drbrumley
Well-known member
your forced to do these things?
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
your forced to do these things?
Town Heretic:
I've read your most recent response twice, and I think that the best course of action simply is to note the following:
1. I think that we can simplify and avoid the conversation about licensing/taxing tobacco in the following way. If:
A. The use of tobacco, in and of itself, constitutes a moral evil and
B. The action of the State (let us call it x) constitutes formal or unjustified material cooperation in that evil (or otherwise itself constitute a moral evil)...
...Then the State has a moral obligation not to do x.
Let it be noted, however, I have serious doubts about both A and B (though, of course, this in and of itself does not constitute an argument).
In particular, your argument for A rests on a vague notion of harm which I simply can't agree with. The criterion for the moral acceptability or unacceptability of an act is not harm. The criterion is conformity with right reason, which, again, should be understood according to the analogy of the artisan. Just as a cobbler is to the shoes that he makes, so too is the moral agent to his conduct.
If your sole argument is "there are bad consequences," then I'm simply not impressed. Further contributing to my doubt is my lack of awareness of Catholic authorities who make your claim. Again, I know several (more or less serious and well educated) Catholics who have absolutely no moral qualms about an occassional cigar. It could, of course, be that they are mistaken. I don't know.
But the point remains that I am unaware of any authorities which indicate that tobacco smoking is, in and of itself, evil. Again, the fact that tobacco smoking falls under temperance seems to indicate that it's not, but then, that's not necessarily true. I don't know.
But note, of course, that this has absolutely no bearing on the previous conditional that I gave, which, again runs as follows:
If the action of the State (x) constitutes formal or unjustified material cooperation (or otherwise itself constitute a moral evil), and if tobacco smoking is per se evil, then the State has an obligation not to do x.
The truth of the antecedent is in doubt, but this puts us in no doubt about the truth of the conditional.
Even so, we may reason, likewise:
If the issuance of marriage licenses to sodomite couples constitutes formal or unjustified material cooperation in evil (or, otherwise, it itself constitutes a moral evil), then the State may not do it.
In point of fact (as, I think, you will admit), the antecedent is true. Therefore, the consequent follows: The State has a moral obligation not to do it.
I've read your most recent response twice, and I think that the best course of action simply is to note the following:
1. I think that we can simplify and avoid the conversation about licensing/taxing tobacco in the following way. If:
A. The use of tobacco, in and of itself, constitutes a moral evil and
B. The action of the State (let us call it x) constitutes formal or unjustified material cooperation in that evil (or otherwise itself constitute a moral evil)...
...Then the State has a moral obligation not to do x.
Let it be noted, however, I have serious doubts about both A and B (though, of course, this in and of itself does not constitute an argument).
In particular, your argument for A rests on a vague notion of harm which I simply can't agree with. The criterion for the moral acceptability or unacceptability of an act is not harm. The criterion is conformity with right reason, which, again, should be understood according to the analogy of the artisan. Just as a cobbler is to the shoes that he makes, so too is the moral agent to his conduct.
If your sole argument is "there are bad consequences," then I'm simply not impressed. Further contributing to my doubt is my lack of awareness of Catholic authorities who make your claim. Again, I know several (more or less serious and well educated) Catholics who have absolutely no moral qualms about an occassional cigar. It could, of course, be that they are mistaken. I don't know.
But the point remains that I am unaware of any authorities which indicate that tobacco smoking is, in and of itself, evil. Again, the fact that tobacco smoking falls under temperance seems to indicate that it's not, but then, that's not necessarily true. I don't know.
But note, of course, that this has absolutely no bearing on the previous conditional that I gave, which, again runs as follows:
If the action of the State (x) constitutes formal or unjustified material cooperation (or otherwise itself constitute a moral evil), and if tobacco smoking is per se evil, then the State has an obligation not to do x.
The truth of the antecedent is in doubt, but this puts us in no doubt about the truth of the conditional.
Even so, we may reason, likewise:
If the issuance of marriage licenses to sodomite couples constitutes formal or unjustified material cooperation in evil (or, otherwise, it itself constitutes a moral evil), then the State may not do it.
In point of fact (as, I think, you will admit), the antecedent is true. Therefore, the consequent follows: The State has a moral obligation not to do it.
we would defend even you
whatever you are
should you happen to go to jail because of a principle
do you even know what that is?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
he was banned because refraining from being an annoying jerk is against his principles
did you defend him? :think:
I didn't know he had principles
Her "principles" should've led her to resign immediately, assuming she had anything in mind beyond showboating.
Because Christians apparently shouldn't hold civic offices. :idunno:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
why?
she was an elected official of the state of kentucky
why should she have resigned because of a wrong-headed federal decision?
is that the way you wusses do it in new hampster?
whatever the feds say, you jump and say yes sir?
what she did has nothing to do with being a democrat
what she did has nothing to do with how many times she was married
which means
you have no idea what is going on here
You guys are defending a bureaucrat, Democrat, and serial monogamist. Usually this is someone you'd dismiss out of hand or run out of town on a rail.
They shouldn't if their religious convictions lead them to violate the law. Same goes for anyone--Sikh, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, you name it. You're being paid by taxpayers to render a public service, not preach.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
would you argue the same if the law came from the reichstag?
Looks like you're new, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt for now and assume you're not just a troll.
Yeah, the familiarity he's using leads me to think you're probably right. Okay, benefit of doubt rescinded.
Ditto on this. Social liberals only say "it's the law" when they agree with the law.
Submitting to the laws of the land does NOT mean one agrees with them. It also means one does not vilify those that do submit to them.
What I don't get is why ban some and not have a system in place to keep them from coming back? MOST forum sites have the ability to monitor IP addresses and keep them from re-establishing.