Strong morals, or elitism?

[AlanFromWichita]

mike182d:

So, you’re saying 2 + 2 = 5 or are you dancing around the issue?

I’m not saying 2+2=5. I could probably make a case for it, but I might have to think about it a few minutes.

I am saying that 2+2=4 is not objectively true, even in mathematics. In third grade math for most kids, it is objectively true given the small universe of mathematics to which kids are typically exposed. For a person who has accomplished even high school algebra, if they were good in math they would know there are cases where 2+2 is something other than 4, but most people don’t realize it because they never gain a practical use of it. For me, I have a master’s degree in electrical engineering and used to teach math, and I have had many occasion to use mathematics where 2+2 is not equal to 4.

The reason I bring this up is that 2+2=4 is always, objectively true is an example of a false cliche that shows an assumed limitation that both parties to the conversation might not have. If you say, “in all of mathematics this statement is objectively true,” then I have to say you are wrong and presumptuous, and your own lack in mathematical training causes you to make that limited vision statement as if were true for everybody but yourself.

That is another reason that I do not blame and judge people who don’t understand these lessons. They were not taught, in mathematics or any other place, how to envision there might be truths beyond what we personally know. In short, they’ve been taught what to think and say, rather than how to think.

That is why Christ talked in parables. People did not have the language or the disposition of heart (old wineskins) to understand the messages directly, so He had to plant seeds that would grow.

The last time I demonstrated two different contexts in which 2+2 is not 4, (actually I think it involved 1+1=2) others (on this forum btw) cried “no fair” because I didn’t heed certain limiting assumptions that I neither made nor anybody stated.

In short, for children’s mathematics, 2+2=5 is incorrect, and yes I would mark that wrong.

If you want some practice at grade school math, I can show you some tests I’ve written and have been used thousands of times by a couple hundred grade school students. They are automated flashcards, timed, and dedicated to my fifth grade math teacher Sister Geraldine Marie. They are very small DOS programs, under 100k, that can be downloaded and run (not installed) in any directory and they store results of completed tests in a file. I offer them to forum members and any friends as freeware.

You can use addsub.exe to avoid negative numbers, or use addsubn.exe to practice adding and subtracting with negative numbers galore. You can train your kids on them and they will be the winners in math contests.

Yes, addsub.exe and adsubn.exe both would regard “5” as an incorrect answer to the problem “2+2”

edit>> sorry I forgot to say where to find these programs:

The programs can be found at math.wordsfree.org/

There are several programs there, enough to challenge anybody – try one of the fraction programs; they will drive you mad being timed while adding things in your head (or using scratch paper which is not cheating but adds overhead) such as -2 3/5 + 1 2/3

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mike182d:

Man, it must *really *irk you then when the Pope comes out and tells the world that abortion is wrong. I mean, think of all the abortion clinic employees that are offended…

LOL.

It is clear you are struggling with this teaching I’m trying to convey, so it does not bother me that you ask for clarification and even jump to a wrong assumption because at least that means you’re trying to imagine what is going on in my mind that you haven’t yet understood yet.

No, I’m not bothered by the Pope saying abortion is wrong, or condoms for that matter.

Then again, if the Pope had accepted a paying job at a retail store or abortion clinic and then stole from his employers to try to make the point in a covert fashion, then I’d have to reevaluate.

Thanks for the spirited effort!

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

mike182d:

Thank you, again, for bringing up the same Scripture passage that is in no way relevant to the discussion at hand. Saying: “you really shouldn’t do that” isn’t the same as saying “I’m going to kill you for doing that.” The fact that you cannot tell a difference is very disturbing and a reflection of how oversensitive our society has become.

In the story I was reading, the girl actually prevented the sale. She did not simply voice an opinion or concern; she intervened, by directly introducing herself into a transaction that is between her company and a customer. She did that while freely accepting money to work at this store, and by the time of the incident, she was fully aware that this store sold these items.

If one were to speculate, one must wonder if she wasn’t hoping for something like this to happen to make a point using passive-aggressive means, or to establish herself as a goody twoshoes extraordinaire. Of course this is speculation about her motives, which were probably as pure as and intellectually comparable to the wind-driven snow.

