Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[Cor_Cordis]

I do enjoy watching you and PS1 volley. Perhaps it’s my bias toward less control by the government, but IMHO, the points you make are more from reason rather then emotion.

Thank you shipwrkd.

While I’m certainly not lacking emotion in my responses, I do tend to reason with my emotions by following a more complete rationale in the mode of Chesterton.

He realized that men do not lack proper morality, but rather, that men lack proper thinking in order to discern morality. He emphasizes the importance of Original Sin. In today’s materialistic secular world, people are even more anxious to deny the existence of sin than the existence of God. And that’s the problem here: we don’t have a “gun” problem in our society, - we have a sin problem.

“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” - G.K.Chesterton

We can ban guns, we can ban knives, and we can ban clubs, and we can even try to screen sick “minds” - but that won’t stop an individual who has embraced evil from repeating these same horrible crimes. All it will do is create more danger by disarming law-abiding citizens.

The most practical solution is also the most immediate solution: increase school security by any number of measures including armed guards and armed teachers. Allow more citizens to carry concealed weapons in public areas. Guns do not make people more homicidal. However, homicidal people are far less deadly when more people are free to arm themselves. The vast majority of people are not potential murders, but the vast majority of would-be murderers can be greatly outnumbered by well-armed citizens who naturally want to live. Nothing turns the hunter into prey like a multitude of armed prey. It’s hard for the madman to take aim when a dozen sights have centralized their cross hairs on to his fragile head. It’s amazing how sane he will become when the consequences of his actions are immediately returned tenfold.

“Liberty is the very last idea that seems to occur to anybody, in considering any political or social proposal. It is only necessary for anybody for any reason to allege any evidence of any evil in any human practice, for people instantly to suggest that the practice should be suppressed by the police.” - G.K.Chesterton

“When you break the big laws, you do not get liberty; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws.” - G.K.Chesterton

 

[shipwrkd]

Thank you shipwrkd.
The most practical solution is also the most immediate solution: increase school security by any number of measures including armed guards and armed teachers. Allow more citizens to carry concealed weapons in public areas. Guns do not make people more homicidal. However, homicidal people are far less deadly when more people are free to arm themselves. The vast majority of people are not potential murders, but the vast majority of would-be murderers can be greatly outnumbered by well-armed citizens who naturally want to live. Nothing turns the hunter into prey like a multitude of armed prey. It’s hard for the madman to take aim when a dozen sights have centralized their cross hairs on to his fragile head. It’s amazing how sane he will become when the consequences of his actions are immediately returned tenfold.

An even more practical solution is the ability to secure a school. The head of the TSA spoke about gun and knifes on board airplanes and said he wasn’t concerned about them since the installation of access proof cockpit doors. Why not the same for schools? If you can’t get in, you can’t do harm. We already have armed Liaison Officers at the schools in my State but funding requires they rotate between several schools and they can’t be in every classroom at all times. Allowing teachers to carry shouldn’t even be questioned and gun free zones only keep those guns away that could prevent a tragedy.

Chesterton has some great quotes.

 

[Least]

An even more practical solution is the ability to secure a school. The head of the TSA spoke about gun and knifes on board airplanes and said he wasn’t concerned about them since the installation of access proof cockpit doors. Why not the same for schools? If you can’t get in, you can’t do harm. We already have armed Liaison Officers at the schools in my State but funding requires they rotate between several schools and they can’t be in every classroom at all times. Allowing teachers to carry shouldn’t even be questioned and gun free zones only keep those guns away that could prevent a tragedy.

An even MORE practical solution is the ability to recognize that, no matter whate efforts you put into securing a school, your kids will still NOT BE SECURE IN SCHOOL. Further, IT IS WRONG FOR ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TO SAY THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE SUCH. If you need proof, just look to a very similar governmental institution P R I S O N S.

People are wounded, and killed in prisons regularly, the problem is NOT that there are ‘weapons’ per se, the problem is FOR INDIVIDUALS, and that is, that any of them involved in such thing thought that there might be any semblance of the opposite (OF SECURITY). When you ignore reality, it will give you a helmet and cup check EVERY TIME.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do enjoy watching you and PS1 volley. Perhaps it’s my bias toward less control by the government, but IMHO, the points you make are more from reason rather then emotion.

While it is possibly emotion that sparked the debate, I don’t agree the specific views are from emotion. I’ve tried to explain that, for me, the view is through the spirit of the Gospel, of Christ and His Church. I also believe Cardinal Dolan receives, and gives, his view through the spirit. To say only one is emotion is to say the other side felt nothing at the tragedy that brought on the debate.

Joh 6:63 (6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Christ gave a teaching, that the passage above is from. There were two sides, in that discussion. Both reasoned as to whether they believed or not, and we cannot say one response was emotional.

