I'd add a guarantee to personal privacy. The Constitution talks very little about explicitly, but I think that every person has a right to it and the government should support it as best it can....
I'd add a guarantee to personal privacy. The Constitution talks very little about explicitly, but I think that every person has a right to it and the government should support it as best it can. Some states, like Hawaii, have it added to their state constitutions, but of course this only impacts the state government's services and policies. I'd also like to add a section clarifying the 2nd amendment specifically; I'm convinced the way it's interpreted today is not the way the authors originally intended it to (the right for a community to have a militia, not for the right of the individual to do so). And ideally, I'd like to elevate parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act into it, specifically the parts concerning anti-discrimination by race, sex, national origin, etc., and ideally ideally we could add sexual orientation and gender identity to that list.
I would also like to reform the clause on the Supreme Court in some way. The US system is supposed to be engineered with checks and balances, but the Supreme Court is notably lacking; outside of judges needing the one-time confirmation of the president and the Senate, there are no other limits to its power. Neither Congress nor the president have any way of contesting its decisions, nor is there any approach for citizens to have a say in what it decides. For example, I'd like to see something like a petition with over 20% of the US' population force it to reconsider a decision, and perhaps something like 40% + the approval of both houses of Congress be enough to change one of its decisions. Obviously this is just an example, I'm sure there's a better way, but I'd like to see some limits or avenues for challenging or changing Supreme Court decisions, because the Supreme Court's decisions aren't limited to just a single case.
I'd like to see a small clause specifically laying out the protection of the land and the environment as a national priority; it is after all the greatest treasure we share, and it's something that truly everyone can benefit from. I think everyone deserves the right to a clean and protected wilderness.
And lastly, I'd like to see a clause making voting in all local, state, and federal elections for which a person is eligible mandatory. it would limit the impacts of gerrymandering and force ordinary people to care about their country's governments, which a democracy requires, and isn't it what we're striving for anyway?
I was thinking something like, allowing every settlement of people over a certain population (ideally each state would get to set the specifics for themselves) to have its own militia, which if...
I was thinking something like, allowing every settlement of people over a certain population (ideally each state would get to set the specifics for themselves) to have its own militia, which if you wanted a weapon for self defense, you could sign up for. In exchange for your weapon and a license to use it, you would have compulsory training in how to use it, along with the requirement to occasionally help out in cases where a militia is needed (such as in case of a natural disaster to the area, or indeed, an invasion of some kind). I figure this would ideally make sure that every person who wants a weapon for self defense knows how to use that weapon and to store it safely, and it would provide each city with a group of citizens it knows are fit and ready to help if there's an emergency that requires it. It would also cut down on people who are mentally unstable or for criminals to get easy access to weapons, which is a chronic problem here right now :/
It would probably be a good idea to add a few licenses for other uses for weapons, like for example hunters or sports shooters (like skeet shooting), that wouldn't have the requirements of joining a militia (but still the requirement of training), but would instead require you to show active use, like registering your kills or being registered in a sports club, and could come with other restrictions (for example, a sports shooter might be required to leave their weapon at their sports club, or the hunter might only be allowed to purchase a small amount of ammunition, etc.)
This might be taking too literal an interpretation of what you said, but not everyone can benefit. Impoverished inner-city people working three jobs with no prospects for upward mobility can't...
I'd like to see a small clause specifically laying out the protection of the land and the environment as a national priority; it is after all the greatest treasure we share, and it's something that truly everyone can benefit from.
This might be taking too literal an interpretation of what you said, but not everyone can benefit. Impoverished inner-city people working three jobs with no prospects for upward mobility can't really take a weekend trip to a national park.
Well if you mean to take it literally to everyone (which I didn't mean), there are many easier targets you could have picked. Why not terminally ill patients who can't leave the hospital? Or...
Well if you mean to take it literally to everyone (which I didn't mean), there are many easier targets you could have picked. Why not terminally ill patients who can't leave the hospital? Or people suffering from agoraphobia, where leaving their house gives them literal panic attacks...
The poor person in your example still benefits in other ways though; looking at it cynically, at the very least, it protects them from global warming, which will have catastrophic effects on a significant number of large cities. And actually, I'd argue that camping or hiking is one of the most affordable and accessible things you can do. The only strict cost is transportation, which can be negated by a strong bus system or other form of public transit, or multiple people can share a car. Walking in nature is entirely free in most places, and even national or public parks usually charge either a very small admission fee or have assistance programs for the poor. Hiking is also very flexible in time; you can do it whenever you feel like, and it's as solitary or communal as you want it to be. Compared to a lot of other past times, like gaming, or sports that require expensive equipment or very inconvenient times for a working parent, I think it's a reasonably practical choice.
Unless perhaps your argument is that they have very little free time at all, which although true, doesn't have anything to do with whether protection of the environment is a good idea...
I never said it was related to how good of an idea it is. I just wasn't sure how literal you were being.
Unless perhaps your argument is that they have very little free time at all, which although true, doesn't have anything to do with whether protection of the environment is a good idea...
I never said it was related to how good of an idea it is. I just wasn't sure how literal you were being.
Oh okay, I thought you meant to say it wasn't a good idea because you thought it wouldn't help many people. While I stand by that it would be a benefit to almost everyone, I do not actually mean...
Oh okay, I thought you meant to say it wasn't a good idea because you thought it wouldn't help many people. While I stand by that it would be a benefit to almost everyone, I do not actually mean literally every citizen.
The most critical thing for the US to change in it's constitution is the apportionment, voting, election, financing, and districting systems. I personally am a fan of multi-seat STV because of...
The most critical thing for the US to change in it's constitution is the apportionment, voting, election, financing, and districting systems.
I personally am a fan of multi-seat STV because of it's easy to use and understand, highly resistant to gerrymandering, and eliminates wasted votes. It would be great for state legislatures and the HoR. Something needs to be done about the Senate, but I don't know what solution I think is best. President should use some Condorcet method and launch the Electoral College into the sun.
Dramatically increase the size of the HoR.
Public financing of elections, neutral debate moderators, strict limits on outside spending and donations to campaigns.
Agree with all of that, also would like a national referendum system. You could of course end up with a Brexit, but you could also end up with marriage equality and abortion access as seen in...
Agree with all of that, also would like a national referendum system. You could of course end up with a Brexit, but you could also end up with marriage equality and abortion access as seen in Ireland. People in this country feel so disconnected with politics and government, calling our congress members and asking them to vote for or against something is still putting all the power in their hands, its asking for their help. A referendum is telling them what to do.
I might include a Bill of Rights - this is something our constitution is notably lacking. The constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the commonwealth government and the state...
I might include a Bill of Rights - this is something our constitution is notably lacking. The constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the commonwealth government and the state governments, but the people of Australia are barely mentioned.
There's also been a lot of fuss about Section 44(i) recently, relating to dual citizenship. Some people want it changed to allow dual citizens to be members of Parliament, but I disagree. I like the idea that members of Parliament should not have any allegiance to any country other than Australia.
Mostly, I would remove the monarch from the constitution. I would retain the Governor-General, and devolve the monarch's few remaining powers to the Governor-General. I would then require that the Governor-General be appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament - not a public vote as many people here would like. I strongly believe that the role of Governor-General should remain above politics, and remain solely a neutral referee in our system of government. A public vote would turn the Governor-General into a political role, and potentially set the Governor-General at odds with the Parliament if the Governor-General was of a different political party than the Prime Minister. I've seen what that sort of thing can do in other countries, such as the United States of America, and I don't want that here. But, we can become a republic just by removing the monarch from our constitution. It's a minimalist model of change.
It's not really analogous to your electoral college. It's more like if your President was appointed by a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with a super-majority being...
It's not really analogous to your electoral college. It's more like if your President was appointed by a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with a super-majority being required to approve the appointment (like 66% or 75% in favour).
The idea is to keep the Governor-General as a non-political office, like it currently is. The Governor-General has no legislative or executive power. They're really only there as a figurehead and a circuit-breaker, and I want it to stay that way. In this proposed model, they would be the head of state but not the head of government - that would continue to be the Prime Minister. The Governor-General's main ongoing functions are to appoint a Prime Minister (who, by convention, is someone who can command a majority of votes in the House of Representatives, so this is just a formality), and to sign off on legislation.
Their main benefit is to act as a circuit-breaker if the Parliament stops functioning. Under certain circumstances laid out in the constitution, the Governor-General can dissolve Parliament and call elections. Most notably, this can happen if a piece of legislation is approved by one house of parliament, rejected by the other house, approved again by the first house, and rejected again by the second house. The Parliament has obviously reached a deadlock. The Prime Minister can then go to the Governor-General and request that Parliament be dissolved, and new elections held. This prevents shut-downs of the government, and provides a way out of deadlocks.
This is why the Governor-General should remain apolitical and impartial. If they have a political view of their own, their usefulness as a circuit-breaker is reduced.
However, if the Governor-General is elected by popular vote, this makes it an inherently political position. We'll see candidates from the major parties campaigning to win the election. And this could end up with a Governor-General from one party facing a Prime Minister and government from another party. What if the Governor-General disagrees with the government and refuses to sign the laws that Parliament passes? Worse - what if the Governor-General decides to dissolve Parliament to get the other party out of government and replace them with a government of their own party?
Our Governor-General is not a political position like the U.S. President. Requiring a super-majority of Parliament to elect the GG ensures that it won't become a partisan position.
Scrap the senate and replace it with representation by lot (the Athenian model). Some number of people (99?) randomly chosen from the working-age population. Put them in for four year terms, half...
Scrap the senate and replace it with representation by lot (the Athenian model). Some number of people (99?) randomly chosen from the working-age population. Put them in for four year terms, half chosen every two years. They would be more representative, more resistant to corruption, and unhindered by electioneering. Geographic districts would still have the Lower House.
Not sure I agree with this. If some lobbyists or sponsors offer enough money to change their lives significantly after their term is up, I think you’d be surprised by how many people would take that.
more resistant to corruption
Not sure I agree with this. If some lobbyists or sponsors offer enough money to change their lives significantly after their term is up, I think you’d be surprised by how many people would take that.
If the legislature changed every year, there's less ROI and it becomes more expensive to throw significant sums of money at each and every legislator. Not saying that 6-figure payouts are too...
If the legislature changed every year, there's less ROI and it becomes more expensive to throw significant sums of money at each and every legislator. Not saying that 6-figure payouts are too expensive to throw at a couple hundred people a year for companies large enough to benefit from legislative lobbying, but it might make the benefits limited enough to only be "worth it" for specific votes, rather than buying a senator outright
I do wonder how representatives that are chosen proportionally instead of geographically would work out. Possibly keeping very large geographical boundaries, but within those boundaries everybody...
I do wonder how representatives that are chosen proportionally instead of geographically would work out. Possibly keeping very large geographical boundaries, but within those boundaries everybody votes on the same candidates. I'm not sure which voting system would work out best to create a proportional system that doesn't lead to a tyranny of the majority/silencing the minority, but possible using the quota Borda count and having the top X number of politicians get a seat.
