Originally Posted By barboy "People died because of Ford's actions. You can bet I'll never buy one." I assume that you haven't bought a Mitsubishi product either.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I guess I'm just not quite the moral authority that you guys are. I try to live my own life morally. That keeps me plenty busy without going around judging the morality of other people or other organizations. That is for God to do. Of course since you don't believe in God, I guess you need to do it yourself. I guess the problem with trying to judge the morality of others is that everyone has a different idea of what is moral and what is not. Some people consider divorce immoral, some not. Some consider abortion immoral, some not. Some consider withholding food from a brain dead person immoral, some not. Some consider homosexuality immoral, some not. So I just try to live my life by what I personally feel is correct, and leave the morality policing up to others.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm just not quite the moral authority that you guys are." For myself, I am. No one is judging the morality of others. But if you do something that I don't consder moral, then I'm possibly not going to have anything to do with you, depending on what it is. You do precisely the same thing. God doesn't tell you what is or is not moral, you do that yourself. That you have picked upon a codification of morals doesn't mean that god told you them, it's that they were there and you chose them. "I just try to live my life by what I personally feel is correct" Me too. And because of that, I don't associate with murderers, rapists, or any number of other sorts.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Me too. And because of that, I don't associate with murderers, rapists, or any number of other sorts.>> You never go to football games?? ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip And I certainly hope you're not a Lakers fan... not with Kobe Bryant on the team!
Originally Posted By jonvn "You never go to football games??" OR dog fighters! No, actually, I don't. I sometimes go to a Giants baseball game. But I have to drink heavily to get through it. I really don't follow sports too much.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I guess the problem with trying to judge the morality of others is that everyone has a different idea of what is moral and what is not. Some people consider divorce immoral, some not. Some consider abortion immoral, some not. Some consider withholding food from a brain dead person immoral, some not. Some consider homosexuality immoral, some not.<< RoadTrip, there are few people on these boards I respect as much as you; I promise I'm not trying to get into it with you I've always admired and enjoyed your posts over the years. So that caveat aside, I don't think the examples you've given are quite analogous to the Ford situation. There are different sets of morality, absolutely. But not many, if any, people believe that causing deaths in the name of business is a good thing. I think it's safe to say that such an outlook transcends most cultures and religions. So while there's plenty of divisiveness over, say, divorce or homosexuality or sexuality in general, there's hopefully little or none over something like what Ford did. Further, you're not limited to buying a Ford. There's any number of other cars available, both from foreign and American markets. It's because there's different viewpoints on morality that I've never said anyone should absolutely, positively have to leave the Catholic faith over the abuse scandal. While we all agree that the abuse is terrible, we don't necessarily agree on the best way to deal with that. And again, because our religion is so much more a part of our identity than which automobile we own, I feel it's a more complex issue. I guess what I'm getting to is I still don't see any compelling reason, beyond frankly not caring that much about what Ford did, why someone would still purchase one of their cars with so many different options.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I assume that you haven't bought a Mitsubishi product either.<< I haven't, but just out of coincidence - not because I've never heard any stories about something they've done. This is a good point, though. I don't labor under the delusion that I'll be able to avoid all products from all companies that have ever done anything wrong. I may be wearing a piece of clothing right now that was produced in a sweatshop somewhere in the world. I know very little about the Japanese labor industry; someone may have been gravely injured while working to assemble my Honda Civic and they didn't get any compensation. I get all that, and I'm not about to start sewing my own clothes and growing my own food But, if I learn (as I have) that Wal-Mart runs factories in China where workers are there so long, Wal-Mart had to build dorms for them to live and sleep in because they're at work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, then I can choose not to shop at Wal-Mart. Again, it's for me, no one else. I feel better about myself and the kind of person I am. If I learned that a product I'd been purchasing for years was produced in a sweatshop, or that people died over it, I'd do everything I could to stop buying it. But I wouldn't beat myself up over it - we all do the best we can with the information we have.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So while there's plenty of divisiveness over, say, divorce or homosexuality or sexuality in general, there's hopefully little or none over something like what Ford did.