If you ran this country poll..

[BlindSheep]

Corrected version
This may seem a little silly, but bear with me. I’m tired of hearing people claim that we (Catholics, Christians, religious people in general) want to “force our morality” on the nation. I don’;t know about you, but I believe that it’s the job of the govenment to prevent people from hurting/violating the rights of others, and this is a moral issue itself. I don’t, however, think that moral issures concerning the individual only (condoms, church attendence, drugs used in one’s own home) are the government’s business. Abortion harms another human being (the unborn child) and therefore falls in the first category. But I want to get your thoughts on this question. What is the legitimate role of the govenment when it comes to moral issues?

 

[Liberalsaved]

Rape, robbery, and selling Cadbury Eggs out of season.

 

[mlchance]

This is a fallacy in at least one case:

BlindSheep:

I don’t, however, think that moral issures concerning the individual only (condoms, church attendence, drugs used in one’s own home) are the government’s business.

“[D]rugs used in one’s own home” are most certainly the government’s business. There is no such thing as a victimless crime, and drug abuse, no matter where it takes place, has societal effects.

Of course, you are spot on regarding abortion, and any Catholic who disagrees brings shame to the faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[WorBlux]

mlchance:

This is a fallacy in at least one case:

“[D]rugs used in one’s own home” are most certainly the government’s business. There is no such thing as a victimless crime, and drug abuse, no matter where it takes place, has societal effects.

Of course, you are spot on regarding abortion, and any Catholic who disagrees brings shame to the faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

Not all use is abuse. What about the societal effects of alchohol abuse? Why don’t we ban that? I think our nation has already tried that and failed miserably, not only did the government find the policy to enforce and that it cost millions of dollars, but also that did not lower alchohol consumption except for the immediate few years following the enacting of prohibition. Homocide rates increased. Alchoholism rates inreased. Illegal smuggling thrived. Law enforement agencies couldn’t keep up and they were made a laughing stock. Disrespect for the law increased. 15 years later the noble experiment was abonded. To this day alchohol and tobacco, the legal drugs do more damage than all the illegal ones combined.

When the marijuana tax act was passed over 3 million people who were not criminals the day before, sudenly found themselves criminals. America gained 3 million criminals overnight.

A victimless crime is an illegal act for witch no specific single person or group can be identified that were harmed or endangered against thier will.

A small minority of the adult population uses drugs, but it is a large enough number to wreck havoc on the legal system. Drug laws are unfair laws, They cannot be enforce effectively or evenly. Drug arrests do not deter drug use because the chance is that a careful purchaser and consumer of drugs will never be caught, especially if they are white middle or upper class.

 

[WorBlux]

mlchance:

This is a fallacy in at least one case:

“[D]rugs used in one’s own home” are most certainly the government’s business. There is no such thing as a victimless crime, and drug abuse, no matter where it takes place, has societal effects.

Of course, you are spot on regarding abortion, and any Catholic who disagrees brings shame to the faith.

– Mark L. Chance.

You too make fallacies. Not all use is abuse. What about the societal effects of alchohol abuse? Why don’t we ban that? Oh wait, I think our nation has already tried that and failed miserably, not only did the government find the policy to enforce and that it cost millions of dollars, but also that did not lower alchohol consumption except for the immediate few years following the enacting of prohibition. Homocide rates increased. Alchoholism rates inreased. Illegal smuggling thrived. Law enforement agencies couldn’t keep up and they were made a laughing stock. Disrespect for the law increased. 15 years later the noble experiment was abonded. To this day alchohol and tobacco, the legal drugs do more damage than all the illegal ones combined.

When the marijuana tax act was passed over 3 million people who were not criminals the day before, sudenly found themselves criminals. America gained 3 million criminals overnight.

A victimless crime is an illegal act for witch no specific single person or group can be identified that were harmed or endangered against thier will.

A small minority of the adult population uses drugs, but it is a large enough number to wreck havoc on the legal system. Drug laws are unfair laws, They cannot be enforce effectively or evenly. Drug arrests do not deter drug use because the chance is that a careful purchaser and consumer of drugs will never be caught, especially if they are white middle or upper class.

 

[michaelmac]

Hi all,a question if an illegal drug is beneficial to the long term treatment of certain ailments , like arthritis , M S , im talking about Marijuana ,should it be banned or legalised , remember you can take this drug in tablet form yours michaelmac

 

[melbourne_guy]

You forgot homosexuality and pornography.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Corrected version
This may seem a little silly, but bear with me. I’m tired of hearing people claim that we (Catholics, Christians, religious people in general) want to “force our morality” on the nation. I don’;t know about you, but I believe that it’s the job of the govenment to prevent people from hurting/violating the rights of others, and this is a moral issue itself. I don’t, however, think that moral issures concerning the individual only (condoms, church attendence, drugs used in one’s own home) are the government’s business. Abortion harms another human being (the unborn child) and therefore falls in the first category. But I want to get your thoughts on this question. What is the legitimate role of the govenment when it comes to moral issues?