Quick rundown of the Borda count for those who don't know from the wikipedia page
The Borda count is a family of single-winner election methods in which voters rank options or candidates in order of preference. The Borda count determines the outcome of a debate or the winner of an election by giving each candidate, for each ballot, a number of points corresponding to the number of candidates ranked lower. Once all votes have been counted the option or candidate with the most points is the winner. Because it tends to elect broadly-acceptable options or candidates, rather than those preferred by a majority, the Borda count is often described as a consensus-based voting system rather than a majoritarian one.[1]
The Modified Borda Count is used for decision-making. For multi-winner elections, especially when proportional representation is important, the quota Borda system is used.
This might be okay as a replacement for the executive branch, say requiring a simple majority to sign legislation, perhaps super majority for major legislation. The problem with this system for...
This might be okay as a replacement for the executive branch, say requiring a simple majority to sign legislation, perhaps super majority for major legislation.
The problem with this system for the senate is that it would pretty much remove the role of lawmaking from the senate as the vast majority of people would have no idea where to begin writing a piece of legislation. This is also where ALEC and similar groups would step in and hand senators pre-written legislation which already happens now, but this would get really out of hand when you have a senate full of random people who likely haven't studied any sort of law. It wouldn't even be so much a matter of buying them, just manipulating them would be enough. "Hey, I'm SuperHans, congrats on being chosen for the senate! I work with a group called ALEC, we are here to help you craft legislation to help the country. Oh and don't worry, we take care of of the legalese for you, all you have to do is put it on your official office letterhead and submit it for a vote! Think of it like a group project in school where we do most of the research and all you have to to is the class presentation." I think a lot of people would go for that, and if combined with promises of money and jobs after their term, it wouldn't be hard to get enough on board to control the senate.
Then there is the issue of troublesome views. Randomly picking people sounds great, but what do you do when David Duke gets picked? Brock Turner? The election process allows for vetting of a candidate. While not perfect, it can often bring problematic views and behaviors to the surface so we can keep those kinds of people from obtaining power to do us harm. How diverse would the senate be? How much would any of the care about issues not impacting their own communities? How much would they try to understand? Clearly an election based model isn't prefect in that regard as the senate isn't terrible diverse, but senators at least have motivation to listen to minorities and the issues affecting their communities when they depend on their vote for a job. A randomly chosen suburban middle class straight white woman who has one 4 year term to get through before going back to her accounting job has little reason to listen to inner city people of color ask for help with police violence, she doesn't need the black vote to keep her job.
Putting people in power without the accountability of a vote is highly problematic. You are setting yourself up for a senate full of racists and corporately owned legislators.
You may be a little confused. The House of Representatives writes the Bills, then votes on them, which are then examined by The Senate. If the Senate votes for them the Governor General then...
You may be a little confused. The House of Representatives writes the Bills, then votes on them, which are then examined by The Senate. If the Senate votes for them the Governor General then ratifies them into law. Senators can create legislation (a 'private member's bill') but these are much less common.
Randomly picking people sounds great, but what do you do when David Duke gets picked? Brock Turner?
You respect their voice. It's how democracy works.
I feel like we need to tag posts with countries because I didn't realize you were referring to Australia, I had assumed you were referring to The States as OP, though initially ambiguous, has...
I feel like we need to tag posts with countries because I didn't realize you were referring to Australia, I had assumed you were referring to The States as OP, though initially ambiguous, has indicated.
David Duke is the leader of the KKK. He does not get a voice at the table of democracy. Democracy, particularly representative democracy, is built around compromise, but there is also a core set of values that must be agreed upon before any debate can begin. One of those that most of the western world has decided (though not always great at practicing) is that skin color is not a measure of worth. Another is that other people have the right to consent on not consent whether you can engage with them sexually, something that both Trump and Brock Turner seem to disagree with. What would a compromise with the KKK look like? Jim Crow laws. Apartheid. Both highly undemocratic systems. As a queer person, the thought that we should respect the voice of Westboro Baptist Church should one of their people get selected truly makes me fear for my safety. Compromising with intolerance and racism is not democratic, its oppression.
As soon as you decide that certain ideas or people are unwelcome in democracy, it dies. The only restrictions should be self-protecting. You do not let anti-democratic people take power. You do...
As soon as you decide that certain ideas or people are unwelcome in democracy, it dies.
The only restrictions should be self-protecting. You do not let anti-democratic people take power. You do not let censors speak. You limit violence to those who advocate violence.
Ideas like racism are unwelcome in democracy because it is an anti-democratic idea, it is unwelcome in democracy to preserve democracy. Democracy dies when you give legitimacy to undemocratic...
Ideas like racism are unwelcome in democracy because it is an anti-democratic idea, it is unwelcome in democracy to preserve democracy. Democracy dies when you give legitimacy to undemocratic ideas. I think we are saying the same thing here I am just naming a specific example of the anti-democratic people you are referring to.
If you believe (as it seems you do) that all people should qualify for all rights equally, isn't this a so-called "liberal value"? The obvious example that comes to mind is marriage: it was the...
If you believe (as it seems you do) that all people should qualify for all rights equally, isn't this a so-called "liberal value"? The obvious example that comes to mind is marriage: it was the conservatives who were campaigning to keep this right restricted to only certain couples, based on their sexual orientation, while it was the so-called liberals who were campaigning to extend it equally to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Of course, not being familiar with the details of the American political landscape, I may be missing something.
Not as "liberals" are defined in America, at least. They are constantly trying to remove or limit our right to defend ourselves (ie, using firearms). They insist women have a "right" to slaughter...
If you believe (as it seems you do) that all people should qualify for all rights equally, isn't this a so-called "liberal value"?
Not as "liberals" are defined in America, at least. They are constantly trying to remove or limit our right to defend ourselves (ie, using firearms). They insist women have a "right" to slaughter their children (violating their right to life) before a certain age. They regularly enable State-backed kidnappers ("Child Protective Services") to violate the parental rights of good parents.
The obvious example that comes to mind is marriage: it was the conservatives who were campaigning to keep this right restricted to only certain couples, based on their sexual orientation, while it was the so-called liberals who were campaigning to extend it equally to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
That's not at all accurate. Marriage is, by definition, the relationship formed for the purpose of having and raising children. The US has never prevented or forbidden anyone from marrying - certain couples or individuals are simply incapable of it.
Please refrain from unnecessary hyperbole or shock based language, like putting "good" in front of parents or "state-backed kidnappers" instead of whatever it is that you originally meant. It...
Not as "liberals" are defined in America, at least. They are constantly trying to remove or limit our right to defend ourselves (ie, using firearms). They insist women have a "right" to slaughter their children (violating their right to life) before a certain age. They regularly enable State-backed kidnappers to violate the parental rights of good parents.
Please refrain from unnecessary hyperbole or shock based language, like putting "good" in front of parents or "state-backed kidnappers" instead of whatever it is that you originally meant. It distorts your own arguments, appeals to emotion, and makes discussion nastier then it otherwise has to be.
If that's how @luke-jr feels they should be interpreted, it's only fair to let him or her express it how he or she feels fit.
Please refrain from unnecessary hyperbole or shock based language, like putting "good" in front of parents or "state-backed kidnappers" instead of whatever it is that you originally meant.
If that's how @luke-jr feels they should be interpreted, it's only fair to let him or her express it how he or she feels fit.
It's a disservice to other users though. One of the primary reasons why Tildes was formed in the first place was nasty and uncivil discussions on Reddit that become more about personal attacks, or...
It's a disservice to other users though. One of the primary reasons why Tildes was formed in the first place was nasty and uncivil discussions on Reddit that become more about personal attacks, or at the very least, without any substance. In response to your reply, I could call you a "self-centered moralless liar who only joined this site to attack me", and yet I think we can both agree that is neither productive nor adds anything to the conversation. By intentionally using such language, he's showing that he's disengaged and clearly not interested in talking in good faith, and at point, why talk at all?
I don't agree with that assertion at all. His language contained no personal attacks at any other users, and they weren't needlessly inflammatory. I find more of a problem with your accusation of...
By intentionally using such language, he's showing that he's disengaged and clearly not interested in talking in good faith, and at point, why talk at all?
I don't agree with that assertion at all. His language contained no personal attacks at any other users, and they weren't needlessly inflammatory. I find more of a problem with your accusation of bad faith.
There's little difference between calling a specific black person a nigger and saying all blacks are niggers. By stating that the CPS is "state backed kidnappers" he is directly attacking anyone...
His language contained no personal attacks at any other users
There's little difference between calling a specific black person a nigger and saying all blacks are niggers. By stating that the CPS is "state backed kidnappers" he is directly attacking anyone who works for the CPS and on a site this large there's a good chance at least one user was personally attacked by that statement.
I do think it's needlessly inflammatory though. I understand why he would say something like "slaughter" (although even that is straddling the edge) because at least there, he (and I'm assuming...
I do think it's needlessly inflammatory though. I understand why he would say something like "slaughter" (although even that is straddling the edge) because at least there, he (and I'm assuming you too) probably do view it as murder. I can understand that much.
But what's the use of adding "good" in front of parents or "state-backed kidnappers" instead of CPS? I didn't even know what he was talking about until he added that. "Good parents" is a strawman argument that allows him to make an appeal to the reader's emotions. If you want another example from me, I could say something like, "anti-CPS'ers only want good children to be abused by their bad parents". By using "good" and "bad" like this, I'm trying to convince the reader to side with me because I'm supporting the "good" side, and I'm trying to bully my opponent into supporting the "bad" side. And I think when we start trying to force people into "good" and "bad" sides, we're not really holding an argument in good faith, are we?
And I understand politics is a heated subject, it's a little bit to be expected, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to try to change it. I think if people were clearer in what they mean and tried to give their opponents the benefit of the doubt a little more, our discussions wouldn't be so nasty and toxic. And that starts with trying to point it out when it happens, and trying to tell people how to change it. He's already edited his original post to include mention of CPS, which is what he was actually talking about, so now it's not as confusing for someone else to understand what he means.
That isn't what a strawman is. EDIT: Unless you meant it was both a strawman and an appeal to emotion, come to think of it. That's not what's going on, though. By using "good" and "bad," you're...
"Good parents" is a strawman argument that allows him to make an appeal to the reader's emotions.
That isn't what a strawman is. EDIT: Unless you meant it was both a strawman and an appeal to emotion, come to think of it.
By using "good" and "bad" like this, I'm trying to convince the reader to side with me because I'm supporting the "good" side, and I'm trying to bully my opponent into supporting the "bad" side. And I think when we start trying to force people into "good" and "bad" sides, we're not really holding an argument in good faith, are we?
That's not what's going on, though. By using "good" and "bad," you're expressing your subjective judgment of the situation. If, to use your example, an "anti-CPSer" disagreed with the assertion, they would simply voice that disagreement. I can see your perspective, but on the other hand, it also seems rather bad-faith to assume that someone else is being manipulative, as opposed to just expressing their opinion.
I think if people were clearer in what they mean and tried to give their opponents the benefit of the doubt a little more, our discussions wouldn't be so nasty and toxic.
