Giotto (di Bondone). The Betrayal of Christ, detail of the kiss. [Source]
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
Giotto (di Bondone). The Betrayal of Christ, detail of the kiss.
[Source]
1) Mister X26 (2010-Dec-5)
2) S. Jetchick (2010-Dec-11)
3) Mister X26 (2010-Dec-13)
4) S. Jetchick (2011-Jan-21)
5) Mister X26 (2016-Mar-28)
6) S. Jetchick (2016-Mar-28)
[SJJ: Mister X26's e-mail was formatted in HTML, so some information was lost when I copy-pasted here.] -----Original Message----- From: Mister X26 Sent: 5 décembre 2010 19:03 To: stefan.jetchick Subject: Pure A Doves, But Dumb As Dodos -- a rebuttal, or Why it is licit for a Christian to be a member of a mainstream political party Hi Stefan, Below is my (more or less) point by point rebuttal of your reasons for not being a member of the Liberal or Conservative Party of Canada, or not wanting to vote for candidates of either party, even when these candidates are rated "pro-life" by long-standing pro- life political advocacy groups such as Campaign Life Coalition. Throughout the course of this rebuttal I will be constantly returning to three related themes / concepts: 1)The principle of double-effect 2)Jesus eating among the sinners, thereby sanctifying them, but never condoning their sins (I trust that you will find the biblical references yourself) 3)The dogma of Jesus' sinlessness, despite his having lived among sinners his whole life. My argument, which I shall be expatiating upon below, is that sins committed by a political party cannot be imputed to individual members, unless it is understood that individual members agree with the sins or participate in committing the sins. It is clear that to participate in a sin your have to do more than be present at the scene, or be "among the sinners", because Jesus was among sinners and did not sin. Moreover, you have to do more than "seem to give tacit assent" to the sin by, for example, "eating and drinking" (that is, interacting with) sinners, even though some may object that by being with a certain group, you may give a false impression to members of that group that you are condoning their bad behaviours, when indeed you are not (just as Jesus did not condone the tax collectors' behaviours, though many of those tax collectors might have believed themselves free to sin when even a good man such Jesus came to eat with them). To be morally imputed with the sin, you have to intend the sin, or materially assist in the sin while knowing full well that the sin will occur because of your material assistance, and this, with the knowledge that you could have done things otherwise, that is, that your material assistance was not necessary. For example, it is good to eat, it is necessary for me to buy food, but because I make enough money at my job, I need not "act as a lookout" as my friends steal food from the grocery store. If this happens, then I am sinning, because it is not necessary that I do these actions which, of themselves, are not sins, but which I know will allow a sin to happen. (I'm never talking about doing a wrong to get a right, which is never licit.) In the same way, removing the fallopian tube is licit, even when this contributes to killing a human being (the embryo), when and only when this action is necessary in order to do the right in your station (i.e. as a doctor who has 2 patients--the embryo and the mother--before him) , that is, to save the most lives. A politician who decides to begin his career also has a set of tasks before him, a set of goals that he must attain or functions that he must accomplish as per his station in life. Ending the legality of abortion must surely be one of these goals, and moreover this goal must surely be high on his list of priorities (I can't think of many things being higher on the list). Given this duty of his to make abortion illegal, what is a politician to do? You suggest that he join a 100% pro-life political party and spend his political life preaching in the wilderness. You suggest this because you want to avoid sin and you think that by joining the Conservatives or the Liberals you will be sinning merely by buying a membership card or endorsing a candidate. (I am not talking about parties for whom abortion is a central component of their platform. If you are against abortion and become a member of such a party, then you are effectively lying to the members of this party, which is wrong always and everywhere) But, again, how will a politician best accomplish his duty of making abortion illegal while not sinning directly or indirectly? In other words, can one 'enter' a political party, fulfill one's obligations, and leave intact, like Jesus entered the den of tax collectors, saved whom he would, and Himself left intact? The answer, I think, hinges on whether material assistance to the sometimes very bad sins of a party is necessary in order to fulfill one's obligations as a politician. In a nutshell, I think it is licit to be part of a "compromised party" if and only if you think it necessary to be part of such a party to end abortion (and again, never directly or indirectly sinning yourself). But how is it necessary to be part of a mainstream party in order to end abortion? Short answer: because the mainstream parties have their hands on the levers of power which can effect change, while the fringe parties do not. But you will retort: 5.5) Sophism: "Without power, we can do nothing" Distinguo. Strictly speaking, Concedo, I agree, because the very definition of "power" means "that which lets us do something". But if you mean "If we don't get elected to form the Government, we can do nothing", then Nego, I do not agree. There are many kinds of political power. You can have some political power even though you are not elected. I even dare suggest that most political power is different from the power you have once you get elected. A good politician is first and foremost an educator. See among others Surfing The Wave, Or Making One's Wave? Add to that the fact that in some extreme cases, the population can become very difficult to govern. In other words, we must already have a fairly large popular support, if we hope to enforce laws that protect innocent human life from conception to natural death. It's our duty to start changing minds now. Ok, and how will a politician do this educating? He is not in a position to educate as effectively as, say, the schools (all levels), the parents, and the media. However, he is in a position to affect the way these entities do their job. And some political parties are urging these elements of civil society in one direction (positive for the pro-life cause) and some in the other direction. For example, one could abolish the CRTC, one could defund the CBC, one could break the schooling monopoly here in Quebec (le Monopole de l'éducation du Québec), one could defund the army of neo- feminist groups that advocate for abortion, one could do a tonne of things to "drain the swamp" that feeds the anti-life ethos that permeates contemporary society. Then you would see an opinion shift towards life, then explicitly and overtly pro-life legislation would be politically feasible. Being part of a fringe party is only nominally political. In essence, you are doing education and gaining media attention to the cause, much like the Bloc Pot and others, but not doing politics per se. So turning to your #3, 3.6: 3.6) The very fact of being a member of that Party constitutes a formal collaboration with evil. Just the fact of becoming a member of that Party is a gesture that speaks loudly, and that says: "Slaughtering innocents is just a detail, because it doesn't prevent good Christians from becoming members of this Party". I say this is false, because material cooperation is not evil when such cooperation is necessary to do the good, just as removing the fallopian tube is not evil when removing it is necessary to do the good. Jesus might have been thought to have been "sending the wrong message" when he ate with the tax collectors, but He in fact did not sin. I maintain that it is possible to be among the tax collectors in government and not sin because it is necessary, if one is a politician, to be part of a mainstream party to fulfill the duties of a politician. Those who call themsleves "politicians" but who work for fringe parties, though they may be doing something laudable, are only nominal politicians, and are really activists or lobbyists (Québec Solitaire, Green Party, etc.) using the political process as a platform from which to speak. So now you would rebut with: 5.13) Sophism: "This apparently pro-abortion party is actually doing the groundwork to stop abortions" False! «Doing the groundwork» can only be done by educating citizens, and you can't educate with lies and skulduggeries. Let's first look at a more detailed version of this sophism: In can happen that a society is so corrupt, that it doesn't recognize Natural Law anymore, and therefore that it can no longer vote for good laws. A government which would have the intention of fixing things would therefore need to do the groundwork, so that eventually the society is willing to accept the necessary legal reforms. In this sense, actions which could