Today the main debate was about immigration. I was attempting to take the side of the United States bishops and to understand where they’re coming from in their opposition to the law passed by Arizona. However, as I argued with the person who is staunchly in favor of enforcing the immigration laws (and who is frankly at least of a know-it-all as I am, and therefore a lot of fun to debate), I began to refine my approach and my thoughts on the subject. Perhaps the bishops need to focus on identifying how our current laws are unjust to people who want to enter our country legally, and on fixing those laws if they are indeed unjust. Instead it seems they join the voices of those who would disregard the law completely and prefer to have them unenforceable. Immigration is a difficult topic for Catholics. We are called to generosity, but we are also called to the responsible use of our country’s resources. Catholic teaching does allow for cultures to protect their identity and in doing so to protect their borders against those who would enter illegally.

However, finding the balance between protection of one’s culture and borders on the one hand and being generous to those in need on the other hand is a prudential decision that is sometimes difficult for Catholics to agree on. Dialogue and debate in matters such as these is not only fun but fruitful.

I am indeed fortunate to have friends with whom I can debate and discuss and who will still respect me even when I’m wrong and or even when I stubbornly argue a point without appearing to listen to the other side. This is part of the intellectual life Catholics are invited to participate in. To read, think, and dialogue with others in order to discover truth is part of the joy of the intellectual tradition. If you find yourself mentally stagnating especially in the area of applying your faith to our culture, find some friends you can have respectful debates with and make an appointment to have breakfast with them on a regular basis. Not only will you have fun and fellowship with your friends, you’ll also discover the joy of interacting with the truth and trying to discover the best way to apply to our lives.

Related Links:

• USCCB Statement
• Question & Answer with a bishop

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Richard Stith seems to agree. His article, Her Choice, Her Problem in First Things Magazine presents an excellent argument that seriously needs to be considered in the public square.

He argues (among other things) that choice removes compassionate support and replaces it with the attitude, “You chose to have the baby when you could have gotten an abortion, now you can live with your choice.”

But once continuing a pregnancy to birth is the result neither of passion nor of luck but only of her deliberate choice, sympathy weakens. After all, the pregnant woman can avoid all her problems by choosing abortion. So if she decides to take those difficulties on, she must think she can handle them.

Birth itself may be followed by blame rather than support. Since only the mother has the right to decide whether to let the child be born, the father may easily conclude that she bears sole responsibility for caring for the child. The baby is her fault.

It could certainly be argued that society was not so compassionate to pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade. If this is true, is the answer to turn to a solution that is at least as uncaring? Furthermore, it must be understood that there is a difference between compassion for the woman and accepting the sin. Today we are expected to say to a woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, “Oh, that’s OK. Your sexual choices are your own. We’ll help you and not judge you.” Before Roe vs. Wade, the attitude was, “This is the consequence of your sin, and you need to come to terms with it. However, we will help you even though we do not condone your sin.” How is this kind of compassion shown?

• The father of the child may man-up and marry the woman and become a true father to the child
• A family may take the young mother away from the community, school, etc. so as not to cause scandal, but would support her through her pregnancy and even through the adoption process or even in motherhood
• Pregnancy crisis centers help women without other sources of support
• Churches and communities step in to help single parents who are struggling
• All the while the family, Church and society make it clear that the consequences of the sinful, selfish use of sexuality affect her, the baby, and everyone around them

The personal experience of a friend of mine has shown me exactly what “choice” does to us as a society. When she got pregnant and went to the father of her new baby, his response was, “I’ll give you some money for an abortion, but if you choose to have this baby then you’re on your own.” No longer is the point of choice and consequence the decision to have sex. Now the point of choice and consequence is the decision to have an abortion or not. The man was let off the hood because keeping the child was the woman’s choice.

It’s time for a more compassionate response to unwed pregnancy than “choice.”

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In other sectors of the public square, we are often so used to hearing propaganda and sloganizing that we stop questioning if the claims to truth are true. Our politicized culture even makes science into a propaganda tool instead of an investigation into objective truth. Does anyone really know if “global warming” is real or not? “Science” seems to support both sides of the argument because science has been used as a weapon rather than as an honest search for the truth. This video calls us to task on accepting such a culture.

