Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.
Posted on 08/11/2006 7:49:14 PM PDT by Coleus
|
|
Rev. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D.
|
A lot of hot-button topics are being debated in our state legislatures these days, topics of great ethical and bioethical importance, ranging from emergency contraception to gay marriage. These debates address important issues for the future of our society. Lawmakers face the daunting task of making decisions about what should or should not be permitted by law within a reasonable society. Recently I was asked to speak in Virginia at legislative hearings about embryonic stem cell research. After I gave my testimony, one of the senators asked a pointed question. "Father Tad, by arguing against embryonic stem cell research, don't you see how you are trying to impose your beliefs on others, and shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society?" The senator's question was an example of the fuzzy thinking that has become commonplace in recent years within many state legislatures and among many lawmakers.
Two major errors were incorporated into the senator's question. First, the senator failed to recognize the fact that law is fundamentally about imposing somebody's views on somebody else. Imposition is the name of the game. It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don't want to have those views imposed on them. Car thieves don't want laws imposed on them which prohibit stealing. Drug dealers don't want laws imposed on them which make it illegal to sell drugs. Yet our lawmakers are elected precisely to craft and impose such laws all the time. So the question is not whether we will impose something on somebody. The question is instead whether whatever is going to be imposed by the force of law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.
The second logical mistake the senator made was to suppose that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law. Religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral. Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society? Clearly not. Rather, the subject of stealing is so important to the order of society that religion also feels compelled to speak about it. Religion teaches many things that can be understood as true by people who aren't religious at all. Atheists can understand just as well as Catholics how stealing is wrong, and most atheists are just as angry as their Catholic neighbors when their house is broken into and robbed. What is important is not whether a proposed law happens to be taught by religion, but whether that proposal is just, right, and good for society and its members.
|
That lawmaker may not be so concerned about avoiding the imposition of a particular view on others — more likely, they are jockeying to simply be able to impose their view, a view which is ultimately much less tenable and defensible in terms of sound moral thinking. |
Hmmm. Clear and logical. Better to rail against it than read it.
"America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded...Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil ... a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons ... never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error ... Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.
In the face of this broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance." - Bishop Fulton Sheen 1931
Brilliant point about the eagle egg.
The word is not "impose", the word is "persuade". In a democracy you seek to persuade your fellows of the rightness of your view. Citizens have that right, and if they succeed in convincing their fellows, they can enact their view into law, as long as that view does not violate some prior constitutional protection.
The idea that religious sensibilities ought never to affect our view of the world and the issues we face is silly. There is no "ought" about it, our religious and philosophical sensibilities always affect our world view. That our sensibilities differ is the reason we do political battle before imposing any law on ourselves.
That this senator wants impose a change in the law without considering the views of the citizens is not surprising. He shouldn't imagine we should go along with it without pushing back.
Wonderful quote by Bishop Sheen. 1931, and timeless.
No one should have to impose not murdering babies on decent human beings. Of course, we are no longer dealing with such people are we?
The priest is arguing logically. That is appropriate in a science discussion. Sensibilities is to vague for me. but I think this whole push for embryonic stem cell research funding must be a boondoggle or pork, as there is no rational reason to do it at all.
There is a very rational reason that some people are pushing for embryonic stem cell research, even though adult stem cell research has been producing all of the results so far. If people can get the government to authorize embryonic stem cell research, then that helps to promote the idea that an embryo is of no value. It's the abortion crowd that is pushing the killing of embryos.
Every law that is passed imposes a value system. The Libs want to impose their godless worldview which is entirely different than what the Founding Fathers ever envisioned. We have to out-vote them. It's as simple as that. There are only some basic rights in the Bill of Rights that cannot be imposed upon us.
He used my analogy!
From my email sig:
Human Life. Human Ethics
Crack the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species list and you'll find that it doesn't matter that the bird embryo or fetus can't survive outside the egg. You've still broken the Endangered Species Act.
Well, it's ok for them, in their beliefs, to impose Sharia Law on your brother, mother, father, sister, rape and kill them in the name of outlaw, oops I mean allah, that's all ok, right?
That was a great article! Thanks for posting it.
