Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Why are you constantly citing the Catholic Church's position on public policy?<< They're moral questions, not public policy ones. >>You're being to make a case where perhaps Catholics are not to be trusted as politicians, judges, and other positions of public policy.<< Why? A Catholic who can apply philosophical principles about common good and the integrity of the individual human person can certainly be trusted. >>You've gone beyond simply INFORMED. You're dictating word by word the Catholic line. There's no attempt at finding common ground between religion, individual interpretation, and U.S. law.<< Um...interpretation of U.S. Law, which is subject to change on a whim (note the major paradigm shift over the past two years toward the rabid right in terms of how we treat the least among us), unless its written in the Constitution. As to the questions at hand, I was challenged as to my position on the death penalty vis-a-vis abortion, so I provided the information to show that I know what I'm talking about, including the citations from Catholic documents. Now, as to your charge, the Catholic position on many of these isn't necessarily based on the religious aspects of Catholicism, they are based on the philosophical aspects, thus not religious (after all, what does the death penalty have to do with sacraments or prayers?). The basic idea is that the function of the State is to promote the common good and upholding the integrity of the individual human person. This is accomplished by passing laws on the society the State has authority over. The main question involving any law should be, "does this law promote the common good and uphold the integrity of the individual human person?" If the answer is "yes" to both, then the law is a good law. If the answer is "no" to either then the law is a bad law and shouldn't be passed. So, we arrive at the question involving things like abortion and the death penalty. Does a prohibition on abortion promote the common good where there are alternatives to keeping an "unwanted" child? Does a prohibition on abortion uphold the integrity of the individual human person where there are alternatives to keeping an "unwanted" child? Does the death penalty promote the common good where there are alternative means to render the criminal harmless to other persons and to society? Does the death penalty uphold the integrity of the individual human person where there are alternative means to render the criminal harmless to other persons and to society? While the abortion questions need more in order to answer them (the question of whether or not the unborn is an individual human person), the death penalty ones do not. The answer to BOTH is no. The common good is NOT promoted and the integrity of the individual human person is NOT upheld where alternatives to render a criminal harmless to others and society.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "STPH, what's this bug up your butt about the fact that I don't like Schwarzenegger? Are you a follower of his or something?" What did you say to me once about ad hominem attacks? Anyway, I have grown to dislike him, too. Thing is, you beat your mangtra to death. Just from this thread alone: "Schwarzenegger, once again, demonstrates that his Catholicism is mere show." "Thought my behind! Schwarzenegger had some legal secretary on his staff write up some stuff and signed it. His mind was made up from beforehand by his handlers. This proves that Schwarzenegger's going to church yesterday was for show only. How can you be an active Catholic and do some of the things this...creature does?" "Not so. I don't care that Schwarzenegger draw breath. Let him. Just remove him from the Office of Governor of California or any position of authority and let him remain the B-movie actor he's known for being." "This is exactly true. Schwarzenegger said how much he "dreaded" making this decision and how he thought long and hard about it. Pish-tosh! I don't believe a word of it! He made up his mind well in advance and had one of his staffers (any one of which has more widsom, knowledge and education than he ever imagine hoping to possess) write up a document that sounds like he thought things through. I'm surprised he didn't offer to be there in person to throw the switch himself so he can bolster his macho, bad-boy image." "Schwarzenegger joined the Church so he could marry Maria Shriver, a Catholic. I'm sure the whole thing was just for the marriage. Being a Catholic involved much more than just having some water poured on you (if you weren't already baptized), reciting some words (profession of Catholic faith) and having some oil put on your forehead (Confirmation). That profession of the Catholic faith means that you agree to EVERYTHING the Church teaches. That includes the philosophical basis on which the Church builds its teaching (as I explained before). Honestly, I don't believe that Schwarzenegger is capable of comprehending even the most basic and simplistic of philosophies." "Because when he goes to Mass at St. Monica's in Santa Monica, the press is there. Why would that be unless he wants them there? And why else would he want them there unless he wanted it known that he goes to church...a Catholic Church" "I agree that Schwarzenegger's name should be dishonored and defamed and held in contempt, but don't exalt William's name as a form of compensation. Note I don't call either man by their popular monikers." My favorite is "pish-tosh". It's overkill, don't you think? We get it already. You do in every thread that features Schwarzenegger. It's enough to start liking him again just because you seem to hate him so much.
