Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[kmoney]

yes

Why can't it simply be that she's affording her deputies the right to make their own choice? Davis wants the right to conscience. Should she not allow her deputies the same?


Can you see any compromise that would allow Davis to keep her conscience clean and still have gay marriage licenses issued ?

 

[kmoney]

Probably, formal cooperation in sin, or, if not, at the very least, immediate material cooperation in sin.

As to the rest of your post, I either have nothing really new to add, or else, it's just too tangential to the main point. The thread's not really about Hell. :idunno:

Do you think permitting homosexuality at all is formal cooperation? Immediate material cooperation? Mediate material cooperation? None of the above?

 

[Traditio]

Do you think permitting homosexuality at all is formal cooperation? Immediate material cooperation? Mediate material cooperation? None of the above?

What does "permitting" homosexual conduct (I don't say "homosexuality," since this refers to an inclination or set of inclinations, and it really doesn't make sense to talk about "permitting" an inclination, i.e., a psychological predisposition) look like?

Are you asking me whether, should the State decide not to criminalize homosexual conduct, it thereby cooperates, whether formally or materially, in sodomy? No. Decriminalization is simple inaction. The State, in that case, is simply saying: "You know what? This is none of our business. This is a private, not a public matter." In order to cooperate in any way at all, you have to do something. In the case of simple inaction, the question is not whether one is cooperating, but whether or not one is obliged to act at all.

When it comes to formal vs. material cooperation, the question is simply: "Am I able to act?" If the matter appertains to inaction, then, analytically or by definition, the question simply can't arise.

Thus, a Catholic worker at Wal-mart realistically might ask himself the question: "Am I morally permitted to ring up this box of condoms?" At which point, of course, he'll have to determine whether his ringing up the box of condoms "passes muster," so to speak, under double effect reasoning.

 

[kmoney]

What does "permitting" homosexual conduct (I don't say "homosexuality," since this refers to an inclination or set of inclinations, and it really doesn't make sense to talk about "permitting" an inclination, i.e., a psychological predisposition) look like?

Are you asking me whether, should the State decide not to criminalize homosexual conduct, it thereby cooperates, whether formally or materially, in sodomy? No. Decriminalization is simple inaction. In order to cooperate in any way at all, you have to do something. In the case of simple inaction, the question is not whether one is cooperating, but whether or not one is obliged to act at all.

Yes, I was asking about sodomy laws.

When it comes to formal vs. material cooperation, the question is simply: "Am I able to act?" If the matter appertains to inaction, then, analytically or by definition, the question simply can't arise.

But they can act. They can criminalize sodomy. They are making a choice in that.

But if you don't agree with that, let's go back before sodomy laws were removed from the books. In that case there was a specific action. Were the people who struck down or voted to change anti-sodomy laws engaging in formal or material cooperation?

 

[Town Heretic]

why on earth would you think i want your attention?

I think you demonsrably can't stop thinking about me, commenting about me and attempting to engage me.

Outside of your Quixote's "look at me" post and any number of other posts I noticed popping up in other threads, keeping within this thread alone since I joined in and taking a quick look across it since you asked, this is what I've found:

You thinking of me...

your thread is on the verge of achieving relevancy! :first:

Refers to his old, weary take on my numbers thread.

You, continuing to talk about me...

see when you learn when you're not afraid to google?

Aimed at an answer I made to Trad.

More you thinking about me and my old note on the sound principle of separating secular power from religious institution.

well, it keeps us from having to enact sharia law so i've heardr

You, referencing (and missing the mark) a comment I made to Trad.

king, crown, pointing, blablablablabla

You thinking about me with Trad...

this is like a ping-pong game to him, trad
he doesn't really care about the law, certainly not about God's Law

You trying to engage me...

and "murderers" and "rapists" doesn't? :freak:
perhaps you'd be more comfortable with "men who are attracted to other men, and we shouldn't judge them harshly on what is their weakness, as we all have weaknesses and my fondness for an extra serving of ice cream is no different than their desire to stick particular body parts in disgusting other body parts"

More you trying to engage me...

the problem being, of course, an activist judicial branch that keeps discovering new and novel "understandings"
such as reinventing the definition of marriage to include perverts

More you trying to engage me...

and everything you typed after this is meaningless because what you consider to be a "lawful order" means absolutely diddlysquat to God

And when chrys echoed something of a comment of mine...

:think: where have i heard that before?

In your dreams, apparently. lain:

More you trying to engage me...

but before it was negated, that "bad law" was good law?

More you trying to engage me...

