President Biden - Regulation of Transgender Care for Children is "close to sinful"
President Joe Biden criticised Florida’s regulation of transgender medical care for children and ban on gender ideology in the classroom, calling these measures "close to sinful."
Lawmakers in Florida have introduced bills and regulations to protect children from transgender medical interventions and restrict classroom instruction in gender ideology. In Florida, a ban on transgender surgeries and medications for children, issued by the state’s Board of Medicine, goes into effect on the 16th March. Lawmakers have also proposed legislation banning transgender medical procedures. Florida Govender Ron DeSantis has signed legislation that prevents schools from promoting gender ideology through discussions of transgenderism and sexual orientation to young children in kindergarten through to third grade. The legislation requires such discussions in later grades to be age appropriate. Biden said in an interview on America's Daily Show: “What’s going on in Florida is, as my mother would say, close to sinful. I mean it’s just terrible what they’re doing.”
During his interview, Biden added that federal legislation might be necessary to prevent states from adopting certain bills that affect transgender policies related to children.
“It’s not like, you know, a kid wakes up one morning and says, ‘You know, I decided I want to become a man or I want to become a woman. I mean, what are they thinking about here? They’re human beings, they love and have feelings. … It’s cruel. We [should] make sure we pass [federal] legislation like we passed on same-sex marriage. You mess with that, you’re breaking the law and you’re going to be held accountable.”
Although Biden, the nation’s second Catholic president, called the Florida bills “close to sinful,” his interpretation sets him against the Vatican and Pope Francis. The Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education on June 10, 2019, published a document titled “Male and Female He Created Them,” which rejects the idea that a person can choose his or her gender.
“There is a need to reaffirm the metaphysical roots of sexual difference, as an anthropological refutation of attempts to negate the male-female duality of human nature, from which the family is generated,” the 31-page document states, adding: “The denial of this duality not only erases the vision of human beings as the fruit of an act of creation but creates the idea of the human person as a sort of abstraction who ‘chooses for himself what his nature is to be.’”
“Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of hat it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and woman in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him,” it continued.
Apart from his Catholic "faith", Biden clearly doesn't read the British Medical Journal. If he did, he wouldn't be so keen on defending invasive procedures for children with gender dysphoria. In a ground-breaking editorial, the BMJ has acknowledged that US guidance for treatment of young people is not based on evidence.
An investigation of the practice in the US has found that “more and more young people are being offered medical and surgical intervention for gender transition, sometimes bypassing any psychological support”. Such practices are supported by guidance from medical societies and organisations, but the BMJ says the strength of the recommendations is not matched by the strength of the evidence — and “the risk of overtreatment of gender dysphoria is real.”
During the president’s interview on the Daily Show, Biden also reiterated his support for same-sex marriage and defended his support for the Respect for Marriage Act, which federally recognises same-sex marriage. The president has also been a staunch supporter of abortion and urged Congress to codify the Roe v. Wade abortion rules into federal law.
I have no doubt that Mr Biden loves his children, and mourned in pain the daughter he lost. He has seen over a long life the wonders and the worse of mankind, and knows that there is nothing so precious as those early years of hope; nothing so important as protecting and guiding children as they set off on their own journeys. He should be joining Governor DeSantis in expressing horror at what ideologues set out to do to those vulnerable children. Instead, this President says what he cannot possibly mean, given his experience. Ideology is a vicious mistress.
ReplyDelete@Little Hobb,
DeleteChristian ideology is hardly a vicious mistress, more like that schoolteacher who believed in you and who you remember with chaste, loving affection to the end of your days. But apparently Uncle Joe always really really wanted to be president of the USA, clearly a lot more than he wants to honour the God and faith he laughably claims to believe in.
Jordan Peterson put it well. The difference between a religion and an ideology is that a religion requires you to change, an ideology requires everyone else to change.
DeleteAll Biden is doing is dogmatically reciting the creeds of the prevailing ideological faith. A soul lost in darkness and delusion.
One could argue that 'faith' in America and across the 'developed' world is increasingly becoming a matter of ideology.
DeleteI appreciate that Jack has put the word in inverted commas, but Scripture says that the righteous live by faith and that by grace one may be saved through faith, so I guess we should aspire to it meaning more than merely adhering to an ideology. One has a feeling that Africa - and maybe parts of Asia too - will be showing the 'developed' world the way.
Delete@Gadjo - the righteous live by faith in Christ. One can have faith in many things.
Delete雲水
DeleteVery true. Always been a big fan of in Christ.