Originally Posted By cmpaley And here's something for the victim's families. Think about having to carry around the anger, hatred and vengeance around for years so you can see the perpetrator die. It seems to me that it is unhealthy to remain at phase 2 of the grieving process for years at a time. When the execution finally takes place and vengeance has been accomplished (this is what the death penalty becomes when we start talking about the victim's families), can they really start to let the anger, hatred and feelings of vengeance go or have those things so festered in the souls of the family members so as to make it impossible? Life without the possibility of parole, which means the perp never, ever gets out, ever. Nunca. Jamais. No hope except new excuplatory evidence (which in the case of Ruben Cantu came too late! -- oh, wait, a Mexican!? Never mind, who cares?) being discovered. Once the person is sentenced, the family members can move on because they know that justice is done and they can continue their lives. Now, the question comes up about "but what about if it were YOUR family, huh!? what about THEEEEEEEEN(sing-song mocking voice)!?!?!? Wouldn't you want to see that person die?" Honestly, probably, but that wouldn't be out of a rational part of myself, would it? I certainly wouldn't be out of the better part of myself that is civilized and believes the vengeance isn't for me to take. Rash actions usually lead to greater harm than good, so we shouldn't be making these decision based on our anger or outrage. The rabid-right tends to do that and it usually ends up in a FUBAR nightmare. And don't worry, the radical-left tends to do it, too, but in the other direction, and it also usually ends up in a FUBAR nightmare as well. That's why we need to be rational and try to think these things through...all the way through, not just, "Kill the mofo! He needs to DIE!"
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"STPH, what's this bug up your butt about the fact that I don't like Schwarzenegger? Are you a follower of his or something?" What did you say to me once about ad hominem attacks?<< If you took at as an attack, it wasn't meant that way. You do seem to have a bug up your butt about it sometimes, though. I was just wondering why is all. At any rate, I do find him to be a morally vacuous man who is totally below contempt, not because of his party affiliation but because of what he's DONE lined up against what he's said.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I was just wondering why is all." And I told you, but you didn't address the overkill point. Instead, you piled on with more: "At any rate, I do find him to be a morally vacuous man who is totally below contempt, not because of his party affiliation but because of what he's DONE lined up against what he's said."
Originally Posted By woody Schwarzenegger is living in a fish bowl. So he goes to church and the press is there. That doesn't mean he is publicizing his religion. STPH: Your response has too many quotes. What did YOU say exactly? cmpaley: You're rather overwhelming in your response although you don't quite get to the point. I think you completely went to the other side of the argument. On what's rational, I think following the law is rational. The California Supreme Court agreed and declined to intervene. Justice works. Tookie is gone. Let's not bury the law as well. <a href="http://feeds.losangelesnews.net/?rid=0393dde7a837c9b7&cat=a7d0846f876c8187&f=1" target="_blank">http://feeds.losangelesnews.ne t/?rid=0393dde7a837c9b7&cat=a7d0846f876c8187&f=1</a> "According to the Los Angeles Times, the six justices unanimously denied Williams' lawyer's request for a stay, saying that the had reviewed all nine claims made by the former gang leader and denied each one on its individual merits, even though they felt some were almost identical."