 

[shipwrkd]

An even MORE practical solution is the ability to recognize that, no matter whate efforts you put into securing a school, your kids will still NOT BE SECURE IN SCHOOL. Further, IT IS WRONG FOR ANY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TO SAY THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE SUCH. If you need proof, just look to a very similar governmental institution P R I S O N S.

People are wounded, and killed in prisons regularly, the problem is NOT that there are ‘weapons’ per se, the problem is FOR INDIVIDUALS, and that is, that any of them involved in such thing thought that there might be any semblance of the opposite (OF SECURITY). When you ignore reality, it will give you a helmet and cup check EVERY TIME.

I believe the TSA is a Government agency and since 9/11, list the number of hijacked airplanes. Not the one or two nutcases who wanted to go somewhere else after a few too many drinks, but legitimate hijackings…I’ll wait.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Actually that’s not quite accurate PS1.

He didn’t say that one response was exclusively emotional and the other exclusively reasoned.

But rather, he spoke in degrees:

“Perhaps it’s my bias toward less control by the government, but IMHO, the points you make are more from reason rather then emotion.”

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I've tried to explain that:

Maybe. Maybe not.

However, neither the good Cardinal nor the seemingly unified USCCB speak from an infallible position on this matter. And again, this is a Prudential Judgment.

Unification (whether implied or real) in and of itself by the USCCB does not equate to Infallibility on this issue.

And even if Cardinal Dolan is conveying the Spirit in his remarks - then it is just that “The Spirit”. The “Spirit” however, does not necessarily translate into specific legislative actions in this matter. After all, the “Spirit” in this issue is simple: Less Murder - More Safety. Well yeah. Who doesn’t want that?

Are you implying that people who oppose more gun legislation simply don’t care about protecting life because they are selfish? If so - then you must believe that they are evil. Or if they are not evil, then they are uninformed. What exactly are they uninformed about?

Have “assault” weapons or guns in general suddenly been deemed “Intrinsic Evils”?

The problem here, is that the USCCB are NOT crime experts. And much less, they have shown no indication that they are even aware of the specific relevant statistics on this matter. Have they cited data? Have they consulted experts in all the fields of disciple relevant to this issue? If so: Who? What? When? And Where?

This is where reason plays a vital role: The emotions make us recoil at the awfulness of the crime. But in the end, our emotions MUST be guided by sound reasoning firmly rooted in relevant data. If not, the law makers will end up passing senseless legislation that ends up making people LESS safe as an unintended result.

And I’m here to tell you, more times than not, our current law makers end up making things worse - not better. Or have we learned nothing from ObamaCare?

So while I agree with Cardinal Dolan’s overall “Spirit” - (yes I want less death and injuries) - I strongly disagree that more layers of senseless legislation is the answer.

The Bishops are opining on a topic that can effect each and every citizen in this country. To suggest that one way (the Big Govt way) is the only way to address this far-reaching Constitutional issue, hardly sounds like the “Spirit” to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you implying that people who oppose more gun legislation simply don’t care about protecting life because they are selfish? If so - then you must believe that they are evil. Or if they are not evil, then they are uninformed. What exactly are they uninformed about?

I didn’t say any of the above. I was responding to how I don’t see one is emotional and the other is reasoned. They are both reasoned views, in light of an emotional event, that I’m sure all recognize. If one were emotional, and the other reasoned only, then it appears that it was being said that one was free of any emotions of the tragedy.

Have “assault” weapons or guns in general suddenly been deemed “Intrinsic Evils”?

The problem here, is that the USCCB are NOT crime experts. And much less, they have shown no indication that they are even aware of the specific relevant statistics on this matter. Have they cited data? Have they consulted experts in all the fields of disciple relevant to this issue? If so: Who? What? When? And Where?

This is where reason plays a vital role: The emotions make us recoil at the awfulness of the crime. But in the end, our emotions MUST be guided by sound reasoning firmly rooted in relevant data. If not, the law makers will end up passing senseless legislation that ends up making people LESS safe as an unintended result.

And I’m here to tell you, more time than not, our current law makers end up making things worse - not better. Or have we learned nothing from ObamaCare?

So while I agree with Cardinal Dolan’s overall “Spirit” - (yes I want less death and injuries) - I strongly disagree that more layers of senseless legislation is the answer.

The Bishops are opining on a topic that can effect each and every citizen in this country. To suggest that one way (the Big Govt way) is the only way to address this far-reaching Constitutional issue, hardly sounds like the “Spirit” to me.

Are the bishops forbidden to guide us on prudential matters? Christ said, 'feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the stranger, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned. Not everything He spoke on was ‘intrinsic evils.’ He also established an authoritative Church, through the men He chose and commissioned to ‘teach.’ When those authoritative men are united, I, personally, feel it is very compelling. They don’t have to be ‘experts’ on anything that affects the dignity of life in some way. They have called for support for an issue and that call is clear enough. We all understand their position, some agree and others disagree.

