torture at kylecupp.com

I've mentioned it before...Kyle is the guy who first suggested I start a blog. Since doing so, he and I seem to disagree on every topic that comes up. There has been a long, drag-on back-and-forth about torture on his blog, journeys in alterity. You can reach his blog by clicking on the name of his blog at the bottom of this page.

A couple of my recent comments to Kyle is posted below. I am eager to hear other people chime in on both this blog and Kyle's!

Kyle, et al...

Sorry I haven't been around for a few weeks.

Please allow me to posit the following remarks:

1. Kyle is right. V.P. Cheney did not make a sound case. His logic is flawed.

2. Teresa, I believe it was, to say that moral relativism is ok some of the time is preposterous. To state that such would be ok once in a while implies it is ok at all times. Moral Relativism is never ok. Like T. More said in R. Bolt's play, "Would you strike down every law in England to get the devil? [Roper says, "yes."] "Then where will hide when there is nothing in the land to stop the devil from coming down upon you?"

3. Kyle, we are at completely at odds with e/o when it comes to the issue of relativism. I side with P. Johnson in 'Modern Times' believing that moral relativism is at the heart of every problem and every evil that transpired in the 20th century.

4. I still uphold that severe, harsh questioning with physical and psychological tactics can be permissible by grounds of self-defense. Just like I don't think the death penalty is murder, so I don't think waterboarding is intrinsically torture.

5. I think that Dick Cheney will take Oh, Bama down with this torture issue. I think that Dick Cheney running for the presidency is possible if Obama doesn't change his tack--a Cheney-Obama debate would be fascinating to observe!

6. I think that libertarians are usual right but for the wrong reasons. I would say the same of Cheney, presently.

7. Some one said: If, according to Catholic teaching, the object chosen is intrinsically evil, the latter two sources of the moral rightness of an act cannot justify it. So, I make my point again, the question is whether EIT is intrinsically evil.
-I don't think EIT is intrinsically evil. Torture as revenge is wrong. Vengeance is not ours. But EIT upon an individual who is part of an ongoing plot of a certain nature can be reasonable.

So there it is, I continue disagree with every one of you. Aargh. Why is this?

May 22, 2009

and

Below I've pasted the entire section of Gaudium et Spes that keeps coming up. I copied the section from Vatican's website version of the "Pastoral Constitution."

MY COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS.
-FIRST OFF, THIS DOCUMENT IS A PASTORAL CONSTITUTION, PROMULGATED BY PAUL VI...WHICH IMPLIES IT DOES NOT HAVE THE FULL WEIGHT AND AUTHORITY OF CHURCH TEACHING AND TRADITION BEHIND IT. (IT IS NOT AN ENCYCLICAL, IT IS NOT AN APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION, WHICH WOULD HAVE MORE WEIGHT.) IT DOES STILL IMPLY THAT WE SHOULD EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY AND EXPECT INFORMATION THAT CAN AFFECT OUR LIVES FOR THE BETTER, HOWEVER.

27. Coming down to practical and particularly urgent consequences, this council lays stress on reverence for man; everyone must consider his every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all His life and the means necessary to living it with dignity,(8) so as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern for the poor man Lazarus.(9)IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE SECTION SPECIFICALLY IS MEANT TO ADDRESS OUR TREATMENT OF THE POOR. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SORT OF POOR IN OUR BACK AND FORTH.

In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception. PASTORALLY SPEAKING THIS IS PERFECTLY TRUE, BUT IF OUR NEIGHBOR HARMS US WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO RECOMPENSE AND IF OUR NEIGHBOR ATTACKS WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down uponHOW DOES THIS CATEGORY MEASURE UP TO THE OTHER ONES? THIS SORT OF INSERTION IS WHAT HAS CONVINCED SOME THEOLOGY STUDENTS THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS ONE OF THE WORST CONSENSUS DOCUMENTS VAT. II PRODUCED, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40). AGAIN, NONE OF THE SCENARIOS LISTED ABOVE MAKE ME THINK THIS SECTION IS MEANT TO BE A GUIDE TO WHAT TO THINK OF EIT'S ON ENEMY COMBATANTS. (I AM ONLY ATTEMPTING TO DEFEND THE POSSIBILITY OF A SCENARIO WHERE EIT CAN BE JUSTIFIED, NOT ANY PAST USE OR ABUSE.)