appear unrelated to abortion could in fact be related, and even be considered as "laws" or decisions which prepare a mitigation of current pro-abortion laws. In theory, a political party could be very good, and simply be drawing a corrupt citizenry back to the Natural Law as quickly as possible (which could appear slow to someone politically incompetent yet morally upright). But this good political party would satisfy none of the criteria listed above for the Buddies Of The Bloody Dictatorship Party. ---- Ok, so if I show that a tolerable party can satisfy the "buddies" criteria, then I can show that there are some "groundwork" parties that are good (from now on I will call a party that wanted to help a country transition from "culture of death" to "culture of life" a "groundwork party"), even though they satisfy the buddies criteria. Let us look at the "Buddies" criteria: 3.1) Your Party supports the relentless propaganda in favor of the massacre. Your Party constantly repeats, in all the newspapers, the radios and the TV programs, that the Supreme Court has "legalized" the massacre of Armenian and Tutsi immigrants, as well as political prisoners. Your Party gives a lot of money to the Department of Education, so that all youngsters in school will be indoctrinated in the idea that killing these people is quite acceptable, etc. You know very well that any party that wanted to help a country transition from "culture of death" to "culture of life" would have to equivocate with the pro-abort media who sniff out the "hidden agenda". It is not propaganda, but merely a reassertion that abortion is legal in Canada, which is a fact. 3.2) You cannot even educate people to denounce this massacre. Your Party won't let you hand out flyers bearing its logo to denounce this massacre! If you're a Member of Parliament (MP) for this Party, you can't even condemn this massacre on your official web site! This education must be delegated to other sectors of civil society, which parties can easily have arms-length relationships with. 3.3) You can't even answer journalist's questions. If a journalist asks you to answer in writing: "Are you for or against the massacre of Armenian and Tutsi immigrants, as well as political prisoners?", you don't even have your Party's permission to answer! See 3.1. 3.4) You can't even propose a Bill against this massacre. Your Party prevents everybody from trying to change the current laws that permit this massacre. It's not even as if there weren't enough votes to stop the massacre; you can't even propose a vote on this topic! This is part of the transition plan. No anti-abortion bills right away, because such bills would cause the party to be trounced in an election. This is the nature of a transition. You cannot get to the final part (a bill that would make abortion illegal) in one shot, nor can you instantly get to the stage where you're tabling such legislation. You do things gradually. 3.5) You never criticize your Party Leader. Where is your open letter to all newspapers, in which you clearly and strongly condemn your Party Leader? After all, he's the one who, by his sins of omission, lets this massacre continue every day! Why would you criticize your leader, when your leader is allowing you to implement a transition plan? 3.6) The very fact of being a member of that Party constitutes a formal collaboration with evil. Just the fact of becoming a member of that Party is a gesture that speaks loudly, and that says: "Slaughtering innocents is just a detail, because it doesn't prevent good Christians from becoming members of this Party". Already addressed. So now let us return to "sophism" 5.13, the detailed version: 5.13) ...It can happen that a society is so corrupt, that it doesn't recognize Natural Law anymore, and therefore that it can no longer vote for good laws. A government which would have the intention of fixing things would therefore need to do the groundwork, so that eventually the society is willing to accept the necessary legal reforms. In this sense, actions which could appear unrelated to abortion could in fact be related, and even be considered as "laws" or decisions which prepare a mitigation of current pro-abortion laws. In theory, a political party could be very good, and simply be drawing a corrupt citizenry back to the Natural Law as quickly as possible (which could appear slow to someone politically incompetent yet morally upright). But this good political party would satisfy none of the criteria listed above for the Buddies Of The Bloody Dictatorship Party. ------ Given that I think I have shown that not all "buddies" parties are bad but that some, namely groundwork parties, are parties in which it is licit for Christians to be involved, I think I have shown that, assuming that you mean both the Conservative party and the Liberal parties to be buddies parties, that it is licit for Christians to work in either party, until such a time as it becomes impossible to participate in these parties without directly or indirectly sinning. But for the moment, because both parties can be made into groundwork parties (and one is already a groundwork party, one could argue), and because neither are genetically committed to abortion (neither demand that you proclaim yourself pro-choice to become a member--as far as I know), Christians politicians not only can, but must get involved in these parties if they are to fulfill their duty to end abortion. Thus ends my argument. For the sake of advancing knowledge, I will give you what I believe to be the Achille's heel of my whole argument, and it is the assumption that it is a Christian politician's duty to end abortion. This might not be necessarily so, just as it might not be necessarily so that a Christian doctor's duty is to save at least one of the lives endangered by an ectopic pregnancy. If you were to argue that a Christian doctor is not morally bound to remove the fallopian tube, but could instead opt to do nothing and allow both individuals (baby and mother) to die, and he would be doing better than removing the fallopian tube, then you could say that the politician is not morally bound to try as he might to end abortion, but could become a member of a fringe political group and say "my hands are clean!" while looking on as the real politicians throw more babies and other "useless eaters" in the fire. -Mister X26
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 11 décembre 2010 17:03
To: Mister X26
Subject: Pure A Doves, But Dumb As Dodos -- a rebuttal
Hi Mister X26,
OK, I finally got a bit of time!
First, I want to thank you again for your excellent and
productive feedback. It has already helped me improve
several of my articles.
Second, I started carefully reading and answering your
e-mail, but the more I read, the more I thought:
"Hey, this stuff is important. Whether Mister X26 is right
or wrong, this debate needs to be seen by other
pro-lifers". So I took a chance and posted our e-mails on
the Internet. I hope you won't mind.
>> even when these
>> candidates are rated "pro-life" by long-standing pro-life political
>> advocacy groups such as Campaign Life Coalition.
That was already in the article:
5.6) Sophism: "Such an MP is very pro-life, although he is in a
pro-choice party"
Pure As Doves, But Dumb As Dodos
I tried to clarify the "grocery list" of items that an MP needs
to really be pro-life.
>> I will be constantly returning to three related themes / concepts:
>> 1)The principle of double-effect
Concedo for the principle:
4) The Principle of double-effect ("indirect voluntary")
I will probably Nego based on a missing 4.4 (all four conditions
must be present).
>> 2) Jesus eating among the sinners, thereby sanctifying them, but never
>> condoning their sins
>> 3)The dogma of Jesus' sinlessness, despite his having lived among
>> sinners his whole life
Thanks for mentioning that one! I added it:
5.16) Sophism: "Jesus ate with sinners [Mt 9:11]. He never approved
of their sins, but He still ate with sinners! And Jesus remained
totally sin-less despite eating with sinners!"
Pure As Doves, But Dumb As Dodos
>> which I shall be expatiating
Ouch! I had to look up that word in the dictionary!
>> sins committed by a political party cannot be imputed to individual
>> members, unless it is understood that individual members agree with
>> the sins or participate in committing the sins.
Concedo with your principle, except I probably interpret the verb
"to participate" differently. The Catholic Church teaches that simple
membership in an organisation can sometimes be in and of itself a grave
sin.
>> It is clear that to participate in a sin your have to do more
>> than be present at the scene
Concedo.
>> you have to do more than "seem to give tacit assent" to the sin
>> by, for example, "eating and drinking" (that is, interacting with)
>> sinners
Distinguo. Re-read the fine print of 5.16:
If you want to talk about Jesus in politics, you could say
that it would be morally acceptable, after a hard day's
work multiplying bread and walking on water, for Jesus to
play hockey with sinners. But not vote for them! And
neither to become a member in good standing of the ASRAG
(the "Assocation of Sinners Revolted Against God"!)
