HBO Documentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rascalking
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rascalking said:
No, because the church teaching is compassionate. No where does the church say people must be suffering and agonizing in pain. In fact, I think it states that you can give the person drugs to stay pain free, as long as you don’t kill them.
Click to expand...
There are certain times where the only pain management that is effective also slowly kills the patient (such as morphine). It creates a very interesting grey area that has a lot of potential discussion.
Rascalking said:
My issue is more of a standard one for most honest American Catholics. Should church law/dogma be enforced by the state?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification! Through out my discussions I have found that the answer lies in what one believes the role of government to be. Does it exists to keep people in line under a single moral theory or does it exist to protect the rights of those it governs over, and only control individuals if they infringe on the rights of others? I find that the answer to the two questions is often the same.
 
NoMoreGames said:
There are certain times where the only pain management that is effective also slowly kills the patient (such as morphine). It creates a very interesting grey area that has a lot of potential discussion.

Thanks for the clarification! Through out my discussions I have found that the answer lies in what one believes the role of government to be. Does it exists to keep people in line under a single moral theory or does it exist to protect the rights of those it governs over, and only control individuals if they infringe on the rights of others? I find that the answer to the two questions is often the same.
Click to expand...
1-Yes, it does create a very interesting grey area.

2-No problem. I agree. The answer lies in the what the role of goverment is.
 
I tend to lean towards the role of protecting rights (which is why I support the dwda). When you make a religious law a civil law, it applies to every one, not just the followers of that faith. With the number of different faiths in the country, it seems unjust to uphold the rights of the one that is able to influence the government more than the others. I think we would all agree that is is wrong to force one’s faith on another, but isn’t that essentially what happens when religious law is pushed into civil law? What’s your view?
 
NoMoreGames said:
I tend to lean towards the role of protecting rights (which is why I support the dwda). When you make a religious law a civil law, it applies to every one, not just the followers of that faith. With the number of different faiths in the country, it seems unjust to uphold the rights of the one that is able to influence the government more than the others. I think we would all agree that is is wrong to force one’s faith on another, but isn’t that essentially what happens when religious law is pushed into civil law? What’s your view?
Click to expand...
Well, this conversation will get boring quickly, because I basically agree with you.

If you want to know what I basically believe for the role goverment (not that my beliefs are of great importance to you ;)) read Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton, FA Hayek and Milton Friedman.
 
Darn, my debating side was just getting restarted 😛

I’ll try to get my hands on a copy of the film and let you know what I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top