God's Law?
yes
the crap you worship?
nope
and you'll stand before the Judgement Throne soon enough, trying to slither your way out of His Judgement
good luck with that

More you trying to engage me...

what would satisfy your requirements for legitimacy?
a democrat? :darwinsm:
good one!

More you trying to engage me...

...anybody who claims to be a Christian should agree with
:duh:
tell that to Kim Davis, sitting in jail

More you trying to engage me...

:think:
seems to me these guys made the same argument
how'd that work out for them?

You talking about me with Yor...

...I believe this is covered in an optional course in first year law that students can audit if they choose most choose not to:thumb:

More you trying to engage me...

you're making a tortured analogy? :idunno:

More you trying to engage me...

Where do you think our rights come from?
Not Jefferson, not the constitution, not alan dershowitz
you

I think I've written of or to you twice now since you came back, discounting a couple of early efforts before I noticed your mirrored username or other habits creeping back in.

And that's more answer than I thought you'd get from me on anything. Maybe one of these days you'll snap out of this miserably obsessive nonsense...in the meantime, flail away. I wanted to make a point about you and having made it...continue to be disinterested in thinking any more about you.

:e4e:

 

[Traditio]

Though, perhaps, Kmoney, what you meant to ask was the following: "If the State issues marriage licenses to sodomite couples, does this constitute formal cooperation in evil?" To which, of course, my answer is: "Yes." Likewise in cases in which the State pays for contraceptives and abortions.

 

[kmoney]

Thus, a Catholic worker at Wal-mart realistically might ask himself the question: "Am I morally permitted to ring up this box of condoms?" At which point, of course, he'll have to determine whether his ringing up the box of condoms "passes muster," so to speak, under double effect reasoning.

Considering Catholic views on birth control, wouldn't the Catholic have to say it doesn't (pass muster)?

 

[Traditio]

Yes, I was asking about sodomy laws.

But they can act. They can criminalize sodomy. They are making a choice in that.

That's true. My only point is that in order to talk about "cooperation," you have to talk about acting. If you're not acting, you're not cooperating.

But if you don't agree with that, let's go back before sodomy laws were removed from the books. In that case there was a specific action. Were the people who struck down or voted to change anti-sodomy laws engaging in formal or material cooperation?

No, I don't think so. Imagine the following situation:

Suppose you know an alcoholic. You have taken it upon yourself to make sure that he isn't able to get any alcohol. You are actively going out of your way to stop him from drinking.

One day, you just shrug your shoulders and say: "Y'know what? This is none of my business. This isn't my job. This isn't something that I have to bother myself with." You walk away and abandon said alcoholic.

Are you cooperating with the alcoholic's subsequent acts of drinking? No.

There is, of course, the question whether you are obligated to continue stopping him. But that's not a question of cooperation in his misdeeds.

 

[Traditio]

Considering Catholic views on birth control, wouldn't the Catholic have to say it doesn't (pass muster)?

No, not necessarily. Supposing that the Catholic isn't a heretic, it's almost certainly not formal cooperation. It's material cooperation in evil (of some sort). Is it justified...? :idunno:

I'm not really up to going further than that, but this is something that you can probably google.

 

[Town Heretic]

Though, perhaps, Kmoney, what you meant to ask was the following: "If the State issues marriage licenses to sodomite couples, does this constitute formal cooperation in evil?" To which, of course, my answer is: "Yes."

How is that different from the state allowing smoking? Or is it to you?

 

[Traditio]

How is that different from the state allowing smoking? Or is it to you?

Again, it's a question of action vs. inaction.

For the life of me, I just don't get why social liberals (no offense) have such a hard time with this distinction (again, no offense).

 

[Traditio]

Kmoney:

Again, the alcoholic example, note the following possibilities:

You can actively try to stop the alcoholic from drinking.

You can shrug your shoulders and not be involved in anyway.

You can indirectly contribute to the alcoholic's activities even though you aren't directly encouraging it or providing necessary facilitation. For example, you might be holding the alcoholic's beer while he goes to the restroom. That would be material cooperation.

You can buy the alcoholic beer and say: "Here you go, buddy. Chug, chug!" That would be formal cooperation.

The last one is basically like what the State is doing by issuing marriage licenses to sodomite couples.

 

[TracerBullet]

If you really want privacy, that means "everyone else, stay out."

more correctly it means "by invitation only"

 

[Town Heretic]

Again, it's a question of action vs. inaction.

For the life of me, I just don't get why social liberals (no offense) have such a hard time with this distinction (again, no offense).

I'm not a social liberal, so no offense taken.

In tobacco, the state licenses and profits by the sale of products that work only harm.

The state licenses marriage and your position, along with most of Christendom, is that this license also works a harm (in the case of homosexuals being granted it).