Pure As Doves, But Dumb As Dodos
Having some Timbits and a coffee with sinners is not the same thing
as joining the ASRAG, then having Timbits and a coffee with fellow
members...
>> To be morally imputed with the sin, you have to intend the sin
Concedo.
>> or materially assist in the sin
Concedo
>> while knowing full well that the
>> sin will occur because of your material assistance
Nego. I could lend a gun to a known assassin, and the assassin
could decide at the last minute to kill with a knife
instead. I would still have committed a sin.
>> and this,
>> with the knowledge that you could have done things otherwise,
>> that is, that your material assistance was not necessary.
Sorry, I don't understand.
I assume you don't mean: "Sometimes, we must sin".
>> it is good to eat, it is necessary for me to buy food
Concedo.
>> because I make enough money at my job, I need not "act as
>> a lookout" as my friends steal food from the grocery store.
Well, even if you were unemployed, it would still be bad
to be an accomplice to theft... but I'm not sure I understand.
>> these actions which, of themselves, are not sins
Being a lookout during a theft? That is intrinsically a sin!
Your intention is to commit theft! It just happens that
you are not directly grabbing the stolen object, but you are
an accomplice to someone who is.
>> I'm never talking about doing a wrong to get a right, which
>> is never licit.
Whew! Thanks!
>> In the same way, removing the fallopian tube is licit,
>> even when this contributes to killing a human being (the embryo)
"In the same way"?
Nego.
But if you remove "In the same way", Concedo.
The surgeon has to try to save two lives. He does his best, applies
the Principle of Double-effect, and fails, despite his best efforts.
That has nothing to do with a guy who is an accomplice to a
robbery! If somebody asks you to be an accomplice to a crime,
you can just say No and walk away! The surgeon is precisely
not in such a situation! If the surgeon walks away, two
innocent human persons will die!
The comparaison also fails with politics. In a democracy, you are
always free to change political parties, or to start up a new one.
Nobody is forced to belong to a corrupt political party.
>> A politician who decides to begin his career also has a set
>> of tasks before him, a set of goals that he must attain [...]
>> Given this duty of his to make abortion illegal, what
>> is a politician to do?
Concedo.
>> You suggest that he join a 100% pro-life political party
... or help start one up!
>> and spend his political life preaching in the wilderness.
Nego to "preaching": this is politics, not religion.
A politician must educate.
Also, references to the "wilderness" is another wording for
Sophism 5.7.
>> you think that by joining the
>> Conservatives or the Liberals you will be sinning
Given the current political platforms and behaviors of those
parties, I think so.
>> I am not talking about
>> parties for whom abortion is a central component of their platform.
A political party doesn't need say in big bold red letters
in their platform that: "We want to slaughter babies". The laws,
jurisprudence, schools, hospitals, media, etc., are all pro-choice.
All they need to do is avoid drawing attention to the status quo.
It's called a sin of omission. And sins of omission are good enough
for eternal hellfire, as Jesus notes in [Mt 25:42].
>> If you are against abortion and become a member of such a party,
>> then you are effectively lying to the members of this party, which
>> is wrong always and everywhere
Concedo.
>> But, again, how will a politician best accomplish his duty of
>> making abortion illegal while not sinning directly or indirectly?
I claim a good start is to do the exact contrary of what the
Buddies Of The Bloody Dictatorship Party does.
Just take that as a shopping list, and do those items, one by one.
>> like Jesus entered the den of tax
>> collectors, saved whom he would, and Himself left intact?
I still laugh when I read that hilariously incorrect metaphor!
>> The answer, I think, hinges on whether material assistance to the
>> sometimes very bad sins of a party is necessary in order to fulfill
>> one's obligations as a politician.
Wow. I read that sentence three times, and I simply cannot see
how somebody could read that, and not see a big spanking 5.1.
The word "obligation" is another way of saying "morally forced
to do something". And the sentence begins with "material assistance to
[...] very bad sins"...
Obviously, being "morally forced" to give material assistance to very
bad sins is the definition of "One-way ticket to Hell". Canonized
saints say things like: "Death before sin" (Saint Dominic Savio), not
"I was obliged to give material assistance to mortal sin"!
>> I think it is
>> licit to be part of a "compromised party" if and only if you think
>> it necessary to be part of such a party to end abortion
What? If my intentions are pure, then my actions will be pure?
Nego! That is "Ethics 101"! It doesn't matter what you think! What
is important is reality!
In reality, being a member of a "compromised party" is never a
necessity. (Remember Saint Dominic Savio!) Moreover, if you think
the Buddies Of The Bloody Dictatorship Party is a good
party, you're just wrong.
>> But how is it necessary to be part of a mainstream party in order
>> to end abortion? Short answer: because the mainstream parties have
>> their hands on the levers of power which can effect change, while
>> the fringe parties do not. But you will retort: [full quote of 5.5]
Yes, I do retort that!
>> Ok, and how will a politician do this educating? He is not in a
>> position to educate as effectively as, say, the schools (all
>> levels), the parents, and the media.
Concedo. Which is why good Catholics have to get themselves
elected, in order to control the schools, the media, the judicial
system, etc.
>> However, he is in a position
>> to affect the way these entities do their job.
Nego, not when he is a member of the Buddies Of
The Bloody Dictatorship Party.
>> some political
>> parties are urging these elements of civil society in one direction
>> (positive for the pro-life cause) and some in the other direction.
Concedo. There are 100% pro-life political parties which are "urging
these elements of civil society" in the right direction, despite not
forming the current Canadian government.
But I assume that is not what you are talking about. I assume you
are talking about the pro-life noises of 5.13 designed to fool
people like you into voting for bad politicians.
>> one could abolish the CRTC, one could defund the CBC,
>> one could break the schooling monopoly here in Quebec (le Monopole
>> de l'éducation du Québec), one could defund the army of neo-
>> feminist groups that advocate for abortion, one could do a ton of
>> things to "drain the swamp" that feeds the anti-life ethos that
>> permeates contemporary society.
That would be great!
>> Then you would see an opinion shift towards life
Concedo.
>> then explicitly and overtly pro-life legislation
>> would be politically feasible.
Concedo.
But that is not the point. The point is that "draining the swamp"
that feeds the anti-life ethos cannot be done by the
Buddies Of The Bloody Dictatorship Party. All that
party can do is make some "tactical pro-life noises" to keep
the votes of pro-life suckers (Category 2.3 Dodos).
Am I right? Proving me wrong is simple and easy. See shopping
list here above.
>> Being part of a fringe party is only
>> nominally political.
Wow! That is a juicy one! Thanks! I added 5.17.
>> In essence [you are] not doing politics per se.
:-)
Come and follow me for a few days when the next election campaign
comes around!
Seriously, have you ever tried setting aside your craving for power,
pride and love of comfort? Have you ever tried actually doing
politics in a pro-life party?
>> material cooperation is not evil when
>> such cooperation is necessary to do the good, just as removing the
>> fallopian tube is not evil when removing it is necessary to do the
>> good.
Here you go again, comparing apples and oranges. See above.
>> Jesus [...] ate with the tax collectors, but He in fact did
>> not sin.
Here you go again, comparing apples and oranges. See above.
>> it is necessary, if
>> one is a politician, to be part of a mainstream party to fulfill
>> the duties of a politician.