Isn't your entire point predicated on not giving @luke-jr the benefit of the doubt?
To the contrary, it's exactly what a strawman is. As your link points out, a strawman argument is one where you intentionally misrepresent another person's argument to make your own seem...
That isn't what a strawman is.
To the contrary, it's exactly what a strawman is. As your link points out, a strawman argument is one where you intentionally misrepresent another person's argument to make your own seem reasonable. Here's the supplied example case from your link:
After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
And that's what happened here. Rather then phrase his argument like "And they support CPS, which regularly takes children away from their parents without good cause", he said "They regularly enable State-backed kidnappers ("Child Protective Services") to violate the parental rights of good parents." See how it's an exaggeration in order to make himself look more reasonable? It's exactly what a strawman is...
Isn't your entire point predicated on not giving @luke-jr the benefit of the doubt?
I'm already giving him the benefit of the doubt though. As I pointed out, "slaughter" is a pretty incorrect usage of the word here too; slaughter means to kill en-masse or on a large scale. He's making it sound like a woman has children en-masse to intentionally abort them. But I cut him some slack here because, like you said, he may view it as murder.
I see it more as a stark, if rather alarmist, expression of a strongly-held opinion, to be honest. Also, I think there's a misunderstanding. A strawman is not used to make your own argument look...
See how it's an exaggeration in order to make himself look more reasonable?
I see it more as a stark, if rather alarmist, expression of a strongly-held opinion, to be honest.
Also, I think there's a misunderstanding. A strawman is not used to make your own argument look better, as you say; it's used to make an opponent's argument look worse.
So then, in other words, you agree with CPS the way it is. The only people it takes children away from is parents who are abusive, in prison or otherwise unable to provide for the child without...
It is necessary to distinguish them from actual child abusers and criminals.
So then, in other words, you agree with CPS the way it is. The only people it takes children away from is parents who are abusive, in prison or otherwise unable to provide for the child without another guardian, or sometimes in cases where child custody is contested. Do you disagree these are reasonable cases for state intervention?
This is completely false... CPS regularly fabricates grounds for removing children from good parents, and lies in court (they are taken at their word) to get their way.
The only people it takes children away from is parents who are abusive, in prison or otherwise unable to provide for the child without another guardian, or sometimes in cases where child custody is contested.
This is completely false... CPS regularly fabricates grounds for removing children from good parents, and lies in court (they are taken at their word) to get their way.
Ah sorry, I didn't see the link at the top before. Reading through it, it's quite concerning; however, it's also mostly anecdotal. I've tried to corroborate some of her claims, especially the one...
Ah sorry, I didn't see the link at the top before.
Reading through it, it's quite concerning; however, it's also mostly anecdotal. I've tried to corroborate some of her claims, especially the one where she mentions a child was taken from their parents who were required to undergo treatment for alcoholism, and yet I have not been able to find any evidence yet that has happened. I can't find a police report or news article that the child died, which should certainly have attracted some attention. Another example, she claims that state governments are intentionally kidnapping children and selling them to adoptions for money. However, she provides absolutely no evidence that that's happened, nor does it make any sense; there are far easier and less criminal ways for a state to obtain income, not that a state needs superfluous income to begin with. Lastly, I tried to find a third party's analysis on this report, but I haven't be able to find so, either way; nobody seems to have ever gone through to seen if any of these claims are true or not.
As it is, it's a collection of unsubstantiated anecdotes, and without some kind of verification, it's not admissible as evidence of anything. And unfortunately, seeing as the author is deceased, we can't ask her to clarify...
You're not going to find official records. They're all sealed. No doubt why they've gotten away with it as long as they have. How inconvenient. (Her death was itself under quite suspicious...
I've tried to corroborate some of her claims, especially the one where she mentions a child was taken from their parents who were required to undergo treatment for alcoholism, and yet I have not been able to find any evidence yet that has happened.
You're not going to find official records. They're all sealed. No doubt why they've gotten away with it as long as they have.
And unfortunately, seeing as the author is deceased, we can't ask her to clarify...
How inconvenient. (Her death was itself under quite suspicious circumstances that may very well have been related to her work here.)
FWIW, I also have personally observed these things going on in multiple cases (and not one instance had potentially justifiable circumstances). The most recent ended up with the children all being separated and moved to various remote States, eventually followed by their widower father despairing and taking his own life. The children will not even be permitted to attend his funeral.
Until you can provide some solid evidence though, none of this is going to stand. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you're still alive though, you can change that. What's...
Until you can provide some solid evidence though, none of this is going to stand. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you're still alive though, you can change that. What's the name of the father and of the children? Where did they live / where do they live now? Who was the case worker assigned to this? When and where is the funeral? Which police department is working on the death report?
You believe a fetus has a right to life, but a child doesn't have a right to a good and loving home? Do you believe that people who are sterile and can't have children at all shouldn't be allowed...
You believe a fetus has a right to life, but a child doesn't have a right to a good and loving home?
Do you believe that people who are sterile and can't have children at all shouldn't be allowed to get married?
If a heterosexual couple declares their intent to never have children, should the be not allowed to get married?
The simple fact is that marriage is for a lot more things than just having children. Children are neither necessary for marriage nor are they unique to it.
Why are you putting words in my mouth I never said? Again, it's not about allowing or prohibiting. It's about possible. People who are incapable of attempting procreation can't possibly marry....
You believe a fetus has a right to life, but a child doesn't have a right to a good and loving home?
Why are you putting words in my mouth I never said?
Do you believe that people who are sterile and can't have children at all shouldn't be allowed to get married?
Again, it's not about allowing or prohibiting. It's about possible.
People who are incapable of attempting procreation can't possibly marry. (Although if they can attempt it, their failure to succeed in procreation does not void the marriage.)
If a heterosexual couple declares their intent to never have children, should the be not allowed to get married?
If a couple declares their intent to never have children, they are declaring their intent to never marry. Since intent is a key part of what constitutes a valid marriage, their intention to not marry means they have not entered into a marriage. You can't get married while intending not to get married.
And yet they have a marriage certificate that shows that they're married. Regardless of what you believe, marriage does not require children. People get married because they want to spend the rest...
And yet they have a marriage certificate that shows that they're married.
Regardless of what you believe, marriage does not require children. People get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other and have the legal benefits of such an arrangement.
What is the definition of marriage you believe is correct? Clearly it is different than what many others here believe, so it'd be useful to understanding your position if we knew how exactly those...
What is the definition of marriage you believe is correct? Clearly it is different than what many others here believe, so it'd be useful to understanding your position if we knew how exactly those definitions differ.
Yes, that makes sense considering what you've mentioned so far in this thread. I suppose I was hoping to know what elements of Catholic doctrine / history this definition comes from. I am not at...
Yes, that makes sense considering what you've mentioned so far in this thread. I suppose I was hoping to know what elements of Catholic doctrine / history this definition comes from. I am not at all familiar with the intricacies of the Catholic faith and would not know where to begin in the slightest.
I notice your responses have often been particularly short and curt. I do not know if this is intentional but it makes me feel like you are not interested in having much of a discussion, which disappoints me. You appear to have given your position a great deal of thought and I'm genuinely interested in understanding it more!
With regard to Catholic sources, I guess Arcanum (Pope Leo XIII) and Casti Connubii (Pope Pius XI) would be the most relevant. Probably depends on how many things I am doing at once when I reply,...
I notice your responses have often been particularly short and curt.
Probably depends on how many things I am doing at once when I reply, and/or what I am replying to. Some things, I can easily explain in greater detail (being more familiar with or interested in the response), whereas others can take more work to go into detail on (especially references, which I am terrible with saving).
Obviously talking about abortion here, but I have a question: what are your thoughts on miscarriages? Specifically, ought women who miscarry (that is, the death of an unborn child), be held...
They insist women have a "right" to slaughter their children (violating their right to life) before a certain age.
Obviously talking about abortion here, but I have a question: what are your thoughts on miscarriages?
Specifically, ought women who miscarry (that is, the death of an unborn child), be held legally responsible? If so, would that be manslaughter, or some other legal charge?
I ask because something like 10-20% of pregnancies are miscarried, and not all happen from nonviable fetuses; sometimes they occur through accident or injury.
Even a charge of manslaughter requires a provable degree of criminal negligence. Perhaps it could be argued for some cases (eg, smoking while pregnant), but I expect it would be impractical to...
Even a charge of manslaughter requires a provable degree of criminal negligence. Perhaps it could be argued for some cases (eg, smoking while pregnant), but I expect it would be impractical to prove even that was the cause of death in court, which would make the charges frivolous.
Fair enough. One more question. I'm not very familiar with Catholicism, I was raised Protestant, so my theological understanding on abortion comes exclusively from the Bible. What is your...
Fair enough.
One more question. I'm not very familiar with Catholicism, I was raised Protestant, so my theological understanding on abortion comes exclusively from the Bible. What is your perspective on Church-sanctioned abortion, or more specifically, at least the Israeli Test for Adultery that the Lord gave to Moses? Seen beginning in Numbers 5:11.
There is no Church-sanctioned abortion. Numbers 5:11 deals with adultery, and the consequence (given by God Himself) is the woman's body rotting. It doesn't mention any child, and even if one were...
There is no Church-sanctioned abortion.
Numbers 5:11 deals with adultery, and the consequence (given by God Himself) is the woman's body rotting. It doesn't mention any child, and even if one were to miscarry as a result, it would be the action of God (Who has the right to kill), not man. (Furthermore, it was also commanded by God, and as such, those carrying out that command would be acting under His authority.)
Your definition of marriage does not fit the etymology of the word marriage. Even if you insist that the etymology is wrong (it's not), the simple fact is that marriage is a word that is used to...
Your definition of marriage does not fit the etymology of the word marriage.
Even if you insist that the etymology is wrong (it's not), the simple fact is that marriage is a word that is used to describe a union in religions that are not the religion that you have.
I'm curious how you can justify saying that rights should not be limited, but similarly want to limit the rights of individuals of other religions (such as judaism, hinduism, buddhism, or many others) who do not hold similar views on the "definition" of marriage?
Yes, it fits the one you linked (which mostly doesn't actually define marriage at all) just fine. False religions are not comparable to truth, and should not be given any special privileges.
Your definition of marriage does not fit the etymology of the word marriage.
Yes, it fits the one you linked (which mostly doesn't actually define marriage at all) just fine.
the simple fact is that marriage is a word that is used to describe a union in religions that are not the religion that you have.
I'm curious how you can justify saying that rights should not be limited, but similarly want to limit the rights of individuals of other religions (such as judaism, hinduism, buddhism, or many others) who do not hold similar views on the "definition" of marriage?
False religions are not comparable to truth, and should not be given any special privileges.
It does not, as there is no mention of need or will to have children. It's the etymology of the word. Whether you ascribe a different definition to it does not matter - the word was created to...
it fits the one you linked
It does not, as there is no mention of need or will to have children.
mostly doesn't actually define marriage at all
It's the etymology of the word. Whether you ascribe a different definition to it does not matter - the word was created to describe something different than you are describing.
