CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 18
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 19
Total: 19

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Vocal Observer:

None of them warrant law enforcement intervention.

Where do you draw the line?  I see no distinction between examples where your favor and oppose intervention.

Interesting challenge. You are, at least, being consistent. I believe it is a foolish consistency. You believe I am making a foolish distinction between the cases.

First, I assume that you believe that actually doing serious harm to a child is wrong and warrants intervention by legal authorities. For example: beating a child, physically torturing a child, starving a child, and raping a child.

I will assume that you believe each of these is morally wrong and each warrants criminal charges.
Of course, where we draw the line between normal physical control over a child and beating and torture is not always an easy matter. Nor is it easy to draw a line between limiting a child's desire for high-fat fast food and starving the child.

But I assume you believe that limiting what a child eats does not equal starvation and I will assume that you believe that actually starving a child is morally and legally wrong.


But what I'm talking about is not harming a child but endangering a child. Placing the child in a situation whether intentionally, or unintentionally by neglect, where he is at significantly increased risk of serious harm.

Where do you draw the line? There are two lines that are crossed. The line between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk and the line between harm and serious harm.

Where exactly do you draw the line. Beats me. But that's a problem I don't have to solve. Indeed, logic requires that I do not draw a line. You deny that there is a distinction at all. I only have to show that there is a distinction.

This is a matter of degree of risk and degree of harm.

There are two possibilities here:

1) You might to be relying on the continuum fallacy, sometimes called the fallacy of the beard, the sorities paradox, or the fallacy of the heap.

I cannot tell you when a man, who stops shaving, has grown a beard. But at some point long before his facial hair is five feet long, we should call it beard. Where we draw the line between mere facial stubble and a beard isn't clear but it doesn't matter. At some point it does become a beard.

Just because it is impossible to draw a precise line doesn't mean that we can't make a reasonable judgment about when the beard begins to appear. As a child becomes more mature we give him the right to vote at age 18. This isn't entirely arbitrary--there is something reasonable about denying to the right to vote to a 12-year old and giving the right to vote to a 22-year old.

If your objection to endangerment is based on line drawing, it is an unreasonable position.
I only have to give you a reasonable distinction between the cases under discussion.

On any continuum there are examples near each end as well as ones in the middle.
I need only focus on the cases at the extreme ends, to establish the distinction.

On the other hand,

2) You might just be denying that endangerment is a matter to be concerned about. Actual harm is one thing but risk of harm is entirely different and not worthy of concern.



To simplify, lets break it down.

Do you object to the concept of endangerment?

Do you reject the idea that an action or situation that brings about a significantly large degree of serious harm to a child as something that is the sort of thing that could be considered morally or criminally wrong? 

Suppose I have several small children under the age of 12. I plant a dozen live land mines -- say VS-Md2 anti-personnel mines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VS-MK2_mine in the back yard. It's a small back yard. I don't tell the children about the presence of the mines but tell the kids to go outside and play in the back yard.

I estimate the probability of one of them stepping on a mine and setting it off at about 80%.

None of them step on a mine and none are harmed.

Three questions:

(1) Have I done something morally wrong? Specifically, is endangering my children this way, morally wrong?

(2) Should there be a law against endangering my children this way?

Assume my neighbor is a retired army sergeant who knows exactly what these devices can do to a person if he steps on it.

He sees me plant the mines and he sees me send the kids out to play.

(3) If the neighbor reports me to legal authorities when he sees the kids being sent out to play, should the police intervene?

[Belgian man: end of coma misdiagnosis like rebirth]

Belgian man: end of coma misdiagnosis like rebirth

His studies showed that some 40 percent of patients with consciousness disorders are wrongly given a diagnosis of a vegetative state.

"It is clearly unacceptable. It is four times out of ten that they think the patient is in a vegetative state but in reality he is minimally conscious," Laureys said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_he_me/eu_belgium_coma_recovery

His studies showed that some 40 percent of patients with consciousness disorders are wrongly given a diagnosis of a vegetative state.

"It is clearly unacceptable. It is four times out of ten that they think the patient is in a vegetative state but in reality he is minimally conscious," Laureys said.