It’s also really, really funny.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I am willing to admit that I may be ignorant of the total ramifications of this issue. Margie made the point that some prolife groups are filing lawsuits over this document, which shows that the “accusations” are not routine and are serious. I hope that she is right, and that these lawsuits do not prove to be frivolous.

However, after reading the entire document I continue to be convinced that prolife reactions were more alarmist and propaganda than legitimate self-defense. The document was a “lexicon” – a glossary to help law enforcement agents understand the lingo used in documents from the Department of Homeland Security. One of the definitions in this glossary was

antiabortion extremism – (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are virulently antiabortion and advocate violence against providers of abortion-related services, their employees, and their facilities. Some cite various racist and anti-Semitic beliefs to justify their criminal activities.

Margie reflected reactions that I have heard from prolife groups – that this definition amounts to an accusation that prolife groups are violent. What I see is a very narrow definition of people who are willing to commit violence in the name of anti-abortion activism. This definition does not even pertain to prolife groups, but only to the few violent whackos who have placed bombs at abortion centers or shot at abortion providers.

Secondly, I have heard prolife leaders ask why prolife extremists were singled out. While it is true that pro-abortion extremists were not mentioned in the lexicon, other “liberal” causes were. The lexicon included terms such as leftwing extremist and environmental extremist. All of these “extremism” terms are used in the same way as the term “Muslim extremism,” specifying a subgroup of a population who are willing to use violence in the name of their cause.

Whether or not I am correct in my read of this situation, my warnings remain true. Alarmism and propaganda have no place in the prolife movement. These are the tools of the enemy because the enemy does not have the weapon of Truth. Truth is stronger in the end than emotional deception. We weaken our own cause when we react with only emotion rather than with reasoned passion.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tagging Pro-Lifers as Rightwing Terrorists

There’s been much talk about the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warning America about potential rightwing terrorists. One of the sources of these terrorists they predict will be veterans returning from war. I always thought of them as heroes. A second group they pointed their finger at was those who are “dedicated to [an] opposition to abortion.” Another of their concerns was people who believe government has taken control away from state or local authorities—exactly what Roe versus Wade did. I never thought working to protect innocent unborn babies was remotely an act of terrorism. But I guess we’re in good company with the veterans. Kidding aside, this new document could be used as a platform for a pro-abortion president to try to silence his opposition.

From Life Issues Radio Transcript 05/04/09

I think we need to exercise a little bit of prudential caution here. I have noticed that pro-life reports are becoming ever more alarmist and hypersensitive since President Obama took office. We do ourselves no favors by playing this game. This “document” was actually an alert memo – something that is by its very nature temporary. It was intended to give law enforcement a profile of potential for violence so that they could catch early signs. It was not intended as a permanent profile of criminal populations.

The memo’s mention of veterans was not an indication that all veterans are violent threats. Rather, it was an indication that veterans are more likely to be disgruntled or even angry at the current administration (especially given their strong support for Bush & McCain), and that anger could potentially lead to violence because any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

Likewise, can any pro-lifer claim that our stress levels have not risen since President Obama took office? Isn’t it possible that some of the less emotionally stable members of the vast pro-life movement could express their increased frustration in violent ways? The memo was not stating that all or even most who are opposed to abortion are likely to be violent, but simply that the current political situation has increased the ire of pro-lifers, and any group who is angry at the government is more likely to have members who express their anger through violence.

My guess is that under the Bush administration, similar memos were issued about homosexual activists and ardent abortion supporters. Just because we didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean the memo wasn’t there. These memos are routine.

A more legitimate target for concern is the press that chose to make this memo public while ignoring similar memos that could have been interpreted to call homosexual activists terrorists.

Pro-life groups really need to exercise more prudence. It does us no good to use propaganda and “political speak” that have no truth behind them. When we do this, we turn the fight against abortion into just another political wrangle. We have the Truth behind us. We should use it.