False religions are not comparable to truth, and should not be given any special privileges.
So Jews should not have the right to marry in the US either?
Curious as to the criteria you hold as to what makes a religion a false religion, and what makes your religion not false in the eyes of an adherent to one different from your own?
Curious as to the criteria you hold as to what makes a religion a false religion, and what makes your religion not false in the eyes of an adherent to one different from your own?
I know you're gonna get trouble for this, but I'd just like to point out that you're not alone in that opinion. I also see abortion as little more than murder, and rarely, if ever, more acceptable.
They insist women have a "right" to slaughter their children (violating their right to life) before a certain age.
I know you're gonna get trouble for this, but I'd just like to point out that you're not alone in that opinion. I also see abortion as little more than murder, and rarely, if ever, more acceptable.
Just have some curiosity questions in regards to your statements/opinions. Is a 5-6 week abortion still slaughter? (shooting for the earliest noticeable time frame) and Since marriage is for...
Just have some curiosity questions in regards to your statements/opinions.
Is a 5-6 week abortion still slaughter?
(shooting for the earliest noticeable time frame)
and
Since marriage is for having and raising children, would you be okay with stripping all state/federal rights away from "marriage" and assigning them to "civil union between two adult consenting members"?
(this way "marriage" can still be for children but people that cannot have children, for what ever reason, can still receive survivor benefits and such)
Nowadays, we know from science that the child comes into existence within a week or so of the sexual act (specifically, the moment of conception). So 5-6 weeks is still murder. Furthermore, even...
Is a 5-6 week abortion still slaughter?
Nowadays, we know from science that the child comes into existence within a week or so of the sexual act (specifically, the moment of conception). So 5-6 weeks is still murder.
Furthermore, even prior thereto, it would be generally wrong to prevent conception. Not because it is murder, but because the purpose of the sexual act is procreation.
Since marriage is for having and raising children, would you be okay with stripping all state/federal rights away from "marriage" and assigning them to "civil union between two adult consenting members"?
Why limit it to two people? But aside from that nit, it sounds fine to me.
That's a very black-and-white view. "They" has been used in the singular for at least 600 years by writers including Chaucer and Shakespeare. Even the Oxford Dictionary refuses to say it's...
That's a very black-and-white view. "They" has been used in the singular for at least 600 years by writers including Chaucer and Shakespeare. Even the Oxford Dictionary refuses to say it's incorrect.
However, even if you won't use the singular "they", you could still use "he or she".
Wow. What do you call "he" and "him", then? If you're somehow claiming that they're gender-neutral, why do "she" and "her" exist? And, if "he" and "him" are gender-neutral, I dare you to refer to...
Wow.
What do you call "he" and "him", then? If you're somehow claiming that they're gender-neutral, why do "she" and "her" exist? And, if "he" and "him" are gender-neutral, I dare you to refer to your wife as "him" while she's in earshot. I'd love to hear how that turns out!
Was just curious as to your particular definition of when the cells became a human being. Some people go for the brain seems like you are a heartbeat kind of guy. That said, is abortion completely...
Was just curious as to your particular definition of when the cells became a human being.
Some people go for the brain seems like you are a heartbeat kind of guy.
That said, is abortion completely off the table?
What about cases of rape?
Or delivering a child that would be stillborn or brain dead?
Also, what about cases where carrying/delivering the child could kill the mother?
Further question since abortion is a no go, how extensive should sex education be and the availability of contraception for men and women?
A human being is defined by the DNA classification as homo sapien. So we know today that the human being comes into existence at conception. Yes. Do we kill the rapists' other (already born)...
Was just curious as to your particular definition of when the cells became a human being.
A human being is defined by the DNA classification as homo sapien. So we know today that the human being comes into existence at conception.
That said, is abortion completely off the table?
Yes.
What about cases of rape?
Do we kill the rapists' other (already born) children when they rape someone? Of course not. Killing the child for the crimes of his father is absurd.
Or delivering a child that would be stillborn or brain dead?
Everyone dies eventually. That doesn't justify killing them prior to that death.
If the doctor can see that the child has already passed away, removal is fine. (But that's no longer really an abortion at all.)
Also, what about cases where carrying/delivering the child could kill the mother?
Ends cannot justify the means. If a bridge collapses and you're hanging on to the end of it, and Joe's hanging on your leg, and you can't save yourself without throwing Joe off, it's still an unjustifiable murder to kill Joe.
(But with modern medical science, there is no case where killing the child is the only way to avoid the mother's death anyway. So this topic is mostly irrelevant.)
Further question since abortion is a no go, how extensive should sex education be and the availability of contraception for men and women?
Contraception is also gravely immoral, and at least public promotion or distribution of it should probably be illegal. "Sex education" prior to marriage should consist of simply common-sense modesty (don't let people touch your private regions; don't kiss/hold hands; don't be alone with people of the opposite sex; etc).
So under your government a mother would be made to deliver a vegetable(brain dead) child that had a heartbeat? Thats interesting. So if you can pull both of you up, both of you should die in the...
Everyone dies eventually. That doesn't justify killing them prior to that death.
So under your government a mother would be made to deliver a vegetable(brain dead) child that had a heartbeat?
Ends cannot justify the means. If a bridge collapses and you're hanging on to the end of it, and Joe's hanging on your leg, and you can't save yourself without throwing Joe off, it's still an unjustifiable murder to kill Joe.
Thats interesting. So if you can pull both of you up, both of you should die in the above scenario?
Contraception is also gravely immoral, and at least public promotion or distribution of it should probably be illegal. "Sex education" prior to marriage should consist of simply common-sense modesty.
So from your replies it seems like you are very much in favor of a Theocracy and are Pro-Birth. A few more questions if you dont mind.
[Theocracy]Considering that the original refugees from England came to this country to escape the Church of England, is it a good idea to set up the Church of America?
[Pro-Birth]Also, should healthcare be provided for all people or is that a personal responsibility?
Thanks for your answers I always enjoy diving into someone elses mind.
Basically, yes. If the child actually dies before delivery, he could be removed, however. Not necessarily. You aren't obliged to save Joe if doing so is impossible; you're just not allowed to kill...
So under your government a mother would be made to deliver a vegetable(brain dead) child that had a heartbeat?
Basically, yes. If the child actually dies before delivery, he could be removed, however.
Ends cannot justify the means. If a bridge collapses and you're hanging on to the end of it, and Joe's hanging on your leg, and you can't save yourself without throwing Joe off, it's still an unjustifiable murder to kill Joe.
Thats interesting. So if you can pull both of you up, both of you should die in the above scenario?
Not necessarily. You aren't obliged to save Joe if doing so is impossible; you're just not allowed to kill him.
So from your replies it seems like you are very much in favor of a Theocracy
No, while I understand why theocracy is needed for Vatican City, I don't support it outside that limited scope.
Considering that the original refugees from England came to this country to escape the Church of England, is it a good idea to set up the Church of America?
No, governments are obliged to recognise the true religion, not create their own or follow some false religion.
Also, should healthcare be provided for all people or is that a personal responsibility?
It's their "personal" responsibility (parents should provide it for their children, ideally). However, society should operate charitable organizations to help those who lack the means to do so, and should society fail to provide sufficient help, the government should step in and compel it. Furthermore, the government ought to do something about modern businesses underpaying so many people - we shouldn't have nearly so many needing to rely on charity.
Not necessarily. You aren't obliged to save Joe if doing so is impossible; you're just not allowed to kill him.
So if you arent strong enough to pull both of you up but also cant hold onto the bridge with Joe hanging on, what do you do? If you dont shake him off you will both die.
Not trying to trap you, just looking for clarification.
No, governments are obliged to recognize the true religion, not create their own or follow some false religion.
This is where it gets murky though. With SO many different people and so many religions how do you determine what the true one is? (understandably this is an over arching question for all mythologies)
...should society fail to provide sufficient help, the government should step in and compel it.
So government healthcare would only be a last ditch option in the case of emergencies?
Furthermore, the government ought to do something about modern businesses underpaying so many people - we shouldn't have nearly so many needing to rely on charity.
I agree but what happens when the government is at the disposal of business like the current US system?
Personally, I would try to hold on and get Joe to climb up with me. Once Joe is up, I can get up too. If that's not good enough, then I'm out of options, and will just have to accept that death is...
So if you arent strong enough to pull both of you up but also cant hold onto the bridge with Joe hanging on, what do you do?
Personally, I would try to hold on and get Joe to climb up with me. Once Joe is up, I can get up too. If that's not good enough, then I'm out of options, and will just have to accept that death is near.
With SO many different people and so many religions how do you determine what the true one is?
Observations, science and reason.
So government healthcare would only be a last ditch option in the case of emergencies?
Yes, the government-compelled healthcare removes the opportunity for much of society to merit from virtuous charity, since paying the taxes to support such a system makes it impractical for many people to afford also giving of their own free will.
I agree but what happens when the government is at the disposal of business like the current US system?
Society can still improve itself, in hopes of deserving a better government in the future.
Document the real natural human rights, the natural limits of government authority, give glory to God, explicitly subject the monarch to the Church, and then leave everything else (including...
Document the real natural human rights, the natural limits of government authority, give glory to God, explicitly subject the monarch to the Church, and then leave everything else (including succession) to the absolute monarch to sort out.
Separation of Church and State is condemned heresy (Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852). The State is subject to the Church, and has a grave moral obligation to base its criminal law on...
Separation of Church and State is condemned heresy (Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852). The State is subject to the Church, and has a grave moral obligation to base its criminal law on God's moral law, as defined by the Church.
That is certainly an uncommon view, to the extent that I'm surprised we have someone who holds it on a site of this scale. I do appreciate the radical difference in perspective. I'm just not sure...
That is certainly an uncommon view, to the extent that I'm surprised we have someone who holds it on a site of this scale. I do appreciate the radical difference in perspective. I'm just not sure how to approach a discussion given such a stark axiomatic contrast.
I guess a clarification would be handy. Is it accurate to say you would, in general, opt for curtailing personal liberty if that liberty runs contrary to how you interpret God's law?
It's a view that all Catholics are required to hold, and which denial thereof would strictly speaking exclude one from the Catholic Church. Obviously there are many Catholics-in-name-only who are...
It's a view that all Catholics are required to hold, and which denial thereof would strictly speaking exclude one from the Catholic Church. Obviously there are many Catholics-in-name-only who are not really Catholics, but we're not that uncommon. :)
Liberty is not something in itself, but more like an adjective. To be liberated, you must be liberated from something. So you could speak of liberty to kill people - that certainly needs to be curtailed. Or you could speak of liberty to repair vehicles professionally - the State has no authority to curtail that (at least if it's your only profession). Another one would be liberty to fornicate for pay (prostitution); that runs contrary to God's law, but arguably could be tolerated by the State (if it chooses) since prohibiting it would simply result in greater sins being committed instead (eg, masturbation). Basically, the State ought only to tolerate sin when such toleration is necessary to avoid a greater or comparable evil (or when its legitimate jurisdiction limits it from non-toleration). The Cult of Liberty, by Bishop Sanborn might be a better answer for your question.
