When I starting teaching Government in 1958, one of the things my students really loved was the "presidential availability" unit. "Presidential availability" refers not to what the U.S. constitution requires to be elected preident, but to what real world factors would make a person electable. It's best to look at it from the negative. So with a class of 40 students we would list and discuss those things which would keep a party from even nominating a person for president.
Well, first we eliminated about half the class by saying a women could not be nominated. In 1958, that was true, and I guess still applies today (sorry Hillary). Then the couple of blacks in the class were eliminated, then catholics (this was pre-Kennedy), Jews, non-believers, unmarried persons(ya, I know Buchannan), persons with obvious physical deformities, persons with southern European backgrounds, and on and on ---till almost no one in the class could ever aspire to be president!
The years have gone by and some "availibility" factors have fallen. Catholic (Kennedy), southern European background (Dukakis , I think) and we've gotten close on a woman.
Jackie Kennedy, a Republican at one time, once said something to the effect that 'the Democrats are so much more fun than the Republicans.' I think she's right. But fun can be dangerous. The Democrats really rolled the dice this year!!! They could have gone with Edwards---no presidential 'disabilities.' Instead they gave us a choice at the end between a WOMAN and a BLACK (African-American to be correct) , and, and, and, with a white mother and black father from Africa!!!! And with a pastor that knew all four verses of "God damn America." IT TAKES YOUR BREATH AWAY.
Okay, I'm a Democrat. I like to have fun. I like to live dangerously. But I also like to win. We'll just have to see. Maybe you can't have everything!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI'm just going to put all of my response up on your most recent post. So most or all of it is off-topic. :)
English is well on the way to being the international language."This dominance is unique in history." Is this because it is the most difficulr?
English is the most dominant language because the most dominant countries speak it. Britain spread English to a good section of the world during its imperialistic age, and now America spreads its culture around dramatically, including the language. I don't think it has anything to do with the inherent quality or ease of learning of the language itself, just with how powerful the countries that speak it are. Should the Church adopt English as its official language? I can't say that I particularly care what language the Church uses as its official language, as long as it continues to translate everything into the vernacular of each different place.
Spontaneous abortion. Of course, all people die. But spontaneous abortion is not mainly the fault of the society. Your other example is.
So, because spontaneous abortion is not mainly the fault of society, then it is due to a bloodthirsty God (if they are really people)? Is that what you are saying? I don't get this at all. God allows everyone to die. God even allows children to die, through no fault of their own. If you don't think he is bloodthirsty for allowing that, why would he be bloodthirsty for allowing more children to die, through no fault of their own?
What if God allows people to die by miscarriage when he knows that they will be saved then, but maybe not later? Then it would be a mercy, not bloodthirstiness. All in all, I don't see how miscarriages being real people changes how we choose to trust God or not.
The "culture of death?" Anna look at the figures!! How can you say these countries I have cited are less caring for life!!!. I suggest your Ugandan bishop work on other things than his obsession with sex, when life span and infant mortality are staggering in his country. To read what he says makes me want to p...excuse me vomit. The mutilation of girls in these family value African countries; the millions of starving children ; the subservience of women; the ridiculous sex taboos. I'd tar and feather that bishop and ride him out of the country!!!!!!! Oh, excuse me, he is working so hard for family values.
I didn't say those countries are more caring for life OVERALL than America. My point was that the faults of those countries don't excuse us when we fail to respect life as we ought. When evaluating ourselves, it doesn't matter how we compare to others; it only matters how we compare to what we ought to be.
I assume “Ugandan bishop” refers to Cardinal Arinze, since he's the only one I mentioned, although I have no idea what country he's actually from. As far as I can tell, he has no obsession with sex, abortion, or anything else. He gave a speech at some university once where people were outraged because he mentioned homosexual sex, abortion, etc. as something not to be engaged in. But it wasn't the point of his talk; it was pretty much one sentence in passing out of however many pages of speech. As far as I can tell, the Africans in general agree with the Church's teachings on abortion, etc. but they don't make a big issue out of it like Catholics often do here. African Catholics are generally much more “obsessed” with fighting poverty and AIDs. What have you read by Cardinal Arinze, or any other African, that made you want to vomit?
Sex as a gift. One in five random sex acts will leasd to pregnancy. So "natural law" tells us it is the purpose of sex? Come on? I think masturbation is a gift. Why not? I believe the "gift of God" arguument is totally bogus; is used when no other cogent arguments can be found. 'No one has a moral right to sex? What on earth does that mean?
Well, yes, common sense does tell us that sex and childbearing are related. :) 'No one has a moral right to sex': what I mean by that is sort of two different things. The first is simply a matter of authority. God has given us authority over the earth, so that we have the right to, say, kill a rabbit and eat it. That authority can be abused, and it carries responsibility with it, but it also gives us a right to do certain things. I would probably say that we have the authority to heal ourselves. But God has not given us an unlimited authority over how and when we have sex. Because sex is how we produce new eternal, sacred beings (imago Dei), it is something we are only to engage in under the circumstances that he has laid out for it.
