The Connecticut Catholic bishops have issued a dire warning to the faithful that a proposal to lift the statute of limitations for victims of Church abuse to sue would threaten their very religion, putting “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” .
The Bishops warned that the right to sue “would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities.”
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to sue the Church.
The bill has some novel provisions. For example, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused. That itself raises some questions about the disparate treatment given victims. I have never seen such a provision in legislation.
For the full story, click here
mespo727272 1, April 12, 2010 at 9:18 pm
goneville:
*************
One day after Christmas in 2004 at least 100,000 innocent children were swept from their mothers’ arms in a monstrous tidal wave in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. All together, over 230,000 were lost with little advance warning of the disaster which struck one of the poorest and most wretched populations on Earth. What benevolent being could you imagine that would sit back and after surveying the loss of life and destruction, think to itself, “I made it this way for their own good. I hope they’ve learned something.”
*************************************
This is a common position of atheists. Find the worst tragedies you can think of and then appeal to emotion to make the case.
However the argument falls flat as soon as one accepts the concept of free will and random occurrence. Once one actually accepts the arguments presented by Jesus (i.e. the absent master of the vineyard and our individual responsibility to care for ourselves), then there is no further question.
Life is random. And the fact that life is random brings some to conclude that there is no God and that’s fine. That’s their choice and I have no evidence to the contrary. They may be right.
But none of that precludes the existence of the God as defined by Jesus in the New Testament. Jesus said he causes it to rain on the just and the unjust alike, so to then proceed to define a God as having other attributes than that, a god who does NOT cause it to rain on the just and the unjust alike, and then declaring the God you just invented does not exist, is illogical.
Slartibartfast 1, April 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm
goneville,
The argument of Epicurus that Gyges posted is not in any way illogical. He is saying IF there is a god and IF he has these characteristics
****************************
I understand that.
And then he’s demanding I defend Epicurus’ position, which is illogical. I never brought up Epicurus, never suggested anything Epicurus said was even remotely plausible or defensible.
Stating you don’t believe in a God, then proceeding to produce an argument made by Epicurus and demanding I defend it from Epicurus’ position is to stack the deck in his own favor prior to instigating the discussion.
It seems Gyges was upset that I would not present my position within the confines of Epicurus’ reasoning, and I’d have to be a fool to do so unless Epicurus position was my own, which it is not.
goneville:
“That doesn’t mean he is malevolent, and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t care. The concept is he made things the way they are and its up to us to learn to deal with them.”
*************
One day after Christmas in 2004 at least 100,000 innocent children were swept from their mothers’ arms in a monstrous tidal wave in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. All together, over 230,000 were lost with little advance warning of the disaster which struck one of the poorest and most wretched populations on Earth. What benevolent being could you imagine that would sit back and after surveying the loss of life and destruction, think to itself, “I made it this way for their own good. I hope they’ve learned something.”
goneville:
“In Matthew 5:45 Jesus tells us “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.””
Thanks, that makes sense. As you say life happens, why ask for an answer on what is. Accept and move on.
Byron 1, April 12, 2010 at 8:25 pm
goneville:
I said: “What allows some people to never have a consequence and others to have the literal wrath of God come down on their heads? Does God love those people more because he punishes them?”
I guess I am confused. Aren’t you saying, in essence, the same thing? Except without a harsh rebuke from Pat or Jerry saying the “victim” deserved his “punishment”.
********************************************************
And I answered you. What I said is what I meant. And no, I didn’t say anything about God’s love or punishing people.
I said that when a natural disaster occurs, …..a natural disaster occurs.
When someone mugs you, then someone mugs you.
When someone dies, then someone dies.
These are all either natural acts or actions we instigate. Not a God, or gods but us and the environment in which we live. Jesus explained this to us but no one wants to hear it, not Christians, agnostics or atheists it seems. But its a simple concept.
In Matthew 5:45 Jesus tells us “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”.
So we see Jesus told us that life happens. We have to deal with it. There’s a natural randomness to it that everyone must deal with, like it or not. That doesn’t mean he is malevolent, and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t care. The concept is he made things the way they are and its up to us to learn to deal with them.
Slarti:
I got that. Even engineers can sometimes understand geek humor. 🙂
Byron,
Do you mean from XKCD? No, it’s more of a source of massively geeky humor for those of us who care about math, science, AND language.
goneville,
The argument of Epicurus that Gyges posted is not in any way illogical. He is saying IF there is a god and IF he has these characteristics THEN this is the consequence. Such an argument clearly doesn’t assert that its assumptions are true, just that if they are true then the conclusion follows.
Blouise:
I have replied to your elegant thoughts, and I am always available for coffee. Can Buddha and Mike S come, too?>
Slarti:
I think literal would be correct in this case, I am assuming there is a god who dishes out punishment to recalcitrant girls and boys for this exercise.
But thank you. Is that how math and science guys learn English 🙂
goneville:
“We all know sometimes in life in all sorts of situations we have to employ what we call “tough love”. Letting someone “learn for themselves” is a common expression and a common practice that doesn’t negate the individuals morality or concern for the person in question. Thus it would not necessarily negate the morality or the concern of a God, for us.”
“That sort of reasoning is the reasoning people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson use to claim things like Haiti or Katrina was God’s punishment, rather than just a simple act of nature.”
*********************************************************
I said: “What allows some people to never have a consequence and others to have the literal wrath of God come down on their heads? Does God love those people more because he punishes them?”
I guess I am confused. Aren’t you saying, in essence, the same thing? Except without a harsh rebuke from Pat or Jerry saying the “victim” deserved his “punishment”.
Byron said:
“What allows some people to never have a consequence and others to have the literal wrath of God come down on their heads?
http://xkcd.com/725/
And if by the thing you’re “interested in discussing” is free will and the right to choose, then I did address that in my last comment to you prior to the preceding one.
I asked you what sort of free will could exist without choice.
So where did I indicate I wasn’t interested in discussing what you wanted to discuss. That is what you said you wanted to discuss, or were curious in hearing more on.
What was wrong with that response? I’m trying to discuss this with you rationally and honestly. What else can I do here? I’m sorry you feel I dodged your question but I did not. I addressed it head on in my 7:07PM comment to you. Which part of that comment do you object to?
Gyges, I’m not sure why you’re upset with me but I’m simply addressing your words.
You claim my argument presupposes there is a God, well, that sounds like you’re positioning me to defend the existence of a God. An argument I wouldn’t dream of making. But I still think I answered your questions and challenges as honestly and accurately as possible.
I’m simply giving you the positions from the New Testament in response to your reasoning. Your reasoning begins from the false assumption that for a God to be “hands off” he must be “morally neutral.
I simply showed you that how that presumption is flawed as it doesn’t take into consideration the Christian doctrine as taught by Christ in the New Testament, not to mention in our own lives and the lives of our children.
We all know sometimes in life in all sorts of situations we have to employ what we call “tough love”. Letting someone “learn for themselves” is a common expression and a common practice that doesn’t negate the individuals morality or concern for the person in question. Thus it would not necessarily negate the morality or the concern of a God, for us.
Its pretty straight forward reasoning so I’m not sure why it would bother you.
Gone,
You know, you’re right, you never claim that your argument is a fact, so I have no way of knowing if it’s something you believe or not. Which is why I NEVER claim that your argument is what you believe, just that it is in fact an argument (and justification) that you put forth. Once again, I choose my phrasing carefully. If I meant “your belief” I would have said “your belief” and not “your argument.”
Look, you’re obviously not interested in discussing the thing I’m interested in discussing, I’m done. Feel free to keep telling people what I think you believe.
Byron 1, April 12, 2010 at 7:17 pm
What allows some people to never have a consequence and others to have the literal wrath of God come down on their heads? Does God love those people more because he punishes them?
***********************************************
I apologize for answering you in segments. I’m doing my taxes (hopefully not to your chagrin, lol) and sort of jumping back and forth. Hope that’s ok.
Your question presupposes that when calamity strikes an individual, it is the “literal wrath of God” coming “down on their heads”.
That sort of reasoning is the reasoning people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson use to claim things like Haiti or Katrina was God’s punishment, rather than just a simple act of nature.
Not a good position to start from, to be sure.
Byron 1, April 12, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Goneville:
how long do you let your children screw up before you intervene?
*******************************************
As kids, when they lived with me, it was limited.
Once they’re grown? Permanently. Its their lives.
The concept of the absent master of the vineyard presupposes we are now “grown up” and capable of maintaining the vineyard without the masters immediate presence.
Goneville:
how long do you let your children screw up before you intervene?
What you are saying is that actions have consequences, but they don’t always have the consequences a parent would like for the lesson to take affect. Some kids get through childhood with no consequences by virtue of luck or ability to manipulate their parents or superior intelligence. How do you account for that?
What allows some people to never have a consequence and others to have the literal wrath of God come down on their heads? Does God love those people more because he punishes them?
“Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to sue the Church.”
The statute of limitations for legal malpractice varies but in some states is as little as 2 years.
I don’t think this is apples and oranges…comments?
Gyges 1, April 12, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“also supposes that free will can only exist if there is a choice between good and evil. The last assumption is the only one that’s separate from the existence and nature of a god, so is more interesting to me. If you want to continue this conversation, I suggest that explaining your rational for that assumption is a better topic than the existence and desires of a god.
**************************************
Well sure, its an interesting discussion. I’m not sure what needs explaining though. Are you suggesting that a person could have free will without being able to choose for themselves?
My response to that would be if they can’t choose for themselves then how would that in any way constitute free will?
Free to choose. Free to make mistakes. Free to pay for the penalties of those mistakes.
Seems pretty straight forward to me, so you’ll have to rephrase the question, and indicate what sort of free will you think could exist without the freedom to choose.