Nit: It's not how I interpret God's law that matters, of course, but rather how the Church interprets it.
Does the Church really disapprove of masturbation more than prostitution? That seems rather... backwards. Usually it's prostitution that gets the bad rap. What would you do if you disagreed with...
Another one would be liberty to fornicate for pay (prostitution); that runs contrary to God's law, but arguably could be tolerated by the State (if it chooses) since prohibiting it would simply result in greater sins being committed instead (eg, masturbation).
Does the Church really disapprove of masturbation more than prostitution? That seems rather... backwards. Usually it's prostitution that gets the bad rap.
Nit: It's not how I interpret God's law that matters, of course, but rather how the Church interprets it.
What would you do if you disagreed with the Church on something? Isn't it conceivable that, say, a corrupt pope or some other Church authority decides to make a judgment that is clearly morally questionable?
Well, it can get complicated. But to try to make it simple: masturbation violates the very nature of the sexual act (its purpose of procreation), whereas prostitution doesn't necessarily do so...
Does the Church really disapprove of masturbation more than prostitution? That seems rather... backwards. Usually it's prostitution that gets the bad rap.
Well, it can get complicated. But to try to make it simple: masturbation violates the very nature of the sexual act (its purpose of procreation), whereas prostitution doesn't necessarily do so (although if birth control is used, now there's two sins, birth control being basically the same as masturbation). The sinfulness of prostitution (by itself) is that it is being done without the proper order in place to provide for the upbringing of the child(ren) - that is, being outside of marriage. Therefore, the act itself is not intrinsically immoral, only immoral due to the circumstances it is being performed in.
What would you do if you disagreed with the Church on something?
After verifying that the Church actually teaches it, I would have to admit I was wrong.
Isn't it conceivable that, say, a corrupt pope or some other Church authority decides to make a judgment that is clearly morally questionable?
For any given statement (or judgment), four possibilities are hypothetically possible:
It is wrong, and contradicts Catholic doctrine. Since this is heresy, the [former] authority would by the very statement be implicitly resigning office, and as such would no longer be an authority at all.
It is wrong, but does not contradict Catholic doctrine. In this scenario, God would not permit it to be taught with the Church's authority.
It is correct.
It is correct, and being formally defined doctrinally. God only permits the criteria of such a definition to be met when it is in fact correct.
What if the Church were to change its teachings? What if, for example, you found out that "today the Church states that all people have a human right to religious freedom and the Church is...
What would you do if you disagreed with the Church on something?
After verifying that the Church actually teaches it, I would have to admit I was wrong.
The Church isn't capable of changing its teachings. If someone who held a position of authority were to contradict the Church's teachings, they would by that very fact lose their office, and thus...
The Church isn't capable of changing its teachings. If someone who held a position of authority were to contradict the Church's teachings, they would by that very fact lose their office, and thus have no authority whatsoever.
Your linked/quoted webpage is wrong. Don't believe everything you read...
(The "Second Vatican Council" mentioned by the author was not a Catholic council at all, and is infamous for having taught heresy.)
But it did. You might disagree with the new teachings (and that's your right), but the fact is that the Church has changed what it teaches about some things over the centuries. Only among a...
The Church isn't capable of changing its teachings.
But it did. You might disagree with the new teachings (and that's your right), but the fact is that the Church has changed what it teaches about some things over the centuries.
Today, according to one writer, about 1% of people who identify as Catholic claim to be "traditional", but the number of practicing Catholics who consider themselves "traditional" may be as high as 11%. The vast majority of traditional Catholics regard the newer rites of the sacraments and the post-Vatican II popes as valid
Even if you think the Second Vatican Council is heretical, the official hierarchy of the Church has accepted it. Therefore, the Catholic Church has changed, and you have not changed with it. You can claim that the Church is in the wrong, but that's not the point. The point is that your version of Catholicism is not the same as the Catholic Church's version.
No, the fact is that it has not. Among all practicing Catholics (which by definition means people who assent to Catholic doctrine in its entirety). No, it hasn't. You're confusing the Modernist...
But it did. You might disagree with the new teachings (and that's your right), but the fact is that the Church has changed what it teaches about some things over the centuries.
No, the fact is that it has not.
Only among a minority of so-called Catholics:
Among all practicing Catholics (which by definition means people who assent to Catholic doctrine in its entirety).
Even if you think the Second Vatican Council is heretical, the official hierarchy of the Church has accepted it.
No, it hasn't.
The point is that your version of Catholicism is not the same as the Catholic Church's version.
You're confusing the Modernist sect (that the Catholic Church has always condemned) for the Catholic Church. Taking over Vatican City doesn't make them suddenly become the Catholic Church. Catholicism is a religion, not a mere political entity.
The Catholic position is that evolution of nature is a matter of science, and has no bearing on the Faith; therefore, Catholics are free to accept or reject it however they deem correct (while...
The Catholic position is that evolution of nature is a matter of science, and has no bearing on the Faith; therefore, Catholics are free to accept or reject it however they deem correct (while being honest with themselves intellectually, of course).
However, it would be heresy to deny that Adam was a real person, or claim he was not an ancestor of the entire human race. This is because the doctrine of Original Sin is that we all inherit the privation of grace from Adam's sin. It would also be unscientific to deny Adam, due to another doctrine... (following)
We know from the Catholic Faith that human beings are not merely animals, but have a spirit. Since the spirit is not biological, it cannot be reasonably explained through evolution. The Catholic position is that every human being (not just Adam) is a special creation, actively made by God.
So overall, it can be summarised as "evolution of nature OK; but evolution of humans is heresy"
The beginning of Genesis is not necessarily a literal historical account, and Catholics have never treated it as one. St. Augustine held the position that creation was instantaneous (as opposed to...
The beginning of Genesis is not necessarily a literal historical account, and Catholics have never treated it as one. St. Augustine held the position that creation was instantaneous (as opposed to over a period of a week), for example.
Plants and animals have souls, but they are mortal souls, and cease to exist at death. I certainly wouldn't say that their deaths detract from the goodness of the world.
It seems this thread is about the US constitution. Since the internet (and tildes) is here for all, could we next time state the country in the topic or at least tag to avoid confusion?
It seems this thread is about the US constitution. Since the internet (and tildes) is here for all, could we next time state the country in the topic or at least tag to avoid confusion?
I think there have been a lot of good thoughts here re: defining some of the amendments more clearly, environmental protections, and privacy protections. Those would definitely make it in. I'd...
I think there have been a lot of good thoughts here re: defining some of the amendments more clearly, environmental protections, and privacy protections. Those would definitely make it in.
I'd also switch the way we do voting from a first-past-the-post system to proportional representation with ranked choice voting. Move to more of a parliamentary system where people vote for parties. I would publicly fund elections and prohibit individual donations of any amount. Candidates who could pass a small barrier to entry (x number of signatures, x percent in polling, or something of that nature) would receive a small amount of public funds for their campaign, then they would have to win with the strength of their ideas, not the depth of their pocket books. Unused campaign funds go back into the pool for the next year's election.
I would remove all lame duck periods as they are obsolete. Any new legislative or executive actions (beyond emergency powers) would be stopped at the opening of polls. By the end of the day we know who won, by the next day they should be ready to govern. Having to have shadow governments in place also removes a lot of the uncertainty of who will be appointed to what position we see in the US.
I would limit the ability of legislators to become lobbyists and create high barriers and strong punishments towards taking bribes. I would institute penalties for cases of extreme corruption equivalent to treason.
I would increase representation, there should be ten times the number of Representatives, and maybe even a tiered "house within a house" to keep things manageable. Representatives frequently have hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents, how can they possibly be good representatives of all of them? I'm not even sold on the fact that we need representatives, in the age of the smart phone and internet. I think much more direct democracy is possible.
I would clarify the court's ability to determine what is unconstitutional and what that means. There is no check on this power and it has been used to great effect by the wealthy and powerful to undermine the middle, working, and poor classes. It has also been used in cases like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education to let individuals stand up to institutions that would oppress them. Is there a line that we can walk? I would increase the number of justices greatly, to reduce the influence of any single individual or appointment.
I would also institute a Universal Basic Income, and single-payer health insurance.
I'd add a guarantee to personal privacy. The Constitution talks very little about explicitly, but I think that every person has a right to it and the government should support it as best it can. Some states, like Hawaii, have it added to their state constitutions, but of course this only impacts the state government's services and policies. I'd also like to add a section clarifying the 2nd amendment specifically; I'm convinced the way it's interpreted today is not the way the authors originally intended it to (the right for a community to have a militia, not for the right of the individual to do so). And ideally, I'd like to elevate parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act into it, specifically the parts concerning anti-discrimination by race, sex, national origin, etc., and ideally ideally we could add sexual orientation and gender identity to that list.
I would also like to reform the clause on the Supreme Court in some way. The US system is supposed to be engineered with checks and balances, but the Supreme Court is notably lacking; outside of judges needing the one-time confirmation of the president and the Senate, there are no other limits to its power. Neither Congress nor the president have any way of contesting its decisions, nor is there any approach for citizens to have a say in what it decides. For example, I'd like to see something like a petition with over 20% of the US' population force it to reconsider a decision, and perhaps something like 40% + the approval of both houses of Congress be enough to change one of its decisions. Obviously this is just an example, I'm sure there's a better way, but I'd like to see some limits or avenues for challenging or changing Supreme Court decisions, because the Supreme Court's decisions aren't limited to just a single case.
I'd like to see a small clause specifically laying out the protection of the land and the environment as a national priority; it is after all the greatest treasure we share, and it's something that truly everyone can benefit from. I think everyone deserves the right to a clean and protected wilderness.
And lastly, I'd like to see a clause making voting in all local, state, and federal elections for which a person is eligible mandatory. it would limit the impacts of gerrymandering and force ordinary people to care about their country's governments, which a democracy requires, and isn't it what we're striving for anyway?
I was thinking something like, allowing every settlement of people over a certain population (ideally each state would get to set the specifics for themselves) to have its own militia, which if you wanted a weapon for self defense, you could sign up for. In exchange for your weapon and a license to use it, you would have compulsory training in how to use it, along with the requirement to occasionally help out in cases where a militia is needed (such as in case of a natural disaster to the area, or indeed, an invasion of some kind). I figure this would ideally make sure that every person who wants a weapon for self defense knows how to use that weapon and to store it safely, and it would provide each city with a group of citizens it knows are fit and ready to help if there's an emergency that requires it. It would also cut down on people who are mentally unstable or for criminals to get easy access to weapons, which is a chronic problem here right now :/
It would probably be a good idea to add a few licenses for other uses for weapons, like for example hunters or sports shooters (like skeet shooting), that wouldn't have the requirements of joining a militia (but still the requirement of training), but would instead require you to show active use, like registering your kills or being registered in a sports club, and could come with other restrictions (for example, a sports shooter might be required to leave their weapon at their sports club, or the hunter might only be allowed to purchase a small amount of ammunition, etc.)
