Those things are the consequence of receiving federal money. They are not part of a plan to coerce the acceptance particular values. If you are getting tax generated funds there is an obligation to provide similar services as other institutions. And I actually think that the requirement is to inform patients of those options, and where they can be obtainedBut, Marc, they want to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. They want to force Catholic doctors to distribute birth control and perform abortions. Give the government an inch and they want a whole lot more. Secular society is not much different, even though it’s only a minority of them holding the guns to our heads, so to speak.
God bless,
jd
So let me ask you a question since you believe that at LEAST some if not ALL of the bible has no credibility. Who was (is) Jesus Christ? Did He even exist? If He did (does) what parts of the bible, if any, told the truth about Him? How do you know?‘KNOW’ is a bit of a strong term, but for them to have actual knowledge of fact that is not available to me, that means they had access to either information that no longer exists, or they were in direct, two-way communication with the Almighty himself. I see no real credible reason to think that has ever occurred.
I’m not sure what it is that you’re trying to say you’re compelled to point out here, or why you feel compelled to point it out. (I can’t prevent others’ from strawman-ing, can I? I can only point it out after the fact.)I am compelled to point out that although that debate is relevant and important, you have to be careful that who you are debating does not turn it into something of a strawman.
lol! Good story. I certainly hope I’m not “beating anyone like a dog” in insisting that obviously fallacious arguments are not helpful to this discussion and in insisting that any kind of fruitful philosophical discussion necessarily presupposes a basic familiarity with the basic categories of logic.Reminds me of when I was a freshman in university. I was taking introduction to political philosophy. On the first day the professor presented his syllabus. A fairly standard mix of Montesque, federalist papers and other stuff. He then asked if any of us thought any changes should be made. Saying he wanted to foster debate. Everyone else hid under their desks. But being young, foolish, and naive, I took the bait and suggested we also study some rather minor people. I think I was a big Kropotkin fan at the time.
Anyway he just proceeded to beat me like a dog for the next ten minutes. You see at that age I had no tools or ammunition with which to battle. He had a doctorate, thirty years experience as professor, and was chairman of the philosophy department. I am not sure what he proved other than big people can beat up smaller people.
I don’t mean to suggest that seeker is quite as helpless as I was. But you don’t want to conclude that any particular debate on this or another issue is conclussive. It might not be a fair fight
JD-A couple of pages back, I asked you three simple questions. They had nothing to do with berating your argument style, so, they should be easy to answer.
I think this doesn’t make sense on a couple of levels. First, “federal funds” come from the people, so why should they be used to promote things which are considered evil by the majority of people? “A provides an evil (or at least morally suspect) service, therefore B must too, since both are tax-funded” is a non sequitur. Second, as an analogy, if you were required to inform the slave-hunters where they can find more slaves, although not required to hunt slaves yourself, would you consider this to be respecting your freedom of conscience?Those things are the consequence of receiving federal money. They are not part of a plan to coerce the acceptance particular values. If you are getting tax generated funds there is an obligation to provide similar services as other institutions. And I actually think that the requirement is to inform patients of those options, and where they can be obtained
I can’t believe it’s taken this long for someone to ask me this, considering it is (to the best of my knowledge) the central tenant of Christianity.Who was (is) Jesus Christ? Did He even exist? If He did (does) what parts of the bible, if any, told the truth about Him? How do you know?
Seeker:You’re not questioning my dogmas. You’re questioning my methods of arguing my case, and not addressing my points in the least. Until and unless you do, consider both our cases rested.
Larkin:Actually, most often here I find that folks do NOT state it this way, but rather try to dress their belief up in other attempts at logic and empiricism that do not hold up to scrutiny. Or, when I state that their position is based upon the foundational belief that what their Bible and their Church says is true is therefore true, I often get denials!
McTeague:If people think the current discussion has strayed to far from the original thread please say so. Or you can send me a personal message. I don’t think the people currently debating are unreasonable. They would probably be more than willing to start a separate thread.
I guess you’re not including the Catholic Church - the one that doubles, in size, the other 30,000 little churches combined? Because what you suggest is not true of it. Period.Any.