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. to explain the opposition to his position completely and accurately (oftentimes even better than the people holding the opposite position could explain it themselves)
2. offer arguments in favor of his position
3. to offer arguments against the opposition’s positions

The end result was both an honest quest for the truth and a solidly defended argument that convinces people without trickery, confusion or obfuscation. Our modernist age desperately needs St Thomas Aquinas. While on one hand pure modernists don’t trust or accept logic or any other claim to objective truth, most people are not pure modernists. They are rather naively influenced by modernism. For these people, playing modernist games of propaganda, emotional incitement and ridiculing the opposition makes the truth seem like just another negotiable position. If we can argue properly, with openness and humility but with assurance that we are seeking the truth, we can show them the emptiness of the modernist position. Yes, we desperately need St. Thomas Aquinas today.

The abortion debate has been filled with modernist games on both sides of the “issue” (even calling it an issue is a modernist turn, indicating that it is all a matter of opinion). While some methods used by the pro-life movement are necessary strategies to win over people’s hearts (some highly emotional appeals, strategic use of terms, etc) and are also necessary to beat the modernists at their own game, other strategies use modernist games to the detriment of our claim to the truth.Misrepresenting or misunderstanding the arguments of our opposition is a prime example of a weak use of modernist games. Recently I have been hearing critiques of the Democratic Party’s claim that they will do more than the Republicans to reduce the number of abortions. These critiques say things like, “Barak Obama has promised to sign FOCA, removing all current restrictions on abortion. This will certainly not reduce the number of abortions. It will most certainly increase them.”

While this statement is true, it misrepresents or misunderstands the argument made by Obama and other Democrats.The liberal argument treats abortion in the same way we might treat a powerful anti-cancer drug that has severe side effects. While we would want to make sure that a drug with terrible side effects was used only as a last result, we also would want to make sure that it was freely and widely available for those who need it. In this view, there is no contradiction between the Democrat claim that they will work to reduce the number of abortions and Obama’s support of FOCA. The claim of the Democrats is that by working to eliminate poverty and other social conditions that make parenting difficult they can reduce the need for abortions. However, they still want abortion freely accessible to those who “need” it.

Now that we properly understand their argument, we can begin to attack it honestly. I offer two counter-arguments to get us started.

• First, the assumption made by social liberals is that most abortions occur because of social conditions such as poverty. The facts do not play this out. Abortion has become a means of “sexual freedom” for the middle class and is most often used as a form of back-up contraception. Poor women are much more likely to keep their children than to get an abortion. In fact, the sex without consequences mentality promoted by contraception and abortion free men to have sex without caring about possible pregnancy, resulting in an increasing number of poor women becoming single mothers when the man leaves the scene.
• The second argument against the social liberal view of abortion is, of course, the core argument of the pro-life movement. The social liberal view assumes that abortion is a valid solution to social problems. To use the same analogy, abortion is like using a powerful anti-cancer drug that not only has severe side effects, but that also requires the drug manufacturers to kill one human being in order to create a single dose. Obviously such a drug would not be morally acceptable. As always, the abortion argument hinges on the death of a child.

Only by properly understanding and representing the pro-choice argument can we properly attack it. When pro-life advocates miss the mark on the opposing arguments, we make ourselves sound like the ignorant, naive ideologues that they paint us to be. We also miss the opportunity to attack their errors at their very root.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The statement titled, “Initiative 11 is Deceptive and Dangerous for Women and Doctors“, is an appeal to voters to oppose a measure that would have banned nearly all abortions. ACOG’s arguments make the typical appeals to “women’s health” and to “science.” However, both appeals ring hollow, as an examination of ACOG’s major objections will show.

Physicians’ hands are tied by an unworkable, ambiguous health exception. While appearing to permit a physician to exercise his or her clinical judgment, in fact this ban places physicians and their patients in an untenable situation with grave consequences for women’s health. The specter of criminal liability will have a profound chilling effect on physicians’ willingness to perform abortions even in circumstances where this ban cannot apply.

A doctor cannot know whether he or she will be judged according to a standard that evaluates whether he or she acted in good faith based on his or her own medical judgment or according to some other standard that allows prosecutors and judges and juries to second-guess the reasonableness of that judgment.