"The unparalleled horror of the Nazi holocaust shows most clearly what happens when perverted science is allowed to overflow moral and ethical banks. If man is simply the measure of all things then justice is whatever a majority of men at any given moment says it is, or whatever a "dictator of principles" may impose by force. Without a standard of justice external to human reason there will be no necessary restraint on what men may legitimately do. The only law will be "that of the tooth and the claw."
"The great moderating influence in Western civilization has been the Judeo-Christian tradition. The idea of an omnipotent God who not only judges but may mete out punishment in the next life for transgressions in this one bolsters man's rational impulse toward civil society and obedience to the positive law. That one might commit crimes in this world and elude punishment by the civil authorities, but still have to face one's Maker in the next, tends to focus one's attention.
"The broader importance of our religious tradition is that it reinforces man's sense of responsibility to his neighbour, of trusteeship towards the next generation, and of respect towards society's institutions and achievements. Religion teaches us that there is something higher than mankind, and therefore a need to restrain oneself in accordance with those higher standards. As Tocqueville described it, the power of religion in a democratic republic means that "the human mind is never left to wander over a boundless field; and whatever may be its pretensions, it is checked from time to time by barriers that it cannot surmount." Certainly a world that lived by the moral guidance of the Ten Commandments would be a better place. And to an extraordinary degree, those dictates of divine law have informed and defined the Anglo-American constitutional and legal tradition. As Edmund Burke put it, "There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law - the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity, the law of nature and of nations."
That's a great quote. I'm always fascinated by how little human nature changes over time, even thousands of years.
I was just about to post this. Excellent article.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Actually, all rules/laws impose someone's beliefs on others.
susie
Of course, whenever that question is asked, it's asked by somebody who does not agree and does not want the view imposed on themselves. They make it sound like a general principle they are fighting for, but they are really arguing for their own wants and/or needs.
But, of course, it's much more high sounding to phrase the issue in terms of wrongly imposing a viewpoint. Because if you don't do that, then you have to argue in favor of allowing the behavior you want to allow.
Thus it is better and easier to say, "Don't you think goverment should stay out of people's private sexual behavior?" than to say, "Don't I have a right to homosexual sex?"
Shalom.
You know the tolerance mantra is on shaky ground when the left is intolerant of the intolerant.
During the entire Anita Bryant thing my father used to ask, "I don't know why someone's right to be homosexual is more sacred than my right to be a bigot."
Of course, my father was not a bigot, but his point was valid.
Shalom.
Are you willing to engage in logical debate on that subject, as this author was willing to do regarding embryonic stem cell research?
A religious position that is not willing to open itself to logical debate is a smoke screen for a feeling.
Shalom.
I haven't noticed an increase in the imposing of religious beliefs in the US, though I have noticed a decrease in the tolerance of public expression of religion.
The Islamo-fascists who long for the caliphate, and are willing to pressure men like Steve Centanni to convert to Islam, are imposing their religion on others.
It seems to me, that we folks in the West had better get busy doing things to increase our faith, unless we want to allow Islamo-fascists to "choose" our religion for us.
+
I like your father.
"If people can get the government to authorize embryonic stem cell research, then that helps to promote the idea that an embryo is of no value."
And from there, it's even more sinister. Once it can be generally accepted that an embryo has no human value, it's not a large step to apply the same fuzzy thinking to the other agenda items of the culture of death.
What a great article, about a great priest!
Rule 1 of Liberalism: Facts, logic, and consistency are irrelevant.
And you wondered what the genesis of BRAAD was?
Shalom.
Thanks for the ping.
God bless Fr. Pacholczyk. We need a lot more priests like him.
Great tagline!
I admit total ignorance about not only the genesis of BRAAD but its existence as well. What is it?
I thought you were on that ping list - but it was a while ago.
Based on that quote from my father I took a GLAAD press release and re-wrote it. I replaced Gay and Lesbian with Bigot and Redneck and the Bigot and Redneck Alliance Against Defamation was born. As you might guess, there wasn't much more editing that needed to be done, because there is just as much justification for tolerating bigots and rednecks as there is for tolerating gays and lesbians. There is just as much proof that it's genetic. Just as much proof that it is not a mental illness. Just as much proof that bigots and rednecks can't change. And bigots and rednecks are just as picked on by the general population. Can't you just imagine the pain that little Billy Bob feels when everyone else at school is always teasing him? Is it any wonder that bigots and rednecks commit suicide so often?