>> To me there are so many things to consider. Was what Ford did wrong? No doubt. But I have not heard of them doing anything like that for decades now. How long do we not buy for something that occurred in the past? But beyond that, I think you need to look at the impact of your actions and see who they actually hurt. Usually, they are not going to hurt the people responsible. There are going to hurt some working schmuck like me or you. If the Fords sales drop 20% the chairman of the board, the president, all of the top vice presidents... they all still have their jobs. Who gets hurt? The 10's of thousands of working people who are laid off. Working people laid off who will never have a job that pays as well again. So we all walk around all smug and everything about taking such a great moral stand and all we’ve done is hurt people who had absolutely nothing to do with what caused us to take a stand. Is that fair? Is that MORAL? We take the stand because of 17 people killed in auto accidents that might not have been if the Pinto had been better designed (though some probably would have anyway). And in taking this stand we are ruining the lives of 10’s of thousands of families who lose their houses and watch their lifestyle go down the tubes because now instead of making $30 an hour at Ford dad is making $10 per hour down at the local Jiffy Mart. Is that fair? Is that MORAL? Things are not always as simple as they seem...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Me too. And because of that, I don't associate with murderers, rapists, or any number of other sorts.< have never known one myself either - I am a member of a church that has some in them, you and I are both citizens of a country that also has them in it -- we're back to the guilt by association theme, if that's true why do you get to use it for the church but not the country ? You suggested we leave our church because others are basically the same anyway - why then if you felt that way ( and that is your opinion ) do you choose to live in the US when there are other similar choices ? You have the option to change also.... one could say our judicial system ( leaders ) allow the crimes to go on because they consistently let repeat offenders off.... leaders in this country release mental patients and declare them fine because no one wants to pay for help for them - then when they commit crimes or harm someone or themselves - why not abandon the US ? Let's head for the boats.... that is how I see the comparison....doesn't make me right but it doesn't make me wrong either.
Originally Posted By barboy What Ford did was nothing compared to Mitsubishi's war crimes of WWII---- mass slavery, torture and deaths of Allied soldiers in factories and mines.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Catholicism is not a cult of personality. It isn't about the individual who is leading the mass. The form of the mass and the readings have been determined, so the priest has to work within the constraints placed upon him. You can take a priest from Paramus and plop him down in Pacific Palisades and he'll perform the Mass the same way as he would have anywhere else. A Catholic can look at a priest and know that there is an unbroken chain of laying on of hands from Peter to him. The priest's appearance and his actions during Mass are as symbolic and as essential to the liturgy as the doxology and the Eucharist. But if the priest were to be replaced the liturgy would be exactly the same as it has been for close to 2000 years. If you go strutting out of the church, pointing out how unholy others are, you're turning your back on a community of saints that reaches back to a small group gathering on the shores of Galilee. Your own revulsion of breaking bread at the Lord's Supper with a rapist or a child molester will keep you from partaking in that Sacrament. Your own pride will keep you from accepting the invitation from God himself to dine with him. And, from a Catholic perspective, of enjoying a true communion with Him. There may be worldly concerns that individuals within the church have with how the church is dealing with non-spiritual matters, but that's irrelevant in the big picture for the faithful. What happens on this rock over the few decades of life we have are minor concerns when we're dealing with our eternal souls.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You can take a priest from Paramus> ...but you can't take Paramus from the priest. Sorry. Had to.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If you go strutting out of the church, pointing out how unholy others are" It is interesting how moral relativism affects all people, when it comes to something they are not personally willing to take a full stand on. I'm sorry, but it's not saying others are unholy. It's saying you don't want to be associated with people who are moldesters and people who protected molesters. You can get christianity from many places. You don't have to get it from this one. Billions all over the world manage somehow. It's not the only game in town.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer You can get Christianity from a lot of places, but you can't get Catholicism from them. There are key doctrinal differences between a Catholic and a Lutheran or an Anglican that, if you believe, you can't just walk away from. It's all about the Eucharist. If you really believe in transubstantiation as the Catholics do, then there really aren't many other games in town.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 good luck -- I've been down this path of trying to explain similar differences -- unsuccessfully
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Oh well. The answers to his questions are already in the threads if he is interested in reading them.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, I know there are doctrinal differences. They appear to me as being extremely insignificant. "You can get Christianity from a lot of places, but you can't get Catholicism from them." Well, this is pretty much exactly what I've said. People believe in the Roman Catholic church first, and Christianity second. I mean, that's fine. I don't care what you want to butter your bread with. But it's an interesting thing to see.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "They appear to me as being extremely insignificant." They are very significant to those who believe.
Originally Posted By jonvn They are significant to those who believe it is significant. If I believed that having dinner at 6:01PM was of major significance as opposed to having it at 6:00PM, then it would be to me. To everyone else, it isn't.