What distinguishes these meaningfully to you?

 

[TracerBullet]

why should perverts receive equal representation under the law?

why should you?
.

 

[Traditio]

In tobacco, the state licenses and profits by the sale of products that work only harm.

The state licenses marriage and your position, along with most of Christendom, is that this license also works a harm (in the case of homosexuals being granted it).

What distinguishes these meaningfully to you?

I understand now. The State profiting (vis-a-vis tax revenue) doesn't really strike me as a problem. The State doesn't really seem contribute to something by imposing a tax on that thing (though I could be in error). The licensing is what strikes me as more comparable.

How to distinguish? Is there a difference? I don't know. Then, of course, there is the question of whether smoking tobacco is intrinsice malum (intrinsically evil) or even seriously evil at all...to which, of course, I think that the answer is probably in the negative.

Furthermore, there's the question of what the license is for, what it does...I don't know. :idunno:

That said, I think that you are still too focused on this notion of "working a harm." It strikes me as flatly consequentialist/utilitarian.

My claim isn't that issuing a license to a homosexual couple "works a harm." My claim is that issuing a license to a homosexual couple constitutes formal cooperation in moral evil. It's a public endorsement/encouragement of their crimes against the Natural and Divine Laws, and, as such, itself constitutes an offense against the Natural and Divine Laws.

Is it comparable to licensing tobacco salesman? That's another issue about which I'm not particularly prepared to speak, other than the few brief comments above.

 

[TracerBullet]

Though, perhaps, Kmoney, what you meant to ask was the following: "If the State issues marriage licenses to sodomite couples, does this constitute formal cooperation in evil?" To which, of course, my answer is: "Yes."

Just like many viewed interracial marriage

 

[Town Heretic]

I understand now. The State profiting (vis-a-vis tax revenue) doesn't really strike me as a problem. The State doesn't really seem contribute to something by imposing a tax on that thing (though I could be in error).

It's allowing and licensing to make profit. It understands that money will be made at the expense of health and even life.

The licensing is what strikes me as more comparable.

That's the more obvious acting, but the motivation for that is profit taking off of human suffering and even death.

How to distinguish? Is there a difference? I don't know. Then, of course, there is the question of whether smoking tobacco is intrinsice malum (intrinsically evil)...to which, of course, I think that the answer is probably in the negative.

It's as evil as stabbing yourself would be if for some strange reason you found it pleasurable. You're destroying the temple, before we get to example in witness. How can something that is inherently a bringer of physical suffering and death not be inherently evil as a product?

Furthermore, there's the question of what the license is for, what it does...I don't know. :idunno:

To sell and distribute that suffering for money.

That said, I think that you are still too focused on this notion of "working a harm." It strikes me as flatly consequentialist/utilitarian.

It strikes me as a sin and a common bond between the two.

My claim isn't that issuing a license to a homosexual couple "works a harm." My claim is that issuing a license to a homosexual couple constitutes formal cooperation in evil. It's a public endorsement/encouragement of their crimes.

Trad, find me a moral crime that fails to work a harm.

 

[Traditio]

In the event that anyone is interested, I'm not failing to respond to Tracerbullet because I have no answers. I'm refusing to answer him in principle. I don't talk to broken records. Sorry. If anyone else is interested in proposing his objections, by all means, feel free to do so. :idunno:

 

[Traditio]

It's allowing

I've addressed this before. Simply allowing something to happen does not constitute cooperation of any kind.

It understands that money will be made at the expense of health and even life.

That still doesn't, in and of itself, constitute endorsement or cooperation.

It's as evil as stabbing yourself would be if for some strange reason you found it pleasurable. You're destroying the temple, before we get to example in witness. How can something that is inherently a bringer of physical suffering and death not be inherently evil as a product?

If I smoke a cigarette just once? Is that a sin? What if I take a single puff of a cigarrete just once? Is that a sin? I'm inclined to think that the answer is "no." If you disagree, then I'll answer that every sin is an act of vice and is opposed to acts of some virtue. To which virtue would it be opposed? Courage? Temperance? Justice? Prudence?

But note, still, that even if we grant that smoking is a moral evil, the question would still turn on what the State effects by licensing it. If it's a simple matter of: "You must follow these standards and pay us x amount of dollars ever year"? Er...? :idunno:

Note, of course, that none of this constitutes in any, way, shape or form an endorsement of tobacco smoking.

Trad, find me a moral crime that fails to work a harm.

The problem is that "harm" is far too ambiguous/vague. I'm not even sure I know what it means. This is another reason why the analogy of moral agents to an artisan is much better. I don't know what "harm" means. I do know what it means for an act to be well or poorly done. :idunno: