Mandatory mask poll

[pnewton]

Or maybe this from @blackforest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Catholic Memes II Catholic Living

If you understand the reference, let’s be friends. (This uploaded content is no longer available.

 

[TULIPed]

So it was idle curiosity, not some attempt to equate whatever your opinion is to church teaching?

Since you brought it up, I would be curious how a Catholic anarchist would reconcile their views with this from St. Paul:

“ Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.“

 

[vz71]

Since you brought it up, I would be curious how a Catholic anarchist would reconcile their views with this from St. Paul:

When you find a Catholic anarchist to answer this, let me know.

 

[TULIPed]

When you find a Catholic anarchist to answer this, let me know.

You’re right. Probably a bridge too far.

Speaking of masks though - remind us of where you stand on them?

 

[vz71]

Speaking of masks though - remind us of where you stand on them?

I am unconvinced they do any good.
Therefore I am also against forcing through force of law the usage of masks.

 

[TULIPed]

I am unconvinced they do any good.
Therefore I am also against forcing through force of law the usage of masks.

But you’d comply I suppose given St. Paul’s words? If not, how do you reconcile your position?

 

[RuthAnne]

RuthAnne:

I’m not the control freak.

Well, in a way you are.

Let’s see . . .

Me: You are free to choose to wear a mask or not wear a mask.

You: You must wear a mask.

Conclusion: I’m a control freak.

Interesting . . .

 

[RuthAnne]

If someone is a literal anarchist then I guess it makes sense to interpret any law as a tyrannical form of social control.

That is not how anarchists see it at all. We respect laws.

 

[vz71]

But you’d comply I suppose given St. Paul’s words? If not, how do you reconcile your position?

Civil law must be obeyed.
Else there is jail time or a fine.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

That is not how anarchists see it at all. We respect laws.

I’m defining law here as codified law written by the legislature, not divine or moral law.

 

[RuthAnne]

not divine or moral law.

Yeah, we certainly don’t want to talk about moral laws, do we!

 

[vz71]

I’m defining law here as codified law written by the legislature, not divine or moral law.

Are you willing to have someone shot to force the mask upon them?

You know once it is law, it falls upon the police to enforce it. Wherever the police go, a weapon is there as well to enforce their word.

 

[Bernoulli]

Are you willing to have someone shot to force the mask upon them?

Maybe if they shoot first, refusing to wear a mask. That has happened.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Are you willing to have someone shot to force the mask upon them?

You know once it is law, it falls upon the police to enforce it. Wherever the police go, a weapon is there as well to enforce their word.

No. I’d be willing to see them fined. If they become physically violent, force might be used against them. But then the force would be in response to the violence, not the refusal to wear a mask.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Yeah, we certainly don’t want to talk about moral laws, do we!

We certainly can, but in order to have a productive discussion we need to make sure we’re talking about the same thing. In this context, we’re talking about civil and criminal law.

Being intentionally vague and refusing to define our terms is just a recipe for talking past one another.

 

[RuthAnne]

Being intentionally vague

You’re being intentionally vague?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You’re being intentionally vague?

Certainly not intentionally. I’m trying to be as clear as I can.

When I use the word “law” in the context of this thread, I’m referring to the civil and criminal code of the state. If you’re using “law” to refer to moral law, we need to clarify which we’re talking about or we’re not going to get anywhere.

I’m beginning to question whether you’re deliberately misunderstanding.

 

[Beryllos]

I’m beginning to question whether you’re deliberately misunderstanding.

Indeed. @RuthAnne, you are turning this thread into a word game: Take the previous words and change them to mean something else.

 

[vz71]

No. I’d be willing to see them fined.

You missed the point.
The force of the state involves the threat of violence.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

You missed the point.
The force of the state involves the threat of violence.

No, I get your point. Ben Shapiro uses this one a lot. All laws, from prohibition on murder all the way down to jaywalking, are ultimately backed up by state force, fair enough. The point is in order to get to the use of force, you have to have to so many intervening acts by the individual that it’s no longer really about the initial issue.

For example, imagine we have someone blasting obnoxious music at 3 am keeping the neighborhood awake. His neighbors ask him to turn it down and he refuses. Someone calls the police. The cops come and tell him to turn it down and issue a citation for a noise violation.

In response, the person playing music grabs a weapon and tries to attack the cops. In response, the cops shoot him.

If you said, “wow, you really think a guy should be shot just for playing his music too loud?” you’re mischaracterizing the situation.