a society to do is to take people who won't comply and force them to comply. It sounds tough but there are guys who went into prison as bad people and came out as better people, with skills and a desire to be a part of society not against it. If we had let them choose the right to not progress, they would be a complete loss to society. Is that fair on them and on us?

[GeneStoney]

5. Wow, that's a bit heavy

I mean, really it's a downer to think that no matter where you go, what you do or what you believe, it's somehow wrong.

Surely there has to be a way for us to find something that is right? It's amazing to think that between a group of intelligent and rational people, we can't come up with a way of life that works and is good for everyone.