Well, it seems that the separation of Church and State is a very strong belief among the liberals of our great nation. Very strong, indeed: until the state decides the Church must kowtow to it. We see no better example of this than in the Obama Administration's decision to make Catholic institutions pay for sterilization and contraceptives for their employees through the health plans of Catholic companies and organizations.
Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron deplores the action as "discrimination against Americans exercising their right of conscience." He is quite right. To act within the bounds of our clear and certain consciences is as much of a right as freedom of speech and expression. If we cannot express our rights in our daily actions, then we are not free. The White House claims that the ruling is an effective balance of religious beliefs and women's health concerns.
Not in the eyes of the Church. But the eyes of religion don't matter when the eyes of the state are turned upon them. "We're being told to violate our conscience or be in violation of the law," says Msgr. Robert McClory, vicar-general of the Archdiocese of Detroit. He's quite right, of course. But right and wrong do not matter when a liberal wants his way. Liberals don't care about right and wrong. They about getting what they want. And what they want here is to bully the Church.
Perhaps, Mr. President, the Church already has determined the right balance of religion and health care issues. Perhaps women and men who work for Catholic societies should not be looking for the type of health care which they should not be seeking, if they are Catholics in good conscience. Yet these points are easily ignored when government, that supreme protector of the individual gets involved in areas such as health care. They hold the reigns, which must mean they know better.
This is one of the key yet less discussed matters when it comes to national health care, indeed of any government involvement in such intimate areas of life. When the government runs it, it gets to decide what is moral. You need no conscience when you have Washington in your corner. Barack Obama will take of that for you.
In light of all this, no Catholic in good conscience should vote for that man. If you have a problem with that statement, then perhaps you need to look inside yourself and find your conscience. That is, unless the conscience of Big Brother is good enough for you.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Faith based initiatives. morality.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Faith based initiatives. morality.. Show all posts
Monday, February 6, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Being Moral
One of the most pervasive while also one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of certain presumed freedoms is the one about consenting adults. Simply put, it makes moral a given action on the grounds that the folks involved are in agreement as to their joint participation. It is ultimately a wholly untenable position.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution, for example, is one key area where the adage is often used, it is a phrase used as though self evident, something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, as is generally the case anyway, actual immorality.
This is not to say that making a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet such a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution, for example, is one key area where the adage is often used, it is a phrase used as though self evident, something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, as is generally the case anyway, actual immorality.
This is not to say that making a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet such a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Consenting Adults; So What?
One of the most pervasive while also one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of certain presumed freedoms is the one about consenting adults. Simply put, it makes moral a given action on the grounds that the folks involved are in agreement as to their joint participation. It is ultimately a wholly untenable position.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution for example is one key area where the adage is often used, it is something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, actual immorality.
This is not to say that a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
To begin with, if all that is required to make something ethically acceptable is the agreement of the parties involved, then we really ought to allow duels. The (presumably) two participants agreed to take shots at each other. So no matter how barbaric, as they freely entered into the contract we would have to let them fire away.
Absurd. Yet when applied to other moral questions, and prostitution for example is one key area where the adage is often used, it is something accepted as axiomatic. The truth is that you would be on stronger ground simply to argue that paying for sexual favors is not in itself wrong rather than to say it's okay because there was no coercion.
The mere fact that people are willing to sell themselves that way while there are also folks willing to buy the, ahem, product, in fact reeks of coercive effects on its own standing. One person wants money, the other wants something which money can buy. A certain coercive effect is in fact at work. Still, even setting that point aside begs the question. The best answer is that nothing is good solely because those involved want to to do it. The act in question must be good on its own stead lest those involved be acting on mere impulse or selfishness. Or, indeed, actual immorality.
This is not to say that a free will act without pressure isn't a factor in moral decision making. It goes without saying that for most personal acts to be moral they must be entered into with a reasonable amount of freedom. In marriage, for example, both the man and the woman involved must do so of their own consent. Yet a hypothetical marriage between a man and a woman both of whom are free to marry is itself already moral. We are in fact beyond the issue of the morality of the potential nuptials by the time the question of will enters the fray.
In short, when considering the rightness of something there are two questions at hand. The first and most important query is whether the act is morally right, seen objectively, on its own. The second is whether those involved are the proper parties to it. Their consent is never a point until after the moral correctness of the action is assured.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
God
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'
- C. S. Lewis
I have long believed that there is only one God. There can only be One; Plato eons ago rightly pointed out that perfection implies singularity, as multiplicity must infer defect. To wit, complexity must allow for great error because there are so many parts of it. There's more to go wrong. Conversely, One Whole Something must be essentially simple so that nothing can be wrong with it.