"Ideology is a vicious mistress.".
ReplyDeleteIndeed. And so is the desire for political power. May he seek God's forgiveness.
In a homily in 2013, Pope Francis said:
Delete"The faith passes, so to speak, through a distiller and becomes ideology. And ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought. For this reason Jesus said to them: You have taken away the key of knowledge. The knowledge of Jesus is transformed into an ideological and also moralistic knowledge, because these close the door with many requirements.
"The faith becomes ideology and ideology frightens. Ideology chases away the people. It creates distances between people and it distances the Church from the people. But it is a serious illness, this ideology in Christians. It is an illness, but it is not new, eh? Already the Apostle John, in his first Letter, spoke of this. Christians who lose the faith and prefer the ideologies. His attitude is: be rigid, moralistic, ethical, but without kindness. This can be the question, no? But why is it that a Christian can become like this? Just one thing: this Christian does not pray. And if there is no prayer, you always close the door.
Part II
Delete"When a Christian does not pray, this happens. And his witness is an arrogant witness. He who does not pray is arrogant, is proud, is sure of himself. He is not humble. He seeks his own advancement. Instead, he said, "when a Christian prays, he is not far from the faith; he speaks with Jesus. I say to pray, I do not say to say prayers, because these teachers of the law said many prayers in order to be seen. Jesus. It is one thing to pray, and another thing to say prayers.
"These do not pray, abandoning the faith and transforming it into moralistic, casuistic ideology, without Jesus. And when a prophet or a good Christian reproaches them, they the same that they did with Jesus When Jesus left, the scribes and Pharisees began to act with hostility toward him; they are ideologically hostile and to interrogate him about many things, they are insidious for they were plotting to catch him at something he might say. They are not transparent. Ah, poor things, they are people dishonoured by their pride. We ask the Lord for Grace, first: never to stop praying to never lose the faith; to remain humble, and so not to become closed, which closes the way to the Lord.
when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith etc.
DeleteThis is pretty good stuff from Pope Francis.
In many ways this address is a key to understanding his pontificate - good and bad.
DeleteI say to pray, I do not say to say prayers, because these teachers of the law said many prayers in order to be seen. Jesus. It is one thing to pray, and another thing to say prayers.
DeleteMet. Ware, of blessed memory, recalled a sermon he once heard.
On this occasion the preacher told a story which I think is associated with the Curé d’Ars but he didn’t mention him:
Once upon a time there was an old man in the village who used to go into the church each day and remained there for a long time. His friends said to him, “What are you doing all that time in church?”
And he said, “I’m praying.”
“Praying?” they said. “You must have a great many things to ask God for.”
He replied, with some warmth, “I’m not asking God for anything.”
“What are you doing then?” they said.
And he replied, “I just sit and look at God and God sits and looks at me.”
If more adopted that approach the "no prayer zones" around abortion clinics would be unenforceable!
Delete@雲水,
DeleteAh yes, Kallistos Ware relates this story in his small book on The Jesus Prayer!
This was always Francis's problem. Great men are rarely good men. Pius XII was one of the greatest men who ever lived, but in the Gospel sense, it is questionable if he was a "good" man. Francis wants to be a "good" man, but as a reigning pope, he doesn't have that luxury. In his position, it's "great" or nothing, and the paradox is that he's ending up being neither.
Delete@Jack - I see that the woman arrested for silently praying near an abortion clinic has been arrested again, even though the case was thrown out the first time. I would love to see if the police would dare to even approach a member of a certain other faith doing the same thing.
DeleteYes, Jack noticed that. Why doesn't she just say "No comment" when asked if she's praying?
DeleteI wondered the same. Or simply remain silent. We don't (yet) live in a country where one is obliged to answer a police officer's questions.
DeleteExactly.
DeletePerhaps she feels it to be a point of principle to not be intimidated into silence about this issue.
DeleteWell, HJ supposes it may be one way to test the law in the courts - but not so sure it's the best way forward as it could set a bad precedent. On balance, it might be better to stay silent if asked.
DeleteIs it intimidation into silence, though? I would see it as a simple refusal to acknowledge the charade.
DeleteThis Church Militant article, more accurately, the comments, has left HJ wondering just what Pope Francis said that was so unCatholic.
ReplyDeleteCM is as ideologically driven as the beliefs they purportedly oppose; Francis can never say or do right in their eyes, because he is Francis. Priestly celibacy has only ever been a discipline; hence Eastern Catholic and convert priests are given dispensations. But some people act like it's the end times if you point this out: a discipline cannot become a dogma simply because people howl about it.