The main thing I mean by 'no one has a moral right to sex' is that we Americans tend to treat sex as something we are entitled to do however and whenever we want. Sex is a privilege that God grants us; it isn't something he is required to give us. That kind of entitlement attitude bothers me in other areas, too. Sex is something we ought to be grateful if God ever allows us to do, not something that we should be bitter about if he puts restrictions on it that we don't like.
As for why masturbation isn't a gift, I guess I would say that it's not a gift for the same reason that heroin isn't a gift. I can't think of anything good that masturbation does for us that heroin doesn't do even more so. Masturbation is like porn; it cheapens the real thing and makes people think of someone (even if only themselves) as something to be used for pleasure instead of as a whole and special person.
On personhood. If the majority of Americans believe one cell is a person, do they then believe in murder? There is a difference between human life and human personhood. I believe even the church admits this at times.
I would not be surprised if a majority of Americans said that killing that one cell is murder (but that that murder was ok in some circumstances, or that we shouldn't make it illegal), but I wouldn't be surprised, either, if a majority of Americans said that that one cell was a person, but killing it wasn't murder. People don't always seem to be highly consistent, in my experience, so I'm not really sure what they would say to this.
Of course there's a difference between a living human skin cell and a living human person. In this sense, there is a difference between human life and human personhood. But the difference is between the part and the whole. As soon as conception happens, that one cell is no longer a part of the old whole's... it is a new whole.
Let me put it this way. Forget for a moment about personhood and ensoulment. When does a human being first become a human being? When did you, Jack, first exist? When does a new member of the species homo sapiens first exist?
One skin cell is not a human being; one brain cell is not a member of our species. But one fertilized egg is both a human being and a member of our species, biologically. Therefore, on what grounds can you argue that, as a human being, it is not a person?
Anna, my dear, I can't believe that you still think homosexuality is learned not innate. The almost unanimous opinion of scientists and doctors is that it is innate.I can't readidly cite sources, but I can't reality cite sources that the world is round. Both are too widely accepted.
Eh. I have never heard of a scientific study done to find a homosexuality gene. I have heard one or two therapists who said that every homosexual they encountered in therapy was abused as a child. That's not very convincing; people who haven't been abused aren't as likely to need therapy, after all. (And I have heard testimonies of homosexuals who weren't abused). But all in all, I don't think there is a shred of scientific evidence supporting either the claim that homosexuality IS biological or that it is NOT biological. No one who is unbiased would dare fund such a study, because it would be too controversial, too charged of an issue. IF most scientists are of the opinion that it is innate – and I am not inclined to believe that without serious evidence – then I think that their opinions are being formed by political correctness, not actual scientific evidence. (Actually, that goes the other way, too; if someone claimed that there is scientific evidence that homosexuality is not biological, I would need to see the evidence myself before believing them.) My personal stance that homosexuality is probably not biological/innate is really more of a guess than an opinion; I'm certainly not claiming scientific knowledge.
On the homosexuals: Commonweal points out that the Church must think homosexuality is a greater sin than the others because that is the only innate tendency that prohibits you from the priesthood; the church claims that right.
...
7. Assuming 6 to be correct, it seems illogical to blame a person for their homosexual orientation.
8.Thus to bar homosexuals from the priesthood, based on their orientation, seems prejudicial.
Mmm. I suspect that, if it became a widespread phenomenon that some people argued that it is ok to date-rape a woman, and that the urge to date-rape a woman was innate and we should all accept date-rapers and whatnot, that the Church might put out a document that said that those with deep-seated desires to date-rape women ought not to become priests. In that sense, I think Commonweal is wrong; the Church responds to the issue of homosexuality not because homosexuality is a greater sin than other sins, but because there are more people advocating for it not being a sin at all and for accepting homosexuals to the priesthood than is the case with most other sins. (Although, in some cases, I do think there are Catholics who put too much emphasis on that particular sin). Would you think it wise for a man who has a deep-seated tendency towards greed to become a priest? That tendency might not be his fault, but it still could lead to serious problems during his priesthood.
Having said that, I would also point out that the Vatican's document about homosexuality and priesthood is not really about doctrine. Homosexual sex being sinful – that is a matter of doctrine. If the Church said that homosexual men were incapable of being ordained priests, that could be considered a matter of doctrine – but they say no such thing. The Vatican document is essentially a pastoral document; it is meant to determine Catholic practice, not Catholic teaching. As such, Catholics are not bound to agree with the Vatican's decision in the same way that Catholics are bound to agree with Church doctrine (although Catholics are bound to obey even those decisions they disagree with). I'm not particularly convinced one way or the other whether the Vatican's decision was the best one to make; I think it depends a lot on how you interpret it.