“This country”, for me, is the UK. I don’t like the notion of making abortion and contraception and contraceptives illegal, but as those three questions can be understood as allowing for declarations of the illegality of producing the means for those things, I ticked the relevant boxes.​

I think the fundamental need for society is self-discipline on the part of the individual - society will collapse without self-discipline. This means that churchmen must have the self-discipline not to interfere in politics, for that is not their vocation, but that of politicians. If they don’t like something in society, they should work for its substitution by what is good or better in a way that is in accord with the character of the Church as a Christian thing - so it would be tempting, but probably iniquitous, to ban movements of the likes of the Moral Majority. I don’t much like pressure groups, of any kind.

FWIW, a lot of harm can be done by doing good to folk against their wills. If people insist on mucking up their reproductive systems, they can’t really be prevented from doing so - provided that is that no harm is done to third parties. So I would not favour criminalising homosexual activity; or contraception, if it did not harm the unborn; as it does, the unborn cannot be allowed to be harmed by the acts of others, and must be protected.

I’m not persuaded that a Catholic should require non-Catholics to live by Catholic ethical standards. The one thing in favour of the old equation between the subjects of the ruler of a state and the adherents of the religion of that state, is that these untidy dilemmas are avoided. If natural law is valid, it should be possible to have a non-theistic and non-supernatural moral code which would commend itself to all the subjections of a state, however various their religious and theological and ethical ideas and doctrines might be. It is no part of the state’s business to evangelise unbelievers - that is for Christians to do. It seems to me that one has to respect people’s exercise of their liberty enough to allow them to make mistakes - even serious ones, provided suffering to others can be avoided as far as possible - since God allows us this very liberty ##

 

[michaelmac]

Hi all, as an English man i would not ban abortion, because i do not have the right to tell any one they cannot abort ,and to tell a rape or abuse victim they cannot have an abortion in my eyes is evil , no church should be able to impose its rules on any one who is not a member of that church, and banning contraception, is daft when people like me dont want children yours michaelmac

 

[Christus_Rex]

So a child conceived in a rape is worth less than a conception of love? It is somehow inferior? It is certainly more evil to murder a child for the sins of its father, deeming it worthless.

I looked at your profile and see you are a survivor of abuse. I don’t know if this is how you feel, but a family friend who was abused often doesn’t like people to say sorry, so I won’t. I can see where you might be coming from, you think it would be putting someone trough more trauma, but that friend now loves her child. If she hadn’t loved him, she would have put him up for adoption with people who COULD love him.

Abortion is murder. And murder is illegal.

One of my closest friends, a wonderful person, was conceived because of that abuse, and he is in NO WAY inferior.

 

[BlindSheep]

Gottle of Geer, I think you said it well. I agree with you about people being allowed to make mistakes, as long as the are prevented from causing suffering to others as much as possible. I also think that with issues like drugs and alcohol, it is a matter of the amount of use more than whether or not they are used. I like to have the occasional glass of wine with dinner, and it’s good for my heart; however, there are fundamentalist protestants out there who consider it a sin, and there are those who equate any amount of drinking with alcoholism. I think if you put too many constraints on people, you will create rebellion (like in prohibition). When it comes to marijuana, I don’t smoke it, but honestly I can’t see how it is different from alcohol or tobacco, and though I think it should be illegal to drive under the influence I don’t see a good reason why it should be totally illegal.
With things like not using condoms/diaphragm etc. and going to Mass on Sunday, these are things that we as Catholics believe should be done for a person’s spiritual (and emotional) well-being, but I think personal matters like this should be freely chosen, not coerced. Some people go through a phase of messing up their lives, and then convert when they see the error of their ways. While this is not ideal, it is better than insincerely going through the motions of a virtuous life. Furthermore, I have to imagine what it would be like to live in a country where funtamentalist protestant ideas of morality (where it concerns only the people engaging in a behaviour) were enforced - a country where statues, rosaries, dancing, wine and parties might be outlawed - to see how “enforcing moralitY” is not something the govenment should be doing unless someone else is being harmed.

 

[michaelmac]

Hi Christus Rex , i was hated from conception because im my gread fahter child not my so called fathers child ,i know more about the aftermath of abuse than most people, this is taking me away from whats been writen , i find people who think they know the truth have no idea what the truth is , im glad i was not aborted for one thing, to show the world many people who say they are christian are not ,yours michaelmac

 

[Liberalsaved]

melbourne_guy:

You forgot homosexuality and pornography.

Melbourne Guy—a better future, a less free America.

 

[BlindSheep]

melbourne_guy:

You forgot homosexuality and pornography.

Do you mean homosexuality, or homosexual sex?

 

[Liberalsaved]

michaelmac:

Hi all, as an English man i would not ban abortion, because i do not have the right to tell any one they cannot abort ,and to tell a rape or abuse victim they cannot have an abortion in my eyes is evil , no church should be able to impose its rules on any one who is not a member of that church, and banning contraception, is daft when people like me dont want children yours michaelmac

You know what, if I were in charge of the country I would actually make abortions a little harder to obtain if, emphasis on IF, a few conditions could be met.