DeletePersonally, I'm divided on the issue. I know how hard it is to be in a household where the (F)father is dividing his time between church and family. On the other hand, celibate priests seem to function best in small supportive communities, such as the now extinct model of three priests and a curate in the presbytery. Having seen a number of intolerably lonely priests rattling around huge rectories burn out or take refuge in a bottle, I wonder how sustainable the current approach is.
Yes, when Jack was a lad there were two priests covering his parish and a convent with sisters who worked closely with them. They had a support network. Plus, it wasn't unusual for them to enjoy Sunday dinners with families. How times have changed.
DeleteHJ believes the time for married priests in the Latin Church is fast approaching. Possibly, starting with older married men whose children have reached adulthood, although that too can be a demanding time for parents.
I agree with your assessment except that, in my experience, adult children are a joy and place no demands on their parents at all.
DeleteHmmm ....
Delete
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins has Tweeted: "Death penalty for murdering a fertilised egg," in response to this:
Republican lawmakers in South Carolina are considering a change to the state’s criminal code that would make a person who gets an abortion eligible for the death penalty.
The bill being considered in South Carolina, dubbed the South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023, would redefine “person” under state law to include a fertilized egg, giving it at the point of conception equal protection under the state’s homicide laws, including the death penalty.
The bill provides an exception for a pregnant person who underwent an abortion “because she was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or great bodily injury.” It also provides an exception if the procedure is needed to avert the death of a mother “when all reasonable alternatives to save the life of the unborn child were attempted or none were available.”
The bill does not provide an exception for rape or incest.
Reasonable? Or ideologically driven?
Well as a start I don't believe in the death penalty.
DeleteThere is a ruthless logic to their position, if life begins at fertilisation, and you believe in the death penalty for murder, then what they are proposing is completely rational.
But is it right?
You can't solve the problems of society by putting people to death .... and that includes the child in his/her mother's womb.
DeleteBut what penalty is just and appropriate?
Well we both agree on the ultimate futility of the death penalty. Considering the horrendous methods used, and the continuing breaking of the laws that led to them, you'd think people would have worked it out by now.
DeleteThat's the easy part. If you believe in the sanctity of life I would argue that the continuation of the ban against abortion would be dependent on any penalty being moderate. Otherwise the risk would be a reaction against the ban.
Those proposing the death penalty, are hastening the end of the ban.
Frodo: 'It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance.'
DeleteGandalf: 'Pity? It's a pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.' Frodo: 'I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.'
Gandalf: 'So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us. There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides that of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, in which case you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought.
Good quote - free will and the Providence of God working together.
DeleteThe death penalty idea is fuel for the 'pro-lifers are only pro-life for foetuses' mob.
DeleteI think that the death penalty is a barbaric leftover from primitive society, which has no place in the modern world, where it is simply 'repaying evil for evil'. However, even in the parts of the 'developed' world where it still exists, the death penalty isn't automatic, it's usually commuted in cases of duress or vulnerability or whatever. I'd suggest that most women who seek abortions fall into that category and punishing such women to the maximum extent that the law allows is unlikely to win over and hearts. I'm sceptical of legislating morality - 'the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws'.
I wonder if the men who push and cajole women into abortion will also be punished under this proposed law,
In the UK in a fairly recent past, up until about 1960 or even later, abortion was still illegal and murderers could still be hanged. But I don't think any abortionist was ever hanged, was he (or she)? Let alone an abortionist's client. In other words, under the relevant Acts of Parliament an abortion wasn't a murder.
Delete@ Lain - "I'm sceptical of legislating morality ... "
DeleteWhat other basis is there for laws that restrict human acts?
Shouldn't following natural law man result in moral rules and a moral and legal foundation for society? .
@ Ray
DeleteIn 1803, the Ellenborough Act made abortion after ‘quickening’ (i.e. when movement is felt at 16-20 weeks) a capital crime.
In 1861, the Offences Against the Person Act made performing an abortion or trying to self-abort a crime with a sentence of life imprisonment.
Not sure if any woman or abortionists ever received the death penalty or life imprisonment.
@Jack - one who doesn't drink has no need for precepts forbidding drunkenness.
DeleteLaws exist in moral societies to deal with aberrations. When morality has departed, one cannot legislate it back again (the same principle is at work in Gal. 2:21), and a surfeit of laws indicates the decay of a society. Thus:
The more laws and prohibitions there are,
The poorer the people will be.