Doctors should not have to compromise their best medical judgment out of concern for their own freedom. In fact, under this ban, more pregnant women will be transferred out-of-state for care with potentially devastating consequences for maternal health care in our state.

ACOG makes it sound like life-saving abortions are a daily event, and that banning abortions would put women’s lives needlessly in danger on a daily basis. The truth is that even the most generous statistics show that fewer than 1% of all abortions are performed due to life-endangering health conditions (ACOG’s statement claims 2.7% – I do not honestly know which figure is most accurate). Of those 1-2.7% many are conditions that may not actually endanger the woman’s life, and abortion is rarely the only option for treatment. There are some hard cases in which the baby’s presence in the womb makes life-saving treatment difficult or even impossible, but these are very few. Furthermore, the moral principle of double effect would allow for a woman to receive life-saving treatment that may secondarily lead to the death of the unborn child, even the removal of the uterus if necessary. There is a very large moral difference between performing such treatments and directly killing a baby. The general principle is that the mother and the baby are both human beings so every attempt should be made to save both lives.

This ban imposes a practical burden on physicians and an ethical dilemma. Because medical conditions are unpredictable and change frequently, it is impossible to forecast with certainty when a serious health condition will rise to the level of a catastrophic condition. Physicians must have the ability to act quickly to protect their patient’s health. For example, a pregnant woman may have a serious medical problem that worsens during pregnancy, or a pregnant woman may face an uncertain but potentially life-threatening condition (e.g., severe preeclampsia or HELLP syndrome, a variant of severe preeclampsia). This ban puts the physician in the unthinkable position of either treating her in a medically appropriate fashion and being prosecuted as a criminal, or not treating appropriately and not only facing claims of negligence but, worse, seeing her suffer.

This statement, along with the sentence from the previous objection, “Doctors should not have to compromise their best medical judgment out of concern for their own freedom,” seems strange and even hypocritical considering ACOG’s statement on the limits of the moral conscience. It seems the only time a doctor should have absolute freedom is when it comes to killing babies and avoiding pregnancies. Once again the assumption is that abortion is a necessary treatment for complications, and that it may be the only option. Such statements are blatantly false. It is often the first and only solution considered, but it is not the only option available. In fact, if abortion were banned, perhaps OB-GYNs would focus on learning to actually heal such conditions.

Lacks an exception for lethal congenital birth defects. These are severe conditions in the fetus that, if they do not result in miscarriage, almost always lead to certain infant death – usually upon or shortly after birth. These include anencephaly where the fetus is missing most of its brain, for example. Relatively uncommon, these conditions still afflict substantial numbers of pregnant women each year and need to be treated appropriately. Yet, under this ban, terminating a pregnancy due to anencephaly would be a criminal offense. Under this ban, families in our state would lose their right to make their own private decisions about whether to continue such a pregnancy.

The unscientific and illogical assumption here is that a baby’s life in the womb is worthless. Therefore, if a baby is not going to live outside of the womb it is better to kill the baby in the womb before it has a chance to die out of the womb. There is no scientific or logical reason that abortion is the “appropriate” treatment for such conditions.

Uncaring, unrealistic treatment of sexual assault victims. This ban cruelly puts too many obstacles on women who are victims of rape or incest. It mandates a lengthy, cumbersome process that is unworkable, especially for sexual assault victims who choose to undergo a medical rather than a surgical abortion. In fact, it mandates that the medical community take on a law enforcement role by forcing doctors to report rape or incest to authorities – even against an adult patient’s wishes.

I treated the false assumption that emergency contraception and abortion constitute “compassionate care” for sexual assault victims in an article on my website. This assumption has no scientific backing and actually flies in the face of anecdotal evidence that shows bringing new life out of sexual assault can be a good coming out of an evil and can provide healing.