Here it is, black on white: the end justifies the means! If all the
mainstream parties are like the Buddies Of The Bloody Dictatorship Party,
then a good Catholic must join such a party, according to the
above sentence!
If I were the Pope, and your e-mail was a book, I would publish a
Motu proprio or something, with "Si quis dixerit", followed
by your above sentence, then "Anathema sit"!
>> if I show that a tolerable party can satisfy the "buddies"
>> criteria, then I can show that there are some "groundwork" parties
>> that are good
Concedo. By definition, the Buddies Of The Bloody Dictatorship Party
is designed as a party which is bad. So if you can show that such a
party can be good, then it's not necessarily bad!
>> You know very well that any party that wanted to help a country
>> transition from "culture of death" to "culture of life" would have
>> to equivocate with the pro-abort media
That's a 5.14! One of the most dangerous of them all!
>> It is not propaganda, but merely a reassertion that
>> abortion is legal in Canada, which is a fact.
No, the fact is that an unjust law is not a law.
>> This education must be delegated to other sectors of civil society,
>> which parties can easily have arms-length relationships with.
:-D
I'm rolling on the floor, laughing! Find me one pro-life organisation,
which is unambigiously denouncing the massacre, and which has any
relationship, arms-length, tentacle-length or otherwise, with the
Conservative Party of Canada!
How the heck can a "groundwork" party be unable to do any groundwork?
If you cannot even speak out against the massacre, what "groundwork"
can you do?
>> This is part of the transition plan. No anti-abortion bills right
>> away, because such bills would cause the party to be trounced in an
>> election.
OK, so does the Conservative Party of Canada have a plan to
eventually re-criminalize abortion? If not, then your "transition
plan" argument is false. If so, then 5.14 again.
>> This is the nature of a transition. You cannot get to the
>> final part [...] in one shot
When was the last time you saw a judge tell an accused: "You
are condemned to beat your wife only twice a week for the next
month and a half, then you must stop completely, since you
already beat her daily, and stopping in one shot is impossible."
There is no such thing as a necessity to "transition away gradually"
from intrinsically bad acts. You are thinking of physical changes,
like moving from position A to B. Yes, if you go by bus from
Montreal to Quebec City, at some point of time, you will go through
Three-Rivers. But we are not talking about bus trips here, we are
talking about morality.
>> Why would you criticize your leader, when your leader is allowing
>> you to implement a transition plan?
Does your leader plan on stopping the massacre? If no, then you
are pulling a 5.14 on your leader.
If yes, then your party is pulling a 5.14 on the country.
Another way of getting to the same conclusion is to find one
clear pro-life action made by the Conservative Party of Canada,
as opposed to a "pro-life noise" designed to gain votes from
Category 3 Dodos.
For example, think of Georges Bush Jr., who "outlawed" late-term
abortions, but never prosecuted anybody who performed them.
>> Given that I think I have shown that not all "buddies" parties are
>> bad but that some, namely groundwork parties, are parties in which
>> it is licit for Christians to be involved
Nego.
>> neither demand that you proclaim yourself
>> pro-choice to become a member
... because they don't care about your internal forum. You
can believe anything you want, as long as you shut up.
Don't take my word for it. Get yourself elected as a candidate
for the Conservative Party of Canada in your riding, then try
do any one of the things forbidden to the Buddies Of The Bloody
Dictatorship Party.
You don't even need to get that far. I was once forbidden to come
to a local meeting because I "threatened" to ask the local
Conservative MP if he was pro-life!
>> Christians must get involved in these parties if
>> they are to fulfill their duty
Anathema sit!
Christians are never required to join a morally unacceptable political
party! On the contrary! They are required to avoid joining it!
>> the Achille's heel of my whole
>> argument, and it is the assumption that it is a Christian
>> politician's duty to end abortion.
No, no, that is a solid part of your argument.
>> If you were to argue that a Christian doctor is
>> not morally bound to remove the fallopian tube
Here you go again, comparing apples and oranges. See above.
>> you could say that the politician is not morally bound to try
>> as he might to end abortion
Of course I don't say that!
>> but could become a member of a fringe
>> political group and say "my hands are clean!" while looking on
"Looking on"? You make it sound like the easy way out! See above.
While we're at it, how about I come to Montreal, and we
could go outside some university or Cegep, and hand out
these to the students arriving in the morning.
(We also need to video tape our ensuing conversations
with them.)
Cheers!
Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Mister X26 Sent: 13 décembre 2010 19:43 To: stefan.jetchick Subject: Pure as ASRAGs... Hi Stefan, To begin, I have to apologize about some sloppy writing of mine which I think muddied the waters considerably: when I spoke about the case of someone collaborating with theft, I meant to describe a case of UNjustified action, and therefore sinful. I wanted to contrast this unjustified act of theft with the justified act of removing the fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy; unfortunately, because of the way I contrasted the two cases (especially when I wrote the connecting phrase "In the same way") you were led to think that I was making a parallel between those two cases. I just cut and paste your whole "Pure as Doves" article and address the parts that are directed towards the "dodo" types who, according to you, are collaborating with evil by joining mainstream political parties or voting for them. Since you've integrated your responses to me in this article, I take it that answering your revised article will answer your response to my last email. My responses will be in bold. Pure As Doves, But Dumb As Dodos [SJJ: Here, Mister X26 quotes the whole article, with his responses interspersed. I tried to remove the useless repetitions without distorting his positions.] >> See among others the opening quote of How should we >> participate in politics? I will call these people "quietists". As you will see, I consider people who engage in hopelessly doomed political enterprises quietists of a certain type: self-flagellating quietists. >> See among others Right-Wing Christians Against Bush's Sins, >> and Supporting Stephen Harper Is Encouraging Abortion. More will be said about this in my explanation of what a realistic plan to end abortion might look like. >> Despite this, they knowingly collaborate with pro-abortion >> politicians and pro-abortion political parties! I'm guessing that your definition of a "pro-abortion" party will be given below, in 3. I will show that 3 (the "buddies" definition) encompasses pro-abortion parties, but also parties who have to hide their pro-life proclivities in order to get elected. In other words, one can be a "buddies" party (as per your criteria) without being pro-abortion. (see below) >> so that all youngsters in school will be indoctrinated in >> the idea that killing these people is quite acceptable, etc. The word "legal" has 2 senses: the positive sense, and the moral sense. Positively speaking (the positive law), abortion is legal. I can kill an unborn child and no big man in blue with a gun will grab me and throw me in jail. On the other hand, if I did to a 3 year old what I can do to a 12 week unborn, I get thrown in jail. The former is legal in the positive sense, the latter is not. Yes, both are wrong. Both are against the moral law. But we're not talking about the moral law when someone asks the question: "Is X legal"? One is asking about whether X is legal in a positive sense. So it is not wrong to say that "abortion is legal" (in the positive sense), because in Canada abortion is legal in that sense. >> you can't even condemn this massacre on your official web site! For the time being, it must be forbidden during national elections (at least) to publish flyers bearing the party's logo against abortion since this would cause the party to be destroyed at election time. If you mention criminalizing abortion, or if you say "we will do our utmost to end abortion if we are elected", in the current context you are ipso facto dooming your party to abject failure. >> you don't even have your Party's permission to answer! Same as 3.2 >> you can't even propose a vote on this topic! Same as 3.2: for the next 5-10 years at least, any bill that is tabled that directly touches upon abortion in the criminal code will cause the party tabling that bill to be crushed in the following elections. The best you can do for now are incremental bills such as C-484 or C-510 (Rod Bruinooge's "Roxanne's Law") >> After all, he's the one who, by his sins of omission, lets >> this massacre continue every day! The party leader may indeed be sinning by omission, because it is a fact that no leader of a Canadian mainstream party is himself 100% pro-life. These leaders themselves might not be doing their all to end abortion. But my