Now, if you say that homosexuals can have a valid sacramental marriage, or that homosexual sex isn't a sin, then I would disagree and debate that with you. Although I do think you are right that it is unfair, in general, to blame a homosexual for his orientation. It is becoming popular these days to “experiment”, and I think that people can “find” homosexual urges in themselves because they are encouraged to, which would not otherwise show up. But in most cases, homosexuals don't “try” to be gay, and expecting them to suddenly desire people of the opposite sex is unreasonable.
On sexual thoughts. I got completely lost on sexual thoughts looking on.....Would you have sexual thought for pain?
Honestly Jack, there are sometimes when I just cannot for the life of me follow your train of thought.
I have no intention of involving Frank, Derrick or their friends in this discussion. I trust you will not scream "You, sinner, you are going to hell"!!! if you find a young man engages in masturbation. Hell is sure going to be crowded, with plenty of priests I might add.:)
I wasn't planning to involve them in a discussion on masturbation; only ask them when a human becomes a person. And I think that our attitude towards ALL sinners ought to be to gently and sometimes sternly encourage them to stop sinning. The 'you are going to hell' attitude assumes that we can know someone better than we usually can; only God can truly judge someone that way. So no, I'm not going to scream “You sinner, you are going to hell!” But I am going to say “Hey, don't do that. Treat yourself and your potential future wife with more respect than that.” Or something like that.
On the self serving of the clergy on sex matters: Of course, their attitude is self serving. I am better than you; so be quite. It might hide my sexual idendity ; I am the chosen few, chosen by God himself to perform my miracles and asser My will.
...
As any who has been here know, I think the church is way off balance on matters of human sexuality. Its position is exactly what you would expect from the thinking of a body of celibate males who are protecting their position. I see no other explanation.
Jack, have you ever met a priest or a Catholic, in person, who took that sort of attitude? The “I don't have sex so I'm better than you” attitude? I've seen a few non-clergy bloggers who border on talking that way, but no one I've ever met in person, and especially no priest, has ever come across that way. To me, what you describe sounds like sheer clericalism: the false attitude that priests are better than other people because they are priests. And when clericalism DOES pop up, it seems to me that it is always justified because of ordination, apostolic succession, the power to perform the Eucharist, the authority given to them by God, that sort of thing. Justifying clericalism on the basis of priests not having sex – if such a thing happens, I think it is extremely rare, because it's just not what I see happening. In fact, those times and places where clericalism pops up also seem from what I know to be the times and places when priests also abuse their power by having sex – either with mistresses or with innocent children. Justifying clericalism on the grounds of celibacy could happen – I can see the logic of it – but I don't see any evidence that it really is happening in any significant way, even at the Vatican level. And really, it doesn't seem to me that you have any more evidence in favor of it except that you can't think of any other reason why someone would think that masturbation or contraception is a sin. The idea that they might persist in saying such things because those things are true seems ludicrous to you. But I'm not sure you've really tried to consider that possibility. You think the Church is more reliable than other sources; why don't you try to think seriously about what it would mean if the actual doctrine on the subject was true? I don't mean “what if everything that comes from a conservative Catholic is true”; I just mean think about the actual doctrine and some of the reasons and explanations that could be given for that doctrine and try to give it the benefit of the doubt and see if it couldn't be made to make some sort of sense.
On Alice and the fire: Well I probably would rescue Alice. But that might NOT be the moral choice. So let me restate it. I am in a fire in a hotel. I know no one there. If I open one door, one person is saved. If I open another 750 people are saved. I only have time to open one. Is your point that there is no moral difference?
I don't think there is necessarily a moral *obligation* to save the 750 people. On the other hand, I can't really think of any good reason why someone would want to save only one stranger instead of 750. If someone lets the 750 die out of pure spite, then I'd call that a sin. It's all about motive, maybe.
On the “excluded middle”:
The Church doesn't actually teach that we have to agree with everything that comes out of the mouth of a priest, bishop, or even the pope. But as Catholics we are bound to agree with the actual doctrines of the Church. I don't like labelling anyone as a “bad” Catholic, and I object when people start talking as if agreement with doctrine is the only standard that matters. But I also think that Catholics are .... how to put it ... failing to be all they should be, I guess, when they disagree not just with opinions or attitudes or practices but also with doctrine. Mind you, I don't think I know any Catholics that are not failing to be all they should be, in some area of their life or another. That's why we have confession. :)
On the political posts, I don't have a whole lot to say. But on the issue of civilian supremacy, I think maybe a few comments. I agree that it's a good thing that the final decisions are made by civilians. But it is also important for civilians to listen to their commanders who know what's going on, before making those final decisions. It seems to me that Bush did too much independent decision-making and not enough listening to his commanders telling him what was realistic or what was needed. So if McCain is pushing the limits on the other side of the civilian supremacy issue, I would say it's only to try to compensate for Bush's other extreme.