All the people who have sat in their easy chairs for years and whined about abortion must adopt at least two unwanted children, of any age, one of whom must come from a country that is too poor to offer them any kind of life. So if you adopt an unwanted child from New York and an unwanted child from rural Africa, hey, I may not be totally onboard with your politics or morals, but at least you’re trying to make a difference beyond shouting at people about what they should and shouldn’t do. Admirable in my eyes.

The same people must contribute one weekend a month to volunteer work at a local children’s hospital, or Ronald McDonald house or similar charity. For those who have been doing thankless such work for years, there would be incentives for this. If you spend time without being coerced on these activities, I se no reason a few personal tax breaks haven’t been earned. What you’ve contributed is far more important than money.
Oh, and missionary work doesn’t count. That’s between you and God. I want to see some effort put in to putting food in their mouths and pillows under their heads, because that’s what they need to survive right now.

All proponents of “pro-life” laws must pay a new tax. The purpose of this tax shall be one and one only; it will go into training and hiring teachers on the government dime, and improving schools so kids have a decent place to learn. A ten-year plan will be put into place that will radically alter our public schools by introducing a teaching style that will cater to the individual needs of a student, including personal computers for each student above the fourth grade and the ending of broad education and introduction of specialized education according to individual talents once high-school age is reached.

Gradually this will be applied to all citizens, with the mandatory volunteer work being applied to those between the ages of 18 and 45.

I’m going to get screams of unfair for this, and I have before. But really, if you all care about the children so much, then these should be things you are willing to do without them being made mandatory and without ANY conditions attached.

 

[michaelmac]

Hi Liberalsaved , a great idea ,i can see only one problem though who is going to look after the children that Catholic priests or nuns must look after ,or any of those people who claim to be CHRISTIAN , YOURS MICHAELMAC

 

[Christus_Rex]

michaelmac:

Hi Christus Rex , i was hated from conception because im my gread fahter child not my so called fathers child ,i know more about the aftermath of abuse than most people, this is taking me away from whats been writen , i find people who think they know the truth have no idea what the truth is , im glad i was not aborted for one thing, to show the world many people who say they are christian are not ,yours michaelmac

I don’t think I know anywhere near the “truth” but I know that my family friend was pressured to abort and my friend wouldn’t be here today if that had happened.

You seem to think that trying to save children makes us un-Christian. I don’t see how this is. We are saving people!

You seem to be on here only to tell Christians whether they are Christian or not, and have a go at those who want to save babies

I stand by the fact that no matter what the circumstances of the conception, the new child is NOT responsible.

 

[BlindSheep]

Liberalsaved:

You know what, if I were in charge of the country I would actually make abortions a little harder to obtain if, emphasis on IF, a few conditions could be met.

All the people who have sat in their easy chairs for years and whined about abortion must adopt at least two unwanted children, of any age, one of whom must come from a country that is too poor to offer them any kind of life. So if you adopt an unwanted child from New York and an unwanted child from rural Africa, hey, I may not be totally onboard with your politics or morals, but at least you’re trying to make a difference beyond shouting at people about what they should and shouldn’t do. Admirable in my eyes.

The same people must contribute one weekend a month to volunteer work at a local children’s hospital, or Ronald McDonald house or similar charity. For those who have been doing thankless such work for years, there would be incentives for this. If you spend time without being coerced on these activities, I se no reason a few personal tax breaks haven’t been earned. What you’ve contributed is far more important than money.
Oh, and missionary work doesn’t count. That’s between you and God. I want to see some effort put in to putting food in their mouths and pillows under their heads, because that’s what they need to survive right now.

All proponents of “pro-life” laws must pay a new tax. The purpose of this tax shall be one and one only; it will go into training and hiring teachers on the government dime, and improving schools so kids have a decent place to learn. A ten-year plan will be put into place that will radically alter our public schools by introducing a teaching style that will cater to the individual needs of a student, including personal computers for each student above the fourth grade and the ending of broad education and introduction of specialized education according to individual talents once high-school age is reached.

Gradually this will be applied to all citizens, with the mandatory volunteer work being applied to those between the ages of 18 and 45.

I’m going to get screams of unfair for this, and I have before. But really, if you all care about the children so much, then these should be things you are willing to do without them being made mandatory and without ANY conditions attached.

I see… so unless I am able to provide for all of a person’s needs, I have no right to protest that person being slaughtered?

 

[Liberalsaved]

BlindSheep:

I see… so unless I am able to provide for all of a person’s needs, I have no right to protest that person being slaughtered?

No, you have no right to yell and holler at people whose lives are not yours to control and then stop caring about the fetus once it is born.

 

[Liberalsaved]

michaelmac:

Hi Liberalsaved , a great idea ,i can see only one problem though who is going to look after the children that Catholic priests or nuns must look after ,or any of those people who claim to be CHRISTIAN , YOURS MICHAELMAC

Those people are already doing their part, and while I’d prefer that children wren’t raised in an environment where they are given no religious choice whatsoever, I can’t complain much when there are so many kids to look after and so few people to do it.