Why is Social Justice Less Important Than...

[Brendan]

StJeanneDArc:

Where did you get this information? Was the word “gay” on the pink slip or whatever was used to fire these people?

I know at least one of them isn’t true.

Ernest Dillon ( Detroit Post Office) quit because of teasing he recieved at work.

He WAS NOT FIRED for being gay. In fact the Post Office gave him another postition at another facility.

(and Google is coming up blank on several others)

Katherine is either being deceitful or not checking her sources.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

vern humphrey:

Of course not.

Katherine is struggling with her conscience. She doesn’t want to face up to the consequences of a Catholic accepting an agenda that includes abortion. She erects these flimsy arguments to keep from looking at herself in the mirror.

We need to remember that our charge is to help, not attack her.

I hope I didn’t come across as attacking her, because that’s not my intention.

I do think that this situation fits with the Social Justice theme of this thread. Social Justice doesn’t just apply to the poor or minorities of this world, it applies to everyone. While those who are rich, educated and influential have greater responsibilities in our society, they still deserve just treatment, including not being forced to associate with those they may find objectionable or do things they may find objectionable. I’ve never understood the mentality that demands that a business retain employees that may be detrimental to that business. The businessman’s responsibility is to hire and retain the best employees for the job at hand and pay those people a just wage. That’s the best way to keep that enterprise productive and thus serve the common good. I call that social justice.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

ain’t that the truth.

On your theory that an employer can’t get away with it, why is that? Certainly not because the civil law restrains him, so we can set that aside.

Is discrimination less common because of improved social opinions? Are you saying since the 1980’s events have happend that have caused people (employers) to respond to gay people in more positive ways and you are aplauding that?

Quite honestly Katherine, I think the movie “Philadelphia” had a HUGE impact. I was just getting started on my career when AIDS struck. I think that people greatly feared AIDS (with good reason) and since it was associated with homosexuals, they did bear some brunt of the fear of contracting AIDS. People were afraid of working with homosexuals lest they contract a fatal disease.

I worked at a firm in the 80s where once they found out two men were homosexuals, trumped up a reason and fired them both. It literally was like living the script for Philadelphia because I was in the meeting when the plot was hatched. One of the two men was outstanding at his job and should not have been terminated. The other probably wouldnt’ have been terminated immediately but probably didn’t have a long term future with the firm. I was frankly outraged by the whole process and resigned shortly afterward. However in keeping contact with my cohorts I learned that not only are homosexuals accepted now, they are moving into the upper levels of management. But once again I suggest people should be judged at work by their work performance and not by their sexual behavior. These employees are moving up because of their ability, not because they are some kind of protected class.

Things HAVE changed and one more time, I do NOT think it would be easy for ANYONE to terminate a homosexual without cause as was done twenty years ago. Frankly we have hit TV shows and People magazine covers very frankly publicizing homosexuals and a homosexual lifestyle. Further with better drugs the fear of AIDS isn’t so significant, not to mention that we understand it is not contagious via casual contact. So a number of forces have worked to allow homosexuals to live and work in peace. I have no problem working with homosexuals. I have two very dear friends who are homosexual. However, we do NOT discuss our respective sex lives and I think that is an appropriate way to interact in the workplace and with ‘fraternal’ friends.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

I think we mostly agree, so I’ll shut up. But please answer one question for me:

Should I read Scarlet Letter? I read “House of the Seven Gables” because somebody told me it was good. I’d rather read Faulkner, and I HATE Faulkner.

I didn’t find it that bad but I wouldn’t read it if I didn’t have to! It was required reading in my high school.

Life is too short to read bad books!

Lisa N

 

[mlchance]

The Scarlet Letter is a wonderful book. One of the most penetrating explorations of guilt, sin, and hypocrisy outside of the Bible. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t believe in social justice.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Penny Plain:

I think we mostly agree, so I’ll shut up. But please answer one question for me:

Should I read Scarlet Letter? I read “House of the Seven Gables” because somebody told me it was good. I’d rather read Faulkner, and I HATE Faulkner.

Sorry to butt in on this conversation, but I have to offer my opinion. I’ve read both the Scarlet Letter and House of the Seven Gables. The Scarlet Letter is much better.