Since you keep reminding me that the girl did not kill the customer, I wonder why we even talk about a spiritual world when we continually try to limit it to only those things we can see. Anger can be just as deadly – not in a worldly way but in a spiritual way – as actual murder, and Christ made a specific point about telling this.

If you want to switch back and forth between spiritual and worldly during the game, you can come to wrong conclusions unless you apply it equally. You can have it both ways, but only if others in the discussion don’t notice it.

If you’re going to take the worldly view, you could easily say that the condoms were not going to be used to kill anybody either. If the condoms will “kill” in that they will go against Church teachings, then the anger and judgment will surely kill, as Christ addressed these issues specifically. Then I switch back to the cashier, and say, “she spiritually murdered this guy and he was doing no harm whatsoever.” See? Not even I have been asserting these in juxtaposition because it is clearly absurd. It is also clearly absurd for you to use spiritual arguments to justify condemning the customer while using worldly arguments to justify elevating the clerk for doing so.

Yes, he did prevent them from condemning her. If the girl we are talking about had condemned or judged the man then you would have an argument. But, as it is…

In a way you have a good point. She skipped right over the condemning and judgment part and went straight for sentencing.

Since she had done this several times before and hidden her behavior from her employer, maybe she has internalized this to the point is is habitual and she gives no thought to it at all.

If the girl was going to kill the man, then yes the analogy applies.

The analogy applies because of the parallel of blaming and condemning. No she wasn’t going to physically kill the customer, but please do not trivialize heavenly transgressions this way. If those condoms lead to death, then certainly does her judgment of the customer.

Finally, since you’ve mentioned the same irrelevant passage up several times: the stoning of the prostitute has ***nothing ***in common with this situation. Show me where the girl condemned this man to death for buying a condom or where she judged him.

She intervened in a legal transaction in which the customer was engaged, presumably as a self-appointed spiritual director, and thereby placed her own morality above that of the customer – all without being asked her opinion.

If that is not judgment, then what is? Would she have to have done before you see it for what it is, provide an indictment signed by a judge?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Some open questions for those who are still supportive of the cashier at this point:

Do you think an employer has a right to know when his paid employees are taking it upon themselves to undermine his business?

Do you think an employer has the right to expect that an employee, when faced with a moral dilemma, will either quit the job or bring it forward, so they may have a chance to make accomodations?

Do you think it is ethical for an employee of a business to take her internal disagreements with the business product line directly to the customers?

Do you think an employer has a reasonable expectation that an employee will do as told or report back why they cannot?

If you are an employer, would you hire an employee who would go behind your back (until a customer blows the whistle on you) and send away your business and create P.R. disasters for you?

Alan

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I still want a link to accurate articles on this…

There are a lot of assumptions being made about both this girl and the customer.

---

For all any of us know the girl did not make a public spectacle. Just asking a customer to move to another lane is NOT a humiliating public scandal type of event. Certainly not any worse than asking for a price check on pads or condoms.

---

For all any of us know the customer may have been the one to make a spectacle by losing their temper over something stupid like being asked to use another lane due.

---

This girl may not have been judging the customer at all. She may have simply been trying to avoid a near occassion of personal sin.

 

[Pug]

I am having visions of another member, Vern Humphrey (where are you Vern?). I don’t care what the details of the particular girl in the paper happen to be in some sense. I can’t judge that specific girl or customer and what they did, not in truth. I can only talk a hypothetical. No matter what details I possess, I could always miss some facet or some internal motivation, as I have well learned by experience.

I have taken this problem as a hypothetical about things like, can one cooperate by sliding a box across a scanner, can one refuse to do what one has been paid to do, what might be a motivation to refuse to ring up a sale, can one ever make a scene, what might one do when confronted with a moral dilema and no immediate idea how to solve it, etc.