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments THIS SORT OF TERM NEEDS SERIOUS DISTINCTION AND CLARIFICATION BECAUSE ANYTHING COULD BE CLAIMED AS A 'TORMENT' TO SOMEONE!inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportationDEPORTATION? WERE THE WRITERS OF THIS DOC. SERIOUS? HOW IS THE JUST EXPELLING OF A PERSON WHO VIOLATED MULTIPLE LAWS TO ILLEGALLY ENTER A SOVEREIGN NATION APPLICABLE TO THIS SPECIFIC DISCUSSION OF SECTION 27 OF GAUDIUM ET SPES?, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies(DEFINED BY WEBSTERS AS A BAD REPUTATION) indeed. DOES ANYONE KNOW THE LATIN TERM AND ITS POSSIBLE OTHER TRANSLATIONS FOR/WHERE INFAMY IS HERE USED? INFAMY HARDLY SEEMS A UNIVERSAL CONDEMNATIONThey poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. THIS LAST LINE SEEMS OUT OF PLACE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER LINES...AGAIN, HOW DOES DEPORTATION QUALIFY AS 'SUPREME DISHONOR TO THE CREATOR?"

I'M NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF GAUDIUM ET SPES. IT IS A POORLY WORDED PASTORAL DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE USED TO MEAN ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE JUST LIKE THE INFAMOUS USCCB DOCUMENT ON FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP WHICH VARIOUS 'CATHOLIC' LEADERS THEN USED TO JUSTIFY CALLING OBAMA, THE NATION'S LEAD DEFENDER OF ABORTION IN THE SENATE "THE REAL PROLIFE CANDIDATE." WHICH, OF COURSE, WAS TOTAL NONSENSE.May 27

and, lastly,

The following is taken from the most noble, trustworthy source of information in the modern world: wikipedia!

"Criticism

It [Gaudium et Spes] has been criticized[citation needed] as over-optimistic, even from the floor of the council.
The ongoing question that arose from Gaudium et Spes is: how can the church be credible in a secular world? In the commentaries of the document, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) called certain parts of Gaudium et Spes "downright Pelagian," particularly in the treatment of free will in article 17. He is not wholly negative in his judgment about Gaudium et Spes, however, and praises the discussion of atheism in articles 19-21 as “balanced and well-founded.”
Gaudium et Spes is a pastoral document. Lumen Gentium on the other hand is a dogmatic constitution document."

This excerpt may not have specific impact on our ongoing disagreements, but it does help serve to show us the weight we ought to give the pastoral document; casting doubt as to whether you can say that G. et S. has the authority to claim universal, complete denunciation of anything.

May 29

-Any insight people have to offer on Gaudium et Spes would be very welcome as well!

Catholic Colleges and Required Courses

It has been announced that the University of San Francisco, USF, is doing away with its MA in theology program.  Two reasons were given: it is losing money and the 'pastoral ministries' program at Santa Clara (home of old acquaintance Fr. Warren, S.J.-who led me on a personal Ignatian retreat years ago) essentially does the same thing, allegedly.  

An excerpt from an article that addresses this move by USF: But, he said, the university needs to adapt to all of its students - 71 percent of whom are not Catholic.

"I'm not sure that forcing students into a Catholic theology course is appropriate if the student is Muslim, Hindu or Jewish," he said. In the core curriculum, "what we are trying to do is evoke from students sensitivity to the mystery and reality of God."

Undergraduate students seemed to agree with Privett.[Privett is the president of USF]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/10/BAKQ17HD1I.DTL

I'm curious to hear from others...it seems to me that a public school which requires a class in psychology or history or art or music or economics or political science would be forcing or foisting a potentially offensive course upon their students as well.  I'd say it is even worse, by such reasoning, for a public school to have such requirements...at least a Catholic/Jesuit school has a clear, sectarian history, mission, and identity which its students applied and requested to enter and and take part.  What about Public Elementary and High Schools that require a course in World Religions and allow non-Muslims to educate the young on Muslim precepts?   

Why would anyone want to consider themselves Catholic if the "mystery and reality of God" were not something they considered absolute and certain?  If an institution has been around for 2000 years and it doesn't have any certainty of its 'core curriculum' then why is it around?

My thought on USF...If you don't think it is fitting to require the students that voluntarily enroll in a Catholic school to be reasonably well-informed of Catholicism, what do you think must be required core curricula at a Catholic institution?  Is history required?  Is Literature required?  If education pursues truth and knowledge, what role does Catholicism play in all things objective and absolute, such as truth.  Didn't someone ask the same thing of Christ, What is truth, some 2000 years ago?   

Church hierarchy sees Oh, Bama's pragmatism at work

Taken from a short blurb from Catholic World News, a link to CWN can be found at the bottom of the blog.

While L'Osservatore Romano took a mild editorial view toward the Obama presidency, other voices from the Vatican are more critical. At a conference on human rights sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences, Archbishop Roland Minnerath of Dijon, France, said that Obama's "subjective" approach to human rights actually undermines human dignity. Father Michel Schooyans denounced the "messianism" of the approach taken by Obama and Tony Blair. He continued:

In fact, a society that calls itself democratic but whose leaders, invoking subjective "new rights," permit the elimination of some categories of human beings, is a society that has already set out on the road of totalitarianism.