argument is that you can be a candidate or an activist for their party without sinning gravely by so doing. My argument for showing this is that the criteria you use to identify "Buddies" parties can also apply to those parties who, in order to be voted in, have to seem enough like "buddies" (without lying of course, but by making true affirmations like "abortion is legal" and "if elected we will not table legislation criminalizing abortion".) As for not being able to criticize your leader for not being pro- life enough, as I said: you need not criticize him since he is giving enough cover for you to enact a transition plan, so long as he sees that what you are doing is consistent with the party's electoral viability. >> Just the fact of becoming a member of that Party is a gesture >> that speaks loudly, and that says: "Slaughtering innocents is >> just a detail, because it doesn't prevent good Christians from >> becoming members of this Party". This is just begging the question: given my rebuttals 3.1-3.5, there is no necessary formal cooperation with evil in a buddies party when you're dealing with a subset of the set of buddies parties I called "groundwork" parties. Groundwork parties are doing the stuff you described in 3.1 - 3.5, but for the moment, given the context, they are justified in doing so because they indeed are doing their utmost to end abortion while remaining politically viable. You will reply that it is not necessary to be politically viable to be political; after all, you can be an "unviable human being" and still be human. I'll concede that. However, my question is this: is it ok to choose political unviability (or, what if it were necessary to choose political viability)? If, as you agreed, it is the duty of a politician to end abortion (just as it is the duty of a doctor to heal the most patients under his care), why would one choose the politically unviable option of joining a fringe party, an option that will never, ever bear fruit (and this is not being defeatist, just being realistic)? Choosing the unviable political option is like the doctor who, faced with an ectopic pregnancy, and having the duty to save the most people possible, opts for an extremely experimental solution that has never been tested and that has a 10000-1 chance of working. (The chances of a fringe party winning the next elections, or even becoming the opposition, notwithstanding my "defeatist attitude", are longer than those). Just as that doctor who chooses a procedure that is terribly unlikely to work would be criminally negligent, the politician who chooses a strategy to end abortion that would be terribly unlikely to work would also be criminally negligent: for the latter has a duty to end abortion, and he must (is obliged) to choose a party that is politically viable, without himself engaging in sinful behaviour like lying, murdering, stealing, idolizing, etc. So, for the moment, one can join a "buddies" party without necessarily sinning, since, given that it is the duty of a politician to end abortion, and that duty can only be fulfilled by using a feasible method (by joining a "mainstream" party), the negatives of being in that party (not being able to speak out on abortion or table legislation recriminalizing abortion) would be excused by the necessity of joining the party to fulfill one's duty to end abortion. That is not to say that it would be ok to join a party that demanded of each member that he shoot three children in the head in order to join. There might be a point at which it will be impossible to join a mainstream party. But that point has not yet been reached. And we should do all we can while there's time to change things within those parties so that it never gets to that point. >> What can the expression "I'm against the massacre" mean, in >> the mouth of someone who freely decides to belong to such a >> political party? It means that they are using the best means to end abortion available, all the while not sinning by omission or commission, because saying "abortion is legal" is not sinning, neither is saying "we will not criminalize abortion". >> "since their principles have always been considered >> irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church". No party in Canada is constitutionally (in their principles) anti- catholic, not even the BQ, whereas the Freemasons are anti-catholic at their core. >> Obviously, if someone desires power in an inordinate way, >> his end risks "justifying" his means. I'll skip the above since they are neither here nor there. They are psychological excuses, not reasons. I think I've provided above a good reason for politicians of good will to join mainstream parties: it is their duty to do so, since the alternative--doing "one in 10,000" politics-- is like using "1 in 10,000" cures for ectopic pregnancies--criminally negligent. >> soldier or Member of Parliament, requires such a monstrosity. Agree. >> The end doesn't justify the means. To summarize the above, joining a political party that does not denounce abortion is excused by (here follow the criteria for respecting the principle of double-effect) 1) the intention of the candidate being informed by the finality of ending abortion 2) the direct effect is positive (changing the party and country in a pro- life direction 3) The positive of transforming the party from the inside and "draining the swamp" which will lead to better days for legislation outweighs the negative of reaffirming the status quo by saying "abortion is legal" and "there will be no legislation recriminalizing abortion" and 4) the are no other feasible and realistic ways of ending abortion that do not also have similar negative effects. >> No. Once you are in power, you'll continue to prostitute >>yourselves. Variant of 5.2 >> these people will never try to start up a new political >> party, if the existing ones are inadequate. Variant of 5.2 >> It's our duty to start changing minds now. The laws educate, but overtly pro-life laws are political suicide at the moment. Such are the cards we've been dealt. The best one can do is legislate in order to create the conditions that would make real legislative change a welcome proposition. >> or stay locked-up in your closet. Ok. >> The main obstacle isn't this pro-life party, it's people >> like you. No, this is hopeless optimism. >> only the dolt projects on all walls the darkness of his >> narrow and listless forehead". Variant of 5.7, if you mean a fringe party with a bunch of amateurs in it... and no money. >> I didn't bleed, and I didn't lose a penny. What are you >> waiting for? See EWTN's brief catechism #8,9,10. http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm >> This teaching speaks of the case of good Catholic who >> would get himself elected for a good pro-life party no, it doesn't say that; parties are not even mentioned... >> which systematically blocks all attempts to present >> a Bill to reduce the number of abortions! with good reason: political viability in the service of doing the groundwork to end abortion >> That just means we have to work harder, to compensate >> for all those effeminate Bishops. Agreed. >> "vote for him one more time", and to "avoid mentioning >> abortion". Sorry, you're begging the question by calling it "noise". What you call noise actually hurts pro-choicers quite a bit. This drains the swamp, and people have been noticing (on both sides, though you seem to refuse to notice, but persist in calling it mere noise.) See: Conservatives Accused Of Trying To Silence Women's Groups By Cutting Funding (2010/05/06) TODO TODO Gay activist bemoans 'astonishingly' resilient social conservatives (2010-Dec-13) >> The idea that we have to work around the democratic system, >> supposedly in order to help our democracy, is an extremely >> dangerous idea. Disagree: a politician is not necessarily an absolute democrat. Even if he were, there would still be many good reasons to avoid, for the time being, flashing the big red light of "recriminalizing abortion" so as to avoid the pavlovian reflex of being slammed in an election. Do groundwork instead (i.e. untrain the pavlovian reflex) and then flash the red light. >> then this is just another mutation and hybridization of 5.1 >> and 5.7. There is a subset of the Buddies that is groundwork, and it is ok to join groundwork parties. >> And neither to become a member in good standing of the >> ASRAG (the "Assocation of Sinners Revolted Against God"!) In light of the fact that they could be "groundwork" parties, it would be ok to give them money and to otherwise participate in the life of these parties, if the double-effect criteria above are respected. >> Moreover, if small political parties are somehow "less >> political", then there is no hope for change if a majority >> of voters is wrong. Answered above. >> Even a bird-brain can understand that we Christians need >> to work harder to both purify ourselves, and become more >> politically competent! Bye for now! Mister X26 [SJJ: Mister X26 sent this afterward, so I'll include it as a kind of Post-Scriptum] But before you defend your position too rigorously, careful not to prove too much, to wit, that you have no business "participating" in the life of this country (Canada), for example paying taxes and thereby subsidizing murder, when it is by no means necessary for you to live here, when instead you could be living in, say, Ireland, or somewhere in South America.