Ignore for the moment any pleas within your mind which may ask, so which God is God? I am merely establishing that there can only be one. Christ, Yahweh, Allah; Animism and Mother Earth: we can deal with all that another time. What I am concerned with here is how this truth affects us in our day to day actions.
When we discuss morality it often seems to devolve into an us against them rant. "Who made you God?", we may often be asked. The reply, "Who made you?", generally is left unasked, yet is just as fair. Be that as it may, the overall implication is that that other person doesn't have to listen to you because you aren't the final arbiter of right and wrong and, further, that maybe there isn't actually a God for us to bother about anyway.
That is dangerous on two fronts. The first is that you never, ever want to even broach the idea that you are God. The second is that it begs that question of who is. To the former, what kind of God would you be if you did in fact call the shots? Could you stay good with all the power that implies at your control? To the latter, if there is a God who can make those calls, hadn't we best find out who He is and what He wants? For surely our poor opinions and actions would pale next to His.
Still, God allows us some share of that power. He will, as Lewis says above, tell you 'thy will be done', and cast you off. He will allow you your choice on the ultimate matter: to be with Him or not. You can be the god of your own destiny.
But ask yourself whether you would like where the trail must lead.
- C. S. Lewis
I have long believed that there is only one God. There can only be One; Plato eons ago rightly pointed out that perfection implies singularity, as multiplicity must infer defect. To wit, complexity must allow for great error because there are so many parts of it. There's more to go wrong. Conversely, One Whole Something must be essentially simple so that nothing can be wrong with it.
Ignore for the moment any pleas within your mind which may ask, so which God is God? I am merely establishing that there can only be one. Christ, Yahweh, Allah; Animism and Mother Earth: we can deal with all that another time. What I am concerned with here is how this truth affects us in our day to day actions.
When we discuss morality it often seems to devolve into an us against them rant. "Who made you God?", we may often be asked. The reply, "Who made you?", generally is left unasked, yet is just as fair. Be that as it may, the overall implication is that that other person doesn't have to listen to you because you aren't the final arbiter of right and wrong and, further, that maybe there isn't actually a God for us to bother about anyway.
That is dangerous on two fronts. The first is that you never, ever want to even broach the idea that you are God. The second is that it begs that question of who is. To the former, what kind of God would you be if you did in fact call the shots? Could you stay good with all the power that implies at your control? To the latter, if there is a God who can make those calls, hadn't we best find out who He is and what He wants? For surely our poor opinions and actions would pale next to His.
Still, God allows us some share of that power. He will, as Lewis says above, tell you 'thy will be done', and cast you off. He will allow you your choice on the ultimate matter: to be with Him or not. You can be the god of your own destiny.
But ask yourself whether you would like where the trail must lead.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
We Must Legislate From A Moral Perspective
It is often said, when discussing certain social issues, that we cannot legislate morals. Do you know the right response to that question?
In a word, poppycock. There is a better word, to be sure, but decorum will not allow its use here.
We can and we must legislate morals. Further, every decision ever made by every legislature, parliament, congress, diet, knesset, or whatever else you want to call it, was an action predicated on a moral decision. Making us drive on the right side of the street is based on the moral axiom that we require order. Forcing parents to send their kids to school, let alone feed and clothe them, is a moral choice that parents are obliged to do that for their progeny. Trying to force health care down our throats is a moral decision by the government that we need it, however erroneously felt.
We can and we must legislate morals. We do it all the time. The only real questions are which ones, and under what circumstances.
In a word, poppycock. There is a better word, to be sure, but decorum will not allow its use here.
We can and we must legislate morals. Further, every decision ever made by every legislature, parliament, congress, diet, knesset, or whatever else you want to call it, was an action predicated on a moral decision. Making us drive on the right side of the street is based on the moral axiom that we require order. Forcing parents to send their kids to school, let alone feed and clothe them, is a moral choice that parents are obliged to do that for their progeny. Trying to force health care down our throats is a moral decision by the government that we need it, however erroneously felt.
We can and we must legislate morals. We do it all the time. The only real questions are which ones, and under what circumstances.
Friday, July 16, 2010
George Washington on religion and morals.
And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion...reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
- George Washington, from his Farewell Address
We have said many times that morality, indeed any issues of right and wrong, must have a God of some sort behind them. Without an objective norm to fall back on, any and all questions of good and evil, even issues of simple prudence, are nothing more than your word against mine. In such a case, problems would be resolved only through might makes right, whether at the hand of a single tyrant or that old saw consensus, which is but a name for the tyranny of the majority. We must do right because it is right on its own terms as instituted by the Creator of the natural law.