Adding to the discussion on Kyle's blog

Please read Saunders' article on waterboarding and the US approach to "torture."

Los Angeles or Waterboarding?

A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_debra_j_saunders/los_angeles_or_waterboarding

Torture discussion on Kyle's blog: Journeys In Alterity

For a few days now, a discussion about the legitimacy of torture and how Christians should regard it as been going on at Kylecupp.com and his Kyle's blog: Journeys in Alterity.  

You can reach Kyle's  blog by clicking on the name, Journeys in Alterity, on the list of blogs I peruse found at the bottom of this page.  

Next you will find Kyle's original blog posting on the matter and one of my responses.  Please do go to Kyle's site and make some comments...I'm eager to explore this more myself.  

Kyle said: SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 2009

Torturing Christ

I find it disturbing that we’re actually debating the concept of torturing people, but what I really don’t get is the defense of torture by Christians. I say this not because Christians are better than others, but because, from the Christian standpoint, what we do to one another, even to the least among us and to the worst of sinners, we do to Christ. We show our love and respect for God in how we treat one another. A Christian who defends torturing a human person defends, in a sense, torturing Him in whose image and likeness we are all made.

I said:S. Rich said...

I don't have a definitive answer. But let me mention a few thoughts.

-Christ was certainly willing to be tough at times. When the money changers desecrated the temple Christ personally smacked them with a whip-like instrument. Was such a torturous action? Christ smacked them and publicly humbled them. Christ embarrassed there fragile psyches and physically assaulted their bodies, their temples of the Holy Spirit. 

-Christ also buys into justice. Of Judas, it would be better for him if he had never been born. Of someone that would harm a child, may he have a millstone tied about his neck and be cast into the sea. 

I suppose the definition of torture is at issue here. Is waterboarding torture because it scares someone? Is putting a caterpillar in a closet with someone afraid of bugs torture? 

I am inclined to believe that if it is possible to have a just war, then it is possible to have a just extraction of information...but there is certainly a fine line that cannot morally be crossed. I don't have an exact demarcation of that line myself, though I would tend to be cautious so as not to risk crossing that line.

Article from my favorite Stanford Prof., T. Sowell!

I didn't really think about what I would post on this blog when I started the thing...but it seems posting someone else's article just for the sake of sharing things I find significant has been appreciated.  Here is another such post, I've pasted sections of Sowell's article and my commentary will be inserted in bold print here and there in a scattershot manner.   A link to the full article is found at the bottom 

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanimo, the Director of Homeland Security is worried about "right-wing extremists."...According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It also includes those "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."I wonder if rejecting federal authority refers to states that want to secede or is it broader, including the subsidiarity advocates and distributists at the chesterbellocmandate?  ...

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence."...

So-called "honor killings" by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN -- its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Senator Phil Gramm when he opposed things that ACORN favored -- the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.it is an overreaction, but actions like this by ACORN made me think of Hitler's Kristalnacht...when his minions swept through the towns to intimidate all the churches and synagogues that resisted 'them.'

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing "extremists" who don't like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

... it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration -- and their willingness to witch hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them....

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.this may be an overreaction, but this smacks a bit of Hitler's SS

Why such an organization? For what purpose?...

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration -- and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama's personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers....

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/04/21/are_you_an_extremist?page=full

Revisiting an old idea-a horse for every home!

A friend, that would be you Doug, asked why I don't have any new posts posted...I was on vacation. I'm short on the usual inspiration that comes to me as my mercurial personality reads the daily headlines. So, to hopefully satisfy Doug, let me posit a revolutionary, backwater idea that if forced on society could save society. It's late and I'll only give the briefest of outlines of my old idea for the time being. I'll look for a massive number of comments and expand my thinking in my responses.

All families and homeowners should be required to house and maintain a horse. The positive benefits to society will be as follows:
1. people will realize that even majestic animals are typically a great burden and royal pain. worth it if you love horses, but a real pain...this will have a great effect on the ignoramuses at PETA, and those that are wooed into sympathizing with the PETAns
2. synthetic glue marketers and manufacturers will see more competition
3. people will have to start having more kids, so that they don't have to do all the horse-ing around. farmers usually have many kids, share the wealth/burden!
4. jobs! horse trainers will be in high demand again, not to mention the shipping and growing of hay...small time farm operations will be more profitable due to increased demand for hay
5. less potentially harmful chemicals in the soil and food supply...the great glut of horse processed plant matter has to go some where
6. (and last for tonight) increased sense of responsibility for something other than yourself

I know this isn't quite workable, but it could save the world, maybe?