The more weapons people have in a country,
The greater the disorder will be...
The more laws and commands there are,
The more thieves and robbers there will be.
Further to your response to the quote, it's certainly the clearest explanation I've come across.
Delete@HJ, thanks for the information!
DeleteThat's the same as saying if we didn't sin, there would be no need for civil laws. Yet we do sin.
DeleteLaws exist is society because men are fallen and prone to sin and selfishness.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts: "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . " Yet, we do sin.
The natural moral law is the knowledge of right from wrong that we all possess as part of human nature, regardless of culture or religion. It is human reason ordaining us to do good and forbidding us to sin. Yet we do sin.
It's stands to reason that the natural law should be the basis for all civil laws in order to bind people together and create a just society. This provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community.
HJ would agree that if a society abandons natural law (as the West is doing) it will rely more and more on the imposition of 'law and order' and will disintegrate. Eventually, it will have to undergo a re-set.
@Jack - does the existence of civil laws prevent you sinning? I don't refrain from trespassing on my neighbour's property because I'm afraid of a tort, or refrain from shoplifting because I'm scared of the police.
DeleteCivil law, whatever it's based on, is a consensual construct (cf. Thatcher's Poll Tax). If people abandon the foundation of the law - which, in the West, is Christian morality - then it crumbles. Adding more and more laws doesn't make people keep them, it simply makes them into criminals (this is basically St. Paul's point in Rom 7).
"I'm afraid of a tort, or refrain from shoplifting because I'm scared of the police."
DeleteWhat inhibits criminal behaviour is the likelihood of being caught. The punishment almost doesn't matter, it's the chance of getting away with it that does.
"Laws exist is society because men are fallen and prone to sin and selfishness".
DeleteAnd women?
No, but the law may make you think twice before breaking into Jack's home, especially if the penalty deters you and there's a reasonable prospect of you being caught!
DeleteSt Paul also instructs us to obey the civil authorities because they have been ordained by God. We have a duty of obedience to the State of which we are citizens - unless the law transgresses the moral law. Isn't this why Christians oppose abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning, and promote laws that support families and help the vulnerable and poor? Not only are they moral - they promote the common good,
The natural law has to be the basis for legitimate human law - because we are sinners and prone to breaking the moral law. This is why governments issue statutes that prohibit murder, theft, assault, and child abandonment, and make policies that they believe advance the common good, e.g., compulsory education, providing for policing and national defence, etc.
We can have a debate about what moral laws ought to be upheld by civil law.
@ Clive
Delete'Men' as in mankind, inclusive of all men, women, children, boys and girls - not the specific adult male sex.
@Clive - do you break laws that you know you can get away with? Is it only fear of being caught that prevents you robbing a bank?
Delete@ Lain
DeleteDo you ever break the speed limit?
@Jack - No, but the law may make you think twice before breaking into Jack's home, especially if the penalty deters you and there's a reasonable prospect of you being caught!
DeleteAs I said, the law deals with aberrations. I don't break into houses, so it's irrelevant to me. Judging by the fact that we've never eliminated burglary, it also appears to be irrelevant to those who do break into houses. Criminals, by definition, aren't bothered by legalities.
St Paul also instructs us to obey the civil authorities ... unless the law transgresses the moral law.
Put another way, if civil law mirrors moral law, then it is binding; if not, it isn't (or else the woman in the article above should cease praying in exclusion zones). So the civil law should equate to moral (or natural) law. But the moral person, who has the mind of Christ (or the law written on his or her heart), doesn't need the law, because they do good naturally. Those who do not will transgress regardless of the law, and piling law upon law won't stop them. And even if civil law prevents undesirable behaviour, it can't make them good people (for the law cannot save); I could obey every law to the letter and go around with a heart full of evil.
The purpose of civil law is to rein in the undesirable fringes of society. It isn't to provide codified morality or to make people good. This is why English law has a presumption that anything is legal unless it's expressly prohibited. However, when the undesirable fringes have become the mainstream, the law is useless. If one is considering legislating a basic moral principle like not killing babies, then it's already too late. Abortion will simply become a right enshrined in federal law, because the prince of this world has convinced enough people that it should be.
Don't we all break the moral and civil law? We're all sinners!
DeleteNo! What civil laws have you broken today?
DeleteYesterday Jack broke the speed limit ....
DeleteI've been to Scotland. You can break the speed limit by walking in most of the towns now. Breaking the speed limit is hardly on a par with murder (I'm going to presume no murders were committed yesterday, it is Lent after all).
DeleteIs breaking the speed limit against the natural or moral law (it's not a criminal act)? I suppose it depends on the circumstances (do you confess it to your priest?), but I'm inclined to say it isn't per se. But let's assume, arguendo, that it is. The existence of laws against speeding didn't prevent you from speeding, which proves my argument - the law didn't legislate you into morality.
Even if we further assume that the death penalty was introduced for speeding (and this could in any way be justified), all that would do is stop you speeding where you're likely to be caught (not on a highland isle that you know to be deserted, for example). It wouldn't change your boy racer heart because, as I said, you can't legislate morality.
Consider drink-driving. This was once common, but massively reduced in frequency. Why? Not because it's illegal - it already was - but because societal mindsets changed and made it generally unacceptable. On the other hand, out here in the sticks, it's way more common than it is in cities because the mindset hasn't changed here - but it's just as illegal here as it is in London.
Ask the police how often excess speed is the cause of accident and fatalities. Think of the differing survival chances when hit by a car going 40, or 30 or 20. A little bit of extra speed maybe the difference in breaking on time when a child runs into the road, and not being able to break on time.
DeleteSpeeding can kill, would it be murder?
I took an advanced riding and BikeSafe course with my local constabulary and had a very interesting conversation about this. Excess speed doesn't kill (or emergency vehicles would never be allowed to exceed the speed limit); it's the inappropriate application of speed kills. Doing 100mph on an empty motorway is far safer than doing the posted 30mph on a narrow, double parked road outside a school at kicking out time, for example. A 2019 American study found that the German autobahn, with its unrestricted speed-limitless sections, has fewer fatalities than comparable American highways with their very restrictive speed limits.
DeleteIt's true that a collision is more serious at higher speeds, but a driver or rider should anticipate hazards and never be going so fast that they cannot stop. We were told 'never outrun your vision'. There are 30mph rural roads near me where it's frankly dangerous do to 30 - there's open fields on each side and you get about an hour's warning of anything approaching on a side road. If you do 30, you end up with a van glued to your rear wheel (an unpleasant experience on a bike) or getting pissed off and trying to overtake into the face of oncoming traffic. It's caused several accidents this year. On the other hand, there are bendy single track roads marked as 60, where it's suicidal to go over 20.
I don't think speeding is murder, because murder requires intent. I think reckless driving could and should amount to manslaughter in some cases and be more severely punished than it is, though.
All true , but I don't think you have addressed the point. I think it fair to say the vast majority of drivers won't have done an advanced driving course. The impact of this is that a large number, probably the majority aren't necessarily that good at anticipating problems as you are. And even if they were, slowing down would give them more time to see and react.
DeleteYes inappropriate speed is the problem, typically I believe that will entail going to fast (although I have seen near accidents caused by to slow a driver).
I'm not saying I'm innocent with regards speeding, but it can't be airily dismissed as not an issue.
Believe me, as a 'vulnerable road user' I'm well aware of the average standard of driving 😰! As I already have my soap box out, I shall opine. I think there are two problems. 1) driver training isn't fit for purpose. It teaches people to operate a machine, it doesn't teach them how to drive. Well done, newly qualified driver; you can do a turn in the road or (a recent addition) follow the instructions on a SatNav for ten minutes without instructions. But you've never been on a motorway(!) and you have no idea how to read the body language of other vehicles (a friend of mine had a crash a week after she passed, when a car strayed into her lane going around a roundabout. I asked why she was in its blind spot, and she replied 'but it's not my fault, I was in the right lane!' Not her fault, but it was completely avoidable).
Delete2) The authorities suffer from a monomania that speed enforcement is a cure all. The only police I see near me are civilian operators sitting in camera vans on roads where it seems to me that speed isn't actually a problem (uninhabited rural roads, for example, not outside schools), but where the speed limit is low enough that most people will exceed it. Or, uncharitably, where they will make the most revenue. Speed cameras only catch otherwise law abiding citizens who register their cars, not the antisocial morons with no insurance and a boot full of cocaine who've never registered their car. They also don't catch the driver checking Twitter on their phone, or the one veering across the centre line because they're doing their makeup or talking to the kid on the back seat, or the drunks. These are the ones who cause the accident. There's usually a distraction or substance abuse or miscellaneous idiocy in the mix; speed is usually simply a symptom of a general lack of respect for the road and everyone else. 'Speed kills, slow down' is too reductive (and some of the worst drivers I've come across are crawling along at half the speed limit because they can't see past the end of the bonnet or lack the confidence to speed up). 'Being a distracted idiot who doesn't take driving seriously kills, get out of the car' would be a better slogan.