Obstructs women’s access to contraceptives. Although the ban appears to exempt the prescribing, dispensing and use of contraception from prosecution, in fact, its definition of terms including “pregnant” are contrary to accepted medical and scientific knowledge. The ban could be interpreted and enforced as making some types of hormonal contraception illegal in South Dakota, including emergency oral contraceptive pills and copper IUDs. These methods work to prevent, not terminate, a pregnancy.

In addition, because the ban permits only contraceptives “prescribed or sold in accordance with manufacturer instructions,” it would make a common and medically acceptable method of dispensing emergency contraception – where the physician combines different types of ordinary birth control pills in an emergency situation – a prosecutable offense.

Here we go. ACOG loves the term “accepted,” as in, “accepted medical practice,” and, “accepted scientific knowledge.” Their use of the term “accepted” is the use of authority as a source of truth, not science. The definition of pregnancy beginning at implantation actually runs contrary to all scientific knowledge about how human life begins. The change in the definition of pregnancy was a purely political change. In fact, the categorization of contraception as “women’s health” is also “accepted medical practice” that actually opposes scientific truth about what it really good for women.

Setting the record straight on psychological and physical risks. The ban’s claim that an abortion “subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks” is not supported by over two decades of published research on mental health and abortion. In fact, a report released in August of this year 3 by the American Psychological Association confirms there is no evidence that an abortion causes significant mental health problems. Extensive reviews have also concluded that there are no documented negative psychological or medical sequlae to abortion among young women, who are not at greater risk of complications in future pregnancies, future medical problems, or future psychological problems.

We also note that, contrary to the claims of the ban’s proponents, abortion is safe, with an extremely low complication rate. (Complications requiring hospitalization result in 0.27% or fewer cases.) A woman’s risk of death due to complications from pregnancy or childbirth is ten times greater than the risk of fatality from an abortion. The claim that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer has been thoroughly disproved.

ACOG’s statement that the claim of psychological trauma caused by abortion is, “is not supported by over two decades of published research on mental health and abortion” is another example of an appeal to (untrusted) authority rather than true science. Such published material has been mostly opinion and surveys of women taken directly after abortions. Such studies use surveys of post-abortive women and fail to take into account the possibility of psychological defense mechanisms. ACOG completely ignores the ever-growing phenomenon of post-abortive women seeking psychological counseling and spiritual support for depression and guilt.

The appeal to the “American Psychological Association” is purely an appeal to (untrusted) authority. The APA is an extremely political body, who removed homosexuality from the list of gender identity disorders despite ongoing success in counseling with homosexuals seeking treatment for gender identity. A statement by the APA does not indicate a scientifically valid statement.

The last paragraph of this objection actually seems to be an appeal to real science. However, the claims made by ACOG are misleading. I do not personally know the validity of their statistics about complications due to abortion. However, I do know that their claim that the link between abortion and breast cancer have been disproved is wrong. Abortion leads to increased risk of breast cancer in women who have their first pregnancy aborted but not in women whose first pregnancy was completed to term or ended in natural miscarriage. The reason for this risk in breast cancer has to do with the way that hormones mature the breast during a pregnancy. Abortion interrupts this maturation in a way that natural miscarriage does not.

Like many professional organizations, ACOG has become a political body rather than a body of experts. They use politically charged statements and appeals to (untrusted) established authorities to support their arguments while they ignore true science and reason.

End Note

When we call groups like ACOG for making false scientific claims and for appealing to illegitimate authorities, we want to make sure that we do not fall into the same errors. I would appreciate your help, if you are able to point me to any scientific studies that can help to verify the information above or to correct any factual errors I may have made.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I was thinking about our culture’s obsession with what it calls “science.” How did we get to the point where scientists can comment on areas of life not observable by science (such as God) and be embraced as experts? How did we get to the point where scientists assume that knowledge within the realm of science are matters of personal conviction rather than objective truth? How did we get to the point that “scientists” make assumptions about where human life begins, the side-effects of contraception, contraception and abortion as “women’s health,” in-vitro fertilization as the best option for infertile women, a biological genesis of homosexuality, etc. are made without scientific evidence? Then it occurred to me. Our culture is once again embracing “authority” as a source of truth.