Do you realize much of that is fulfilled by the National Guard today?
This might be taking too literal an interpretation of what you said, but not everyone can benefit. Impoverished inner-city people working three jobs with no prospects for upward mobility can't really take a weekend trip to a national park.
Well if you mean to take it literally to everyone (which I didn't mean), there are many easier targets you could have picked. Why not terminally ill patients who can't leave the hospital? Or people suffering from agoraphobia, where leaving their house gives them literal panic attacks...
The poor person in your example still benefits in other ways though; looking at it cynically, at the very least, it protects them from global warming, which will have catastrophic effects on a significant number of large cities. And actually, I'd argue that camping or hiking is one of the most affordable and accessible things you can do. The only strict cost is transportation, which can be negated by a strong bus system or other form of public transit, or multiple people can share a car. Walking in nature is entirely free in most places, and even national or public parks usually charge either a very small admission fee or have assistance programs for the poor. Hiking is also very flexible in time; you can do it whenever you feel like, and it's as solitary or communal as you want it to be. Compared to a lot of other past times, like gaming, or sports that require expensive equipment or very inconvenient times for a working parent, I think it's a reasonably practical choice.
Unless perhaps your argument is that they have very little free time at all, which although true, doesn't have anything to do with whether protection of the environment is a good idea...
I never said it was related to how good of an idea it is. I just wasn't sure how literal you were being.
Oh okay, I thought you meant to say it wasn't a good idea because you thought it wouldn't help many people. While I stand by that it would be a benefit to almost everyone, I do not actually mean literally every citizen.
I probably could have been clearer there. In your defense, the literal-ness of your statement wasn't entirely relevant.
I'd add a requirement that any laws passed, must apply to everyone including the politician.
The most critical thing for the US to change in it's constitution is the apportionment, voting, election, financing, and districting systems.
I personally am a fan of multi-seat STV because of it's easy to use and understand, highly resistant to gerrymandering, and eliminates wasted votes. It would be great for state legislatures and the HoR. Something needs to be done about the Senate, but I don't know what solution I think is best. President should use some Condorcet method and launch the Electoral College into the sun.
Dramatically increase the size of the HoR.
Public financing of elections, neutral debate moderators, strict limits on outside spending and donations to campaigns.
Agree with all of that, also would like a national referendum system. You could of course end up with a Brexit, but you could also end up with marriage equality and abortion access as seen in Ireland. People in this country feel so disconnected with politics and government, calling our congress members and asking them to vote for or against something is still putting all the power in their hands, its asking for their help. A referendum is telling them what to do.
I might include a Bill of Rights - this is something our constitution is notably lacking. The constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the commonwealth government and the state governments, but the people of Australia are barely mentioned.
There's also been a lot of fuss about Section 44(i) recently, relating to dual citizenship. Some people want it changed to allow dual citizens to be members of Parliament, but I disagree. I like the idea that members of Parliament should not have any allegiance to any country other than Australia.
Mostly, I would remove the monarch from the constitution. I would retain the Governor-General, and devolve the monarch's few remaining powers to the Governor-General. I would then require that the Governor-General be appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament - not a public vote as many people here would like. I strongly believe that the role of Governor-General should remain above politics, and remain solely a neutral referee in our system of government. A public vote would turn the Governor-General into a political role, and potentially set the Governor-General at odds with the Parliament if the Governor-General was of a different political party than the Prime Minister. I've seen what that sort of thing can do in other countries, such as the United States of America, and I don't want that here. But, we can become a republic just by removing the monarch from our constitution. It's a minimalist model of change.
It's not really analogous to your electoral college. It's more like if your President was appointed by a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with a super-majority being required to approve the appointment (like 66% or 75% in favour).
The idea is to keep the Governor-General as a non-political office, like it currently is. The Governor-General has no legislative or executive power. They're really only there as a figurehead and a circuit-breaker, and I want it to stay that way. In this proposed model, they would be the head of state but not the head of government - that would continue to be the Prime Minister. The Governor-General's main ongoing functions are to appoint a Prime Minister (who, by convention, is someone who can command a majority of votes in the House of Representatives, so this is just a formality), and to sign off on legislation.
Their main benefit is to act as a circuit-breaker if the Parliament stops functioning. Under certain circumstances laid out in the constitution, the Governor-General can dissolve Parliament and call elections. Most notably, this can happen if a piece of legislation is approved by one house of parliament, rejected by the other house, approved again by the first house, and rejected again by the second house. The Parliament has obviously reached a deadlock. The Prime Minister can then go to the Governor-General and request that Parliament be dissolved, and new elections held. This prevents shut-downs of the government, and provides a way out of deadlocks.
This is why the Governor-General should remain apolitical and impartial. If they have a political view of their own, their usefulness as a circuit-breaker is reduced.
However, if the Governor-General is elected by popular vote, this makes it an inherently political position. We'll see candidates from the major parties campaigning to win the election. And this could end up with a Governor-General from one party facing a Prime Minister and government from another party. What if the Governor-General disagrees with the government and refuses to sign the laws that Parliament passes? Worse - what if the Governor-General decides to dissolve Parliament to get the other party out of government and replace them with a government of their own party?
Our Governor-General is not a political position like the U.S. President. Requiring a super-majority of Parliament to elect the GG ensures that it won't become a partisan position.
Scrap the senate and replace it with representation by lot (the Athenian model). Some number of people (99?) randomly chosen from the working-age population. Put them in for four year terms, half chosen every two years. They would be more representative, more resistant to corruption, and unhindered by electioneering. Geographic districts would still have the Lower House.
Not sure I agree with this. If some lobbyists or sponsors offer enough money to change their lives significantly after their term is up, I think you’d be surprised by how many people would take that.
Which is an existing problem. I'm not saying representation by lot would be perfect, just better.
I don't know the solution for post-career bribery.
If the legislature changed every year, there's less ROI and it becomes more expensive to throw significant sums of money at each and every legislator. Not saying that 6-figure payouts are too expensive to throw at a couple hundred people a year for companies large enough to benefit from legislative lobbying, but it might make the benefits limited enough to only be "worth it" for specific votes, rather than buying a senator outright
I do wonder how representatives that are chosen proportionally instead of geographically would work out. Possibly keeping very large geographical boundaries, but within those boundaries everybody votes on the same candidates. I'm not sure which voting system would work out best to create a proportional system that doesn't lead to a tyranny of the majority/silencing the minority, but possible using the quota Borda count and having the top X number of politicians get a seat.
Quick rundown of the Borda count for those who don't know from the wikipedia page
This might be okay as a replacement for the executive branch, say requiring a simple majority to sign legislation, perhaps super majority for major legislation.
The problem with this system for the senate is that it would pretty much remove the role of lawmaking from the senate as the vast majority of people would have no idea where to begin writing a piece of legislation. This is also where ALEC and similar groups would step in and hand senators pre-written legislation which already happens now, but this would get really out of hand when you have a senate full of random people who likely haven't studied any sort of law. It wouldn't even be so much a matter of buying them, just manipulating them would be enough. "Hey, I'm SuperHans, congrats on being chosen for the senate! I work with a group called ALEC, we are here to help you craft legislation to help the country. Oh and don't worry, we take care of of the legalese for you, all you have to do is put it on your official office letterhead and submit it for a vote! Think of it like a group project in school where we do most of the research and all you have to to is the class presentation." I think a lot of people would go for that, and if combined with promises of money and jobs after their term, it wouldn't be hard to get enough on board to control the senate.
Then there is the issue of troublesome views. Randomly picking people sounds great, but what do you do when David Duke gets picked? Brock Turner? The election process allows for vetting of a candidate. While not perfect, it can often bring problematic views and behaviors to the surface so we can keep those kinds of people from obtaining power to do us harm. How diverse would the senate be? How much would any of the care about issues not impacting their own communities? How much would they try to understand? Clearly an election based model isn't prefect in that regard as the senate isn't terrible diverse, but senators at least have motivation to listen to minorities and the issues affecting their communities when they depend on their vote for a job. A randomly chosen suburban middle class straight white woman who has one 4 year term to get through before going back to her accounting job has little reason to listen to inner city people of color ask for help with police violence, she doesn't need the black vote to keep her job.
Putting people in power without the accountability of a vote is highly problematic. You are setting yourself up for a senate full of racists and corporately owned legislators.
You may be a little confused. The House of Representatives writes the Bills, then votes on them, which are then examined by The Senate. If the Senate votes for them the Governor General then ratifies them into law. Senators can create legislation (a 'private member's bill') but these are much less common.
You respect their voice. It's how democracy works.
I feel like we need to tag posts with countries because I didn't realize you were referring to Australia, I had assumed you were referring to The States as OP, though initially ambiguous, has indicated.
David Duke is the leader of the KKK. He does not get a voice at the table of democracy. Democracy, particularly representative democracy, is built around compromise, but there is also a core set of values that must be agreed upon before any debate can begin. One of those that most of the western world has decided (though not always great at practicing) is that skin color is not a measure of worth. Another is that other people have the right to consent on not consent whether you can engage with them sexually, something that both Trump and Brock Turner seem to disagree with. What would a compromise with the KKK look like? Jim Crow laws. Apartheid. Both highly undemocratic systems. As a queer person, the thought that we should respect the voice of Westboro Baptist Church should one of their people get selected truly makes me fear for my safety. Compromising with intolerance and racism is not democratic, its oppression.
As soon as you decide that certain ideas or people are unwelcome in democracy, it dies.
The only restrictions should be self-protecting. You do not let anti-democratic people take power. You do not let censors speak. You limit violence to those who advocate violence.
Ideas like racism are unwelcome in democracy because it is an anti-democratic idea, it is unwelcome in democracy to preserve democracy. Democracy dies when you give legitimacy to undemocratic ideas. I think we are saying the same thing here I am just naming a specific example of the anti-democratic people you are referring to.
Ditch the provisions that allow for the Liberal value of deciding who qualifies for these supposed "rights" granted by the constitution.
If you believe (as it seems you do) that all people should qualify for all rights equally, isn't this a so-called "liberal value"? The obvious example that comes to mind is marriage: it was the conservatives who were campaigning to keep this right restricted to only certain couples, based on their sexual orientation, while it was the so-called liberals who were campaigning to extend it equally to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
Of course, not being familiar with the details of the American political landscape, I may be missing something.
Not as "liberals" are defined in America, at least. They are constantly trying to remove or limit our right to defend ourselves (ie, using firearms). They insist women have a "right" to slaughter their children (violating their right to life) before a certain age. They regularly enable State-backed kidnappers ("Child Protective Services") to violate the parental rights of good parents.
That's not at all accurate. Marriage is, by definition, the relationship formed for the purpose of having and raising children. The US has never prevented or forbidden anyone from marrying - certain couples or individuals are simply incapable of it.
Please refrain from unnecessary hyperbole or shock based language, like putting "good" in front of parents or "state-backed kidnappers" instead of whatever it is that you originally meant. It distorts your own arguments, appeals to emotion, and makes discussion nastier then it otherwise has to be.