You wouldn't reply to any of the questions I posted above, so here's another one you might want to ignore.

Suppose someone's child is in one of these minimally conscious states -- the parent's say pull out the feeding tubes.

Should authorities intervene?

Do you advocate the starvation of a child?

[Opinion: Chris Matthews should be fired for his Offensive Interview of Bishop Tobin]

Opinion: Chris Matthews should be fired for his Offensive Interview of Bishop Tobin

Chris Matthews was not interested in interviewing Bishop Thomas Tobin. In this embarrassing excuse for a program he showed how inept he is as an interviewer, how misinformed he is as a Catholic, how rude he is as a person and how threatened he is by the Moral truth as taught with conviction and courage by his own Church.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=34908

Part 1:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/HKMajTv1H2s&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/HKMajTv1H2s&rel=0</a>

Part 2:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/cZPl8EJwAmc&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/cZPl8EJwAmc&rel=0</a>

I asked the question:

Suppose someone's child is in one of these minimally conscious states -- the parent's say pull out the feeding tubes.

Should authorities intervene?


You reply with another question:

Do you advocate the starvation of a child?


My 2-part answer:

1) I do not advocate starvation of any child.

2) Moreover, if the parents attempt to starve the child or put the child at serious risk of death (whether intentionally or by carelessness or neglect), I believe the child should (at least temporally) be removed from their care.

Suppose the parents use cheap feeding tubes from China that leech a dangerous chemical into the child's system. They have been warned about these tubes yet they continue to use them. As long as they use these cheap tubes only once or twice they're fine -- but they're consistently careless and negligent putting the child's life at serious risk.

I believe that legal authorities should intervene.

Since you have consistently held that no intervention should occur when parents place the lives of their children at serious risk, I will infer that you disagree with part 2 of my answer.

I don't care for Chris Mathews -- he constantly interrupts his guests.

I don't watch his show. MSNBC should put Ed Schultz in his time slot.

What I found most objectionable about the interview was that Mathews referred to Toben four times, without blinking an eye and without a sarcastic tone of voice, as "your excellency".

I would recommend sarcasm if you use this sort of reference.

Yes, Mathews displayed his usual habit of interrupting his guest.

But Tobin should take seriously the lecture Mathews gave him in part II of the video.

Why wasn't there another guest on this segment with Tobin. I would have liked to have seen a moral philosopher with him to give an opposing view of abortion and on the relation of morality to law?

Bishop Tobin should take Matthews seriously when Matthews tries to tell the bishop how to do his job?

When a "Catholic" Congressman comes out and attacks the Church, what do you expect them to do?  When "Catholic" Congresspersons given their views on a matter contrary to the Church's teaching while stating that it does fall within the Church's teaching, what do you expect the Church to do?

Catholics choose to be Catholics of their own free will.  Matthews should take Bishop Tobin's advice a reflect on the teachings of the Church.

Question:  Bishop Tobin should take Matthews seriously when Matthews tries to tell the bishop how to do his job?

Answer: No. – But Mathews wasn’t telling Tobin how to do his job. Matthews was telling him that if he gets involved in political policy and appears on a "hard-ball" political program,  he should be prepared to answer simple questions that are important to carrying out those policies. Tobin wasn’t prepared and Mathews, kindly but firmly, lectured him on the importance of being better prepared.

Actually it was more of lecture on the importance of actually answering questions rather than being evasive. Tobin didn't want to answer the tough questions but didn't want to admit that he didn't want to answer the questions.

As far as I understand it, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a coherent policy on abortion. Is it murder?  If it is, then there should be criminal penalties of the most severe sort for the woman, the doctor, and anyone else who assists in the procedure including each member of the office staff. Tobin was a victim of the Church’s reluctance to make tough and unpopular decisions.

Question:  When a "Catholic" Congressman comes out and attacks the Church, what do you expect them to do?  When "Catholic" Congresspersons given their views on a matter contrary to the Church's teaching while stating that it does fall within the Church's teaching, what do you expect the Church to do?

Answer: I don’t care what the Catholic Church does. I think everyone should be consistent. If the church wants to discipline politicians who support policies inimical to church dogma then they should be consistent about it.