The receipt of tax dollars should not have that attached as a codicil. You do realize that Catholic Churches DO care for the non-Catholics out there, too. And, many times, without recompense. So, we want you to take care of these people, not get paid, but, if you do happen to receive any money from us, we have just one more little thing that we want you to do. . . .Those things are the consequence of receiving federal money. They are not part of a plan to coerce the acceptance particular values. If you are getting tax generated funds there is an obligation to provide similar services as other institutions. And I actually think that the requirement is to inform patients of those options, and where they can be obtained
I do recognize the good Catholic hospitals do for all people. As I said in another thread regarding homosexuality; it was Catholics who were first there to care for people dying of aids.The receipt of tax dollars should not have that attached as a codicil. You do realize that Catholic Churches DO care for the non-Catholics out there, too. And, many times, without recompense. So, we want you to take care of these people, not get paid, but, if you do happen to receive any money from us, we have just one more little thing that we want you to do. . . .
If the Catholic hospitals all shut down, it would be a sad state of affairs in the US.
God bless,
jd
Explain why they don’t have a right to do it. Go ahead, I’m open to good arguments.Whoa! They have the RIGHT to do it? What do you mean? To do what? Why do they have a RIGHT to do it?
I’ll take a look at that later, thanks.But you’re missing the point: it’s NOT just a religious conviction.
Please read:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Sounds all nicey-nice and good touchy-feely, but, as Catholics it is our DUTY to not encourage sin.I do recognize the good Catholic hospitals do for all people. As I said in another thread regarding homosexuality; it was Catholics who were first there to care for people dying of aids.
However, I think you are seeing this in to narrow a way. If for example there were Christian scientist hospitals that received public money wouldn’t you want them to at least be required to inform people of other options.
This presents an interesting ethical dilemmaSounds all nicey-nice and good touchy-feely, but, as Catholics it is our DUTY to not encourage sin
jd
Why not? Are you not free to make as many uninformed choices you set you mind to?This presents an interesting ethical dilemma
Your obligation is actually to promote what we may call Christian thinking and behavior. If you believe in the Catholic God then you believe he gave man free will, and that righteous conduct was not imposed. Yet, free will can not exist in the absence of knowledge.
No. This is based on a false premise.So when, for example in the case of birth control, you keep information from someone; it denies them the actuality of free will.
No. This is based on a false premise.You are in essence placing yourself above God. For God does not deny the liberty off our personal consciousness.
It seems the proper Christian action is to provide all information and then advocate for the actions and positions you believe to be most virtuous.
I would actually need you to state what you think the false premises are because although I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, I consider the same possibility for you.Why not? Are you not free to make as many uninformed choices you set you mind to?
No. This is based on a false premise.
No. This is based on a false premise.
The false premise is that lack of knowledge removes free will. The lack of knowledge just makes it more likely that poor choices are made.I would actually need you to state what you think the false premises are because although I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, I consider the same possibility for you.
If you believe free will simply means the absence of coercion then we simply operate from different standards and definitions. To think that we can claim to have allowed free will while denying information that is necessary for the full application of it seems on the face of it unethical. Or it is at best the ethics of the salesman. Caveat emptor should not be our guiding moral principle
Just a quick note on this for now: It would seem that lack of knowledge does not remove free will as a disposition, a latent power, but it does render it inoperative. The will cannot act without the intellect grasping objects for it to act towards.The false premise is that lack of knowledge removes free will. The lack of knowledge just makes it more likely that poor choices are made.
I suppose that if someone down and out came to you and asked you how to use this gun, because he wished to commit suicide, you would give him all of the information he needed to place it to his temple and pull the trigger with his thumb?This presents an interesting ethical dilemma
Your obligation is actually to promote what we may call Christian thinking and behavior. If you believe in the Catholic God then you believe he gave man free will, and that righteous conduct was not imposed. Yet, free will can not exist in the absence of knowledge. So when, for example in the case of birth control, you keep information from someone; it denies them the actuality of free will. You are in essence placing yourself above God. For God does not deny the liberty off our personal consciousness.
It seems the proper Christian action is to provide all information and then advocate for the actions and positions you believe to be most virtuous.