I’ve also read Faulkner–Absalom, Absalom and As I Lay Dying. I think you have to be from the South to really get Faulkner, but I do think he’s overrated, and his novels seem to spring from an unstable psyche. A **much **better choice for modern southern literature is Walker Percy. My favorite novel of his is The Thanatos Syndrome (which I believe was his last novel before he died).

 

[Francesco]

Brendan:

Where do you get the idea that conservatives are not interested in helping the poor.
…break…
Most Catholic Conservatives, myself included, believe wholeheartily that the hungry should be fed, and the naked clothed. Christ Himself commanded us.

He did NOT command us to push that responsibility onto others to do for us, especially a government that cannot spread his Gospel that is so necessary for the salvation of their souls. And their soul is what God really and truely wants.

I really and honestly cannot see why someone who believes in God and truely cares for His poor, would put them in the nands of a secular Government instead of in the hands of his Church.

Who would NOT want to see an end to abortion, because only in it’s end can we have real Social Justice.

Who would not want to see more Faith Based Charity, because it’s only through Faith and God’s Grace that many of the problems the indigent have can be overcome.

I’m conservative BECAUSE I Care!!!

Well spoken Brendan. Please allow me to second these comments. God Bless you for your passion.

Francesco

 

[vern_humphrey]

StJeanneDArc:

I hope I didn’t come across as attacking her, because that’s not my intention.

I don’t say you are – nor do I deny that a certain firmness is needed in defending the Church and its teachings.

StJeanneDArc:

I do think that this situation fits with the Social Justice theme of this thread. Social Justice doesn’t just apply to the poor or minorities of this world, it applies to everyone. While those who are rich, educated and influential have greater responsibilities in our society, they still deserve just treatment, including not being forced to associate with those they may find objectionable or do things they may find objectionable. I’ve never understood the mentality that demands that a business retain employees that may be detrimental to that business. The businessman’s responsibility is to hire and retain the best employees for the job at hand and pay those people a just wage. That’s the best way to keep that enterprise productive and thus serve the common good. I call that social justice.

You are, of course correct – a business may be likened to a lifeboat. The employees depend on it for their (economic) survival and that which harms the boat, harms the people depending on it.

If you have employees who are disruptive, non-productive, or who turn customers away, they are like people boring holes in the bottom of the boat.

Standards of conduct, dress codes and so on are quite proper for businesses. Many businesses have morals clauses in their hiring contracts or codes of conduct – and they have not only a right, but a duty (to the rest of the employees who are depending on the business for their livlihood.)

 

[Francesco]

twocinc:

Here’s my take

-All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Pretty clear

-The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
   Iraq does not equal Al Qaeda
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
   Actually it appears that sanctions and inspections worked pretty well. Where indeed are the WMD?
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
   We’ll see.
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
   Well, somewhere between 14,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths and counting. 1400 US military casualties. A marked rise in terrorism in the region. Hmmmmmmm…

twocinc:

Please note that you have veered off topic and have now illustrated the point made that there is no document in which the Magisterium declared or declares the Iraq war as unjust. YOU are pitting your judgment against that of another citizen - rightly so. But in the end you have tacitly agreed that it is the Secular Government which in its totality (not as a minority) determines the righteousness of the last resort of war. There is now no doubt that the majority in the US has spoken (see Results of Nov. 2, 2004).

Your point that the Church declared the Iraq War as UNJUST was often made in the archived Politics II forum, but was never sustained by the facts or its proponents. Indeed many individuals tried, unsuccessfully as have you here, to bend the argument to obscure the inability to maintain the declaration.

I recommend that you find the time to read that Forum for there are many who spoke eloquently in attempting to bring truth from fiction.

Peace of the Lord be with you

Francesco

 

[vern_humphrey]

Francesco:

Your point that the Church declared the Iraq War as UNJUST was often made in the archived Politics II forum, but was never sustained by the facts or its proponents. Indeed many individuals tried, unsuccessfully as have you here, to bend the argument to obscure the inability to maintain the declaration.

I recommend that you find the time to read that Forum for there are many who spoke eloquently in attempting to bring truth from fiction.

Peace of the Lord be with you

Francesco

In the end, the conditions for Just War require strategic knowledge and decisions. It is very clear that in the war against global terror, Iraq was a strategic necessity.

I was discussing this with one of our priests (a Nigerian missionary) and pointed out to him that ONE element (Number 3) of the Just War doctrine is that the war be winnable – which implies you adopt a strategy aimed at victory.

