Santorum?

[dcmdale]

Phrased as you just did, it sounds much more interesting than the preceding several pages. This seems to be a broad topic in which maintaining rigor and avoiding airy, imprecise language must be a full time job.

While the topics discussed here would be familiar in any Philosophy classroom, the typical academic environment has dedicated noise suppression nodes that filter packets with undesirable signal-to-noise characteristics reducing the error correction and retransmission request overhead to numbers consistent with actual communication. This forum, lacking any mechanism to damp the back and forth retry messages, quickly resulted in communication failure in a manner unfamiliar to academic networks.

[dcmdale]

*Mark 16-18 states explicitly that Christians are immune to poison and have magical healing powers. Sounds like a testable claim of objective fact to me!

You, of course, are aware that Mark 16:18 is part of the Markon ending. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, do not include this text.

Of course, there are those KJV die-hards that take Mark 16:18 at face value and drink poison and play with snakes as a normal part of church services.

[dcmdale]

I tuned out this thread with its diversion into abstractions about -isms, but I have iinformation that bears on earlier material. I saw a business card from the Dignity organization (formerly Catholic West Healthcare; see previous posts) and asked a few questions. I was told that providers are not asked to sign anything that binds them to any religiously base conduct or rules, whether practicing medicine or otherwise. I was also told that they are not owned by anyone other than themselves - that is, they are not owned by the US bishops. Any suggestion that people who work at these institution's units are employees of the bishops, or paid by them, should be considered baseless speculation without evidence to the contrary. Other institutions may be differently constructed, but probably are not.

If true, then they are free to ignore the Bishops, so what's the problem?

One of the reasons that I spent my time looking primarily at Catholic Charities is that there is less diversity in forms of governance there. While for-profit corporations have a few fairly standard mechanisms for asserting control between corporate forms (mainly because there are almost always shareholders), non-profits have a large variety of mechanisms--not always obvious. Unless you have the by-laws and other corporate records and know the composition and history of the board, or are told by someone who understands the above, you probably aren't going to know if there are connections. An employee may or may not know this. I have never seen the by-laws of any major company that I have worked for and have only had a vague sense of why particular board members might be on the board. Maybe your experience is different. What I do know from outside observation is that when things go to judicial proceedings, Catholic'y things that want to do something different than the church often find that there are legal ties that they were unaware of. But each individual case is different. Those that have been set up with independence from the Catholic church or, with some forms of control, the Catholic church has not maintained controls that were originally in place, don't have to agree, at least not from a legal perspective. So fine.

From the perspective of the courts, that there is a theological dispute involved is, by itself, evidence that this is a restriction on religion.

[jeff]

While the topics discussed here would be familiar in any Philosophy classroom, the typical academic environment has dedicated noise suppression nodes that filter packets with undesirable signal-to-noise characteristics reducing the error correction and retransmission request overhead to numbers consistent with actual communication. This forum, lacking any mechanism to damp the back and forth retry messages, quickly resulted in communication failure in a manner unfamiliar to academic networks.

That was fun, though the metaphor isn't completely apt! The problem here isn't malformed packets, packets with parity errors, or even packet collision. The problem is that packets are reliably transmitted and presented by our generous host, Craig, but can have random contents. That's not the problem of the transport layer, but the responsibility of the application layer depending on it. I don't think you want me to riff on this any further!

I still have my doubts that this is even solved in the classroom, at least not to the level to which I am accustomed. In the academic fields I majored in, we didn't argue about the valence of an ion or whether the inverse square law worked. Many hypotheses can be subject to experimentation. In more abstract areas, we didn't argue about the Halting Problem. In areas that are still or once were argued over, like whether P=NP (don't ask) or whether all 2D maps can be colored with 4 colors the process is different - there is rigorous language that can be used to describe the question at hand, formal and precise rules of logic to be applied, and practitioners are comfortable with the ideas that some things are known, others are unknown, and further others are unknowable.

What (admittedly) little I've seen of philosophy (and for that matter, post-modern literary analysis) doesn't meet those standards. By my standards they contain a lot of unsupported assertions - one cantilevered over the next, vague definitions, and hand waving that would get laughed at in a hard science. That doesn't make it such subjects bad, it just means that they maintain different levels and styles of rigor. Liberal arts are not the same as science, and have different notions of 'formal logic'.