The Cardinal has brought a lawsuit against this administration on one issue, but speaks in favor of the administrations view on another issue. That is not political, but his spiritual view, and guidance.

 

[Ender]

Are the bishops forbidden to guide us on prudential matters?

Obviously not, but one would prefer that they limit their comments to issues about which they are well informed, which does not include gun control.

When those authoritative men are united, I, personally, feel it is very compelling.

The bishops are united in their opposition to the HHS mandate. There is no unity whatever on the issue of gun control; in fact only a small number have even spoken about the topic.

They don’t have to be ‘experts’ on anything that affects the dignity of life in some way.

If “they” are going to call for specific solutions then, yes, they need to know what “they” are talking about. Cardinal Dolan has already said he is no expert in the area of gun control so why exactly is his less than well informed opinion given so much credence? The fact that he is a cardinal is of no use at all in determining what specific measures would be useful.

They have called for support for an issue and that call is clear enough.

The “they” you refer to seems to be a very small number; it is incorrect to imply that “the bishops” - let alone “the church” - has spoken.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Obviously not, but one would prefer that they limit their comments to issues about which they are well informed, which does not include gun control.

The Newtown incident was a loss of innocent life, on the end of a an AR15. As I already tried to explain, ‘I believe the men of the Church are speaking on matters of life, or a loss of the dignity of life.’

Christ taught many things that are considered ‘prudential judgements.’ He set an authoritative Church to lead the multitude, or laity.

The bishops are united in their opposition to the HHS mandate. There is no unity whatever on the issue of gun control; in fact only a small number have even spoken about the topic.

Please show us one voice in disagreement.

If “they” are going to call for specific solutions then, yes, they need to know what “they” are talking about. Cardinal Dolan has already said he is no expert in the area of gun control so why exactly is his less than well informed opinion given so much credence? The fact that he is a cardinal is of no use at all in determining what specific measures would be useful.

He was clear enough, that many point blank disagreed, and others have agreed with him.

The “they” you refer to seems to be a very small number; it is incorrect to imply that “the bishops” - let alone “the church” - has spoken.

Ender

The they are the USCCB. Also remember the Cardinal references the Holy See, and excerpts from the Catechism. As I’ve asked, 'please show us one bishop in disagreement with the call to support control legislation.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The Newtown incident was a loss of innocent life, on the end of a an AR15. As I already tried to explain, ‘I believe the men of the Church are speaking on matters of life, or a loss of the dignity of life.’.

Newtown was a horrendous murder at the hands of a deranged and possibly evil individual.

And again, so called “assault” rifle account for LESS THAN 2% of all gun violence. An AR15’s are a small sub-percentage of that even.

So why are you singling out AR15’s?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

He was clear enough, that many point blank disagreed, and others have agreed with him.

Where is the evidence he is well informed on the specifics of this issue.

Show me where Dolan cited any factual evidence: Raw data, statistics, expert opinions, or any references.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The they are the USCCB. Also remember the Cardinal references the Holy See, and excerpts from the Catechism. As I’ve asked, 'please show us one bishop in disagreement with the call to support control legislation.

And I’ll ask this of you once again:

Does any or that, or even all of that, make their statement an “Infallible” teaching?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Cardinal Dolan has already said he is no expert in the area of gun control so why exactly is his less than well informed opinion given so much credence? The fact that he is a cardinal is of no use at all in determining what specific measures would be useful.
Ender

Which begs the question: How can the Bishops be calling for specific legislation that will have direct, long term, and deadly implications for every single citizen in this country when they are admittedly lacking any expertise on any of the pertinent specifics?

For that matter, where have they demonstrated that they even have a layman’s knowledge of the pertinent facts?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The they are the USCCB. Also remember the Cardinal references the Holy See, and excerpts from the Catechism. As I’ve asked, 'please show us one bishop in disagreement with the call to support control legislation.

Tell me PS1, were you this vocal in your support of the USCCB when they called for the faithful to protest Obama’s HHS Mandate?

I sincerely want to know.

 

[Northumbrian]

We should perhaps listen

 

[Cor_Cordis]

We should perhaps listen

To who?

The same Congress that inflicted ObamaCare upon us?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

And I’ll ask this of you once again:

Does any of that, or even all of that, make their statement an “Infallible” teaching?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And I’ll ask this of you once again:

Does any or that, or even all of that, make their statement an “Infallible” teaching?

Where does the requirement of infallibility come from? Because something is spoken from the Church that is not infallible, are we free to disregard it?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Where does the requirement of infallibility come from? Because something is spoken from the Church that is not infallible, are we free to disregard it?

Actually, yes, we are.