 

[Pug]

MikeinSD:

A quick look thru the neighbors’ medicine cabinets and bedroom drawers would likely find some items worth condemning…]… No reason a devout family member (parent) can’t search a married child’s home for birth control devices or pills

I disagree with you on the acceptability of searching a relative’s home. The vanity in the powder room on the first floor is public, as one might need to secure more paper products from it, but a dresser in their bedroom is not, unless I have permission to go fetch something, and even then I wouldn’t rummage. A marriage needs to be accorded privacy. Just think if someone searched out my tax returns to check for cheating. I’d be furious, at least. They would only have half a leg to stand on during their lecture, at the most. (No, I’m not saying that I cheat on my taxes, just I think this example might have some emotional bite).

 

[Cupofkindness]

Jeff:

Would you be able to link to any on-line articles about this incident? Thanks!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Pug:

I am having visions of another member, Vern Humphrey (where are you Vern?). I don’t care what the details of the particular girl in the paper happen to be in some sense. I can’t judge that specific girl or customer and what they did, not in truth. I can only talk a hypothetical. No matter what details I possess, I could always miss some facet or some internal motivation, as I have well learned by experience.

I have taken this problem as a hypothetical about things like, can one cooperate by sliding a box across a scanner, can one refuse to do what one has been paid to do, what might be a motivation to refuse to ring up a sale, can one ever make a scene, what might one do when confronted with a moral dilema and no immediate idea how to solve it, etc.

This is exactly the way I was viewing it, and I thank you for stating it so clearly. The specific details of this case – if there is a particular case – are not nearly as interesting as the lessons we can learn in the abstract. If we do take these as hypothetical, then we are free to “adjust” the particulars as necessary to help make our specific points. Once we establish our opinions on the building blocks we can go back in any particular situation (including the original one even) and then see how our agreed-upon moral laws apply.

Alan

 

[JeffAustralia]

*Jeff:

Would you be able to link to any on-line articles about this incident? Thanks!*

I wish I could. The particular newspaper has no archiving on their website. If you want to know specifics though, please ask me. I followed this closely because the girl and her family attend my parish. And I ended up writing three letters to the newspaper trying to divert blame away from the Church. The public opinion expressed was horrible, with most assuming that it was the Church which encouraged her to act in this way. The lettrs page was clogged with anti-Catholic rhetoric for about three weeks. And no, they did not understand why Catholics had a problem with condoms because they’d never had it explained to them (and no, the girl or her family didn’t take the opportunity to explain it).

 

[estesbob]

Joya:

JeffAustralia,
I disagree with the two posters who have preceded me (1ke & Rob’s Wife). Although I support the Church’s teaching on contraception, it appears this girl used the situation to express her moral superiority over the customer. I can only imagine the embarrassment and shame this customer must have felt–and there was no grounds for that whatsoever.

.

Why are Catholics so afraid of witnessing our Faith? The girl refused to be complicit in the customers sin and you dismiss that her expressing her moral superiority??? I admire her courage-as for the customer-he chopse to handle the situation in such a way as to generate the mazimum amount of publicity. Given that I doubt that the Customer felt much embrarassment and shame-if he did GOOD!

I have run into this myself-on several occassions i have sat down to do a new cleints tax return only to see that they have a w2 from planned parenthood or some other abortion mill.I always politely return their info to them and tell them to get another CPA. Ive had complaints filed on me and been verbally abused. Should I avoid all this and take their blood money? After all we wouldnt want to cause them any shame or embarassment.

 

[estesbob]

Liberalsaved:

She should be fired, perhaps followed by a speech on how the secular world works in a free country.

So much for Liberal compassion.

 

[JeffAustralia]

*Why are Catholics so afraid of witnessing our Faith? The girl refused to be complicit in the customers sin and you dismiss that her expressing her moral superiority??? *

BECAUSE, AS A NON-CATHOLIC, THE CUSTOMER HAD NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTION BEING SINFUL, AND NOTHING THE GIRL DID CHANGED THIS UNDERSTANDING.

Good grief, why is this so hard to understand??

Or are they guilty, and therefore too sinful for our compassion, because they were not born Catholic? I wasn’t born Catholic. And thank God for Catholics who treated me with kindness and compassion, or maybe I would have turned elsewhere when God called me to Him. Glad I never met those who thought I must’ve been “weak-minded” for not understanding a Catechism I’d never read!