Will not both parties see the success of this ploy, and will our elections become nothing but lurid personal attacks on the loyalty to America by each side?
This comment surprised me. Loyalty may not be the most common topic to attack someone with, but my impression is that “lurid personal attacks” have been the main element in presidential elections for some time. I'm also not sure that McCain started the whole “Obama is un-American” thing; I thought it started with the anonymous email campaign, and McCain is presumably just jumping on the bandwagon. But I haven't paid too close of attention, so I don't really know.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, good to hear from you. Look under "The Choice", and I'll get back with you tomorrow. Jack
ReplyDeleteAnna, rested and ready to respond. Before I start let me say that I have, and hope you have, enjoyed our 'debates' and we both will continue to do so. Even if our statements seem rather 'strong' at times, I think we both respect each other opinions.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, let me make a overall critique that applies to many of your statements. You seem to be quite sure as to what God intended, especially in the area of matters relating to sex and the conditions under which such activity is morally acceptable. I hope you do not think I am going over the top when I ask how and why you are so sure you speak for God?
You say, for example, that no one has a "moral right" to sex; apparently because it is a gift of God (what isn't?)and can only be used in certain circumstances. But, of course, the sexual drive is a gift of God (following your logic)but must be used only in certain ways which have been laid down by the Church. I find this hard to follow. I am not sure where all these details on sexual practice can be shown to have come directly come from God.
I also want to say that the obvious prejudice against sexual activity which the Church has shown for centuries is so clear that I find it difficult to understand why you do not see this, and what function it serves in the Church. No, the present day church does not say sex is bad if its rules are followed, but I have shown on numerous postings that the church's attitude is sexual activity can be a good, but celibacy is better. The catechism so says, church practice so says, the fact that only celibates have a say in church doctrine---can you then deny that the church regards sex as that great a good. And this tendency is clearly to the advantage of catholic clerics placing them in a higher class than the married.
I need to mention one other catholic 'fudging' on this issue. Catholic clerics like to argue that by giving up the great delights of sex, priests show their devotion to God by forgiving what others find so satisfying. Now, Anna, I have known many priests and am familiar with the lives of others, I have yet to find any cleric who really thought giving up sex with women was a great sacrifice. After all I don't see Pacelli (Pius 12)'smooching' away in the back seat of a Alfa-Romero. I just couln't resist it, Anna. But I think you see my point.
The overwhelming majority of sexual encounters between married couples are not with the goal of creating "new life". So why do you say that must be the central purpose of sex? Your argument introduces a new rule of logic: Because two things are related (intercourse and conception)one cannot rightly occur without the other.
In sum on this issue then, your arguments draw, to me, false conclusions and imply a knowlege of the mind and purposes of God that is somewhat sweeping.
On the gay issue, I will grant that not enough resarch has been done to determine whether homosexual orientation is innate or learned. But it is obvious that there is NO study or evidence that such tendencies can be reversed.And that if such tendencies are learned they are learned, most seem to agree,at a very early age over which the child would have little control.
You cite the American bishops statement. I cite the November '07 statement from the Vatican which I would presume is more authoritative.
On the spontaneous abortion issue. You seem to follow a philosophy that God is very active in natural processes, at least in designing their purposes. Now why would he design a system in which millions, if not billions, of human "persons" would die in the 1 or 2 cell state through no fault of these "persons". Of course, all people die, but why so disproporiate a numer of the "most defenseless" most "innocent" persons, through no fault of their own or society. And what will be the status of these cells in heaven? Will they forever remain one or two cells, will they grow up in heaven or what?
Now Anna, your devotion to African catholicism is remarkable. The mutilation of young girls, the subservience of women,the incredible death rates, the infant mortality rates, the lack of education----my fingers are getting tired---and you hold them up as models!!! You refered me to a African bishop (a theologian, I believe) who says in effect 'the Muslims stone homosexuals, we catholics just isolate them. After all those are African ways.' Anna, you are better than that.
Apparently you agree with me that the Church singles out homosexuals (or homosexual orientation) as not worthy of the priesthood, but say that's fair because we don't talk about other sins as much. Please, Anna.
Where I confused you about "sexual thoughts looking on..." you confused me. Do sexual thoughts "look on."?
Have I ever met a priest who thought he was superior. Well, Yes. Our Bishop makes it quite clear they are the'special chosen' of God. I think all catholics just assume that. Earlier you had argued that.
Oh, yes, Alice and the fire. Let me see if I can follow you. There is no difference between two "goods." But there is a difference between two "bads." So saving one or 500 makes no difference, but killing 1 and 1 million does make a difference. Is that what you are arguing?
We are together on Latin is out, I guess. Looking forward to your thoughts. Jack