If that's how @luke-jr feels they should be interpreted, it's only fair to let him or her express it how he or she feels fit.
It's a disservice to other users though. One of the primary reasons why Tildes was formed in the first place was nasty and uncivil discussions on Reddit that become more about personal attacks, or at the very least, without any substance. In response to your reply, I could call you a "self-centered moralless liar who only joined this site to attack me", and yet I think we can both agree that is neither productive nor adds anything to the conversation. By intentionally using such language, he's showing that he's disengaged and clearly not interested in talking in good faith, and at point, why talk at all?
I don't agree with that assertion at all. His language contained no personal attacks at any other users, and they weren't needlessly inflammatory. I find more of a problem with your accusation of bad faith.
There's little difference between calling a specific black person a nigger and saying all blacks are niggers. By stating that the CPS is "state backed kidnappers" he is directly attacking anyone who works for the CPS and on a site this large there's a good chance at least one user was personally attacked by that statement.
I do think it's needlessly inflammatory though. I understand why he would say something like "slaughter" (although even that is straddling the edge) because at least there, he (and I'm assuming you too) probably do view it as murder. I can understand that much.
But what's the use of adding "good" in front of parents or "state-backed kidnappers" instead of CPS? I didn't even know what he was talking about until he added that. "Good parents" is a strawman argument that allows him to make an appeal to the reader's emotions. If you want another example from me, I could say something like, "anti-CPS'ers only want good children to be abused by their bad parents". By using "good" and "bad" like this, I'm trying to convince the reader to side with me because I'm supporting the "good" side, and I'm trying to bully my opponent into supporting the "bad" side. And I think when we start trying to force people into "good" and "bad" sides, we're not really holding an argument in good faith, are we?
And I understand politics is a heated subject, it's a little bit to be expected, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to try to change it. I think if people were clearer in what they mean and tried to give their opponents the benefit of the doubt a little more, our discussions wouldn't be so nasty and toxic. And that starts with trying to point it out when it happens, and trying to tell people how to change it. He's already edited his original post to include mention of CPS, which is what he was actually talking about, so now it's not as confusing for someone else to understand what he means.
That isn't what a strawman is. EDIT: Unless you meant it was both a strawman and an appeal to emotion, come to think of it.
That's not what's going on, though. By using "good" and "bad," you're expressing your subjective judgment of the situation. If, to use your example, an "anti-CPSer" disagreed with the assertion, they would simply voice that disagreement. I can see your perspective, but on the other hand, it also seems rather bad-faith to assume that someone else is being manipulative, as opposed to just expressing their opinion.
Isn't your entire point predicated on not giving @luke-jr the benefit of the doubt?
To the contrary, it's exactly what a strawman is. As your link points out, a strawman argument is one where you intentionally misrepresent another person's argument to make your own seem reasonable. Here's the supplied example case from your link:
And that's what happened here. Rather then phrase his argument like "And they support CPS, which regularly takes children away from their parents without good cause", he said "They regularly enable State-backed kidnappers ("Child Protective Services") to violate the parental rights of good parents." See how it's an exaggeration in order to make himself look more reasonable? It's exactly what a strawman is...
I'm already giving him the benefit of the doubt though. As I pointed out, "slaughter" is a pretty incorrect usage of the word here too; slaughter means to kill en-masse or on a large scale. He's making it sound like a woman has children en-masse to intentionally abort them. But I cut him some slack here because, like you said, he may view it as murder.
I see it more as a stark, if rather alarmist, expression of a strongly-held opinion, to be honest.
Also, I think there's a misunderstanding. A strawman is not used to make your own argument look better, as you say; it's used to make an opponent's argument look worse.
It is necessary to distinguish them from actual child abusers and criminals.
https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/
So then, in other words, you agree with CPS the way it is. The only people it takes children away from is parents who are abusive, in prison or otherwise unable to provide for the child without another guardian, or sometimes in cases where child custody is contested. Do you disagree these are reasonable cases for state intervention?
This is completely false... CPS regularly fabricates grounds for removing children from good parents, and lies in court (they are taken at their word) to get their way.
Could you provide some evidence to support your claim?
I already did. Open the link...
Ah sorry, I didn't see the link at the top before.
Reading through it, it's quite concerning; however, it's also mostly anecdotal. I've tried to corroborate some of her claims, especially the one where she mentions a child was taken from their parents who were required to undergo treatment for alcoholism, and yet I have not been able to find any evidence yet that has happened. I can't find a police report or news article that the child died, which should certainly have attracted some attention. Another example, she claims that state governments are intentionally kidnapping children and selling them to adoptions for money. However, she provides absolutely no evidence that that's happened, nor does it make any sense; there are far easier and less criminal ways for a state to obtain income, not that a state needs superfluous income to begin with. Lastly, I tried to find a third party's analysis on this report, but I haven't be able to find so, either way; nobody seems to have ever gone through to seen if any of these claims are true or not.
As it is, it's a collection of unsubstantiated anecdotes, and without some kind of verification, it's not admissible as evidence of anything. And unfortunately, seeing as the author is deceased, we can't ask her to clarify...
You're not going to find official records. They're all sealed. No doubt why they've gotten away with it as long as they have.
How inconvenient. (Her death was itself under quite suspicious circumstances that may very well have been related to her work here.)
FWIW, I also have personally observed these things going on in multiple cases (and not one instance had potentially justifiable circumstances). The most recent ended up with the children all being separated and moved to various remote States, eventually followed by their widower father despairing and taking his own life. The children will not even be permitted to attend his funeral.
Until you can provide some solid evidence though, none of this is going to stand. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since you're still alive though, you can change that. What's the name of the father and of the children? Where did they live / where do they live now? Who was the case worker assigned to this? When and where is the funeral? Which police department is working on the death report?
I'm not at liberty to disclose their personal information, nor am I willing to put my own family at risk by pissing off the wrong people too much.
You believe a fetus has a right to life, but a child doesn't have a right to a good and loving home?
Do you believe that people who are sterile and can't have children at all shouldn't be allowed to get married?
If a heterosexual couple declares their intent to never have children, should the be not allowed to get married?
The simple fact is that marriage is for a lot more things than just having children. Children are neither necessary for marriage nor are they unique to it.
Why are you putting words in my mouth I never said?
Again, it's not about allowing or prohibiting. It's about possible.
People who are incapable of attempting procreation can't possibly marry. (Although if they can attempt it, their failure to succeed in procreation does not void the marriage.)
If a couple declares their intent to never have children, they are declaring their intent to never marry. Since intent is a key part of what constitutes a valid marriage, their intention to not marry means they have not entered into a marriage. You can't get married while intending not to get married.
And yet they have a marriage certificate that shows that they're married.
Regardless of what you believe, marriage does not require children. People get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives with each other and have the legal benefits of such an arrangement.
Marriage is not just a piece of paper.
What is the definition of marriage you believe is correct? Clearly it is different than what many others here believe, so it'd be useful to understanding your position if we knew how exactly those definitions differ.
Marriage is a permanent contract forming an exclusive union for the purpose of begetting children.
Where do you derive this definition from?
Catholic doctrine and history.
Yes, that makes sense considering what you've mentioned so far in this thread. I suppose I was hoping to know what elements of Catholic doctrine / history this definition comes from. I am not at all familiar with the intricacies of the Catholic faith and would not know where to begin in the slightest.
I notice your responses have often been particularly short and curt. I do not know if this is intentional but it makes me feel like you are not interested in having much of a discussion, which disappoints me. You appear to have given your position a great deal of thought and I'm genuinely interested in understanding it more!
With regard to Catholic sources, I guess Arcanum (Pope Leo XIII) and Casti Connubii (Pope Pius XI) would be the most relevant.
Probably depends on how many things I am doing at once when I reply, and/or what I am replying to. Some things, I can easily explain in greater detail (being more familiar with or interested in the response), whereas others can take more work to go into detail on (especially references, which I am terrible with saving).
Did you miss this part?
Spending the rest of your life with someone does not require nor constitute marriage.
Neither does having children with them.
Obviously talking about abortion here, but I have a question: what are your thoughts on miscarriages?
Specifically, ought women who miscarry (that is, the death of an unborn child), be held legally responsible? If so, would that be manslaughter, or some other legal charge?
I ask because something like 10-20% of pregnancies are miscarried, and not all happen from nonviable fetuses; sometimes they occur through accident or injury.
Even a charge of manslaughter requires a provable degree of criminal negligence. Perhaps it could be argued for some cases (eg, smoking while pregnant), but I expect it would be impractical to prove even that was the cause of death in court, which would make the charges frivolous.
Fair enough.
One more question. I'm not very familiar with Catholicism, I was raised Protestant, so my theological understanding on abortion comes exclusively from the Bible. What is your perspective on Church-sanctioned abortion, or more specifically, at least the Israeli Test for Adultery that the Lord gave to Moses? Seen beginning in Numbers 5:11.
There is no Church-sanctioned abortion.
Numbers 5:11 deals with adultery, and the consequence (given by God Himself) is the woman's body rotting. It doesn't mention any child, and even if one were to miscarry as a result, it would be the action of God (Who has the right to kill), not man. (Furthermore, it was also commanded by God, and as such, those carrying out that command would be acting under His authority.)
Your definition of marriage does not fit the etymology of the word marriage.
Even if you insist that the etymology is wrong (it's not), the simple fact is that marriage is a word that is used to describe a union in religions that are not the religion that you have.
I'm curious how you can justify saying that rights should not be limited, but similarly want to limit the rights of individuals of other religions (such as judaism, hinduism, buddhism, or many others) who do not hold similar views on the "definition" of marriage?
Yes, it fits the one you linked (which mostly doesn't actually define marriage at all) just fine.
False religions are not comparable to truth, and should not be given any special privileges.
It does not, as there is no mention of need or will to have children.
It's the etymology of the word. Whether you ascribe a different definition to it does not matter - the word was created to describe something different than you are describing.
So Jews should not have the right to marry in the US either?
Curious as to the criteria you hold as to what makes a religion a false religion, and what makes your religion not false in the eyes of an adherent to one different from your own?
I know you're gonna get trouble for this, but I'd just like to point out that you're not alone in that opinion. I also see abortion as little more than murder, and rarely, if ever, more acceptable.
Just have some curiosity questions in regards to your statements/opinions.
Is a 5-6 week abortion still slaughter?
(shooting for the earliest noticeable time frame)
and
Since marriage is for having and raising children, would you be okay with stripping all state/federal rights away from "marriage" and assigning them to "civil union between two adult consenting members"?
(this way "marriage" can still be for children but people that cannot have children, for what ever reason, can still receive survivor benefits and such)
Nowadays, we know from science that the child comes into existence within a week or so of the sexual act (specifically, the moment of conception). So 5-6 weeks is still murder.
Furthermore, even prior thereto, it would be generally wrong to prevent conception. Not because it is murder, but because the purpose of the sexual act is procreation.
Why limit it to two people? But aside from that nit, it sounds fine to me.
what is your definition of child here? at what point does a bundle of cells within someone become someone else?
When he has his own unique DNA.
Do girl children count, too?