Question: Catholics choose to be Catholics of their own free will.  Matthews should take Bishop Tobin's advice and reflect on the teachings of the Church.

Answer: That’s good advice for members of any organization: know what it stands for and either accept it and stay, reject it and leave, or settle for something in the vast area in the middle.

But Mathews wasn’t telling Tobin how to do his job. Matthews was telling him that if he gets involved in political policy and appears on a "hard-ball" political program,  he should be prepared to answer simple questions that are important to carrying out those policies. Tobin wasn’t prepared and Mathews, kindly but firmly, lectured him on the importance of being better prepared.

You (and Matthews) miss the point entirely.  The Bishop did come prepared and I was surprised at how respectful he was compared to Matthews.  Bishop Tobin specifically drew the line between enforcing the doctrine of the Church and getting involved in policy making.  This issue is relevant to the Church and Society, but both handle the issue differently.  You and Matthews refuse to recognize this.  In one sense, you advocate the Separation of Church and State, but when it comes to Bishop Tobin, you want him to cross the line.  Bishop Tobin refused to cross the line and Matthews wasn't happy with the maturity of the Bishop to not do so.

If the Church holds a view on a matter that is relevant to public policy, an expression of that view isn't an attempt of formulating public policy.  It appears that you and Matthews expect to Church to say nothing with this provision of the legislation.  When someone contacts their representative, is this an attempt to write policy?

Actually it was more of lecture on the importance of actually answering questions rather than being evasive.

The Bishop spoke clearly when given the opportunity to speak.  However, due to Matthews demeanor, the uninterrupted opportunities were few and far between.

As far as I understand it, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a coherent policy on abortion.

It's not a policy, it's a commandment.  One to which I'm sure you adhere.

If it is, then there should be criminal penalties of the most severe sort for the woman, the doctor, and anyone else who assists in the procedure including each member of the office staff. Tobin was a victim of the Church’s reluctance to make tough and unpopular decisions.

The Church does not have any jurisdiction to punish a criminal in society.  The Church makes unpopular decisions all the time, for example

Excommunicating public figures that speak against Church doctrine
Stating that condoms likely exacerbate the issue of HIV in Africa

As a civil matter, the punishment should fit the crime as it does with other crimes.  The problem with the debate over abortion, unlike other crimes, is that it focuses entirely on the criminal and not the crime or the victim.  Prior to abortion being made legal across the nation, the doctor would try to place the blame on the mother and today, the mother is painted to be the helpless victim by those in favor of abortion.  Step 1 is to determine that abortion is a crime.  Step 2 is to determine what punishment is applied.

[Letter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reiterates his opposition to most abortions]

Letter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reiterates his opposition to most abortions

...Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office is sending a letter which notes his opposition to abortion except in cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother. “I noted your specific comments related to health care reform and abortion. I oppose abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk,” the Senator’s Nov. 26 letter reads, according to CWNews.com.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17935

[Abortion Is a ‘God-Given Right,’ Liberal Leader Declares]

Abortion Is a ‘God-Given Right,’ Liberal Leader Declares

Rev. Carlton Veazey, president and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, told a small crowd of pro-abortion protesters that women have a “God-given right” to abortion
...
“You not only have a constitutional right for abortion, but you have a God-given right.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/57957

VO: "You (and Matthews) miss the point entirely.  The Bishop did come prepared and I was surprised at how respectful he was compared to Matthews."

I will grant you the latter point -- Matthews should have been more respectfull.

As far as Tobin saying what he wanted to say (when Matthews finally sat quietly for a second to let him speak) Tobin said what he came to say in precisely and maybe eloquently. I am not criticizing his ability to formulate and state the church's view.


VO: "Bishop Tobin specifically drew the line between enforcing the doctrine of the Church and getting involved in policy making."

Thank you for making this point. I apparently missed it. But I question the legitimacy of this distinction.

VO: "This issue is relevant to the Church and Society, but both handle the issue differently.  You and Matthews refuse to recognize this.  In one sense, you advocate the Separation of Church and State, but when it comes to Bishop Tobin, you want him to cross the line.  Bishop Tobin refused to cross the line and Matthews wasn't happy with the maturity of the Bishop to not do so."