 

[DreadVandal]

JeffAustralia:

It hardly compares with murder. It sounds like you’re not heavily into compassion, Mike. Basically I feel it was fairly obvious that the action was done with no love whatsoever, and it achieved nothing for the customer, for the Church, or for society. It would have done little more than to inflate the girl’s sense of self-righteousness. But sounds like we’ll have to agree to disagree.

How can you possibly know whether it was done with love or not? Can you see into her heart? Maybe it wasn’t done from love or maybe it was, who knows?

I do sympathize with both sides in this debate. On the one hand, people should follow their conscience and if that means standing up and doing the right thing in an uncomfortable situation, then that is what must be done.

On the other hand, the girl ought to have known that people would come into the store and buy condoms. So, buy accepting a job there she was putting herself in a position to have to either cooperate or refuse to cooperate and accept the consequences. The owner of the store has every right to fire her if he so chooses. It is his store. He can hire and fire anyone he wants.

I commend the girl for showing courage and integrity. But, I also say that one must accept the consequences of one’s actions. I respect and admire abortion protestors who block clinics. But they should also accept their jail sentences and not complain. Really, none of us should complain. Rather, we should leave all things to providence.

 

[DreadVandal]

AlanFromWichita:

The girl behind the counter judged this person as a sinner and exposed it in public, all the while showing her disrespect for her own earthly master, the person who signs her paycheck.

Is it a sin to buy condoms? What if this woman is doing pro-life scientific research on how leaky condoms are?

Alan

This is a good question. Though condoms were created for the purpose of committing sinful acts (as the first guns were) they are not, in themselves inherently evil. They are just pieces of latex. Now, granted, it is likely that 99% of the people buying condoms are using them to commit sin. But we don’t know which ones aren’t and its conceivable that someone might buy a box of condoms for some legitimate reason, such as the one suggested above. The same goes for cigarettes, guns, and possibly even pornography. After all, if one were doing a study of how women were portrayed in pornography, one would obviously have to view some in order to write about it.

 

[DreadVandal]

JeffAustralia:

And was the girl haughty? Yes, indeed. Blunt and dismissive. And no, she admitted to doing it 3 or 4 times before. Her family went in later and monstered the poor manager, telling him he’d be sued for religious descrimination if they dismissed her too. Jesus LOVED/LOVES sinners. This girl and her family didn’t. They were simply being elitist. They strutted around the Church, attending two masses in a row, and hung around out the front before and after so they could collect back-pats and praise.

As this occurred in Australia, I can’t comment on religious freedom under the Australian constitution. But in the U.S., many religious folk think that the constitution protects their right to hold any religious view they want and act in accordance with it at any time. Not so. A proper reading of the U.S. Constitution simply indicates that the Government will not establish a state Church and will not compel anyone to support any particular religious belief or activity. Private employers should be able to discriminate all that they want. Its none of the government’s business. Of course, I also think that it is legally and socially (even though its not morally) legitimate to discriminate on the basis of race and sex as well. But then again, I’m an arch-conservative libertarian

 

[estesbob]

*Why are Catholics so afraid of witnessing our Faith? The girl refused to be complicit in the customers sin and you dismiss that her expressing her moral superiority??? *

BECAUSE, AS A NON-CATHOLIC, THE CUSTOMER HAD NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTION BEING SINFUL, AND NOTHING THE GIRL DID CHANGED THIS UNDERSTANDING.

Good grief, why is this so hard to understand??

Or are they guilty, and therefore too sinful for our compassion, because they were not born Catholic? I wasn’t born Catholic. And thank God for Catholics who treated me with kindness and compassion, or maybe I would have turned elsewhere when God called me to Him. Glad I never met those who thought I must’ve been “weak-minded” for not understanding a Catechism I’d never read!

Its really sad reading this thread. This young woman stood up for her faith-she refused to be complicit in somehting she knew to be a sin. And the reaction of the Catholics here?? She should be fired(after be lectured on how stupid she is). One member even wants civil charges bought against her. She has been accused of acting out of malice, not showing love, stealing from her company, being sanctimonious-all becuase she stood up for he beliefs.