Yes, of course the speed at one drives is important and one shouldn't flout the limits; but I'd prefer to see people taught how to gauge appropriate speed for themselves rather than slavishly adhere to signs, which can be too fast for the conditions. Someone doing the speed limit while they're on Twitter is more of a menace than a hyper alert driver who slightly exceeds it.
@Lain
ReplyDeleteDid I say that was the only inhibiting factor. But it is true to , those who would otherwise Rob a house will be deterred if they believe there is a high likelihood of being caught. If they feel the likelihood is low, they will probably Rob
HJ has come up with a good example as well!!!
Excuse the typos,☹️
DeleteNo, but this is my point. If a person is criminally inclined, they might be wary of robbing a bank because of the likelihood of getting caught, but they'd certainly do it if you could get away with it because their heart is not right. No amount of legislation in the world will change the state of their heart. But you (I presume!) wouldn't rob a bank even if you knew for certain you could get away with it, because your heart is right.
DeleteMore pertinent to this discussion, if someone is inclined to view the life of an unborn child as disposable, then criminalising abortion won't stop that. It may reduce the outward behaviour - i.e. fewer medical abortions - but it won't change the heart. People will travel to other states, or seek illegal abortions, or abandon their newborns, or worse. The death penalty nonsense will also give congress the impetus to protect abortion access at a federal level.
Have a read of this: Strucures of Sin
DeleteI don't disagree: the East in general places more emphasis on the social nature of our being. There's a Buddhist metaphor of humanity as a giant net of jewels, each connected by a thread to every other. One cannot tug any individual thread without making the whole net move.
DeleteBut my point in the abortion debate is that this rests on at least three foundations that the West has largely rejected: 1) that there exists a bedrock of objective morality (i.e. God); 2) that an individual's convenience isn't the greatest imaginable good; 3) that life is sacrosanct from cradle to grave.
You cannot legislate those back again.
Christianity when it first arrived in Europe brought this moral code with it and it fundamentally changed the culture. HJ agrees we're passed a 'tipping point' in the West now, but a time will come when we either return to the moral law or return to savagery.
DeleteTo some extent, yes. It can't have brought the entire moral code, or the argument from natural law falls flat, as does the idea that non-Christian cultures can contain any moral goodness.
DeleteThen that's the answer - as man is not 'totally depraved' he has access to natural law through reason and also a conscience that seeks the good. Wise rulers will seek to promote the common good and constrain evil.
Delete'"Men' as in mankind, inclusive of all men, women, children, boys and girls - not the specific adult male sex."
ReplyDeleteTak, take you old sexist. And what about the other 99 gender's!
Tsk not Tak 😞
Delete@Lain, it is interesting when the police have been removed from an area, how crime tends to rocket. San Francisco's experiment in this has been a disaster.
ReplyDeleteWe are all sinful beings, a despised bank and the risk free opportunity to keep me and my family financially secure? Honestly which of us knows.
It is, and I think that's deeply concerning. The police shouldn't be acting as an increasingly weak foot standing on the hose of crime. This is what happens when society loses God and chases after the idol of the self; given the slightest chance they revert back to a Hobbesian state of nature bellum omnium contra omnes - a war of all against all. The answer will eventually be more police, and with America's police being too paramilitary already, I don't see how that ends well. Or just walk the place off Escape From New York style.
Deletea despised bank and the risk free opportunity to keep me and my family financially secure...
I don't know. Short of being on the brink of death by starvation, I don't think I could bring myself to steal (where Aquinas, following St. Ambrose, held that 'it is lawful for a man to succour his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.') Apart from that, no; and I haven't been without chances to do so. One should refrain from taking that which is not given. Proverbs says that stolen food is tasty, but one is left with a mouthful of gravel.
I mean 'wall the place off' 🙄
DeleteI agree absolutely. I suppose what I was really saying is, I've never been in that position, so I cannot be certain.
DeleteI have yet to steal anything (except my sister's chocolates when we were children 😂), so I'd like to think not.
I am glad that the temptation won't ever come my way!
Chocolate is necessary for life, so you have the saints on your side!
DeleteIsn't it just. Good chocolate is nearly as good as a decent pint!
DeleteActually I'm not sure if it isn't better 😀