Just wanted to talk briefly about principles and how I think they are lacking in much of our society. This is not necessarily an overt religious article, but our religion informs our morality, so in that sense it is.
I find all too often, people sacrifice principles because a subjectively "good" end has been achieved. One such example is from the US, where Obama ordered the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen. Many people believe he was an evil person bent on the destruction of the United States, and I'm not here to argue whether or not he was.
The problem with the scenario, is that as an American citizen, Al-Awlaki is entitled to a trial before he is executed, regardless of where he is located in the world. Obama chose to ignore this and decided this man was better off dead.
What I'm talking about is principles. Many people rejoice at the death of a terrorist, and I'm not here to talk about that. I'm not a pacifist and believe countries have a right to defend themselves, but I find people are far too comfortable with saying that what happened was legally wrong, but oh well, we killed a bad guy so there's nothing wrong with that.
But this violates the entire purpose of due process and the law in the first place. The legal system was established not to treat our friends properly, but to uphold the rights of our worst enemies. Once we start ignoring the law and arbitrarily deciding who is protected by it or not, then it ceases to be a "law", and becomes more of a whim.
This man was not convicted, he was only suspected. That's why countries like Canada and the US have court systems. Even Jeffrey Dahmer, or Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka received a trial and were sentenced according to the law. No one would argue that these are good upstanding citizens. Indeed, most believe they are evil and reprehensible. Yet even for these individuals, there is a trial in an official court of law.
I'm sure not too many people would shed many tears if Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered after what he did, but does that give the government the right to assassinate him in the absence of real evidence in a court of law?
Once we go to this point, we start using vigilante justice, and the whole legal system is in jeopardy.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Michael Coren & Tanya Gralic Allan: Thomas or Tammy? An 8 Year Old's Se...
How disgrace are the actions of these parents! Michael Coren is absolutely right, they should be charged with a crime, and this child should be taken away. How did they even end up with this child? They are two lesbians, so it obviously wasn't an act of love between the two of them that produced this child. It was probably some sort of adoption or in vitro fertilization or something. And the woman is right too. Kids might ask for anything. They might want to be anything, but that doesn't make it right. It could be horribly wrong. And this really is.
Did you know that some people have a psychological desire to amputate limbs? Do we believe it's good to give in to these demands? Some people actually believe they are certain animals. Should plastic surgery be used to transform them? The answer is obvious.
This is not just an isolated incident. Things like IVF, surrogate motherhood, and other types of immoral sexual activity have bred a society which can accept or allow this type of grotesque thing to happen. It occurs when we believe we create life and that we control it. We need to have far more respect for life and dignity.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Friday, September 02, 2011
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
World's Oldest Nun Left Cloister to Meet Pope During World Youth Day
Article from the Daily News on NCRegister.com
This is amazing! This nun entered the convent the day Pope Benedict XVI was BORN!
This is amazing! This nun entered the convent the day Pope Benedict XVI was BORN!
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Christine O’Donnell says masturbation, not gay marriage led to CNN walk off
A few days ago, I posted an article about an interview featuring Christine O'Donnell, where the host was asking her about gay marriage. At the time I said her subsequent walk-off was inappropriate and that she should have stuck around to answer Piers Morgan's questions. However, I will have to slightly change my opinion on the matter after I have discovered new information.
Apparently Piers was totally fixated on asking Ms. O'Donnell every imaginable question about sexuality, and most of it involving sexual immorality. Christine was a good guest and kept answering all of his questions, even though she did not come on the show to exclusively talk about how much sexual immorality she condones. Anyway, after he relentlessly asked the same types of questions, she finally walked off the set.
Unfortunately, the media is portraying this as innocent Piers asking her one little question about gay marriage and Christine O'Donnell just getting up and walking away. However, there is a lot of back-story.
Article here from Examiner.com
Apparently Piers was totally fixated on asking Ms. O'Donnell every imaginable question about sexuality, and most of it involving sexual immorality. Christine was a good guest and kept answering all of his questions, even though she did not come on the show to exclusively talk about how much sexual immorality she condones. Anyway, after he relentlessly asked the same types of questions, she finally walked off the set.
Unfortunately, the media is portraying this as innocent Piers asking her one little question about gay marriage and Christine O'Donnell just getting up and walking away. However, there is a lot of back-story.
Article here from Examiner.com
New Doctor of the Church: San Juan de Ávila
This is really amazing news. It's a very rare occurrence that a new Doctor of the Church is named. "Doctor" comes from Latin and actually means "teacher". In the Catholic Church, a person is assigned the title "doctor" if their contributions in writing have been vast and influential.
The title first started to be used in 1298 when the original four doctors were named, Sts. Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augstine, and Jerome. Their writings on doctrine and teaching were very influential and are often quoted today by churchmen.
Until 1970, the title belonged exclusively to men, but in that year two women, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Teresa of Avila were given that title. In 1997, St. Térèse de Lisieux became the third woman so honored.
Now, fourteen years later, St. John of Avila will become the 34th such individual. Some reports have stated that the designation is not yet official but that Pope Benedict is simply intending it.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)