Arguments using authority as a source for truth used to be very common. People who had proven themselves as trusted experts in an area were cited as proof in support of a thesis. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas often cited “The Philosopher” (Aristotle) and “The Apostle” (St. Paul). It was not necessary for Aquinas to prove what these two authorities said; the fact that they said it was proof enough. Such weight of proof was based on trust. Cited authorities had proven themselves and general consensus trusted their conclusions. Of course, for Catholics the ultimate authority was God. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were trusted because throughout history God had proven Himself trustworthy.

Many historians mark Descartes as the beginning of the rejection of arguments by authority. His famous dictum, “I think therefore I am,” was an assertion that the only truth of which one can be absolutely certain is his own thought. In truth, rejection of authority began before Descartes. After the medieval period of history culture began to turn more and more toward humanism, rejecting God as the source of all truth. The Protestant Reformation damaged trust in authority by casting doubt on the authority of Sacred Tradition and on the Magisterial authority instituted by Christ. Interpretation of scripture, which was seen as the only legitimate authority remaining, was left up to each individual. The Renaissance was a celebration of human ability, even though much of the subject matter in art and literature was still religious. Arguments by authority were cast in suspicious light. By the enlightenment arguments by authority were completely rejected in favor only of truth that could be proven by science and reason. By the twentieth century even reason had been rejected so that only science was considered a trustworthy source of truth.

Today scientists and “professionals” are trusted as authorities because the assumption is made that their claims to truth are based on science. There is a very large difference between the modern and the ancient reliance on tradition. Whereas the traditional use of authority was based on trust of the individual, modern use of authority is based only on the often erroneous assumption of scientific validity. “Well, he has a PhD, he must know what the science says about the subject.” Furthermore, while an appeal to authority was traditionally seen as a valid proof for an argument, it did not stand alone. Even appeals to divinely inspired authority (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition) were paired with further proof from reason and science. Today, the word of an authority is typically accepted uncritically without need for further proof.

In one sense we have come full circle, back to the use of authority as proof. On the other hand, our current resting point is not the same place at all. While we continue to reject established authorities such as Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas and even God Himself, we readily and uncritically embrace unproven authorities simply because of their social status as “professionals.” In the end, by ignoring solid claims to truth through science, reason and trusted authority and embracing the unfounded opinions of so-called “professionals,” we have set ourselves up to be duped.

A related book at the From the Abbey Bookstore!

The Truth of Things by Marion Montgomery.

Against the modernist belief that truth is subjective, Montgomery promotes a return to classical philosophy and logic. She uncovers a world of academia where meaningless themed classes such as “the Literature of Vampires” have replaced systematic learning. Marion Montgomery also analyzes how this trend has affected our culture as a whole. Anti-intellectualism has even grasped the Catholic culture, and we need to be aware of its presence. Montgomery’s writing is academic and heady. You may find it difficult to absorb for long periods of time. However, this is one of those books for which perseverance pays off. The ideas Montgomery presents are absolutely enlightening.

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The editors of our local newspaper made some interesting comments about morality in a recent editorial. They were mainly commenting on an incident in which a local gas station accidentally keyed a price of 34.9 cents per gallon instead of $3.499 into its gas tanks. Since customers were paying at the pump, the gas station attendant did not catch the error right away. Cars lined up down the street to take advantage of the mistake. The editors comment on one woman, who

. . . told reporters it normally costs her $100 to fill her SUV. She proudly showed off a receipt for $8.85 after pumping her tank full last Monday.

The editors post the question, “Was filling up at 34.9 cents stealing, or did those who lined up just take advantage of an opportunity offered them?”

They then quote one possible response from an online respondent,

“The oil companies have been ripping us off for years,” a reader who uses the screen name jstib1 wrote on our Web site. “She paid the price the pump said to pay. It’s not like she filled up and drove off without paying for what she bought.”

They then quoted another reader who thought that customers taking advantage of the mistake were dishonest. The comment of the editors was then, “It’s a fascinating debate, isn’t it?”