I also worry about the filters, since they can inject bias. As an example: I had an economics class taught by a fervent free-market devotee. He told us that the free market was wonderful, in fact everything was wonderful, because we used this great market system that solved all the world's problems. I exaggerate only slightly. The school was in a slum in Brooklyn, which I felt contradicted his message. I thought he was a loon. Later, I had another economics class taught by an avowed Socialist, who made it very clear the the world's ills were due to the capitalist system and market economy. I thought he was a loon too.

So, I'm not so sure that one can guarantee an effective noise filter that doesn't introduce bias...

[jeff]

If true, then they are free to ignore the Bishops, so what's the problem?

"Free" many not entirely be the case. Let's take the example in which the Phoenix-area bishop punished the nun on the ethics committee with excommunication - something entirely separate from employment terms and conditions or organizational structure. Fortunately, St. Joe told the bishop to take a hike, but other institutions and individuals might not have done so - even if there is no contractual relationship. Women in their care could die in such extreme cases, or not get completely legal medical services which they need or want, even if they don't have a contractual relationship with the religious authorities who do not actually run or own the medical facility. Besides abortion (whether therapeutic or not), that includes all family planning, IVF, tubal ligation, and so on.

Is it still a violation of the bishop's rights when they are not the employer, it's not their hospital, it's not their money, and it's not their patient?

The distinction has been ignored in the public brouhaha - where it has become a political football, and actual issues of ownership, employer, employee, and patient rights have been entirely glossed over, largely for reasons of partisan politics.

One of the reasons that I spent my time looking primarily at Catholic Charities is that there is less diversity in forms of governance there. While for-profit corporations have a few fairly standard mechanisms for asserting control between corporate forms (mainly because there are almost always shareholders), non-profits have a large variety of mechanisms--not always obvious. Unless you have the by-laws and other corporate records and know the composition and history of the board, or are told by someone who understands the above, you probably aren't going to know if there are connections. An employee may or may not know this. I have never seen the by-laws of any major company that I have worked for and have only had a vague sense of why particular board members might be on the board. Maybe your experience is different. What I do know from outside observation is that when things go to judicial proceedings, Catholic'y things that want to do something different than the church often find that there are legal ties that they were unaware of. But each individual case is different. Those that have been set up with independence from the Catholic church or, with some forms of control, the Catholic church has not maintained controls that were originally in place, don't have to agree, at least not from a legal perspective. So fine.

From the perspective of the courts, that there is a theological dispute involved is, by itself, evidence that this is a restriction on religion.

The Dignity health care system is non-profit - and the point you raise above fits. I asked, and was told "the heath care institutions own themselves" and "providers do not sign anything based on religion". The first may be incorrect, and would require seeing the legal instruments under which the institutions are organized, but the second is likely to be accurate - either they do or they don't. Is there an assumed, unstated, obligation to conform to religious principles even if you didn't sign anything?

It's certainly not apparent from either the employee or patient perspective if you look at the Dignity web sites. How would an employee know they might (at least in theory) subsequently be told "there are things you cannot get as part of your benefits, or perform as an employee". How does somebody showing up at the ER find out? That can have significant implications. You can't always package somebody up and ship them across town to a place willing to treat them. With the hospital consolidation under way (article in today's NYT) there may be no place across town, especially in rural locations. If Catholic hospitals acquire all the hospitals in the area, does that mean that everybody has to get health care according to Catholic principles? It may come to that. Especially for emergency situations or low-income individuals: going somewhere else hours away may not be an option. Complicating this is the fact that many of the institutions involved are using government money. I don't want MY money to go funding somebody's (religious) practices that I find abhorrent either.

I've said all along that this is messy - and previously gave examples in which government institutions do indeed provide restrictions on religion: Mormons may not practice polygamy. Court orders are obtained to force Jehovah's Witnesses to receive blood transfusions against their beliefs. Christian Scientists have been prosecuted for failing to provide medical care for children. Therefore, precedent says that other factors can come into play. (I'm curious about how the blood transfusion situation was argued in court, to tell the truth).

