Underage drinking

[francesco920]

Depending on the circumstances. Some states allow parents to give their children alcohol (although it is still illegal to allow you to get drunk). If they gave it to you and you are in one of these states, then no.

Otherwise, yes. Jesus taught us to obey civil authority.

Yes, I see that you are right. It never occurred to me before that it was wrong. I was of the opinion that as long as you didn’t get drunk, one glass was fine once in a while, but I completely forgot the part about obeying civil law about this matter.

 

[Exalt]

Well, groups of people have decided what age one can give consent to sexual encounters. Some think those laws should be violated. So you have 35 year old men who are trying to have sex with 15 year old girls. I suppose in your world that should not be allowed. The civil government can outlaw many activities. Someday you will see the benefit of the laws that keep 10-year-olds from buying liquor, and prevent 15-year-olds from marrying the loves of their lives.

Even first amendment rights have limits for those who are truly intelligent and have common sense. If you doubt this, go to your nearest airport and hold your backpack over your head and shout loudly “I have a bomb.” Then protest your first amendment rights as you are wrestled to the ground, cuffed and booked.

Under your first amendment rights, you can tell a three year old baby there is no Santa. But should you?

And we won’t begin to discuss marijuana laws and the attitude that walking around under the influence is good for traffic, safety, or public welfare.

In short, Exalt, when you grow up, come back and join the discussion as an adult. Until then, hope that you and your friends are not helping each other develop life-long alcoholism problems. (Most alcoholics I know got their start during college partying days.)

Wow. Just … wow.

You’ve totally avoided the issue and blown everything way out of proportion.

My argument: Unjust laws shouldn’t be followed.

Your rebuttal: My friends need AA, teenagers are irresponsible, I want to tell my 3 year old cousin that there’s no santa, and I aparently have no problem with someone screaming “BOMB!” in an airport.

And I’m the child that needs to grow up?

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Quote:
And it borders on scandal what you are advocating. Someone young and seeking the truth has come here to ask an honest question. Do you have the right to lead him astray?

Sure do! First amendment rights.

I’ll just take the last one. That is your quote. You believe the first amendment gives you the right to lead someone astray, when Christ said you shouldn’t lead others into sin. (In this case, defying proper authority, when Christ Himself subjected Himself to civil authority to the point of death.) So here, the law allows you to do something that Christ forbids, yet you have no problem following the law. But you are gung-ho about defying laws that DON’T contradict the teaching of Christ. Again… not a whole lot of consistency here. Maybe a course on logic next semester might help.

Nowhere did I say your friends need AA, all teenagers are irresponsible, or I want you to tell your 3 year old cousin that there’s no santa (Capitalize, please. Proper noun.), or that you “aparently” have no problem with someone screaming “BOMB!” in an airport. Apparently you do have a problem with spelling.

If you do not like my reductio ad absurdum arguments, sorry. And calling me a child won’t make the other adults on this board see your point of view. Back to the original question, underage drinking violates civil law. Breaking it deliberately is a sin. Most people over 21 do not think it is a stupid law or unjust. The older you get, the better your perspective is on the limitations of that age group. You have a vested interest in being able to defy the law. Insurance companies, EMTs and emergency room personnel do not see it your way.

Buh-bye!

 

[Exalt]

I’ll just take the last one. That is your quote. You believe the first amendment gives you the right to lead someone astray, when Christ said you shouldn’t lead others into sin. (In this case, defying proper authority, when Christ Himself subjected Himself to civil authority to the point of death.) So here, the law allows you to do something that Christ forbids, yet you have no problem following the law. But you are gung-ho about defying laws that DON’T contradict the teaching of Christ. Again… not a whole lot of consistency here. Maybe a course on logic next semester might help.

You asked me if I have the right to “lead someone astray.” I assumed you meant it in the political sense - when yes, of course people have the right to attempt pursuade of a whole number of beliefs. Do you have a problem with that?

As far as consistency goes: I’m not Christian. I don’t base my notion of a just law off of Christ’s teachings. There’s no inconsistency there.

Nowhere did I say your friends need AA, all teenagers are irresponsible, or I want you to tell your 3 year old cousin that there’s no santa (Capitalize, please. Proper noun.), or that you “aparently” have no problem with someone screaming “BOMB!” in an airport. Apparently you do have a problem with spelling.

Eh, I didn’t feel like running this through MS Word.

If you do not like my reductio ad absurdum arguments, sorry.

In your case, they’re false. Rape of children is definately something that civil law should outlaw. It’s an extremely destructive, violent act that ought to be illegal. Drinking under the age of 21, however, is not dangerous or destructive, so long as the person is responsible and safe. Two compeltely different scenarios.

Oh, and screaming “BOMB!” in an airport is not protected under the first amendment. So your example doesn’t really apply.

And calling me a child won’t make the other adults on this board see your point of view.