The editors then present a list of similar moral decisions that they consider not always clear:

• Do you tell the store clerk when he or she gives you too much change?
• What if it’s a substantial mistake, say $20, and the clerk is the daughter of a friend?
• What if it’s only $1 and you don’t discover the error until you get home. Do you spend $5 in gas to return the $1?

“Now let’s up the ante”

• You happen upon an item in a garage sale being sold for $2.50 that you know is worth $30,000. Do you tell the seller, or take advantage of a great deal?
• Your neighbor has wireless Internet access and you can receive the signal in your home. Do you save yourself $50 a month by using his signal?

Their conclusion?

Truth is, these questions can only be answered as you consult your own conscience or perhaps your higher power.

We’re not going to tell you what is right and what is wrong.

But those people in Rapids who filled up for one-tenth of what gasoline should have cost?

They’re all crooks.

Here’s the irony. The day after telling us that they won’t tell us what is right or wrong, they write an editorial justifying their right to endorse a specific political candidate.

Now, if a newspaper wants to use its editorial opinion page to endorse a specific candidate, I have no problem with that. However, what makes them think that moral choices are out of the realm of reasoned public discourse? We are free to agree or disagree with their pick of a presidential candidate. Are we any less free to agree or disagree with their moral reasoning?

Their comment on morality is very telling. “Truth is, these questions can only be answered as you consult your own conscience or perhaps your higher power.” According to these editors, decisions of conscience are even more private than political decisions and are therefore not fair game for public discourse.

Yet, moral decisions are based on objective truth, and therefore subject to the kind of reasoned judgment that should happen in public debate. In fact, the “dilemmas” that the editors present are actually fairly clear-cut to anyone who accepts the existence of objective moral reality.

Let’s give it a try, shall we?

• Do you tell the store clerk when he or she gives you too much change?

If the clerk gives you too much change by mistake and you do not tell him or her, you have not paid the asking price for the items you purchased. This is a sin against (commutative) justice.

• What if it’s a substantial mistake, say $20, and the clerk is the daughter of a friend?

A greater amount of extra change can make the sin against justice more grave.

• What if it’s only $1 and you don’t discover the error until you get home. Do you spend $5 in gas to return the $1?

The small amount of change makes the sin less grave, but it does not justify knowingly keeping the extra money. While spending $5 on gas to return $1 of extra change seems disproportionate, justice would demand at least a phone call to the store. You could also return the dollar on your next trip into town.

“Now let’s up the ante”

• You happen upon an item in a garage sale being sold for $2.50 that you know is worth $30,000. Do you tell the seller, or take advantage of a great deal?

These scenarios are perhaps a little more complex. In this case, special knowledge of the worth of an item may give you the right to sell it for more than you pay for it. However, if the value is this disproportionate, justice would demand that you at least offer the seller a fair amount based on your ability to assess the true value of the item and to get the higher price. What percentage of the true value would be fair? That may be a prudential judgment to be made in dialogue with the seller.

• Your neighbor has wireless Internet access and you can receive the signal in your home. Do you save yourself $50 a month by using his signal?

This one is only difficult because there are no physical goods being stolen, and the act of piracy is so easy. However, if by social contract it is understood that you need to pay for a service to use it, using it without paying is stealing. There is probably a difference between using free-floating WiFi waves in a particular instance (especially given the fact that so many public places offer free WiFi access) and permanently hijacking the signal. If you want Internet access, you should pay for it.

Finally, let’s take one more look at the gas station situation. Remember this quote?

“The oil companies have been ripping us off for years,” a reader who uses the screen name jstib1 wrote on our Web site. “She paid the price the pump said to pay. It’s not like she filled up and drove off without paying for what she bought.”

First of all, this statement is purely illogical. The error did not hurt the oil company. It hurt the gas station, who had already paid for the gasoline and is reselling it. If this was a local gas station, the consequences are quite immediate. If it is a chain gas station, the consequences might be more easily absorbed, but are still felt by real people trying to run an honest business. Secondly, the sentiment that oil companies have been ripping us off for years does not in turn justify ripping them off. If we believe oil companies are ripping us off, we need to use recourse to legislation, legal action or economic forces (however, the truth still remains that American gas prices are among the lowest in the world – perhaps we’re just spoiled). Finally, customers who drove off with a full tank of gas for a tenth of the cost were not paying for what they bought. They knew that the lower prices was the result of an error, not of a promotion by the gas station. They were taking advantage, and they were unjust.