I've also said all along that this isn't a slam dunk in the political sense. It revs up the base on both parties. While we won't know till the exit polls after the general election, I have a feeling that if the Republican party is viewed as being hostile to women and eager to restrict women's health, including reproductive rights, that it will be a net loss for them. There is outrage right now in Virginia about a new law requiring mandatory ultrasound with vaginal penetration with a probe device before an abortion - a non-consensual invasive procedure already being called a "state sponsored rape" (in fact consistent with the new FBI definition of rape). There's going to be serious blowback. How's that for state mandated intrusion on people - in the most literal way?

Santorum (remember Santorum? this used to be a thread about Santorum) has said that contraception is "not okay" and that states have the right to make it illegal. I don't think that will fly with most Americans. When this thread opened it looked like he was on the ropes, but with his campaign rebounding, he might actually be the candidate. I wouldn't assume that this will be to the political advantage of the Republicans.

[dcmdale]

That was fun, though the metaphor isn't completely apt! The problem here isn't malformed packets, packets with parity errors, or even packet collision. The problem is that packets are reliably transmitted and presented by our generous host, Craig, but can have random contents. That's not the problem of the transport layer, but the responsibility of the application layer depending on it. I don't think you want me to riff on this any further!

It can only be pressed so far, of course, and obviously I am applying it to something in Layer 7 or above.

I still have my doubts that this is even solved in the classroom, at least not to the level to which I am accustomed. In the academic fields I majored in, we didn't argue about the valence of an ion or whether the inverse square law worked. Many hypotheses can be subject to experimentation. In more abstract areas, we didn't argue about the Halting Problem. In areas that are still or once were argued over, like whether P=NP (don't ask) or whether all 2D maps can be colored with 4 colors the process is different - there is rigorous language that can be used to describe the question at hand, formal and precise rules of logic to be applied, and practitioners are comfortable with the ideas that some things are known, others are unknown, and further others are unknowable.

What (admittedly) little I've seen of philosophy (and for that matter, post-modern literary analysis) doesn't meet those standards. By my standards they contain a lot of unsupported assertions - one cantilevered over the next, vague definitions, and hand waving that would get laughed at in a hard science. That doesn't make it such subjects bad, it just means that they maintain different levels and styles of rigor. Liberal arts are not the same as science, and have different notions of 'formal logic'.

Rigor depends. Descartes, Leibniz, Pascal and other philosophers you would know are as rigorous in their philosophy as their mathematics. The Scholastics are all about trying to get increased rigor. Other philosophers aren't. Ethics classes tend to be as loosey-goosey as discussions on fnet because the field attracts professors who don't have anything to offer other than appeals to intestinal squeamishness. Ontology and epistemology tend towards greater rigor.

Agreed that liberal arts are not science; however, it is not that the logical forms are less rigorous, but rather that premises are less easily verified because the subject matter is not susceptible to observational proof. You can't prove that murder is immoral by running an experiment. At best, with many assumptions, you might be able to prove that most people think murder is immoral.

I work in an organization that is a major employer of young economics PhDs. They are bound and determined to make economics into an experimental science. My observation is that they are no more successful than those who worship modelling. That doesn't mean that either branch doesn't provide useful understanding, but it isn't and will not be a true experimental science. A lot of our discussions would be much easier if it was. At best, it is always going to be more successful at explaining the past than forecasting how current decisions will influence the future. Doesn't mean that it isn't valuable.

I also worry about the filters, since they can inject bias. As an example: I had an economics class taught by a fervent free-market devotee. He told us that the free market was wonderful, in fact everything was wonderful, because we used this great market system that solved all the world's problems. I exaggerate only slightly. The school was in a slum in Brooklyn, which I felt contradicted his message. I thought he was a loon. Later, I had another economics class taught by an avowed Socialist, who made it very clear the the world's ills were due to the capitalist system and market economy. I thought he was a loon too.

So, I'm not so sure that one can guarantee an effective noise filter that doesn't introduce bias...

See above.

I work on the assumption that all such filters introduce bias. Whatever is noise to the human filter, is "legitimate opinion" to the one voicing it.