I recognize the difference between a church doctrine and political activity.

But just because I'm a liberal don't jump to the conclusion that I think churches, priests, and ministers must abstain from political activity. I believe they should oppose evil and injustice in every form it comes in.

They should only refrain from involvement in elections. They should not support any political candidate or party. Many of them crossed the line in supporting Obama in the last election.

Various churches hold that abortion is murder. If you believe this then you are (morally) committed or obligated to make it illegal and to punish offenders. This is simple logic. If p then necessarily q.

Tobin doesn't want to take this step but it is politically -- and probably theologically, dangerous.

VO: "If the Church holds a view on a matter that is relevant to public policy, an expression of that view isn't an attempt of formulating public policy."

That's fine. The church thinks that we should combat hunger and poverty. That's just a moral position. How it should be done is policy -- ok, the church might not have a position on that.

VO: "  It appears that you and Matthews expect to Church to say nothing with this provision of the legislation. "

What provision of the legislation ?  What legislation?

VO: When someone contacts their representative, is this an attempt to write policy?"

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

IS:  As far as I understand it, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a coherent policy on abortion.

VO: It's not a policy, it's a commandment.  One to which I'm sure you adhere.

The commandment isn't coherent. Consequently the policy isn't coherent.

Thou shalt not kill. But obviously, all sorts of killings are tolerated. I "tolerated" the war in Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were killed. I didn't support the war but I didn't do everything in my power to stop it.

We live in a democracy in which the people elect political leaders. We don't use violence or violent revolution to overturn the government when it makes bad decisions because the political system we have is too precious to put it at risk when the existing administration makes bad policy decisions.

We make compromises. Tobin wasn't willing to admit the importance of compromise. Our commitment to the injunction against killing innocent human beings is compromised by our commitment to other equally important values. Perhaps it is too strong to say that this amounts to an incoherency in our values or that the injunction against killing is incoherent.

But, it must be admitted that the injunction against killing is not an absolute prohibition. Tobin and all the rest of his should be prepared to provide a sketch of the limits of that prohibition and the limits of enforcement and punishment.

Tobin wants to keep it simple. But to the extent that things aren't that simple, that's the extent to which he is misleading the public.

VO: The Church does not have any jurisdiction to punish a criminal in society.  The Church makes unpopular decisions all the time, for example

Of course the church had no legal jurisdiction. I suspect it still has a view of about the legalization of abortion or gay marriage.

You're right, the church makes unpopular decisions. And it probably has enough power and prestige to push its membership quite hard before any revolt would develop. Consequently, you might be right --it may not care anything about the opinions of the congregation.


VO: The problem with the debate over abortion, unlike other crimes, is that it focuses entirely on the criminal and not the crime or the victim.

This may be right, if you ignore the scholarly literature and focus merely on popular opinion.

If your claim is about the scholarly literature your claim is patently false.

I don't have any real interest in popular opinion on the subject.

I don't know if you're trying to get a reaction from me on Harry Reid or the guy in the video.

I suspect that neither one of them has anything interesting or intelligent to say on the matter.

Unless you suggest otherwise, I won't waste my time on either one.

VO:  Bishop Tobin specifically drew the line between enforcing the doctrine of the Church and getting involved in policy making.  This issue is relevant to the Church and Society, but both handle the issue differently.  You and Matthews refuse to recognize this.  In one sense, you advocate the Separation of Church and State, but when it comes to Bishop Tobin, you want him to cross the line.  Bishop Tobin refused to cross the line and Matthews wasn't happy with the maturity of the Bishop to not do so.

I want to correct something I said in my main reply.

I see no reason why churches shouldn't get involved in every phase of politics and elections other than I think they would lose what ever shred of integrity they still have.
This is not a separation of church and state issue.

I could be wrong about this but the only thing that causes churches to lose the right to take part in elections in the form of tax exemption that they have.

But a church can refile for another type of tax exemption which would allow them to remain exempt from federal taxes and participate fully in politics.