One of my maxims of morality is, “If we got the easy moral decisions right, we could more easily forgiven for struggling with the difficult ones.” The editors of our local newspaper don’t even want to try to get the easy moral decisions right. Conscience is not a private decision. It is a reasoned decision-making process made in the context of a community engaged in reasoned discourse with the goal of arriving at objective moral truth.

End Note

“Would you fill up with 35-cent gas?” Marshfield News Herald. 20 October 2008. Gannet News Service. 6A.
[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The first question was to define censorship. A public school librarian defined censorship as any attempt to suppress the free expression of ideas. When the moderator asked if I agreed with this definition, I said that I would add one more element to my definition. Censorship is the use of the power of authority to suppress the public expression of ideas. I stated that I did not consider the grassroots attempt to decide what should be taught in a community’s schools or what books should be in the school and public libraries to be censorship. It’s a matter of subsidiarity. Such decisions should be made at the lowest possible level of social organization. Furthermore, I believe that the public discourse that occurs when public works are challenged is healthy and good. A community should discuss what literature and media match the identity and purpose and which they consider harmful or contrary to community standards – and they should learn to critically, rationally and intelligently discuss these choices.

I do believe that whether or not particular expressions of ideas should be suppressed depends largely on the forum in which these choices are being made. Suppression of materials is perhaps less necessary in venues that offer more freedom, such as a public library. However, venues with a captive audience, such as school libraries and classrooms, may require more action to be taken based on community discussion. On the other hand, these forums need to offer more freedom by working with members of the community to offer alternatives to contested literature and media. Whether or not a particular public expression of ideas is suppressed by this process, I do not consider it censorship, but the free exercise of the democratic process.

I do not support a single person or minority making decisions for the rest of us what should be taught or made available in our community and what should not. Examples of disgruntled parents taking their case to court even though they were given alternatives to the contested literature would probably be considered censorship rather than public dialogue. Such action squelches community discussion. While authority may need to step in to make the final decision, it should do so only after listening to the community dialogue.

I summarized my point by challenging the popular interpretation of Fahrenheit 451. I don’t think the main theme of the book is censorship, but what happens when a community stops thinking. The blind acceptance of all ideas is just as detrimental to the health of society as blind censorship. The public discourse about ideas, including the occasional debate about whether or not a specific expression of ideas should be available in a particular venue, is healthy. The problem with the society in Fahrenheit 451 was not that the government started censoring ideas, but that the people did not want to be bothered with thinking. They would rather be entertained and taken care of by their government. They filled their lives with shallow, meaningless fun and entertainment. Books were burned because they led to the possibility of disagreement that would require people to think.

Of course, my ideas were not immediately accepted by the other panel members. To their credit, they were willing to consider them and we had a great discussion. As we discussed examples of “censorship” – both those that were considered acceptable and those that were not – we came closer to a consensus than I thought would be possible. We agreed that people need to think, judge and analyze what they read and see and hear. We agreed that sometimes choices need to be made in order to stay true to the mission of a community (to protect children, for example, or to offer good quality information, or to preserve the identity of a Catholic school). Also, I shared their anger at reports of valid scientific studies being suppressed because the results ran counter to the biases of the scientific community. I also agreed with their use of the standard of validity to select materials, even when the materials they would reject supported ideas that I believe are true (such as homosexuality being a condition that can be healed).

It was a fruitful discussion, and one that I really enjoyed. I can only hope that our culture will start to heed the warnings of Fahrenheit 451 – promoting intelligent public discussion rather than worrying so much about censorship. This reading program sponsored by our public library was a good start.

Read this book for yourself!

Fahrenheit 451 Written by: Bradbury, Ray – Published by: Ballantine Books – Published on: 1996-08-01

[ad#seasonal]

Related Links:

• Do you know of good links related to this post? Let me know by leaving a comment!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.