[jeff]

Layer 7? Are you kidding me? I thought you were a lawyer - not an OSI fan. Behave yourself!


Edit to add non-joking part: I'll have to read some of the Old Boys to see what I think of their notion of logic as applied to philosophy. Without data, I ought not have much opinion. What I've seen from some sources (eg, Bentham, Hume, the list of guys in the Monty Python sketch) has a lot of argument, which may or may not appeal to me, but does not equate to "proof" in the sense I use. It may not be the right modality for this kind of discourse.

[dcmdale]

"Free" many not entirely be the case. Let's take the example in which the Phoenix-area bishop punished the nun on the ethics committee with excommunication - something entirely separate from employment terms and conditions or organizational structure.

I am assuming that you are not arguing that the government has the right to control the ability of the Catholic church to excommunicate someone?

Fortunately, St. Joe told the bishop to take a hike, but other institutions and individuals might not have done so - even if there is no contractual relationship. Women in their care could die in such extreme cases, or not get completely legal medical services which they need or want, even if they don't have a contractual relationship with the religious authorities who do not actually run or own the medical facility. Besides abortion (whether therapeutic or not), that includes all family planning, IVF, tubal ligation, and so on.

The case of the woman who would die if transferred to another hospital might rise to the level of a compelling state interest. For the rest, it is a service not offered by the facility.

Is it still a violation of the bishop's rights when they are not the employer, it's not their hospital, it's not their money, and it's not their patient?

If it is an institution that remains dedicated to charitable works as an extension of their belief system, then it is about their right, not the Bishops. Legally, however, I recognize that it is a closer case.

The distinction has been ignored in the public brouhaha - where it has become a political football, and actual issues of ownership, employer, employee, and patient rights have been entirely glossed over, largely for reasons of partisan politics.

Nothing would ever be about partisan politics. How dare you suggest it! ;-)

The Dignity health care system is non-profit - and the point you raise above fits. I asked, and was told "the heath care institutions own themselves" and "providers do not sign anything based on religion". The first may be incorrect, and would require seeing the legal instruments under which the institutions are organized, but the second is likely to be accurate - either they do or they don't. Is there an assumed, unstated, obligation to conform to religious principles even if you didn't sign anything?

I believe that he knows whether he signed something. I don't believe that it makes any difference. I work for an organization that is dedicated to certain principles. If I violate those principles, even if I disagree with them, they will fire me. If I disagree with them in a public forum, including this one, and I have tied my statements back to my employer, I will be fired. And, yes, they hire a firm to actively monitor such forums.

It's certainly not apparent from either the employee or patient perspective if you look at the Dignity web sites. How would an employee know they might (at least in theory) subsequently be told "there are things you cannot get as part of your benefits, or perform as an employee". How does somebody showing up at the ER find out? That can have significant implications. You can't always package somebody up and ship them across town to a place willing to treat them. With the hospital consolidation under way (article in today's NYT) there may be no place across town, especially in rural locations. If Catholic hospitals acquire all the hospitals in the area, does that mean that everybody has to get health care according to Catholic principles? It may come to that. Especially for emergency situations or low-income individuals: going somewhere else hours away may not be an option. Complicating this is the fact that many of the institutions involved are using government money. I don't want MY money to go funding somebody's (religious) practices that I find abhorrent either.

Actual life threatening emergency, see above. Otherwise, don't go to a place named St. Joe's. There is nothing that requires Catholics to run hospitals, universities, or soup kitchens to begin with other than their beliefs.

I've said all along that this is messy - and previously gave examples in which government institutions do indeed provide restrictions on religion: Mormons may not practice polygamy. Court orders are obtained to force Jehovah's Witnesses to receive blood transfusions against their beliefs. Christian Scientists have been prosecuted for failing to provide medical care for children. Therefore, precedent says that other factors can come into play. (I'm curious about how the blood transfusion situation was argued in court, to tell the truth).

I am not sure that the prohibition on polygamy will continue to stand, especially if the Court supports gay marriage. It has traditionally been based on a compelling state interest in supporting and defining the family. A quick search didn't turn up your case about forcing a JW to get blood; however, often those cases are moot by the time they can be reviewed by a higher court. Christian Scientists also present a situation where a compelling interest in the health and safety of the child is present.