Fighting the most dangerous enemy first, and fighting him in his own country is clearly such a strategy.

 

[Francesco]

katherine2:

Prudence, come here right now!

This is a common canard of the far right wing.

How we address most of these matter is a question of prudence.

People starving, homeless, etc. is inherently evil.

I can disagree with the right wing that people should be put in jail or have their mean of livilihood taken away from them cause of the evil of homosexuality and still be a faithful Catholic.

Katherine2:

I find it hard to believe that being “homeless” or even “starving” is inherently evil. Do you imply here that a person who chooses to live outside of the system of government is inherently evil? Is the bulemic inherently evil? I think that you are trying to say that if we find someone who is homeless and we are able to offer shelter that it is a sin not to do so?? If we find someone who is hungry and wishes food and we are able to furnish food, it would be a sin not to do so? But we needn’t give the shelter or food! We can provide it as a condition placed upon the sufferee that would better their lot in life. (something along the line (… I taught a man to fish and he ate for the rest of his life.)) Indeed one could argue that for one that is neither physically nor mentally disabled, giving that shelter or food, without requiring the gain of self worth by that individual may be more of a sin than ignoring the symptoms of homelessness and hunger. (Tough love program??)

With respect to the sins of the acts of homosexuals, most Catholics that I know will say something akin to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I don’t know any that will say that homosexuals should be placed in jail or prison, UNLESS they force their desires or acts upon another in some sense. But this is the same proviso that is imposed upon the “straight” community.

Don’t you think that when the Government forces you to be charitable that a case can be made that you are either a)being enslaved, that is working for another against your will if you accept this as a secular law or b) being told how your religeous beliefs must be interpreted by an ACT of Congress, which also is unconstitutional. Shouldn’t charity first and foremost spring from the heart and mind of the giver, so that each of us gives as we want and each answers or does not to our Lord for our actions. Can I really take credit as a charitable giver by arguing to the Lord that I gave to the Government and that THEY took care of the homeless and the hungry for me? I believe not!

The Peace of the Lord be with you

Francesco

 

[Francesco]

twocinc:

Not a Democrat. Bush outspent Kerry 2 to 1. Notice I said National *Missle *Defense.

twocinc:

I refer you to the following link where the numbers are about 366.5 million for President Bush and 322.5 million for Kerry. That does not include the moveon.org’s or the swiftboatvets.com’s nor the dollar amounts spent by the other Democratic Primay Contenders such as Dean, Brown, Lieberman, etc. who spent most of their money vilifying President Bush.

opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp

The WEB is GREAT.

The Peace of our Lord be with you

Francesco

 

[Francesco]

katherine2:

I don’t accept your premise (nor ddoes the law) that prositution is consentual sex. The offer of payment makes it non-consentual.

And Katherine: What is the definition of “is”? If I buy a clock from you at your price, is the transaction con-sensual or forced?

Peace of the Lord to you

Francesco

 

[Francesco]

katherine2:

I want you to have a good marriage as well. You suggest that I am somehow hurting the Catholic faith (and in the way I read you, in the objective sense, not just in your private opinion) by stating my position – namely that while I do not beleive in same sex marriage, either sacramentally nor civil – given that under the status quo civil and sacramental marriage do not match up, I don’t think that Catholics who accept some other change in the civil contrustion are objectively guilty of any dissent of the sacramental teaching of the Church.

You dodged that question, I noticed.

Let me repeat. Supporting the status quo in civil marriage is NOT to support the Catholic understanding of marriage.

Katherine:
Well argued but fallacious. As Catholics we agree in coming into the faith that we will abide by the teaching and interpretations of the Magisterium.
If we take actions that would run counter to those teaching (Same Sex Marriage is sin, e.g.) then we are committing sin. If we further do so with the intent of absolving that sin presumptively, then we are guilty of the sin of presumption, which I take to be grave. (Someone more versed than I must interject here as to how one escapes that conundrum.) Specifically, we are told by the Magisterium that we must vote and then we are told that certain activities are sinful. We may not use that vote to promote those sinful activities except in cases of proportional circumstances. I can think of no proportional circumstances for the support of “gay marriage.”

Learning as I go along. Peace to you

Francesco

 

[Penny_Plain]

StJeanneDArc:

Sorry to butt in on this conversation, but I have to offer my opinion. I’ve read both the Scarlet Letter and House of the Seven Gables. The Scarlet Letter is much better.

I’ve also read Faulkner–Absalom, Absalom and As I Lay Dying. I think you have to be from the South to really get Faulkner, but I do think he’s overrated, and his novels seem to spring from an unstable psyche. A **much **better choice for modern southern literature is Walker Percy. My favorite novel of his is The Thanatos Syndrome (which I believe was his last novel before he died).

I liked Walker Percy, but there was a lot of stuff I didn’t get. That’s the price you pay for being a foreigner, I guess, but I felt like there was so much going on under the surface. I also enjoyed Robert Penn Warren’s book about Governor Willie Stark that I can rember everthing about but the name of it.

Man is born in sin and perishes in corruption. He passes from the stink of the diaper to the stench of the shroud.

The name of the book is…

ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

I liked Walker Percy, but there was a lot of stuff I didn’t get. That’s the price you pay for being a foreigner,
!!!

Speaking of, there is a great book called “The Life You Save May Be Your Own” profiling Dorothy Day (see that’s where I tie into this thread right??) Thomas Merton, Flannery O’Connor and Walker Percy. You might go through this and I think it will make reading Percy and O’Connor a bit easier once you understand their lives…I still struggle with Merton. He’s way over my head.

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

vern humphrey:

I love you dearly, Katherine, but sometimes you come out with gibberish.

There’s no law that prohibits an employer from firing someone for getting a tatoo, or for dying their hair purple. Does this mean that there are “tatoo rights” or “purple hair rights?”

Actually, a few places do have such laws. And where there are not such laws, yes, an employer can dismiss an employee for having a tatoo or purple hair.

You gave a list of people supposedly fired for sexual orientation – we have seen the list is incorrect and deceptive. You ought to try apologizing.

I have not seen it to be incorrect or decpetive. Tha tis your unproven claim.

 

[katherine2]

StJeanneDArc:

My own personal experience has been that fear of lawsuits makes it harder to fire avowed homosexuals, even in right-to-work states like Texas.

Would you please tell me on what basis a person who thought he was fired because he is gay could sue a Texas employer? Could you cite a case?

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Quite honestly Katherine, I think the movie “Philadelphia” had a HUGE impact. I was just getting started on my career when AIDS struck. I think that people greatly feared AIDS (with good reason) and since it was associated with homosexuals, they did bear some brunt of the fear of contracting AIDS. People were afraid of working with homosexuals lest they contract a fatal disease.

I worked at a firm in the 80s where once they found out two men were homosexuals, trumped up a reason and fired them both. It literally was like living the script for Philadelphia because I was in the meeting when the plot was hatched. One of the two men was outstanding at his job and should not have been terminated. The other probably wouldnt’ have been terminated immediately but probably didn’t have a long term future with the firm. I was frankly outraged by the whole process and resigned shortly afterward. However in keeping contact with my cohorts I learned that not only are homosexuals accepted now, they are moving into the upper levels of management. But once again I suggest people should be judged at work by their work performance and not by their sexual behavior. These employees are moving up because of their ability, not because they are some kind of protected class.

Things HAVE changed and one more time, I do NOT think it would be easy for ANYONE to terminate a homosexual without cause as was done twenty years ago. Frankly we have hit TV shows and People magazine covers very frankly publicizing homosexuals and a homosexual lifestyle. Further with better drugs the fear of AIDS isn’t so significant, not to mention that we understand it is not contagious via casual contact. So a number of forces have worked to allow homosexuals to live and work in peace. I have no problem working with homosexuals. I have two very dear friends who are homosexual. However, we do NOT discuss our respective sex lives and I think that is an appropriate way to interact in the workplace and with ‘fraternal’ friends.
Lisa N

So are you saying Lisa that the social changes that have occured in the popular view towards gay people since the 1980’s have had some positive aspects?

 

[vern_humphrey]

katherine2:

Actually, a few places do have such laws. And where there are not such laws, yes, an employer can dismiss an employee for having a tatoo or purple hair. .

And on that basis, you claim that there should be special “tatoo rights,” or “purple hair rights?”

katherine2:

I have not seen it to be incorrect or decpetive. Tha tis your unproven claim.

At least one of the cases you cited was NOT a termination. That is deceptive, and you have not even owned up to it, let alone apoligized.