They’re childish arguments, mostly based on ageist prejudice that’s unjustifiable.

 

[brotherjoe]

Jart:

For what it’s worth you sond like an extraordinarily devaout and faithful young man. I also get the impression that maybe you worry a bit too much?

I used to enjoy drinking with my friends primarily because I found that, with a few drinks, they became more open, more fun, more affectionate, well, in a word, more genuine. I think Jesus meant for the Church to be a place where all of the above would be natural. Most of us experience the Church as more of a house of rules. When Jesus turned water into wine I think he was giving us a hint - not to drink more, but to celebrate more, to have more fun.

 

[stbruno]

http://www.mudpc.org/images/corkani.gif 240,000 to 360,000 of the current college student body will eventually die of alcohol-related causes. That’s comparable to the entire undergraduate body of the Big Ten dropping dead!
mudpc.org/stats.html

Personally, underage drinking is a killer…too many of my friends never were given the chance to live their life to their potential because of the risky choices they made as teens.

 

[rayne89]

That’s ridiculous. There are a good number of 18-21 year olds who are quite intelligent and have a great deal of common sense. All of my friends (aged 19-22 or so) drink responsibily - usually in the privacy of our own homes. And we never let our friends drive while under the influence. We’ve never had any alcohol-related incident - we’re all very responsible students. If the OP can do the same thing (and I think he/she can), then I don’t see how anyone can argue that there’s something wrong with that.

The fact is that a responsible teenager or young adult has the ability to drink responsibly. That’s the fact.

In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Purchase Age Act, to encourage each state to enact a minimum legal purchase age (MLPA) of 21 by 1986. The result was impressive: an estimated 1,071 lives were saved in 1987 alone. From 1985 - 1996, the estimated number of lives saved reached nearly 17,000.2 In addition to a 63% decline in alcohol-related crash fatalities among young drivers since 1982, findings show that the MLPA has decreased the number of DWI arrests, youth suicides, marijuana use, crime, and alcohol consumption by youth.3, 4

High school seniors who could not legally drink until age 21 drank less before age 21 and between ages 21 - 25 than did seniors in states with lower drinking ages.5, 6 Similarly, a national survey of 16 - 21 year-olds found that teens from states with a higher MLPA drank less frequently.7

The 1978 National Study of Adolescent Drinking Behavior found that 10th - 12th graders in states with lower drinking ages drank significantly more, were less likely to abstain from alcohol, and were drunk more often than students in states with a drinking age of 21.8

State motor vehicle fatality data from the 48 continental states found that lowering the MLPA for beer from 21 to 18 during the 1970’s resulted in an 11% increase in fatalities among this age group.11

An Arizona Department of Public Safety report found that fatal accidents increased over 25% while traffic fatalities increased more than 35% after the state MLPA was lowered from 21 to 19.12

A Michigan study found that police reports of “had been drinking” crashes increased 35%, while the incidence of nighttime single-vehicle crashes among young men increased 17% after the state reduced its MLPA from 21 to 18.13 Another Michigan study found that DWI arrests increased 141% for 18 - 20 year-olds after the state lowered the MLPA. Roadside surveys showed that the proportion of 16 - 20 year-old drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) over .05 more than doubled.14

winternet.com/~martinez/AATdrinkingage.html
See above link for source of information

 

[Spirithound]

You know, I find it pretty funny that a group of men sitting in a secular Congress come together and one day (July 17, 1984, to be precise) suddenly create a new sin for Catholic Americans aged 18-21. It’s almost as if the material of the law is completely irrelevant. The civil government has outlawed a certain activity - and suddenly it’s not only illegal - it’s a *sin. *It’s not just the government that has outlawed it, it’s God, too… Of course, the idea that a conress can create a new sin is completely ridiculous.

A given law ought to be followed because if it’s a just and fair law. If an unjust law is passed - *every *American ought not to follow it. It doesn’t matter if it’s a ban on marajuana or a draft for an unjust war or Jim Crow laws - good people should never follow unjust laws *in addition *to acting against them politically.

If a Church law or docrine or dogma or whatever is wrong, it shouldn’t be followed either.

So what this comes down to is you have the authority to declare what is just and unjust.
I personally would say that the sin in underage drinking is not the drinking itself, but the violation of the civil law. Jesus did tell us to obey the civil authorities, and so unless you can demonstrate that the consumption of alcohol is an absolutely necessary part of Catholicism, nay, Christianity, nay, any religion, nay, even that it’s an objectively demonstrable and necessary good, then your argument falls flat on its proverbial face.

I agree, if a Church law, doctrine or dogma, or whatever is wrong, then it shouldn’t be followed. Good thing that doesn’t happen.

 

[Spirithound]

Does this mean I committed a sin when I drank a glass of white wine to celebrate the release of the motu proprio since I am underage?

Was it the Precious Blood of our Lord under the form of wine?