I've also said all along that this isn't a slam dunk in the political sense. It revs up the base on both parties. While we won't know till the exit polls after the general election, I have a feeling that if the Republican party is viewed as being hostile to women and eager to restrict women's health, including reproductive rights, that it will be a net loss for them. There is outrage right now in Virginia about a new law requiring mandatory ultrasound with vaginal penetration with a probe device before an abortion - a non-consensual invasive procedure already being called a "state sponsored rape" (in fact consistent with the new FBI definition of rape). There's going to be serious blowback. How's that for state mandated intrusion on people - in the most literal way?

Santorum (remember Santorum? this used to be a thread about Santorum) has said that contraception is "not okay" and that states have the right to make it illegal. I don't think that will fly with most Americans. When this thread opened it looked like he was on the ropes, but with his campaign rebounding, he might actually be the candidate. I wouldn't assume that this will be to the political advantage of the Republicans.

As I said, Obama could well be rooting for Santorum as the easiest GOP candidate to beat. Santorum is clearly a Catholic's Catholic with all of the baggage that entails.

[telkanuru]

I am not sure that the prohibition on polygamy will continue to stand, especially if the Court supports gay marriage. It has traditionally been based on a compelling state interest in supporting and defining the family.

Yeah, this gets bandied about by pundits on the right, but no, I've not been provided with any evidence that shows this to be an accurate reading of anything.

As I said, Obama could well be rooting for Santorum as the easiest GOP candidate to beat. Santorum is clearly a Catholic's Catholic with all of the baggage that entails.

He is, in fact, not a Catholic's Catholic. He's out of joint with the institutional church in quite a few areas. He's actually poised somewhere between evangelical loony and Catholicism.

[dcmdale]

Yeah, this gets bandied about by pundits on the right, but no, I've not been provided with any evidence that shows this to be an accurate reading of anything.

Would it bother you if it was? As I have said before, I don't follow right wing pundits so I didn't know they were saying that. I know that the core legal arguments about the state's right to regulate marriage are pretty much the same. I know that there are polygamists who believe that their rights are violated. I believe that it is reasonable to expect that there is a challenge waiting in the wings.

He is, in fact, not a Catholic's Catholic. He's out of joint with the institutional church in quite a few areas. He's actually poised somewhere between evangelical loony and Catholicism.

I don't recognize anything about him as evangelical. I will leave it to someone Catholic to talk about his Catholicism.

[mrbiggs]

I am not sure that the prohibition on polygamy will continue to stand, especially if the Court supports gay marriage.

How are those two things connected again? I mean I realize that they're both forms of marriage that are looked down upon in some parts of this country, but the effects they have on the people involved are very different. The issue of equality is different, if for no other reason than that you're not born a polygamist. There are many, many people who support gay marriage who do not support polygamy.

[Inquartata]

There are many, many people who support gay marriage who do not support polygamy.

Perhaps we should call them...hypocrites?

There are more sorts of polyamorists than just splinter-group Mormons. I know of one who's a Wiccan in a polyamorist family. He's about as left-liberal as they come this side of Cuba. He, of course, supports both sorts of marriage.

Why is he wrong to do so?

[migopod]

Perhaps we should call them...hypocrites?

There are more sorts of polyamorists than just splinter-group Mormons. I know of one who's a Wiccan in a polyamorist family. He's about as left-liberal as they come this side of Cuba. He, of course, supports both sorts of marriage.

Why is he wrong to do so?

There are certainly reasons why specific multiple marriage situations are a bit sketchy like Warren Jeffs (?) and the whole FLDS cult thing with child brides and brainwashing and stuff, but in general I have to agree. If more than two people want to get married what business of society's is it?

Traditional marriage according to the bible is between a man and his many wives and his hundreds of concubines afterall...

[telkanuru]

Would it bother you if it was? As I have said before, I don't follow right wing pundits so I didn't know they were saying that. I know that the core legal arguments about the state's right to regulate marriage are pretty much the same. I know that there are polygamists who believe that their rights are violated. I believe that it is reasonable to expect that there is a challenge waiting in the wings.

It would bother me. I am not a huge fan of the Mormon church for numerous reasons, and the various pro-polygamy sections that refer to themselves broadly as the "Fundamentalist" church are downright skeevy ( like this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs)

If there were actually a movement in the country by a minority group that wanted to have multiple wives and multiple husbands, I'd reevaluate my position, but as it stands I see no reason to equate a gay man wanting to be at his partner's deathbed with a bunch of abusive child-molesters in the southwest desert.,

I don't recognize anything about him as evangelical. I will leave it to someone Catholic to talk about his Catholicism.

His Catholicism is evangelical; the terms are not exactly synonymous. If he's closest to any portion of the institutional Church, it would probably be the African branch, ironically.

[fencerchica]

Most of Santorum's moral/social tirades haven't strayed far from simply being a strict reading of the Vatican's noxious party line, viz. contraception, abortion, those abominable gays and their inexplicable desire for human rights, women serving in the armed forces, shrieking hysteria about anything within six degrees of socialism, blah blah blah. However, something that made my ears prick up was his... interesting... take on the French Revolution, and how quickly his mind turns to it as a lens for understanding current events. I haven't heard Santorum identify himself yet as a Traditionalist Catholic, but I can tell you they're as sore about the French Revolution as if it happened yesterday, and do similarly turn frequently to it as a means of interpreting the social and/or political threats they imagine around themselves today.

[Purple Fencer]

His Catholicism is evangelical; the terms are not exactly synonymous. If he's closest to any portion of the institutional Church, it would probably be the African branch, ironically.

Sooooo...he practices a "Kenyen" religion? QUICK! SOMEONE TELL NEWT!!

[mrbiggs]

Perhaps we should call them...hypocrites?

**** you.

[erooMynohtnA]

Perhaps we should call them...hypocrites?

There are more sorts of polyamorists than just splinter-group Mormons. I know of one who's a Wiccan in a polyamorist family. He's about as left-liberal as they come this side of Cuba. He, of course, supports both sorts of marriage.

Why is he wrong to do so?

Yes, if someone supports two people getting married it logically follows he must support three people getting married. It's as airtight an argument as I've ever seen.

Anyway, he's not wrong. Consenting adults should be able to do as they please.

[Purple Fencer]

Yes, if someone supports two people getting married it logically follows he must support three people getting married. It's as airtight an argument as I've ever seen.

Anyway, he's not wrong. Consenting adults should be able to do as they please.

Plus, people in a polyamorous relationship aren't necessarily in a POLYGAMYST one...the 2 aren't the same.

If my wife and I bring in a 2nd female to live with us and we have a menage a trois every night (although that usage of the term isn't accurate to the original...."Three's Company" is more accurate), that might be a good, fun, and exhausting time, but so long as I don't try to marry the other woman (or my wife doesn't after Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS), that's not polygamy.

[dcmdale]

It would bother me. I am not a huge fan of the Mormon church for numerous reasons, and the various pro-polygamy sections that refer to themselves broadly as the "Fundamentalist" church are downright skeevy ( like this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs)

If there were actually a movement in the country by a minority group that wanted to have multiple wives and multiple husbands, I'd reevaluate my position, but as it stands I see no reason to equate a gay man wanting to be at his partner's deathbed with a bunch of abusive child-molesters in the southwest desert.,

I am not a fan of the Mormons either and certainly not Warren Jeffs. Children can be protected. As Inq mentioned, radical Mormons are not the only ones out there (although they may be the groups that push the hardest).

His Catholicism is evangelical; the terms are not exactly synonymous. If he's closest to any portion of the institutional Church, it would probably be the African branch, ironically.

Evangelicalism, at least to me, refers to movement within protestant Christianity with strong overlaps with fundamentalist protestant Christianity. There is this little matter of the Reformation under that definition. While I have know "Catholics," even priests, who were actually evangelical protestants (rejecting the sacraments, et al), I don't think that Santorum fits that category. He may pick up the evangelical vote (because what are the alternatives?), but I think that much of what he says rankles them as well.