We had daily posts and some inside jokes ("We're here, we're intolerant, and we'll kick your a$$." Official theme song was "Goober Peas.") and we had fun, but Jim Robinson decided that wasn't what he wanted FR to be about. It's his place so we stopped.
But there are occasional references to it from time to time. I've long since lost the ping list, but I put a few of the charter members in the to box.
Shalom.
Good to see you ArGee J
Check your + FReepmail. I'm sending you the original Ping List J
We're here, we're intolerant, and we'll kick your a$$.
Shalom.
LOL! Thanks for the elucidation. I may be too late for the list, but consider me one in spirit with BRAAD.
I love all souls, it's their behavior and consciousness I don't like.
;-)
Go, Father, Go !!!!!!!!
1. The Endangered Species Act was signed by Nixon and enacted where it allowed full protection under federal law for: animals, geese, owls, whale, bugs, spiders, turtle eggs, eagle eggs, trees and scum in rain puddles.
2. Roe vs. Wade where 9 mortals made from dirt, allowed it to be made possible for Humanity to slaughter, burn, aspirate and sever Human Babies, created in God's image and likeness. Since then, humanity, and the USA, spiraled in a downward trend, a slippery slope.
Touch a turtle egg or its nest, Canadian goose or a spotted OWL and get a yr. in jail and a $50K fine, and don't cut down certain trees or fill in that puddle! abort a child, get paid $750.00. And we wonder why there is NO respect for HUMAN life created in God's image.
This is why we need to inculcate a culture of life in our society in general and in churches and schools (starting in kindergarten) . People tend to think of children as disposable items.
A pro-life education Program
It's a grievous sin that animals and turtle eggs are afforded more protections and rights than a human fetus and baby created in God's Image with a soul.
Genesis 9:3
Every creature that is alive shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants.
Man:
Kill the humans (abortion) and save the Bears, the spotted owls, the Canadian Geese and the whales and don't crack that turtle egg!!
You can get fined up to $10,000 for messing with those eggs and baby-killing physicians get paid government and private money $$$ to kill humans! Go figure.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
Penalties and Enforcement
The number of species listed (plants and animals, NOT humans) as threatened or endangered
Species Information
Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants
10 FALLACIES IN THE ABORTION DEBATE
The Endangered Species Program
Page 4 Sec 3 (c)(8) don't crack those eggs, one might end the "life" of a bird, fish or turtle. I guess certain "mammals" (humans) do not apply.
Science and the ESA
The Govt. recognizes that a fertilized egg from an animal is "alive" and protected by LAW (The Endangered Species Act of 1973) and when an "alive" person created in God's image is growing and living in his mother, he's termed and given the moniker of just a blob of "unlive" protoplasm or tissue which can be aspirated if it's the mother's "choice" to do so with no protections under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for EVERY careless word they have spoken."--Jesus (Matt. 12:36)
In Florida, women dying in bed have less rights than turtle eggs! (FL Law 370, US ESA of 1973)
Quanta Cura
CONDEMNING CURRENT ERRORS
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM
William Jasper, author of "A New World Religion" describes the religion of the UN: "...a weird and diabolical convergence of New Age mysticism, pantheism, aboriginal animism atheism, communism, socialism, Luciferian occultism, apostate Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism".
from my homepage....
I would happily donate all the stem cells from my way-too-fat upper arms and baby belly. If science wants it they can come get it.
Who has "imposed" their beliefs and agenda on homosexuality, abortion and all kinds of evil--and made us pay for these sins for 40+ years? Then they have the nerve to say we are the ones imposing when we object? To shut us up? Is that the best they can do?
impose or be imposed upon. there ain't a whole lot a of middle ground, really.
Money and ideology, which is basically what you're saying. Once money gets behind an ideology, it's got momentum; it's a powerful combination, because people get religious about their ideologies (is that redundant?) and start playing moral trump cards they pull out of their sleeves.
Once there is financial interest, things get really dirty. (no, I'm not knocking capitalism -- I'm a capitalist by trade. I'm describing human nature).
I have come to the same conclusion.
The abortionist is already probably using cells from embryos prior to the killing of the human child in the womb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.