Obviously. (FWIW, "he" is gender-neutral in the English language, despite SJW trolling.)
It is not obvious that "he" includes girl children.
Just FYI: we also have a singular "they" in the English language.
No, "they" is plural. Using it in a singular context is bad grammar.
That's a very black-and-white view. "They" has been used in the singular for at least 600 years by writers including Chaucer and Shakespeare. Even the Oxford Dictionary refuses to say it's incorrect.
However, even if you won't use the singular "they", you could still use "he or she".
Simply "he" works just fine.
Only for people who don't accept the sexism inherent in using a male-gendered pronoun to refer to all people.
English does not have male-gendered pronouns.
Wow.
What do you call "he" and "him", then? If you're somehow claiming that they're gender-neutral, why do "she" and "her" exist? And, if "he" and "him" are gender-neutral, I dare you to refer to your wife as "him" while she's in earshot. I'd love to hear how that turns out!
Just use s/he. Problem's solved.
Was just curious as to your particular definition of when the cells became a human being.
Some people go for the brain seems like you are a heartbeat kind of guy.
That said, is abortion completely off the table?
What about cases of rape?
Or delivering a child that would be stillborn or brain dead?
Also, what about cases where carrying/delivering the child could kill the mother?
Further question since abortion is a no go, how extensive should sex education be and the availability of contraception for men and women?
A human being is defined by the DNA classification as homo sapien. So we know today that the human being comes into existence at conception.
Yes.
Do we kill the rapists' other (already born) children when they rape someone? Of course not. Killing the child for the crimes of his father is absurd.
Everyone dies eventually. That doesn't justify killing them prior to that death.
If the doctor can see that the child has already passed away, removal is fine. (But that's no longer really an abortion at all.)
Ends cannot justify the means. If a bridge collapses and you're hanging on to the end of it, and Joe's hanging on your leg, and you can't save yourself without throwing Joe off, it's still an unjustifiable murder to kill Joe.
(But with modern medical science, there is no case where killing the child is the only way to avoid the mother's death anyway. So this topic is mostly irrelevant.)
Contraception is also gravely immoral, and at least public promotion or distribution of it should probably be illegal. "Sex education" prior to marriage should consist of simply common-sense modesty (don't let people touch your private regions; don't kiss/hold hands; don't be alone with people of the opposite sex; etc).
So under your government a mother would be made to deliver a vegetable(brain dead) child that had a heartbeat?
Thats interesting. So if you can pull both of you up, both of you should die in the above scenario?
So from your replies it seems like you are very much in favor of a Theocracy and are Pro-Birth. A few more questions if you dont mind.
[Theocracy]Considering that the original refugees from England came to this country to escape the Church of England, is it a good idea to set up the Church of America?
[Pro-Birth]Also, should healthcare be provided for all people or is that a personal responsibility?
Thanks for your answers I always enjoy diving into someone elses mind.
Basically, yes. If the child actually dies before delivery, he could be removed, however.
Not necessarily. You aren't obliged to save Joe if doing so is impossible; you're just not allowed to kill him.
No, while I understand why theocracy is needed for Vatican City, I don't support it outside that limited scope.
No, governments are obliged to recognise the true religion, not create their own or follow some false religion.
It's their "personal" responsibility (parents should provide it for their children, ideally). However, society should operate charitable organizations to help those who lack the means to do so, and should society fail to provide sufficient help, the government should step in and compel it. Furthermore, the government ought to do something about modern businesses underpaying so many people - we shouldn't have nearly so many needing to rely on charity.
Personally, I would try to hold on and get Joe to climb up with me. Once Joe is up, I can get up too. If that's not good enough, then I'm out of options, and will just have to accept that death is near.
Observations, science and reason.
Yes, the government-compelled healthcare removes the opportunity for much of society to merit from virtuous charity, since paying the taxes to support such a system makes it impractical for many people to afford also giving of their own free will.
Society can still improve itself, in hopes of deserving a better government in the future.
Document the real natural human rights, the natural limits of government authority, give glory to God, explicitly subject the monarch to the Church, and then leave everything else (including succession) to the absolute monarch to sort out.
Interesting. Are you saying you'd prefer no separation of Church and State?
Separation of Church and State is condemned heresy (Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852). The State is subject to the Church, and has a grave moral obligation to base its criminal law on God's moral law, as defined by the Church.
Pope Leo XIII's Immortale Dei is probably worth reading through.
That is certainly an uncommon view, to the extent that I'm surprised we have someone who holds it on a site of this scale. I do appreciate the radical difference in perspective. I'm just not sure how to approach a discussion given such a stark axiomatic contrast.
I guess a clarification would be handy. Is it accurate to say you would, in general, opt for curtailing personal liberty if that liberty runs contrary to how you interpret God's law?
Assuming luke-jr is the same as bitcoin dev luke-jr, he holds very very very very fundamentalist catholic views.
I believe the term is “unreconstructed monarchist.”
Fascinating. This explains so much.
It's a view that all Catholics are required to hold, and which denial thereof would strictly speaking exclude one from the Catholic Church. Obviously there are many Catholics-in-name-only who are not really Catholics, but we're not that uncommon. :)
Liberty is not something in itself, but more like an adjective. To be liberated, you must be liberated from something. So you could speak of liberty to kill people - that certainly needs to be curtailed. Or you could speak of liberty to repair vehicles professionally - the State has no authority to curtail that (at least if it's your only profession). Another one would be liberty to fornicate for pay (prostitution); that runs contrary to God's law, but arguably could be tolerated by the State (if it chooses) since prohibiting it would simply result in greater sins being committed instead (eg, masturbation). Basically, the State ought only to tolerate sin when such toleration is necessary to avoid a greater or comparable evil (or when its legitimate jurisdiction limits it from non-toleration). The Cult of Liberty, by Bishop Sanborn might be a better answer for your question.
Nit: It's not how I interpret God's law that matters, of course, but rather how the Church interprets it.
Does the Church really disapprove of masturbation more than prostitution? That seems rather... backwards. Usually it's prostitution that gets the bad rap.
What would you do if you disagreed with the Church on something? Isn't it conceivable that, say, a corrupt pope or some other Church authority decides to make a judgment that is clearly morally questionable?
Well, it can get complicated. But to try to make it simple: masturbation violates the very nature of the sexual act (its purpose of procreation), whereas prostitution doesn't necessarily do so (although if birth control is used, now there's two sins, birth control being basically the same as masturbation). The sinfulness of prostitution (by itself) is that it is being done without the proper order in place to provide for the upbringing of the child(ren) - that is, being outside of marriage. Therefore, the act itself is not intrinsically immoral, only immoral due to the circumstances it is being performed in.
After verifying that the Church actually teaches it, I would have to admit I was wrong.
For any given statement (or judgment), four possibilities are hypothetically possible:
I see you've thought a lot about this. Thanks for putting up with my newbie questions! I'm sure it can get tired explaining that to people.
What if the Church were to change its teachings? What if, for example, you found out that "today the Church states that all people have a human right to religious freedom and the Church is separate from the State"?
Would you change your belief?
The Church isn't capable of changing its teachings. If someone who held a position of authority were to contradict the Church's teachings, they would by that very fact lose their office, and thus have no authority whatsoever.
Your linked/quoted webpage is wrong. Don't believe everything you read...
(The "Second Vatican Council" mentioned by the author was not a Catholic council at all, and is infamous for having taught heresy.)
But it did. You might disagree with the new teachings (and that's your right), but the fact is that the Church has changed what it teaches about some things over the centuries.
Only among a minority of so-called Catholics:
Even if you think the Second Vatican Council is heretical, the official hierarchy of the Church has accepted it. Therefore, the Catholic Church has changed, and you have not changed with it. You can claim that the Church is in the wrong, but that's not the point. The point is that your version of Catholicism is not the same as the Catholic Church's version.
No, the fact is that it has not.
Among all practicing Catholics (which by definition means people who assent to Catholic doctrine in its entirety).
No, it hasn't.
You're confusing the Modernist sect (that the Catholic Church has always condemned) for the Catholic Church. Taking over Vatican City doesn't make them suddenly become the Catholic Church. Catholicism is a religion, not a mere political entity.
The Catholic position is that evolution of nature is a matter of science, and has no bearing on the Faith; therefore, Catholics are free to accept or reject it however they deem correct (while being honest with themselves intellectually, of course).
However, it would be heresy to deny that Adam was a real person, or claim he was not an ancestor of the entire human race. This is because the doctrine of Original Sin is that we all inherit the privation of grace from Adam's sin. It would also be unscientific to deny Adam, due to another doctrine... (following)
We know from the Catholic Faith that human beings are not merely animals, but have a spirit. Since the spirit is not biological, it cannot be reasonably explained through evolution. The Catholic position is that every human being (not just Adam) is a special creation, actively made by God.
So overall, it can be summarised as "evolution of nature OK; but evolution of humans is heresy"
The beginning of Genesis is not necessarily a literal historical account, and Catholics have never treated it as one. St. Augustine held the position that creation was instantaneous (as opposed to over a period of a week), for example.
Plants and animals have souls, but they are mortal souls, and cease to exist at death. I certainly wouldn't say that their deaths detract from the goodness of the world.
It seems this thread is about the US constitution. Since the internet (and tildes) is here for all, could we next time state the country in the topic or at least tag to avoid confusion?
I think there have been a lot of good thoughts here re: defining some of the amendments more clearly, environmental protections, and privacy protections. Those would definitely make it in.
I'd also switch the way we do voting from a first-past-the-post system to proportional representation with ranked choice voting. Move to more of a parliamentary system where people vote for parties. I would publicly fund elections and prohibit individual donations of any amount. Candidates who could pass a small barrier to entry (x number of signatures, x percent in polling, or something of that nature) would receive a small amount of public funds for their campaign, then they would have to win with the strength of their ideas, not the depth of their pocket books. Unused campaign funds go back into the pool for the next year's election.
I would remove all lame duck periods as they are obsolete. Any new legislative or executive actions (beyond emergency powers) would be stopped at the opening of polls. By the end of the day we know who won, by the next day they should be ready to govern. Having to have shadow governments in place also removes a lot of the uncertainty of who will be appointed to what position we see in the US.
I would limit the ability of legislators to become lobbyists and create high barriers and strong punishments towards taking bribes. I would institute penalties for cases of extreme corruption equivalent to treason.
I would increase representation, there should be ten times the number of Representatives, and maybe even a tiered "house within a house" to keep things manageable. Representatives frequently have hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents, how can they possibly be good representatives of all of them? I'm not even sold on the fact that we need representatives, in the age of the smart phone and internet. I think much more direct democracy is possible.
I would clarify the court's ability to determine what is unconstitutional and what that means. There is no check on this power and it has been used to great effect by the wealthy and powerful to undermine the middle, working, and poor classes. It has also been used in cases like Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education to let individuals stand up to institutions that would oppress them. Is there a line that we can walk? I would increase the number of justices greatly, to reduce the influence of any single individual or appointment.
I would also institute a Universal Basic Income, and single-payer health insurance.