Replies

>>What law did Bennet break to deserve to be invoked in this sentence? He never talked about gambling. His own religion doesn't even call gambling a sin.<<

I apologize for lumping Bennet in to this statement. He has skirted the edges of the laws very carefully. I guess what has always upset me about Bennet was when he was appointed drug czar he jokingly said he probably should give up smoking. And he did. He is also well known to be a pretty serious two fisted drinker. Then when I find out he has a monster gambling addiction, it becomes pretty obvious he has an addictive personality. He has managed to barely keep it within the law. So I guess that deserves some kind of respect.

Addictive personalities are something like bipolar head cases. They are often brilliant, often very productive, but prone to self-destructive behaviors. The most brilliant man I ever met was a serious alcoholic. He was my mentor for over 10 years. I watched him waste most of his potential on his addiction. Rush fits that profile well, as does Bennet.

Both Rush and Bennet seem to approach things from a religious perspective, yet the use of addictive substances is not a sin. I wonder why they support putting people in jail for behavior that is not a sin?

"Both Rush and Bennet seem to approach things from a religious perspective"

Bennet, yes, from what I know of him, he's decidely speaking from a Catholic viewpoint. And, btw, apology graciously accepted and thank you, but I still don't see where he came even close to not "barely keep[ing] it within the law". He could've drunk like a fish, and never would that have been breaking the law (unless he drove, but that charge is very serious, has never been made, and can't simply be assumed). He could've smoked 50 packs a day, and that wouldn't have been breaking the law. He could've gambled every last cent he had away, and that wouldn't have been breaking the law. Sorry. I just still don't see any known way in which he "skirted around the law". But you retracted including him in that sentence, so I won't push the point anymore. Thanks again.

Now as to Rush... I am not a regular listener (in fact, have listened very rarely), but I do check out his website a lot. I've never seen or heard of him make any religious references whatsoever except during his confession yesterday, and that was minor. Many religious people here have actually lamented the fact that he doesn't mention religion.

I think you have "religious" and "conservative" inextricably linked in your mind - which is understandable in a way, as the Left does so love to demonize "the Religious Right" any time it's appropriate and when it isn't as well.

But take this as an example - I am agnostic. I attend no church and I do not consider myself religious, although I do have a great deal of respect for religion and none of the animosity and amazing hostility toward it that is prevalent amongst most agnostics and atheists of the Left. I am also very very conservative, including socially. I am pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, I don't believe that the 1st amendment was ever meant to cover pornography, I don't believe there's a constitutional right to sodomy (and while I don't care much about any implied immorality in it, I kinda think it was a bit WRONG that in all the political correctness no one even -discussed- the tremendous health dangers it poses), I do believe the institution of marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman for the health of society, and I would vote for a FMA if it was proposed... and yet I'm not religious. I arrive at all these conclusions from a purely secular analysis - to me, they just make sense with or without a Greater Being to command them. And frankly, I don't think Rush is particularly religious either. He probably is to some extent - he did ask people to pray for him, and if I was in that much trouble I might too, can't hurt! - but I don't think he "approaches" his conservatism "from a religious perspective" any more than I do. Admittedly, I don't listen to him regularly, so I could be wrong on that. But I think it's just as likely that you feel that way because there's been a massive propaganda campaign for decades underway to make you react exactly that way - "conservatism" = "religious zealotry". It just ain't true.

Qwinn

Hmmm, seems I was only half-right in my last post (which I failed to ping, sorry).

Here's what the Catechism has to say on drugs:

2290: The virtue of temperance disposes us to [i]avoid every kind of excess[/i]: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291: The [i]use of drugs[/i] inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

(italics in the original)

So their concern seems to be with abuse rather than use. They do make an exception for therapeutic drugs, and at least originally, that certainly applies to Rush. I suppose the circumstances under which he continued to use them would matter a great deal - if he was still taking them under a doctor's advice, I think it would have to fall under "therapeutic grounds" all along and he'd be pretty safe. If he went and continued using them on his own by getting them illegally, then yeah, it's pretty clear cut, he sinned big time, at least according to the Catholic Church. But even then, I think they would take the fact that it was "therapeutic grounds" that got him hooked in the first place into consideration and not make him have to do as much penance as would, say, a recreational junkie who got himself hooked, "optionally", so to speak.

By the way, just to restate my position - I'm for the favor of decriminalizing users (because of A) compassion, B) not all users are addicts and can function just fine) and C) we realllllly have better uses for the prisons), plus we need and decriminalizing marijuana altogether, because in EVERY conceivable way it's far less harmful than alcohol. In fact, I would recommend criminalizing alcohol and legalizing marijuana simultaneously. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work the first time, but we didn't replace it with anything, so we don't know if it would work. If marijuana were the only legal drug, we'd have a hell of a lot less car accidents. Stoned people don't want to drive - the only thing that'll drag 'em out on the road is the munchies, and even then only if no one's delivering. *chuckle*

Qwinn