Originally Posted By patrickegan You’re the one that always prefaces on interjects your diatribes with the “rabid-right†not me. In that you lose credibility as do the others who buttress your cut and paste Catechisms by parroting what they hear from the various organs of “rabid-left†or the Franken Tagblat. Again you keep dodging the question. All I would like to know is how can someone of high Christian convictions support candidates who condone and or champion a woman’s right to chose death for her child? Conservatively at least hundreds of thousands of innocent children have been murdered and not peep but all of this outcry and hue over the sanctity of a piece of garbage like Tookie! And if that were not enough those same people have the stones to talk about credibility, despicable! <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm" target="_blank">http://www.vatican.va/archive/ catechism/ccc_toc.htm</a> just in case anyone else feels the need for some cut and paste sanctimony.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>You’re the one that always prefaces on interjects your diatribes with the “rabid-right†not me. In that you lose credibility as do the others who buttress your cut and paste Catechisms by parroting what they hear from the various organs of “rabid-left†or the Franken Tagblat. << Actually, there is ONE Catechism that I refer to, not several. If you must know, the ONE Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, by Papal order, is the standard on which future Catechisms are to be written, was promulgated on October 11, 1992 by Pope John Paul the Great. Have you read the passage from the Catechism and thought about it? It gives a well thought out argument against the death penalty based on a philosophical and moral belief, which I expounded this very evening. IN ALL CASES, I firmly believe that the death penalty is unnecessary today because there are means of separating a dangerous criminal completely from society permanently. Second, what's with your obsession with Franken? >>Again you keep dodging the question. All I would like to know is how can someone of high Christian convictions support candidates who condone and or champion a woman’s right to chose death for her child?<< I can't answer the question because it does not apply to me. In fact, I counted as an undervote for the office of President as I could not in good conscience vote for Bush but I could not vote for Kerry either. >>Conservatively at least hundreds of thousands of innocent children have been murdered and not peep but all of this outcry and hue over the sanctity of a piece of garbage like Tookie!<< First, this does not apply to me. I do not support abortion and will not vote for a candidate who is "pro-choice" for any office where abortion can come up as an issue. If that means that I must be an undervote, then so be it. Second, Williams, while a convicted of heinous crimes that deserved to be severely punished, is a human person, no less than an unborn child is a human person. >>And if that were not enough those same people have the stones to talk about credibility, despicable!<< Well, considering I'm absolutely consistent on the issue of the sanctity of all human life, you're the one with the stones. >><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/" target="_blank">http://www.vatican.va/archive/</a> catechism/ccc_toc.htm just in case anyone else feels the need for some cut and paste sanctimony. << Actually, truth is more like it. (I shouldn't watch Boston Legal when I am on here...I get feisty. You don't want to know what I could have said).
Originally Posted By FaMulan It seems to me that it is unhealthy to remain at phase 2 of the grieving process for years at a time.<< Chris, this tells me you have never grieved for a loved one or you would know that all the phases Dr. Kubler-Ross identified don't march along in sequence. To this day I have my moments of anger, sadness, denial and acceptance and my Mom died four years ago. And you have never lost someone to the chilling act of cold-blooded murder. Back when I was working through my own healing process after losing, not one but both parents in the space of a year and three days, I talked with people who had lost loved ones to murder. The anger is with them always, especially if the perpetrator is not caught, cuts a deal or is living a life of semi-ease in prison. Their main question is along the lines of 'Why is that animal alive and my loved one dead?' and 'Where is justice for my loved one?' And everyone else, this is the mantra I use when cmpaley gets overly-pious: "There is none so zealous as the convert".
Originally Posted By itsme >>Yes, lets do it ALL for Tookie. ----- We could change the hit song by Limp Bisket, Nookie; I did it all for the Tookie, c'mon The Tookie, c'mon So you can take that cookie And stick it up your yeah!
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "And everyone else, this is the mantra I use when cmpaley gets overly-pious: "There is none so zealous as the convert"." Very good.
Originally Posted By patrickegan It is obvious that the tack works to foster a pro-choice political clime as it is the law of the land.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I find it sad that someone who brought a lot of fun and creative energy to the world, Richard Pryor, passes away and there's probably less than 30 posts about that on LP. Meanwhile, we go on and on about a murderous thug whose life choices helped create an ongoing pattern of violence and death.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Meanwhile, we go on and on about a murderous thug whose life choices helped create an ongoing pattern of violence and death.<< Well, he is the president after all. Oh, did you mean someone else?