What the customer now knows is that some people are so firm in their faith they will refuse to do things they consider immoral. He must wonder what it is about the Catholic faith that makes somene so fimr in her beleifs. That is he would wonder that until he saw all the Catholics ganging up on her for having the NERVE to profess her faith in public. Now he must feel that Catholics dont really beleive all that contraception nonsnese-after all look how they turned on this girl!

I suspect that if she had refused to sell a box of shotgun shells we would have gotten a very different ractions from this group.

 

[DreadVandal]

Cupofkindness:

Is there any difference between what this girl has done and what a pro-life pharmacist might do in refusing to fill a perscription for an aboritfacient, aside from the fact that the abortifacient actually takes a life? These are on the same continum. The problem with many Catholics is that they do not take a stand on issues that greatly offend our Lord and his Blessed Mother. Do not forget what Our Lady said at Fatima: souls are falling into hell. This is the reality that countless people will live forever apart from God unless they hear the truth. My guess is that what this girl did will ultimately bring that customer closer to God’s will about these matters, because she challenged his errant notions of sexuality. Whether she was proud or humble, and whether the customer was humiliated or not, God used her to speak to that individual about a grave sin.

That’s a good question. To be honest, I don’t think there is a difference. A pharmacist who works for a pharmacy that intends to sell abortifacients, should know what he is getting himself into. Now, that being said, I do not think that the law should compel pharmacists to fulfill prescriptions, any prescriptions. If the pharmacist owns his own pharmacy, then he should have the complete freedom and right to sell (or not sell) whatever medications he wants. If you don’t like it, go to another pharmacy. But if a pharmacist, or any pharmacy employee, works for another person, then the pharmacist should either fill the prescriptions or quit.

To be honest, I think it won’t be long before the secular world drives faithful christians out of the medical profession altogether. Of course, this will be the world’s loss. But we should be willing to suffer for our convictions and for the truth. We do not have a right to work in any particular pharmacy, hospital, etc.

 

[estesbob]

DreadVandal:

That’s a good question. To be honest, I don’t think there is a difference. A pharmacist who works for a pharmacy that intends to sell abortifacients, should know what he is getting himself into. Now, that being said, I do not think that the law should compell pharmacists to fulfill prescriptions, any prescriptions. If the pharmacist owns his own pharmacy, then he should have the complete freedom and right to sell (or not sell) whatever medications he wants. If you don’t like it, go to another pharmacy. But if a pharmacist, or any pharmacy employee, works for another person, then the pharmacist should either fill the prescriptions or quit.
.

Many States are passing “conscience” laws for pharmacists. On the other hand some states have passed paws FORCING even privately owned Pharmacies to dispens abortificant pills. If people of Faith are driven out of the Medical profession its our own fault. Just look how viciously this young lady was attacked for adhering to her fatih-by Catholics nonentheless.! We cnat expect the secular world to respect our views when we dnoth repsect them ourselves.

 

[DreadVandal]

estesbob:

Its really sad reading this thread. This young woman stood up for her faith-she refused to be complicit in somehting she knew to be a sin. And the reaction of the Catholics here?? She should be fired(after be lectured on how stupid she is). One member even wants civil charges bought against her. She has been accused of acting out of malice, not showing love, stealing from her company, being sanctimonious-all becuase she stood up for he beliefs.

What the customer now knows is that some people are so firm in their faith they will refuse to do things they consider immoral. He must wonder what it is about the Catholic faith that makes somene so fimr in her beleifs. That is he would wonder that until he saw all the Catholics ganging up on her for having the NERVE to profess her faith in public. Now he must feel that Catholics dont really beleive all that contraception nonsnese-after all look how they turned on this girl!

I suspect that if she had refused to sell a box of shotgun shells we would have gotten a very different ractions from this group.

If she had refused to sell shotgun shells, then she would have received nearly the same reaction from me. We must know what kind of business it is we are getting into when we accept a job. Granted, she’s only 16 years old. So, really this is a good learning experience for her.