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 21 janvier 2011 17:02 To: X26, Mister Subject: Finally, an answer for Mister X26 Hello Mister X26, Sorry about the terribly long delay (over a month). >> Since you've integrated your responses to >> me in this article, I take it that answering your revised article >> will answer your response to my last email. Sorry, No. Our correspondence is this this file. So if you don't answer what is contained in this file, you are not answering me. Some of my answers are more general, i.e. they concern more people than just you, so I break them out and integrate them in other articles. But my reply is still here. Why would I have taken the time to write 529 lines, if one line had been enough to answer you? When I want to say: "My answer is contained in this article over here", I say so. I didn't say so, for good reasons. Honest, I've been debating by e-mail for years, and this is the first time I've had an opponent decide he didn't need to read my e-mails! >> I have to apologize about some sloppy writing [...] when I >> spoke about the case of someone collaborating with theft [...] >> especially when I wrote the connecting phrase "In the same way" "Sloppy writing"? If you say so. >> My responses will be in bold. Please, next time, follow 4.3. It barely increases your workload, and everybody who reads your e-mails will be grateful. >> I consider >> people who engage in hopelessly doomed political enterprises >> quietists of a certain type: self-flagellating quietists. Strictly speaking, Concedo. First, I'm totally opposed to Quietism. Second, as Pope John Paul II says, Christians have the "right and duty to participate in public life" [Christifideles Laici, #42], and participating in "hopelessly doomed political enterprises" is "participating" in name only. (For example, if a fireman tries to put out a fire with a flame-thrower, he's not trying to put out a fire, strictly speaking.) In other words, I agree with you that Christians commit a sin if they knowingly and freely "engage in hopelessly doomed political enterprises". On the other hand, I apparently disagree with you about what exactly is a "hopelessly doomed political enterprise". >> I will show that 3 (the "buddies" definition) >> encompasses pro-abortion parties, but also parties who [...] hide >> their pro-life proclivities in order to get elected. Concedo, but I have already "Concedo'ed" that statement, so you neither needed to prove it, nor even mention it! I have no doubts that it is possible for a politician to tell lies in order to get elected! I'm sure we both agree on that! It's like a jar of jam: if the jar is opaque, and the label says "Strawberry jam", but inside it's blueberry jam, of course a customer can be fooled! Voters don't have God-powers. Voters can't see inside the souls of politicians! Same thing for political parties: if a political party walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, many voters will think it's a duck! And of course, if a political party walks, looks and quacks like a pro-choice party, many voters will think it's a pro-choice party! I claim the end doesn't justify the means. I claim it's immoral to make voters believe you are something that in fact you are not. >> one can be a "buddies" party (as per your criteria) without being >> pro-abortion. Nego. A party that satisfies the "buddies" criteria actively promotes abortion and stifles any attempts to stop abortions. Go re-read those criteria! Can you lie to people about your "pro-life proclivities" while actively promoting abortion? Of course! >> The word "legal" has 2 senses: the positive sense, and the moral >> sense. Distinguo. Is there a difference between "Positive Law" and "Natural Law"? Concedo. Can something be "legal" according to Positive Law while being illegal according to Natural Law? Sub-distinguo. Strictly speaking, Nego. Positive Law is ultimately either in accord with Natural Law, or not. If it isn't, then it's not a law (an unjust law is not a law). But if you take "Positive Law" in a sociological sense, as in "what a majority of people in this time and place consider to be a law", then Concedo, it's possible to be "legal" according to Positive Law while being illegal according to Natural Law. This is because Sociology abstracts away from morality, for methodological reasons. There is no world out there where morality is disconnected from law. It is an abstraction, an artefact of scientific thought. >> it is not >> wrong to say that "abortion is legal" (in the positive sense), >> because in Canada abortion is legal in that sense. Nego. Apparently, your basic knowledge of morality is stunningly inadequate! If, to a legitimate question, you answer things which you know will lead your hearer into error, you are doing something technically called "lying". (See also Denzinger #2127). These days, because of the generalized ignorance of Natural Law, the average Canadian citizen who hears you say "abortion is legal" will not understand your words as meaning: "In a very contorted Sociological sense, abortion is "legal", but strictly speaking it's illegal". Nobody will interpret your words that way, and you know it. You are leading them into error, knowingly. You are lying. >> For the time being, it must be forbidden during national elections >> (at least) to publish flyers bearing the party's logo against >> abortion since this would cause the party to be destroyed at election >> time. Ouch! Here it is again, a big spanking 5.14! >> If you mention criminalizing abortion, or if you say "we will >> do our utmost to end abortion if we are elected", in the current >> context you are ipso facto dooming your party to abject failure. If you remove the words "abject failure" and replace it with "totally deserved democratic result", Concedo. You seem to be totally ignorant of the nature of the democratic system. Democracy is not defined as: "The System of Government where politicians lie to the people in order to get themselves elected, so they can then implement an agenda totally opposed to the will of the majority"! If the majority of people want Option A, and your political party offers Option B, it's a success if Option A is elected! The democratic system has worked. The will of the people has been heard. If the majority of citizens is wrong, you need to educate that majority first. Then you can get yourself elected. The other solution (lying in order to get yourself elected) is immoral on top of being anti-democratic. >> any bill that is >> tabled that directly touches upon abortion in the criminal code will >> cause the party tabling that bill to be crushed in the following >> elections. Well, if a party got itself elected by lying to the population, of course that party will loose the next elections if the voters find out they were lied to! >> no leader of a Canadian mainstream party is himself 100% >> pro-life. That is putting it diplomatically. Well, my preceding sentence was itself putting it diplomatically! Let's speak clearly: All current mainstream parties are pro-choice, and all their leaders are pro-choice. >> the criteria you use to identify >> "Buddies" parties can also apply to those parties who, in order to >> be voted in, have to seem enough like "buddies" (without lying of >> course, but by making true affirmations like "abortion is legal" and >> "if elected we will not table legislation criminalizing abortion".) We've seen here above that "abortion is legal", said the way you say it, in the context you say it, is a lie. In the same way, claiming you will not "criminalize" abortion is also a lie. First of all, you can't "criminalize" direct abortion: it already is, and always will be. The only thing you can do is stop pretending it's not a crime. Second, your intention (in hiding the fact you're pro-life) is to eventually have Positive Law once again be consistent with Natural Law, and Natural Law says abortion is murder. So you do want to "criminalize" abortion. So your "without lying of course" is meaningless. >> you need not criticize [the leader of the Buddies' Party] since he is >> giving enough cover for you to enact a transition plan, so long as >> he sees that what you are doing is consistent with the party's >> electoral viability. First of all, what can a "transition plan" look like, if you can't do anything against abortion? Second, you're basically saying that you don't need to publicly criticize this leader, since he's lying to voters anyway (since he claims to be pro-choice, while allowing you to "enact a pro-life transition plan"), and that it's OK to lie to voters, as long as they don't find out. Hum! No wonder you like the Conservative Party of Canada! Their grasp of basic morality is just as bad as yours! :-) >> Groundwork parties are doing the stuff you >> described in 3.1 - 3.5, but for the moment, given the context, they >> are justified in doing so because they indeed are doing their utmost >> to end abortion Honest, if you can't see the contradiction in terms of "doing the stuff you described in 3.1-3.5" while also "doing their utmost to end abortion", I can't help you. >> why would one choose the >> politically unviable option of joining a fringe party, an option >> that will never, ever bear fruit Isn't it strangely similar with the standard pro-choice argument to kill handicapped babies? "Why let that baby live, if it will never, ever be happy?" It's the same silly argument. How do you know a small political party can't become a large political party? All big political parties started out small! >> Choosing the unviable political option is >> like the doctor who, faced with an ectopic pregnancy, and having the >> duty to save the most people possible, opts for an extremely >> experimental solution that has never been tested and that has a >> 10000-1 chance of working. If we are going to compare politics with a medical procedure, we first have to sort out the medical procedure. Concerning the medical aspect, Distinguo. If a doctor choses a procedure which will almost certainly kill both the mother and the child, then Concedo. But I can't imagine why a doctor would want to choose such a procedure! In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, a good doctor would chose a risky procedure for the baby, but which would have excellent chances of saving at least the mother! And only if there wasn't a better way! If the doctor could just perform a caesarian section, and save both persons, then bingo! That's what he would do! Notice also that never would the good doctor directly intend to kill either the mother or the baby (i.e. the doctor never does evil directly). Now, let's look at the other term of the comparaison: politics. Lying to voters is doing evil directly. You're directly and intentionally subverting the democratic system by telling lies to the voters. That is a sin. Second, voting for a small but good pro-life party is not "unviable". It just means you will lose this election, if you don't educate enough voters. Yes, it's sad to be punished for doing a bad job, but that's called "immanent justice". It's like getting obese after eating too much, or getting lung cancer after smoking a pack a day for 20 years, etc. If you defend the truth during an election, but you don't defend it well, you will lose. If you defend the truth, but don't have the guts and the patience to turn the country around, you will lose. And if you chicken away from even taking a stand for even one single bloody election, and instead cower away into a party that defends falsehood, well, you will lose even more! >> notwithstanding my "defeatist attitude" Why the quotes? It is a defeatist attitude! >> he must (is obliged) to choose a party that is politically viable, >> without himself engaging in sinful behaviour like lying I have shown here above that you are engaging in sinful behaviour like lying. >> There might be a point at which it will be impossible to join >> a mainstream party. But that point has not yet been reached. Sheesh! A party satisfies all the criteria for the Buddies' Party, and "that point has not been reached"? Yikes! As they say, your moral compass is so screwed up I'd be surprized if you found your way out of the parking lot! >> because saying "abortion is legal" is not sinning, neither is saying >> "we will not criminalize abortion". I have shown here above that you are engaging in sinful behaviour like lying. >> No party in Canada is constitutionally (in their principles) anti- >> Catholic, not even the BQ Sheesh! >> 2) the >> direct effect is positive (changing the party and country in a pro- >> life direction Nego. The first direct effect is lying, and the second direct effect is promoting abortion, because a Buddies' Party does just that for a living! >> 3) The positive of transforming the party from the >> inside and "draining the swamp" You can't "drain the swamp" while simultaneously being in a Party that does what the Buddies' Party does. That is a contradiction in terms. >> 4) the are no other feasible and >> realistic ways of ending abortion Voting for a pro-life party is "infeasible"? What is "unrealistic" about putting an "X" beside the name of a pro-life candidate? What is unfeasible and unrealistic about educating voters about abortion? If that is unfeasible and unrealistic, then democracy is unfeasible and unrealistic! It appears to me that your use of words like "feasible" and "realistic" is incorrect according to the English dictionary. >> but overtly pro-life laws are political suicide at >> the moment. Really? You constantly eliminate education from the equation, even if you imagine yourself in power! Imagine a miracle: a truly pro-life politician becomes Prime Minister in Canada! Couldn't he throw down a National challenge to all pro-choicers? Imagine the disarray and confusion among all pro-choice forces, if they had to face such a challenge? All of a sudden, the extreme weakness of their position would be obvious to all. After a nationwide tour, where this Prime Minister would demolish all pro-choice arguments before a live audience, major city after major city, wouldn't this Prime Minister be able to start tightening up the law about abortion? As we speak there is apparently a majority of Canadians who want some restrictions on abortion! Imagine after such a nationwide tour! >> The best one can do is legislate in order to create the >> conditions that would make real legislative change a >> welcome proposition. What does that sentence mean? You yourself sent me a few days ago hyperlinks about our current Prime Minister voting against "Roxanne's Law", and saying that even with a majority he would not "reopen the debate on abortion" (itself a blatant lie, since that debate has never occured!). >> [A real pro-life party] is hopeless optimism. Well, if trusting the democratic system is "hopeless optimism", so be it! I'd rather be called "hopeless optimist" than "liar"! >> Sorry, you're begging the question by calling it "noise". >> What you call noise actually hurts pro-choicers quite a bit. >> This drains the swamp, and people have been noticing (on >> both sides, though you seem to refuse to notice, but persist >> in calling it mere noise.) See: OK, let's look at this vibrant and energetic swamp-draining! >> Conservatives Accused Of Trying To Silence Women's Groups By Cutting Funding Well, the article says: "Rona Ambrose, the minister in charge of the status of women department, claimed the government is spending more on women's groups than ever before" So, is that true? Is Harper really cutting funds from all groups that support abortion, or not? Or is he just trimming the budget by chopping off silly funding for silly groups? >> Ottawa cuts funding for CFSH The article says: "In contrast, Landolt [...], said the pro-life movement does not receive funding for its operations. «We didn't get a penny,» she said." In other words, a clear case of double-standard: pro-choicers get money, and pro-lifers don't. So Harper eliminates that threat of bad publicity for himself. >> Ottawa defunds feminist groups The article says: "However, the government notes that funding of women's groups through the Status of Women has increased" And: "Lakritz wondered how in a time of targeted spending cuts in government departments from Defense to Fisheries and Oceans to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Match International could justify continued taxpayer support for a domestic women's festival in Ottawa." Has the pro-abortion movement really been defunded? If everybody is feeling the pain of budget cuts, are the feminist groups really being targeted? >> Gay activist bemoans 'astonishingly' resilient social conservatives Interesting, since that article seems to indicate why Harper is not "draining the swamp"! The article says: "Mr. Warner ends his book by warning, «Canadians who want to ensure the continued existence of a more secular state - to advance the continued expansion of the separation of church and state - must remain vigilant. When the need arises, they will need to respond swiftly and decisively to beat back the multitude of social conservative crusaders who are so fervently dedicated to bringing the nation back to God»." [my emphasis] Any discussion of "draing the swamp" vs. "just pro-life noise to get re-elected" must take into consideration where we currently stand! I added clarifications to 5.13 to deal with this. >> Disagree: a politician is not necessarily an absolute democrat. >> Even if he were, there would still be many good reasons to >> avoid, for the time being, flashing the big red light of >> "recriminalizing abortion" so as to avoid the pavlovian reflex >> of being slammed in an election. I have shown here above that you are engaging in sinful behaviour like lying. >> it is by no means necessary for you >> to live here, when instead you could be living in, say, Ireland, or >> somewhere in South America. If there really was a truly pro-life country out there, that was battling it out with the rest of the world, then of course I would go live there (and join the Templars, because of course the President of that Catholic State would re-start that military order!) In conclusion, I throw down this challenge to you: allow me to post your real name and the organisation you belong to, then I'll send excerpts of our debate to the Canadian media, as well as to the Conservative Party of Canada, asking them whether your approach to democracy is tolerable in this country. And if you're not willing to stand out there in the sunlight, where everybody can see you, then why call yourself a Christian? Christ is the Prince of Light, not the Prince of Darkness. Christ doesn't hide in a closet. Christ doesn't tell lies to change the world. Cheers, Stefan