Consensus cannot make something right. Consensus is merely what the majority of the people at a given time happen to want which they are able to subject the upon the minority. Do we honestly believe that such is the best way to create good law and rational public policy?
Obviously it is not. We require a Supreme Being, a supreme and final Law, in order to do well and avoid evil. To those who object, which God?, we say, the one whom philosophy, not religion, insists is there. From that point we can safely speculate on how such a being would expect us to act. It is then when we start to cross into religious principle because at that point we begin to realize that people are special, that doing wrong against them is an evil in itself because it is an affront to their dignity as individuals. A dignity they have by virtue of their humanity, as given them by God. It does not come from them or anything they do.
So there is no reason to base morality and law on anything slippery such as convention, which can and will change as generations do. We need that eternal sense, that eternal reality, if we are to make a good society, and become good people. For any ideal of dignity must come from the religious ideal that everyone deserves proper respect. That cannot come from any simple human act. It can only come from above, overarching each individual. We recognize that and live accordingly, or we slowly perish.
- George Washington, from his Farewell Address
We have said many times that morality, indeed any issues of right and wrong, must have a God of some sort behind them. Without an objective norm to fall back on, any and all questions of good and evil, even issues of simple prudence, are nothing more than your word against mine. In such a case, problems would be resolved only through might makes right, whether at the hand of a single tyrant or that old saw consensus, which is but a name for the tyranny of the majority. We must do right because it is right on its own terms as instituted by the Creator of the natural law.
Consensus cannot make something right. Consensus is merely what the majority of the people at a given time happen to want which they are able to subject the upon the minority. Do we honestly believe that such is the best way to create good law and rational public policy?
Obviously it is not. We require a Supreme Being, a supreme and final Law, in order to do well and avoid evil. To those who object, which God?, we say, the one whom philosophy, not religion, insists is there. From that point we can safely speculate on how such a being would expect us to act. It is then when we start to cross into religious principle because at that point we begin to realize that people are special, that doing wrong against them is an evil in itself because it is an affront to their dignity as individuals. A dignity they have by virtue of their humanity, as given them by God. It does not come from them or anything they do.
So there is no reason to base morality and law on anything slippery such as convention, which can and will change as generations do. We need that eternal sense, that eternal reality, if we are to make a good society, and become good people. For any ideal of dignity must come from the religious ideal that everyone deserves proper respect. That cannot come from any simple human act. It can only come from above, overarching each individual. We recognize that and live accordingly, or we slowly perish.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The President and Faith Based Initiatives
President Barack Obama has expanded upon former president Bush's faith based agenda, creating a White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to help aid in healing the nation's ills. While I do wonder where the hue and cry about the effort is, considering the flack that Bush took for the original idea, I must concede that I am heartened to hear of the plan and even more impressed by the new President's words.
"...there is a force for good greater than government," Mr. Obama said. Well said, Mr. President. While I'm skeptical of his opinion that, "...there is no religion whose central tenet is hate," or that I at the least believe that such a statement requires clarification, I do agree with his essential point. There is no reason for government and religion not working together on issues which necessarily involve the spirit. There is no reason to believe that government is the sole answer, or even the best answer for our problems. And at the least, the overwhelming majority of religions do in fact agree on the basic tenets of morality and civil responsibility.
How deeply he means his words I do not know. But at the risk of drawing the ire of many of my conservative friends, there is a part of me who believes the new President sincere. He may not always act on whatever exact faith he holds, but he does appear to respect faith and have some understanding of the critical role it plays in the general governance of our society and our wills.
Yes, maybe it is a sop; time will tell. Yet for now, I'll cut him slack, and presume his good will. Until the opposite happens, I think he merits it.
"...there is a force for good greater than government," Mr. Obama said. Well said, Mr. President. While I'm skeptical of his opinion that, "...there is no religion whose central tenet is hate," or that I at the least believe that such a statement requires clarification, I do agree with his essential point. There is no reason for government and religion not working together on issues which necessarily involve the spirit. There is no reason to believe that government is the sole answer, or even the best answer for our problems. And at the least, the overwhelming majority of religions do in fact agree on the basic tenets of morality and civil responsibility.
How deeply he means his words I do not know. But at the risk of drawing the ire of many of my conservative friends, there is a part of me who believes the new President sincere. He may not always act on whatever exact faith he holds, but he does appear to respect faith and have some understanding of the critical role it plays in the general governance of our society and our wills.
Yes, maybe it is a sop; time will tell. Yet for now, I'll cut him slack, and presume his good will. Until the opposite happens, I think he merits it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