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: X26 and the rampaging robot Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:13:01 -0400 From: Mister X26 To: Stefan Jetchick Another kick at the can: Suppose you had a giant robot rampaging through the streets, piloted by a team of evil people. This robot has been rampaging for 50 years and has killed close to two million babies. There are two ways of stopping the robot: you can shoot at it from the outside, but given your limited firepower (a pistol), you won't slow it down all that much. The other way is to enter into the robot through a hatch in its "heel" (the robot's Achilles heel), and then from the inside make your way to the command post and, if not outright seizing control of the robot, maybe convincing the pilot to shoot and stomp less. Say Mr. X26 has decided to try the latter option. Now, once he's inside the robot, he has to walk a thin line: he cannot lie, but on the other hand he cannot tell those inside that he is trying to slow the robot, because then the pilots on the inside would just turn on him, wring his neck and throw his limp body out the hatch. So X26 therefore enters the robot dressed as an evil pilot and saying ambiguous things that, while not stritcly mendacious, may lead the evil men, who otherwise have no right to the truth about him, to believe something false about him, namely that he is on their side. Now, our "hero" is also aware that his friends on the outside might consider him to have "turned" and become an enemy. Have they not seen him put on his evil pilot suit, and have they not seen him enter the robot, and is not the robot still on a rampage? There are even some of his friends who tell others: "The robot may have done 10% less damage since X26 has entered it, and although we may never have been able to slow it more than 1% using our methods, that does not mean that what X26 is doing is ok; because in fact, X26 has scandalized me !!" But X26, though he did not want to scandalize his friends, has accepted that they be so scandalized, as an unwanted secondary effect of his act of entering the robot to slow its progress. The parallel is obvious: the scandal occasioned by a catholic going "inside" the conservative party and no longer being heard talking about the evil of abortion is an unwanted side-effect of entering the party to slow its progress. Now, you may argue that the actual good being done on the inside is minimal (it wouldn't in actuality slow the robot 10%) and therefore doesn't warrant the risk of unintentionally causing scandal, but this then becomes a prudential question, on which people of good will can rightly differ. You could also say that the scandal caused by such a catholic as X26 going into the robot would scandalize/confuse/demoralize those troups on the outside who were devising a way to build a big cannon to take out the robot once and for all. There would then be the question of whether both activities could somehow be hamonized -- Could there simultaneously exist catholics who go under deep cover into the robot while others busy themselves preparing the big gun that would eventually wipe out the robot for good? I think a good prudential arguement could be made to the effect that so long as catholics go "on the inside" there will never be enough energy and morale and wherewithal to build that big canon (the Christ the King party) and give it the power (money, human ressources) necessary to take out the robot. And this may be true, but the point still remains that the question is *prudential. *It therefore seems wrong to say that the strategy that X26 has chosen is intrinsically evil, as prudentially wrong as it probably is. Mister X26
[Source]
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: X26 and the rampaging robot Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:16:27 -0400 From: Stefan Jetchick To: Mr. X26 Hello again Mr. X26, >> Another kick at the can: I think your horse kicked the can long ago, but hey, it's not as if I had important things to do these days! >> Suppose you had a giant robot rampaging through the streets It's kind of funny that you start off with such a metaphor. A robot is a material object. Its individual atoms don't have freedom and intelligence. But a society is not a material object. It is not composed of bricks or atoms, but of wills and intelligences. If you were to use the "robot" metaphor, the "robot" would have to be composed of a vast number of human wills and human intelligences. In a way, the New Testament uses such a metaphor to talk about a special society, the Church. The Bible says the Church is like the Body of Christ, built up of living stones (i.e. "stones" endowed with reason and free-will). This "robot", composed of reasons and free-wills, is what is actually controlled by a political party that is "in power". Remember, it's not the material arm of a material robot that kills unborn children, its flesh-and-blood taxpayers who buy the abortion camps, who pay the "doctors" who kill babies all day for a living, who pay the salaries of the policemen who guard these abortion camps, who buy the newspapers and listen to the TV shows that repeat "it's a woman's choice" whenever the topic comes up, etc. The "thing" that kills is a vast network of human wills and human intelligences. To stop the killing, you have to insert a new order into a critical mass of these wills and intelligences. Once you understand this, your whole metaphor falls apart, and the argument supported by your metaphor is dragged down with it. >> The other way is to enter into the robot through a hatch in its >> "heel" (the robot's Achilles heel), and then from the inside make >> your way to the command post and, [...] maybe convincing the >> pilot to shoot and stomp less. If we were really talking about a material robot, that would be one of the solutions indeed. Except by pretending that a good Catholic can become a member of a pro-choice political party, what you are actually doing is acting upon the very network of human wills and human intelligences. And your influence is to reinforce the current order in those wills and intelligences (the order which causes this genocide of babies). >> once he's >> inside the robot, he has to walk a thin line: he cannot lie, but on >> the other hand he cannot tell those inside that he is trying to slow >> the robot, because then the pilots on the inside would just turn on >> him, wring his neck and throw his limp body out the hatch. No, as soon as he becomes a member of this party, he is telling all the wills and all the intelligences which compose this robot that all is fine and just carry on as usual. He has already greatly fortified the killer robot. Nothing else he could do will compensate for that initial huge strengthening of the robot. >> Now, our "hero" is also aware that his friends on the outside might >> consider him to have "turned" and become an enemy. Have they not seen >> him put on his evil pilot suit, and have they not seen him enter the >> robot, and is not the robot still on a rampage? Actually, even the Bible explicitely condemns such an option! [2M 6:24] >> you may argue that the actual good >> being done on the inside is minimal (it wouldn't in actuality slow >> the robot 10%) I don't need to argue: I can just point my finger at the abortion camps in this country. Not only did the Conservative Party of Canada not stop abortions, but it did not abort the CBC (a necessary step to stop abortions) nor did it prepare in any way a better solution. >> You could also say that the scandal caused by such a catholic as X26 >> going into the robot would scandalize/confuse/demoralize those troups >> on the outside who were devising a way to build a big cannon to take >> out the robot once and for all. I won't just say it, I'll point my finger toward all the turncoats (real or apparent) who demoralize the pro-lifers. >> There would then be the question of >> whether both activities could somehow be hamonized Sure. Join any party you want, and be a Catholic through-and-through. By being very publicly and formally kicked out, you'll educate voters on how sick this party is. Which will be a good influence on the wills and intelligences that compose this "robot". And if you don't get kicked out, then your unabashed Catholic positions will be a good influence on the wills and intelligences that compose this "robot". >> It therefore seems wrong to say that the >> strategy that X26 has chosen is intrinsically evil, as prudentially >> wrong as it probably is. Speaking of killer robots and undead arguments that keep coming back to haunt me: SHOOT ME NOW! ;-) SJJ
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves