Christian Ethics And Modern Society

Front 1

- "They are disconcertingly comfortable with authority. That's the most common complaint the faculty has of Princeton students. They're eager to please, eager to jump through whatever hoops the faculty puts in front of them, eager to conform."

-Not enough hours in the day to think about larger issues.

-Today's elite kids are likely to spend their afternoons and weekends shuttling from one skill-enhancing activity to the next.

-Today's elite college students don't live in that age of rebellion and alienation. They grew up in a world in which the counterculture and the mainstream culture have merged with, and co-opted, each other. For them, it's natural that one of the top administrators at Princeton has a poster of the Beatles album Revolver framed on her office wall.

-But religion tends to be more private than public with them, and the character of their faith tends to be unrelievedly upbeat. "It's an optimistic view," Wuthnow says. "You just never hear about sin and evil and judgment. It's about love and success and being happy."

Back 1

David Brooks: The Organization Kid

Front 2

-When asked about wrong or evil, they could generally agree that rape and murder are wrong. But, aside from these extreme cases, moral thinking didn’t enter the picture, even when considering things like drunken driving, cheating in school or cheating on a partner. “I don’t really deal with right and wrong that often,” is how one interviewee put it.

-Rejecting blind deference to authority, many of the young people have gone off to the other extreme: “I would do what I thought made me happy or how I felt. I have no other way of knowing what to do but how I internally feel.”

- For decades, writers from different perspectives have been warning about the erosion of shared moral frameworks and the rise of an easygoing moral individualism.

Back 2

David Brooks: If It Feels Right

Front 3

-Dominant View since 1800s- Religion and morality are independent.

-Some say that religion and morality are the same- but this risks taking the theology out of the equation.

-Endowing moral rules with objectivity endangers deifying them.

-In Christian morality you're a player in something bigger, but there's no way to judge morality neutrally.

Back 3

Alasdair McIntyre: Religion and Morality

Front 4

-5 sources of christian morality: divine guidance, bible, conscience, moral traditions, church leaders.

-During the Holocaust, lots of Christian moral failure bc people weren't looking at specifically Christian sources.

- All Christian thinkers use the Bible, but they give it differing degrees of authority. Catholics are more about tradition, whereas reformation emphasized sola scriptura.

-Wesleyan quadrilateral- scripture, tradition, reason, experience.

-Jesus's example contradicts the idea that scripture and tradition are somehow equal.

-Jesus wasn't sola scriptura or adoptive of some ethereal morality: hebrew scriptures weren't gonna be interpreted thru scribal casuistry but instead through the interpretation of the prophets.

-Torah is gracious divine covenant, not a law.

-Prophets have disdain for rituals, sacrifice.

-What's in one's heart matters as well as conduct.

-Must look at moral conduct, not just death and ressurection.

Back 4

Glen H. Stassen & David P. Gushee: Authority and Scripture

Front 5

-Christianity versus atheism.

- Monotheism versus dualism versus life-force/pantheism.

-How has God made a world that went so wrong? Well if there is no God then the "evil" in the world simply doesn't "fit your fancy."

-Christianity and water- God's up in heaven and everything's all good down here is too simple.

-Dualism is flawed bc why do we prefer the "good" power to the "bad" power- is it just like preferring beer to cider?

-Morality has to do with each human individually, the interaction between different people, and how it all fits with God's overarching plan.

- If an individual is to live forever, he will have to live with his sins forever --> hell.

Back 5

C.S. Lewis: Mere Christianity

Front 6

-Principle acknowledged to be true must never be abandoned.

-Truth must always be told. not matter what the danger associated.

-Lie even if it doesnt harm another directly harms mankind bc it violates source of law itself.

Back 6

Immanuel Kant- On a Supposed Right To Lie

Front 7

-Some are absolutists, but for many ethical theorists, no moral absolutes.

-Human goods cannot me measured/quantified as the consequentialists suggest.

-It's not just about quantities being measured against eachother- other human concerns are involved.

-Nuclear deterrence has seriously morally deadened society.

Back 7

Germain Grisez and Russell Shaw- Persons, Means, and Ends

Front 8

-Some have argued- such as anscombe, that consequentialists have a corrupt mind.

-Characters of the battle of algiers, whilst they did kill innocents and may have been morally mistaken did not exhibit corrupt minds.

-Consequentialist case for not executing innocent man- more deaths would occur.

-If humans had a thick exopskeleton, knife-throwing wouldnt be wrong.

-Is it not worse to remain "morally pure" at the cost of more suffering?

Back 8

Kai Nielsen- Against Moral Conservatism

Front 9

-What constitutes torture/ where do we draw the line between what is and what isn't torture?

- Neither a deontologist or a consequentialist.

-Can't make war without getting your hands dirty but must abide by rules.

-Author references Walzer/Camus- if you do soemthing wrong even for justifiable reasons,must still accept consequences/ do penance.

-What is to come? is a question that should animate us.

-Geneva convention says torture is torture, but there's clearly different degrees.

-There is an ought to be a norm. Norm may have to be broken. Person who breaks the norm takes responsibility and does penance.

Back 9

Jean Bethke Elshtain- Reflection on the Problem of ‘Dirty Hands

Front 10

-Torture assaults the image of God within a person.

-Attacks individual's capacity to function as a rational creature.

-Torture must be categorically banned

Back 10

Jean Porter- Torture and the Christian Conscience

Front 11

-I am generally against torture as a normative matter, and I
would like to see its use minimized. I believe that at least moderate
forms of non-lethal torture are in fact being used by the United
States and some of its allies today.
18
I think that if we ever confronted an actual case of imminent mass terrorism that could be
prevented by the infliction of torture we would use torture, (even
lethal torture), and the public would favor its use. That is my empirical conclusion. It is either true or false, and time will probably
tell.

-ls. For example, William Schulz, the
Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, asks whether I
would favor “brutality warrants,” “testilying warrants” and “prisoner
rape warrants.”
21
Although I strongly oppose brutality, testilying,
and prisoner rape, I answered Schulz with “a heuristic ‘yes,’ if requiring a warrant would subject these horribly brutal activities to
judicial control and accountability.”

-Do you prefer
the current situation, in which brutality, testilying and
prison rape are rampant, but we close our eyes to these
evils?

-If we try to control the
practice by demanding some kind of accountability, we
add a degree of legitimation to it while perhaps reducing
its frequency and severity.

-The major downside of any warrant procedure would be its legitimation of a horrible practice, but in my view it is better to legitimate and control a specific practice that will occur, than to
legitimate a general practice of tolerating extra-legal actions, so long
as they operate under the table of scrutiny and beneath the radar
screen of accountability

-Citizens can't approve or disapprove of governmental actions of which they are
unaware

Back 11

Alan Dershowitz- The Torture Warrant

Front 12

-What shall I say of these judgments which men pronounce on men, and which are necessary in communities, whatever outward peace they enjoy? Melancholy and lamentable judgments they are, since the judges are men who cannot discern the consciences of those at their bar, and are therefore frequently compelled to put innocent witnesses to the torture to ascertain the truth regarding the crimes of other men.

-For if he has chosen, in obedience to the philosophical instructions to the wise man, to quit this life rather than endure any longer such tortures, he declares that he has committed the crime which in fact he has not committed. And when he has been condemned and put to death, the judge is still in ignorance whether he has put to death an innocent or a guilty person, though he put the accused to the torture for the very purpose of saving himself from condemning the innocent; and consequently he has both tortured an innocent man to discover his innocence, and has put him to death without discovering it.

Back 12

Augustine- The City of God

Front 13

-Problems in ethics typically occur not in normal cases, but in extreme cases.

-Borderline situation characterized by confrontation w/ opponent bent on exercising power and who is clearly on the side of Evil.

-Must not view opponent as agent of evil, but rather as a child of God gone astray, and in bondage to evil.

-Best to avoid the borderline situation in the first place.

Back 13

Helmut Thielicke- The Borderline Situation of Extreme Conflict

Front 14

-This principle implies that , other things being equal , it is just
as wrong intent ional ly to ref rain f rom administer ing an ant idote
to someone who is dying of poisoning as it is to administer the
poison, provided that the same motive is operative in both cases

-V/hat the object ion to the moral si 'mmet ry pr inciple has in
ef fect done is to confuse that pr inciple wi th consequent ial ism in
ethics. I f consequent ial ism is t rue, then so is the moral symmet ry
pr inciple. But the converse is emphat ical ly not the case. I t is very
impor tant to real ize that one can accept the moral symmet ry pr inciple wi thout commi t t ing onesel f to a consequent ial ist posi t ion.

-Many otherwise
thought ful people somehow iose sight of the fact that what they
refer to as "moral intui t ions" regarding euthanasia sprang or igi -
nal ly f rom a cer tain theological : -out look, one that is no longer
taken ser iously by most people who have taken the t rouble to
examine i ts credent ials careful ly and impar t ial ly.

Back 14

Michael Tooley- An Irrelevant Consideration: Killing Versus Letting Die

Front 15

-O Father of mercies and God of all comfort, our only help in time of need: We humbly beseech thee to behold, visit and relieve thy sick servant N. for whom our prayers are desired. Look upon him with the eyes of thy mercy; comfort him with a sense of thy goodness; preserve him from the temptations of the enemy; and give him patience under his affliction.

-O God, the strength of the weak and the comfort of sufferers: Mercifully accept our prayers, and grant to your servant N. the help of your power, that his sickness may be turned into health, and our sorrow into joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.


-Almighty God our heavenly Father, graciously comfort your servant N. in his suffering, and bless the means made use of for his cure. Fill his heart with confidence that, though at times he may be afraid, he yet may put his trust in you; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

-May God the Father bless you, God the Son heal you, God the Holy Spirit give you strength. May God the holy and undivided Trinity guard your body, save your soul, and bring you safely to his heavenly country; where he lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

-May God the Father bless you, God the Son heal you, God the Holy Spirit give you strength. May God the holy and undivided Trinity guard your body, save your soul, and bring you safely to his heavenly country; where he lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.

Back 15

Prayers for the Sick

Front 16

-Human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society. Most people regard life as something sacred and hold that no one may dispose of it at will, but believers see in life something greater, namely, a gift of God's love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful.

-1. No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God's love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.[4]

-2. Everyone has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God's plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life.


-3. Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan.

-Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action.

-According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God's saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ's passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father's will.

-- If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient's consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity. - It is also permitted, with the patient's consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations.

- It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome.

- - When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted.

Back 16

John Paul II- Euthanasia

Front 17

-Human life is sacred and a good, but perhaps not an absolute good.

-There is a subordination of the physical aspect of man to the whole person, which also includes the spiritual side.

-For euthanasia to be morally acceptable, it must be a sign of deep christian care for the individual.

-Transcendance of human life over sheer biological existence- sometimes continued life cannot offer the person meaningful personal existence.

-Death while not a good in itself can be understood as bringing the person into final union with god.

-Death can be a lesser evil than suffering.

Back 17

Lisa Sowle Cahill- A Natural Law Reconsideration of Euthanasia

Front 18

- Difference of killing and letting die: aim is different. In a DNR case, if the patient were to miraculously start breathing again, we wouldnt smother him.

-On the other hand, if the suffering of a person is so great that he requests death, on what grounds could we refuse to assist?- consequentialists would support our doing this. Consequentialists remain morally serious but have ceased to believe in God's divine providence.

-Life is no second God.

-Death is not greatest evil- disobedience to God is.

-Euthanasia is to go outside our limits.

-Not minimize suffering but maximize love and care.

-

Back 18

Gilbert Meilander- Euthanasia and Christian Vision

Front 19

-T h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e d o u b l e effect is based o n a di s t inc t ion
b e twe e n w h a t a m a n foresees as a result o f his v o l u n t a r y a c t ion
a n d wh a t , i n t h e s t r i c t sense, he int ends .

-('We
didn't want t o kill him . . only to blow him into small pieces'
o r even '. . . only t o blast h im o u t o f t h e cave.') I believe that
thos e w h o use the doc t r ine o f the doubl e effect wo u l d r ight ly
reject such a suggestion, t h o u g h they will, o f course, have
considerable difficulty in explaining wh e r e the line is to be
dr awn. What is to be the criterion o f 'closeness' if w e say that.
anything very close to wh a t w e are literally a iming at count s as
if part o f o u r a im?

-T h e distinction
between direct and oblique intention is crucial here, and is of
great importance in an uncertain world. Nevertheless this is n o
way to defend the doctrine of double effect. For the question is
whether the difference between aiming a t some thing and obli-
quely intending it is in itself relevant to moral decisions; not
whether it is important when correlated wi th a difference of
certainty in the balance o f good and evil.

-T h e
clue that w e should follow is that the strength of the doctrine
seems t o lie in the distinction it makes between wha t w e do
(equated wi th direct intention) and wha t w e allow ( thought o f
as obliquely intended). Indeed it is interesting that the dispu-
tants tend to argue about whether we are to be held responsible
for what w e allow as w e are for wha t w e d o / Yet it is not
obvious that this is what they should be discussing, since the
distinction between wha t one does and what o n e allows to
happen is not the same as that between direct and oblique
intention. T o see this one has only t o consider that it is possible
d e l i b e r a t e l y t o allow something t o happen

-First of a l l there is the situation in which nothing that can be
done will save the life ofchild and mother, but where the life of
the mother can be saved by killing the child. Thi s is parallel t o
the case o f the fat man in the mo u t h o f t h e cave w h o is bound
t o be drowned wi t h the others if nothing is done. Given the
certainty o f the outcome, as it was postulated, there is n o
serious conflict ofinterests here, since the fat man will perish in
either case, and it is reasonable that the action that will save
someone should be done.

-T h e wor s t dilemma comes in the third kind o f example
where to save the mother we must kill the child, say by
crushing its skull, while if nothing is done the mother will
perish but the child can be safely delivered after her death.

Back 19

Philippa Foot- The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect

Front 20

-Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer examination we shall feel inclined to reject it.

-You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months.

-Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.

-Suppose you filed yourself trapped in a tiny house with a growing child. I mean a very tiny house, and a rapidly growing child--you are already up against the wall of the house and in a few minutes you'll be crushed to death. The child on the other hand won't be crushed to death; if nothing is done to stop him from growing he'll be hurt, but in the end he'll simply burst open the house and walk out a free man. Now I could well understand it if a bystander were to say. "There's nothing we can do for you. We cannot choose between your life and his, we cannot be the ones to decide who is to live, we cannot intervene." But it cannot be concluded that you too can do nothing, that you cannot attack it to save your life. However innocent the child may be, you do not have to wait passively while it crushes you to death Perhaps a pregnant woman is vaguely felt to have the status of house, to which we don't allow the right of self-defense. But if the woman houses the child, it should be remembered that she is a person who houses it.

-But it might be argued that there are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of another person's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose a woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issue in pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsible for the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside? No doubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for its being there itself give it a right to the use of her body? On the other hand, this argument would give the unborn person a right to its mother's body only if her pregnancy resulted from a voluntary act, undertaken in full knowledge of the chance a pregnancy might result from it. It would leave out entirely the unborn person whose existence is due to rape. Pending the availability of some further argument, then, we would be left with the conclusion that unborn persons whose existence is due to rape have no right to the use of their mothers' bodies, and thus that aborting them is not depriving them of anything they have ~ right to and hence is not unjust killing.

- It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective.

-We have in fact to distinguish between two kinds of Samaritan: the Good Samaritan and what we might call the Minimally Decent Samaritan.

-First, while I do argue that abortion is not impermissible, I do not argue that it is always permissible. There may well be cases in which carrying the child to term requires only Minimally Decent Samaritanism of the mother, and this is a standard we must not fall below. I am inclined to think it a merit of my account precisely that it does not give a general yes or a general no. It allows for and supports our sense that, for example, a sick and desperately frightened fourteen-year-old schoolgirl, pregnant due to rape, may of course choose abortion, and that any law which rules this out is an insane law. And it also allows for and supports our sense that in other cases resort to abortion is even positively indecent. It would be indecent in the woman to request an abortion, and indecent in a doctor to perform it, if she is in her seventh month, and wants the abortion just to avoid the nuisance of postponing a trip abroad. The very fact that the arguments I have been drawing attention to treat all cases of abortion, or even all cases of abortion in which the mother's life is not at stake, as morally on a par ought to have made them suspect at the outset.

Back 20

Judith Jarvis Thomson- A Defense of Abortion

Front 21

-Good moral reasons why consensus about abortion eludes us.

-More he studied the arguments, the more difficult they became.

- Fetus has a value greater tha n 0.

-Abortion is sui-generis.

-We dont ascribe same value to fetus bc we generally think it's ok to kill a fetus to save mother's life but wouldnt do the same in the case of an infant.

-Potentiality- the foetus is already something in motion.

-Woman need not nurture seed implanted against her will.

-Commitment to fetal life is prima facie but not absolute.

-Civil government shouldnt commend abortion as it does religious freedom, or criminalize it as it does murder.

Back 21

Gene Outka- The Ethics of Love and the Problem of Abortion

Front 22

-Prolife feminists, like myself, argue on good feminist principles that women can never achieve the fulfillment of feminist goals in a society permissive toward abortion.

-From one perspective, the fetus is, as Petchesky says, a "biological parasite" taking resources from the woman's body. During pregnancy, a woman's whole life and energies will be actively involved in the nine-month process. Gestation and childbirth involve physical and psychological risks. After childbirth a woman will either be a mother who must undertake a twenty-year responsibility for child rearing, or face giving up her child for adoption or institutionalization. Since hers is the body, hers the risk, hers the burden, it is only just that she alone should be free to decide on pregnancy or abortion.

-Prochoice argument: Women have a moral right to full social equality. They should not be restricted or subordinated because of their sex. But this morally required equality cannot be realized without abortion's certain control of reproduction. Female social equality depends upon being able to compete and participate as freely as males can in the structures of educational and economic life. If a woman cannot control when and how she will be pregnant or rear children, she is at a distinct disadvantage, especially in our male-dominated world.

-But true sexual and reproductive freedom means freedom to procreate as well as to inhibit fertility. Prochoice feminists are also worried that women's freedom to reproduce will be curtailed through the abuse of sterilization and needless hysterectomies. Besides the punitive tendencies of a male-dominated health-care system, especially in response to repeated abortions or welfare pregnancies, there are other economic and social pressures inhibiting reproduction. Genuine reproductive freedom implies that day care, medical care, and financial support would be provided mothers, while fathers would take their full share in the burdens and delights of raising children.

-The moral right to control one's own body does apply to cases of organ transplants, mastectomies, contraception, and sterilization; but it is not a conceptualization adequate for abortion. The abortion dilemma is caused by the fact that 266 days following a conception in one body, another body will emerge. One's own body no longer exists as a single unit but is engendering another organism's life.

-Fortunately, in the course of civilization there has been a gradual realization that justice demands the powerless and dependent be protected against the uses of power wielded unilaterally. No human can be treated as a means to an end without consent. The fetus is an immature, dependent form of human life which only needs time and protection to develop. Surely, immaturity and dependence are not crimes.

-We do not sanction killing the innocent if it can be done painlessly or without the victim's awareness. Consciousness becomes important to the abortion debate because it is used as a criterion for the "personhood" so often seen as the prerequisite for legal protection. Yet certain philosophers set the standard of personhood so high that half the human race could not meet the criteria during most of their waking hours (let alone their sleeping ones).

-It is a chilling inconsistency to see prochoice feminists demanding continued access to assembly-line, technological methods of fetal killing--the vacuum aspirator, prostaglandins, and dilation and evacuation. It is a betrayal of feminism, which has built the struggle for justice on the bedrock of women's empathy. After all, "maternal thinking" receives its name from a mother's unconditional acceptance and nurture of dependent, immature life. It is difficult to develop concern for women, children, the poor and the dispossessed-- and to care about peace--and at the same time ignore fetal life.

-With legal abortion freely available, a clear cultural message is given: conception and pregnancy are no longer serious moral matters. With abortion as an acceptable alternative, contraception is not as responsibly used; women take risks, often at the urging of male sexual partners. Repeat abortions increase, with all their psychological and medical repercussions. With more abortion there is more abortion. Behavior shapes thought as well as the other way round. Abortion becomes no longer a choice but a "necessity

-A more male-oriented model of erotic or amative sexuality endorses sexual permissiveness without long-term commitment or reproductive focus. Erotic sexuality emphasizes pleasure, play, passion, individual self-expression, and romantic games of courtship and conquest. It is assumed that a variety of partners and sexual experiences are necessary to stimulate romantic passion. This erotic model of the sexual life has often worked satisfactorily for men, both heterosexual and gay, and for certain cultural elites. But for the average woman, it is quite destructive.

Back 22

Sidney Callahan- Abortion and the Sexual Agenda: A Case for Prolife Feminism

Front 23

-I
will address three
aspects
of the ethics
of research on biotechnologies,
like
stem cell research, that are driven by
profits
to be
gained
in a
global
con-
text of vastly unequal
access to health
care and other human
goods

-
One of the
conceptual
and
analyt-
ical difficulties we have in meeting
the
challenge
of
global justice
is that
we (in North America
especially)
tend to contrast
autonomy or
liberty
and distributive
justice as constitut-
ing different
categories
of
obligation
that are
likely
to be mutually
incom-
patible

-As Daniel Callahan has worried,
biomedical policy
ethics is afraid of
advancing community
ideals or chal-
lenging
the individualism of the
rhetoric of choice and
rights.
In par-
ticular it has not
carefully
taken on
the
conceptions of human life, wel-
fare, and the human future that are
implicit
in the biomedical research
enterprise

-2 In the marketplace
where buyers and sellers meet, cer-
tain kinds of activities and
exchanges
should be forbidden or limited.

-"4 Within a model of broad-
based and dialectical moral discern-
ment, a variety of moral and
religious
stances and traditions can play a valu-
able role. These traditions may bring
to the table a
sensitivity
to values in
addition to
autonomy, and
support
concern for the common
good

-In the view of
Jeremy Rifkin, "a
global
life-science
industry
is already
beginning
to wield unprecedented
power
over the vast biological
re-
sources of the planet."6 Many
fields of
research science "are being
consolidat-
ed under the umbrella of
giant
'life'
companies
in the
emerging biotech
marketplace"

Back 23

Lisa Sowle Cahill- The new Biotech World Order

Front 24

-By the same token, strictly speaking
ours is not a debate about stem cell research. No one would object to the use
of pluripotent stem cells in biomedical research or therapy if they could be obtained from non-embryonic sources, or
if they could be acquired by using embryos lost in miscarriages.

-The threshold question is
whether it is right to kill members of a
certain class of humans–those in the
embryonic stage of development–to
benefit others.

-’ But one need not
engage questions of whether human beings have spiritual souls in considering
whether human embryos are human beings

-A human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, like
a rock, or a potato, or a rhinoceros.

-Unless severely damaged
or deprived of a suitable environment,
an embryonic human being will, by directing his or her own integral organic
functioning, develop himself or herself
to each new stage of developmental maturity along the gapless continuum of a
human life.

-to say that embryonic human beings do not deserve full respect, one
must suppose that not every human being deserves full respect. And to do that,
one must hold that those human beings
who warrant full respect deserve it not
by virtue of the kind of entity they are, but,
rather, because of some acquired characteristic that some human beings

-If human
beings are worthy of full moral respect
only because of such qualities, and those
qualities come in varying degrees, humans should possess rights in varying
degrees. The proposition that all human
beings are created equal would be relegated to the status of a myth

-You and I were never either a sperm cell
or an ovum. Nor would a person who
was brought into being by cloning have
once been a somatic cell. To destroy an
ovum or a skin cell whose constituents
might have been used to generate a new
and distinct human organism is not to
destroy a new and distinct human organism–for no such organism exists or ever
existed.

-we value
oak trees not because of the kind of entity they are, but because of their magni½cence. The magni½cence of an oak
tree reflects either accidental properties
or instrumental worth; a mature tree
provides our house with shade and is
aesthetically pleasing to behold. Neither acorns nor saplings are magni½cent,
so we do not experience a sense of loss
when they are destroyed. If oak trees
were valuable by virtue of the kind of entity they are, then it would follow that it
is just as unfortunate to lose an acorn as
an oak tree.

Back 24

Robert George- Embryo Ethics

Front 25

-Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research have, in my view, made the right moral choice.

-Opponents of stem cell research do not think that good results are the only--or even the most important--factor in determining how we ought to live. However fervently and sincerely they may hope that we find ways to relieve the condition of those who suffer, they do not take the further moral step of concluding that any and every avenue to that good end may be used.

-What, then, is sacred? Each individual person, any one of whom we might be tempted to misuse in the cause of progress for others.

-But what if the issue is not improving but, more starkly, preserving society? However great the promise of such research for relief of suffering and prevention of death, the fact that we continue to suffer and die is not an emergency. If we take to describing that sad fact of life as a crisis or emergency, there will be no end to what we might contemplate doing in the cause of medical progress.

-In torture we seek to overcome another person's conscientious resistance to our will. We aim to "break the conscience which is commanding him to keep silence." This differs from what Thielicke calls "temptation by desire," which seeks to work "by way of the man's own decisions." Nor can torture be equated with coercion, with an attempt to force a decision out of the person. Torture seeks to inflict pain severe enough to eliminate the ego, to bypass "the sphere of decision altogether." It seeks, we might say, to turn the person--a subject--into an object, a thing.

-Thus, while it may be paradoxical to hear former Vice President Cheney now calling for full disclosure of the beneficial results of enhanced interrogation methods used in secret during his tenure in office, he is quite right to do so. If we wish to renounce those tactics, we should estimate as best we can the cost of doing so.

- If human beings were simply members of our species, it might sometimes make sense to sacrifice one or another of them for the sake of the species as a whole. But human beings are not just members of the species or parts of a whole. Each human being is a "someone" who belongs to no earthly community to the whole extent of his being.

Back 25

Gilbert Meilander- Stem Cells and Torture

Front 26

-Some Catholics, going beyond the bishops and the Pope, maintain that the death penalty, like abortion and euthanasia, is a violation of the right to life and an unauthorized usurpation by human beings of God's sole lordship over life and death.

-In the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for granted. Jesus himself refrains from using violence.

-Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.

-In modern times Doctors of the Church such as Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori held that certain criminals should be punished by death.

-Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death.

-Yet, as we have seen, a rising chorus of voices in the Catholic community has raised objections to capital punishment.

-The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life.

-The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.

-In light of all this it seems safe to conclude that the death penalty is not in itself a violation of the right to life. The real issue for Catholics is to determine the circumstances under which that penalty ought to be applied. It is appropriate, I contend, when it is necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment and when it does not have disproportionate evil effects. I say "necessary" because I am of the opinion that killing should be avoided if the purposes of punishment can be obtained by bloodless means.

-Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.

-Capital punishment does not reintegrate the criminal into society; In our day death is usually administered in private by relatively painless means, such as injections of drugs, and to that extent it may be less effective as a deterrent; It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal; Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State.

-It seems to me quite obvious that such officeholders can carry out their duty without hatred for the criminal, but rather with love, respect, and compassion. In enforcing the law, they may take comfort in believing that death is not the final evil; they may pray and hope that the convict will attain eternal life with God.

-The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

Back 26

Avery Cardinal Dulles- Catholicism and Capital Punishment

Front 27

-According to Humanitarian theory, to punish a criminal because he deserves it is wrong- crime is all pathological.

-It can actually be a very bad model bc it forces people to conform to some agreed upon norm and paints people as sick.

Back 27

C.S. Lewis- The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment

Front 28

-Conditions of just war: just occasion, lawful authority, upright intention, just means, last resort, reasonable hope of victory, probable good must outweigh probable evil.

-Made no clear attempt to rectify the treaty of versailles.

-Civilians must not be killed, even though they are helping the war effort.- it is not an example of double effect.

-The war is wring on account of means, bc britain already blockading germany to starve it.

-Lasting peace probably won't happen in Europe to outweigh bad effects.

Back 28

G.E.M. Anscombe- The Justice of the Present War Examined

Front 29

-Wedding banquet with the man who got in without a wedding robe who was cast out.

-Greatest commandment: love the lord and love your neighbor as yourself.

Back 29

Matthew 22

Front 30

-Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.

-The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet’; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ 10Love does no wrong to a neighbour; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

Back 30

Romans 13

Front 31

-Turn the other cheek doesnt mean allowing others to be slapped on the other cheek too.

-Love for neighbor is limited- sometimes one must fight but one can't approve of an unlimited attack on human life.

-Pacifism teaches people that there's no significant moral difference between killing innocent life and other killing. They see no way of avoiding wickedness and so set no limits on it.

Back 31

Paul Ramsey- Justice in War

Front 32

-For augustine, self-love is source of evil.

-city of god- love of god to point of contemt for self.

-Realism becomes cynical/nihilistic when it equates natural w/ normative.

-Neighbor love can help guide us in race relations but cant compel us to sacrifice State efficiency for a federal Fair Employment Practices act.

-Christian stance cant cause one to claim absolute validity of his claims but rather to humility.

-Life will always be fragmentary, frustrating, incomplete.

-Strive for kingdom of God in history but do not expect its full realization there.

Back 32

Reinhold Niebuhr- Augustine and Christian Realism

Front 33

-Love of neighbor factors in w/ war on terror- helping the afghan people.

-Right intention, right authority, and since afghanistan has been liberated, success.

-We don;t condemn muslims wheras the terrorists condemn all americans.

-On the rule of discrimination, every effort is being made to separate combatants and noncombatants.

Back 33

Jean Bethke Elshtain- Just War Against Terror

Front 34

-May a christian be a patriot?

-God's people transcend all nations.

-Is it legitimate for christians to love any group as their own?

-Our relationship with god doesnt mean we need to repudiate our earthly existence.

-Church alter's author's patriotism- not always proud of certain aspects, views some aspects of America w/ sorrow. esp. militarism

Back 34

Nicholas Wolterstorff- Reflections on Patriotism

Front 35

-Niebuhr felt that pacifism was dubious in religion and dangerous in politics.

-Naturalists couldn't see WW2 coiming.

-Niebuhr would dismiss politician seeking to conform to God's will.

-Science can't give us values- why was I born? and for what should i live?

Back 35

John Patrick Diggins- Why Niebuhr Now?

Front 36

-Us must entertain the possibility that not all of al-qaedas roots are malevolent and irrational- legitimate grievances there too.

-Must give these grievances attention.

Back 36

Nigel Biggar- Burying the Past After 9/11

Front 37

-What nation today has a navy bigger than all other navies combined? The U. S. A. What nation today is steadily adding to the only known stockpile of atom bombs? The U. S. A. --What nation today is tops in the development of buzz bombs, jet planes, bacterial poisons and death rays?

-There are no antiwar organizations in the colleges these days, at least not in the Catholic colleges. There is a sense of the inevitable, that war is to come, that mora1ity has nothing to do with it, that it is a question of licking Russia before she gets too strong, before she gets the atomic bomb. Around the local churches they are distributing leaflets and cards asking the Italians here to write to their relatives in Italy not to vote Communist. It would be interesting to know who is financing this campaign. It would be interesting to know why Communism has become such a threat in Italy. Is it perhaps that we have failed?

-to go to war means to go against every decent sentiment and against all cries for justice and against all love of man for his neighbor The policy of the United States is anti-Catholic because it is atheistic.

-We are against war because it is contrary to the spirit of Jesus Christ, and the only important thing is that we abide in His spirit. It is more important than being American, more important than being respectable, more important than obedience to the State.

Back 37

Dorothy Day- We Are Not Un-American, We are Catholics

Front 38

-‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

5 ‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

6 ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

7 ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

8 ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

9 ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

10 ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 ‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely* on my account. 12Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

-‘You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,* you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult* a brother or sister,* you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool”, you will be liable to the hell* of fire.

-‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

Back 38

Matthew 5

Front 39

-What would you do if someone dependent upon you were being attacked?

-War is different- in the case of a single attacker innocent bystanders less likely to be harmed. Defending a house doesnt change everything like war does.

-Tragedy, martyrdom, natural way out (emotionally disarm attacker), providential way out.

-Not only christians have faith in providence.

-Suffering can be meaningful.

Back 39

John Howard Yoder- What Would You Do If?

Front 40

-Elshtain's justification of war on terror: nothing more than an uncritical justification of the ideology of America as empire. It is'itself
a deeply ideological work rather than one of careful
and critical thought.

-when America sees srares organized on principles it doesn't like (this is what Elshtain
means by "failed srares") it should remake them by
force"(if n1gssary) into states organized onprinciples it
does like- new imperialism.

-Her argument is a foil to that of its demonic other, the terrorisg the Islamist, the Islamic fundamentalist, of whom Osama bin Laden serves as the paradigm and archetype. Her Americanism glows
throughout as the dangerously radiant mirror image of
bin Laden's "ideological fanaticism"

-In this book (as opposed to much of her other
work, which stands in dramatic contrast), Elshtain
describes America in the most favorable light possible. better interpretation would reveal huge flaws.

-She righdy argues that those who kill themseives in
attacks on civfians are not marbrrs but murderers. but
she fails to draw the obvious conclusion that yol., do
not go
to
"war' against murderers. Instead, you try to
arrest them.

-

Back 40

Stanley Hauerwas and Paul Griffiths- War, Peace, and Jean Bethke Elshtain

Front 41

-I am accused of having become
an apologist for Empire; for unrestrained capitalism;
for all things American, including abortion, throwing
people in jail, and so on.

-
\flhat is disturbing and destructive about Hauerwas and Griffiths' moral equation of bin Ladenism
with Americanism is that it pulls the rug out from
under current efforts by thousands of devout Muslims to achieve in their own societies the minimal
basic freedoms that are our civic inheritence

-Nowhere do I call for the importation of American
culture wholesal*as if that could be done. Nowhere
do Flauerwas and Griffiths note that I mention forceful interdicdon in the conrexr of stopping violence.
Nowhere do they indicare that my discrission falls
under the heading "Defending Human Digntqr," antmated by a principle of "equal moral regard" for all
persons. Nowhere do they acknowledge that my primary concern is to stop the slaughter of innocents.

-what is
stunningby its omissionintheF{auer-
\ X / was/Griffiths'diatribe is any sustained disVY cussionof either jwsadbellwmor jwsinbello
criteria. My book revolves around the just war tradition and the loss-a devastating one, I believe-to the
American Christian community of that tradition, as
.the many statements issued by denominations about
the war against terrorism make clear

Back 41

Jean Bethke Elshtain- Response to Hauerwas & Griffiths

Front 42

-Dialogue doesn't mean conflicts and diferences between religions should be downplayed.

-Different religions argue about the very nature of divine reality- not simply different approaches to the same divine reality.

-Dialogue can't aim at uniting the different religions institutionally.

-Interreligious dialogue different from ecumenical christian dialogue.

-Gospel of John says Jews worship the devil because they killed Jesus.

-In Christian judgement, the divine reality of other religions is expressed in a manner that has undergone refraction.

-Can people of other religions be saved?- various interpretations for idea that salvation comes thru christ alone. Perhaps all that is required is acting the was Jesus wants us to act. many who aren't christians do this. perhaps those who arent saved explicitly reject the message of christ.

-We can learn from interreligious dialogue bc theological knowledge is provisional.

Back 42

Wolfhart Pannenberg- The Religions from the Perspective of Christian Theology and the Self-Interpretations of Christianity in Relation to Non-Christian Religions

Front 43

-The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.

-I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

-throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

-edom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.

-Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

-Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

-America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

-On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.

-Palestinians must abandon violence.

-The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons. (Iran)

-No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.

-Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.

-In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.

- know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.

Back 43

Barack Obama- Speech in Cairo, June 4, 2009

Front 44

-In relations between religions, commonalities and differences count.

-If we only see commonalities, we distort others and ourselves.

-For Qutb there's either radical islamic totalitarianism or secular totalitarianism.

-Faith in one god commits us to pluralism.

-Christianity is not a culture or a civilization- many different cultures and civilizations within christianity.

Back 44

Miroslav Volf- A Public Faith

Front 45

-Common sentiment- God is most accesible to individuals acting on their won, not to members of organized religion.

-Faith in God helps us lose our religion and spirituality contributes to confining christianity to private life and not to the public sphere.

-origin of modern concept of religion in 15th sentury thinkers.

-For Finicio (15th century), worshipping God in one's heart was most important.

-Religion came to be thought not as the product of rational thought, but as the product of feeling and intuition.

-God is simply a divine prozac for readers of the chicken soup movement.

-In modern, secular world, religion is private and kept out of public life.

- State becomes the only thing worth fighting and dying for.

-If all religions are climbing the same mountain, they must all be relativized to some extent.

-Because of privatization of religion, a whole area of human concern, namely religion, has been cordoned off. we love our neighbor in our hearts and then go bomb the fuck out of them in war.

Back 45

William T. Cavanaugh- God is Not Religious

Front 46

-One thing is so certain that it seems stupid to verbalize it: both
modern technology and modern science are distinctively Occidental.

-The new Frankish calendars, which set the style
for the Middle Ages, are very different: they show men coercing the world
around them--plowing, harvesting, chopping trees, butchering pigs. Man
and nature are two things, and man is master.
These novelties seem to be in harmony with larger intellectual
patterns. What people do about their ecology depends on what they think
about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is
deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny--that is, by
religion.

-Our daily habits of action, for example, are dominated by an implicit
faith in perpetual progress which was unknown either to Greco- Roman
antiquity or to the Orient. It is rooted in, and is indefensible apart from,
Judeo- Christian theology.

-Christianity is the most
anthropocentric religion the world has seen.

-To a Christian a tree can be no more than a physical fact. The
whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and to the ethos of
the West.

-The greatest spiritual revolutionary in Western history, Saint
Francis, proposed what he thought was an alternative Christian view of
nature and man's relation to it; he tried to substitute the idea of the equality
of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man's limitless rule of
creation

Back 46

Lynn White- The Theological Roots of the Ecological Crisis

Front 47

-Defense of nature is a universal value.

-Each species is a master of biology and worth saving.

-Our minds are powerful but we are physically dependent on our environment.

-We use natural products to find solutions and cures- biodiversity matters.

-Darwin;s reverence for life remained intact after he repudiated religion.

-Why havent the evangelical churches joined the fight to preserve and protect the creation.

Back 47

E.O. Wilson- Apocalypse Now

Front 48

-I want to begin with a problem: namely, that the culpability of Christianity in the destruction of the natural world, and the uselessness of Christianity to any effort to correct that destruction, are now established cliches of the conservation movement. This is a problem for two reasons: First, the indictment of Christianity by the anti-Christian conservationists is, in many respects, just. secondly, because, however just it may be, it does not come from an adequate understanding of the Bible and the cultural traditions that descend from the Bible. The anti-Christian conservationists characteristically deal with the Bible by waving it off.

-We might, let us suppose, turn to another religion--a recourse that is sometimes suggested by the anti-Christian environmentalists. Buddhism, for example, is certainly a religion that could guide us toward a right respect for the natural world, our fellow humans, and our fellow creatures. I have a considerable debt myself to Buddhism and Buddhists. But there is an enormous number of people, and I am one of them, whose native religion, for better or worse, is Christianity.

-We will discover that we humans do not own the world or any part of it: "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: the world and they that dwell therein" (Ps. 24:1).

-We will discover that God found the world, as he made it, to be good; that he made it for his pleasure; and that he continues to love it and to find it worthy, despite its reduction and corruption by us.

-our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it is the most horrid blasphemy.

-"The sense of the holiness of life" is not compatible with an exploitive economy. You cannot know that life is holy if you are content to live from economic practices that daily destroy life and diminish its possibility.

-he presence of his spirit in us is our wildness, our oneness with the wilderness of Creation. That is why subduing the things of nature to human purposes is so dangerous, and why it so often results in evil, in separation and desecration.

-Holiness is everywhere in Creation, it is as common as raindrops and leaves and blades of grass, but it does not sound like a newspaper.

-I have been talking, of course, about a dualism that manifests itself in several ways; it is a cleavage, a radical discontinuity, between Creator and creature, spirit and matter, religion and nature, religion and economy, worship and work, etc. This dualism, I think is the most destructive disease that afflicts us. In its best known, its most dangerous, and perhaps its fundamental version, it is the dualism of body and soul. This is an issue as difficult as it is important, and so to deal with it we should start at the beginning.

-If we think of ourselves as merely biological creatures, whose story is determined by genetics or environment or history or economics or technology, then, however pleasant or painful the part we play, it cannot matter much. Its significance is that of mere self-concem.

-If, on the other hand, we believe that we are living souls, God's dust and God's breath, acting our parts among other creatures all made of the same dust and breath as ourselves; and if we understand that we are free, within the obvious limits of mortal human life, to do evil or good to ourselves and to the other creatures--then all our acts have a supreme significance.

Back 48

Wendell Berry- Christianity and the Survival of Creation

Front 49

-Life of man is animally vegetative but life of plants is vegetative.

-Man has to think and act responsively.

-Animals and plants do not belong to man but to God.

-When man kills animal, he does something a bit like homicide.

-We can only kill animals knowing that they do not belong to us but to god.

-

Back 49

Karl Barth- Church Dogmatics

Front 50

-Essays on the morality of abortion, whether they be anti or pro, have
begun to take on a ritualistic form. Each side knows the arguments and
counterarguments well, but they continue to go through the motions. Neither
side seems to have much hope of convincing the othir, but just as in some
rituals we continue to repeat words and actions though we no longer know
why, in like manner we continue to repeat arguments about why a6ortion is
right, wrong, or indifferent.

-we have fai]ed to exhibit
our deepest convictions that make our rejection of abortion intelligible.

-We have not understood, as
Christians, how easily we have presumed that the presuppositions of our
"liberal" cultural ethos are "Christian. "

-As Christians we have assumed that we were morally and politically
required to express our opposition to abortion in terms acceptable in a pluralist
society.

-the very character of debate in a liberal,
secular, pluralist culture like ours shows that there is no rational method for
resolving most significant matters of moral dispute. Any rational method for
resolving moral disagreements requires a shared tradition

-Maclntyre argues that we must
look to the moral presuppositions on which our society was founded. For in
spite of the appeal to self-evident truths about equality and rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

-The ideal of liberalism is thus to make government neutral on the
very subjects that matter most to people, precisely because they matter most.

-we attempt to change our language so our cornmitment to greater
individual liberty concerning abortion will not contradict our traditional views
about what kind ofpeople we should be to deserve to be free. The reason that
our arguments conceming abortion are bound to fail is that we cannot resolve
the morally antithetical traditions that form our society and our Christian
ambitions for ourselves

-if christians are to make their
moral and political convictions conceming abortion intelligible we must show
how the meaning and prohibition of abortion is correlative to the stories of
God and his people that form our basic conviction.

-singular kind of
behavior from a particular community's moral perspective. The removal of
the fetus from the mother's uterus before term can be called an "intemrption
of pregnancy, " the child can be called "fetal matter, " and the mother can be
called a "patient." But from the Christian perspective, to see the situation in
that way changes the self and the community in a decisive way

-From a Christian perspective children represent our continuing commitment to live as a historic people.

-

Back 50

Stanley Hauerwas- Abortion: Why the Arguments Fail

Front 51

-At a conference in 1979, did the Pope attack liberation theology or sanction it?

-Pope wished to get rid of idea that christianity was reducible to marxism.

-Pope john paul II rejected specifically biological, economical, or psychological view of man.

-Pope wanted to safeguard the christian character of the message of liberation.

-Lots of bishops have looked upon marxism favorably.

-Latin american and spanish clergy felt themselves victimized by anglo-saxon bias, studied nouvelle theologie, and realized the power of popular religion among the masses.

-innovation and entrepreneurialism isnt really a part of latin culture.

-as an explanatory system, marxism explains little and has been used to justify totalitarian regimes. It still speaks to utopian fantasies, however.

Back 51

Michael Novak- Liberation Theology and the Pope

Front 52

-Charity has been fruitfully rediscovered as center of christian life.

-Vatican II reaffirmed church of service not of power.

-Theology must be critical reflection on basic human principles.

-Theology as a critical reflection on historical praxis is a liberating theology.

-Poor countries arent modeling themselves after the rich countries bc they see the rich countries as exploitive, but they are trying to overcome material insufficiency to achieve more human society.

-Poor countries realize that their underdevelopment is bc theyve been exploited by the rich countries.

-For Marx, to know was connected to transformation of the world through work.

-Shouldnt endorse ideas without critical examination.

-Liberation expresses aspirations of oppressed peoples and social classes.

-what relation is there between salvation and the historical process of human liberation?

-Radicalization of social praxis
-people are wising up to causes of their economic oppression.

-To put oneself in perspective of the Kingdom is to participate in struggle of the oppressed.

-conversion of oppressed neighbor must occur

-Commitment to creation of just society presupposes confidence in the future.

-We are on the verge of a historic breakthrough for humanity.

-Recovery of more authentic and radical witness to poverty in the church.

-Vatican II asserted church's role as the church of the poor.

-In Bible, poverty portrayed as scandalous condition inimical to human dignity.

-Bible speaks of active and concrete measures to fight against poverty.

-Bible: what remains in the fields after the harvest shouldnt be collected- it is for the alien, the orphan, the widow.

-Poor person is client of yahweh, there to welcome God, etc.

-Luke by saying blessed are the poor doesnt mean the poor shoudl accept their condition- he means that the poor are blessed bc the kingdom of god has begun.

-Poverty has a redemptive value- deepest reason for voluntary poverty is love of neighbor.

Back 52

Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation

Front 53

-Church much proclaim liberation in the way jesus announced it.

-uncritical acceptance of marxism.

-kingdom constructed by means of struggles for liberation.

-orthodoxy replaced by orthopraxy.

-encounter with the lord enlightens us.

-"god becomes history" leads to relativism.

-can the eucharist really be celebrated as a sacrament of liberation?

Back 53

Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith- Ten Observations on the Theology of Gustavo Gutierrez

Front 54

-Catholic church transformed from bastion of ancien regime to supporter of human rights.

-Catholic skepticism of democracy in 19th century.

-Church equated liberalism with the jacobinism of the french revolution.

-Church's response to liberalism was to adopt a modern, bureaucratic structure.

-Church officials worried that liberalism came as package deal w/ darwinism and socialism.

-Fear that religious freedom would lead to religious indifference and govt hostility to religion.

-The fact of America changed this- liberal, pluralistic society that was good for roman catholics. Vigor of american catholicism kept the issue alive.
-Democracy began to be viewed as an antidote to totalitarianism.

-purpose of human person is to pursue freedom to work for their own development.

-Liberal democracies in modern times have best met catholic church's criteria for human dignity.

-Religious freedom is a crucial aspect of civil society.

-John Paul II- evangelizer of the gospel, and if democracy is in line with human rights message of the gospel, then he supports it.

-In an age of human rights, however, the pope fears that the right to life is being trampled upon.

Back 54

George Weigel- Catholicism and Democracy

Front 55

- in America, the problem of pluralism was unique in the modern world, chiefly because pluralism was the native condition of American society. It was not, as in Europe and in England, the result of a disruption or decay of a previously existent religious unity.

-the first article of the American political faith is that the political community, as a form of free and ordered human life, looks to the sovereignty of God as to the first principle of its organization. In the Jacobin tradition religion is at best a purely private concern, a matter of personal devotion, quite irrelevant to public affairs.

-The United States has had, and still has, its share of agnostics and unbelievers. But it has never known organized militant atheism on the Jacobin, doctrinaire Socialist, or Communist model; it has rejected parties and theories which erect atheism into a political principle.

- There have never been "two Americas," in the sense in which there have been, and still are, "two Frances," "two Italys," "two Spains." Politically speaking, America has always been one. The reason is that a consensus was once established, and it still substantially endures, even in the quarters where its origins have been forgotten.

-"A free people": this term too has a special sense in the American Proposition. America has passionately pursued the ideal of freedom, expressed in a whole system of political and civil rights, to new lengths; but it has not pursued this ideal so madly as to rush over the edge of the abyss, into sheer libertarianism, into the chaos created by the nineteenth-century theory of the "outlaw conscience," conscientia exlex, the conscience that knows no law higher than its own subjective imperatives.

-The American Bill of Rights is not a piece of eighteenth century rationalist theory; it is far more the product of Christian history. Behind it one can see, not the philosophy of the Enlightenment but the older philosophy that had been the matrix of the common law. The "man" whose rights are guaranteed in the face of law and government is, whether he knows it or not, the Christian man, who had learned to know his own personal dignity in the school of Christian faith.

-

Back 55

John Courtney Murray- E Pluribus Unum: The American Consensus

Front 56

-The lexicon of The Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the Epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine's City of God.

-I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right.

-Market God is emerging renewed from its trial by financial "contagion." Since the argument from design no longer proves its existence, it is fast becoming a postmodern deity—believed in despite the evidence.

-In the new theology this celestial pinnacle is occupied by The Market, which I capitalize to signify both the mystery that enshrouds it and the reverence it inspires in business folk.

- the liturgy of The Market is not proceeding without some opposition from the pews. A considerable battle is shaping up in the United States, for example, over the attempt to merchandise human genes.

-The traditional God of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer is invoked as one "unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid." Like Him, The Market already knows the deepest secrets and darkest desires of our hearts—or at least would like to know them. But one suspects that divine motivation differs in these two cases. Clearly The Market wants this kind of x-ray omniscience because by probing our inmost fears and desires and then dispensing across-the-board solutions, it can further extend its reach.

-All of the traditional religions teach that human beings are finite creatures and that there are limits to any earthly enterprise. The Market that stops expanding dies.

Back 56

Harvey Cox- The Market as God

Front 57

-Love in truth — caritas in veritate — is a great challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized.

-Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value.

-the Church does not have technical solutions to offer. She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish

-Paul VI had an articulated vision of development. this meant their active participation, on equal terms, in the international economic process

-Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty.

-The actors and the causes in both underdevelopment and development are manifold, the faults and the merits are differentiated. This fact should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways

-The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase.

-In our own day, the State finds itself having to address the limitations to its sovereignty imposed by the new context of international trade and finance, which is characterized by increasing mobility both of financial capital and means of production, material and immaterial.

-The global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods

-Today the possibilities of interaction between cultures have increased significantly, giving rise to new openings for intercultural dialogue

- First, one may observe a cultural eclecticism that is often assumed uncritically: cultures are simply placed alongside one another and viewed as substantially equivalent and interchangeable. This easily yields to a relativism that does not serve true intercultural dialogue

-One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples. Not only does the situation of poverty still provoke high rates of infant mortality in many regions, but some parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion.

- There is another aspect of modern life that is very closely connected to development: the denial of the right to religious freedom. the deliberate promotion of religious indifference or practical atheism on the part of many countries obstructs the requirements for the development of peoples

-This means that moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand, and that charity must animate them in a harmonious interdisciplinary whole, marked by unity and distinction.

-Human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs.

-Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift. Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life.

-he social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy

-Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making progress at the expense of the other”

-Sometimes globalization is viewed in fatalistic terms, as if the dynamics involved were the product of anonymous impersonal forces or structures independent of the human will

-n this regard it is useful to remember that while globalization should certainly be understood as a socio-economic process, this is not its only dimension. Underneath the more visible process, humanity itself is becoming increasingly interconnected; it is made up of individuals and peoples to whom this process should offer benefits and development[103], as they assume their respective responsibilities, singly and collectively.

Back 57

Pope Benedict XVI- Caritas in Veritate, #9 and #21-42

Front 58

-what is the ethical distinction between a Brazilian who sells a homeless child to organ peddlers and an American who already has a TV and upgrades to a better one —knowing that the money could be donated to an organization that would use it to save the lives of kids in need?

-Now you, too, have the information you need to save a child's life. How should you judge yourself if you don't do it?

-hat is one month's dining out, compared to a child's life? There's the rub. Since there are a lot of desperately needy children in the world, there will always be another child whose life you could save for another $200. Are you therefore obliged to keep giving until you have nothing left? At what point can you stop?

-Comfortably off Americans who give, say, 10 percent of their income to overseas aid organizations are so far ahead of most of their equally comfortable fellow citizens that I wouldn't go out of my way to chastise them for not doing more. Nevertheless, they should be doing much more, and they are in no position to criticize Bob for failing to make the much greater sacrifice of his Bugatti.

-An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world's poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you're spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.

Back 58

Peter Singer- The Singer Solution to World Poverty

Front 59

-
The contemporary Protestant discussion of agape has stressed the concept
of other-regard often epitomized by self-sacrifice. Emphasis on other-regard
has been accompanied by a suspicion toward, or outright condemnation of,
self-love.

-Niebuhr believed that
human beings naturally long for a state of peace
in which the self lives in har-
mony with her/his fellow human beings
in obedience to God. However, hu-
man sin makes such
lasting harmony impossible within history

-s. The human capac-
ity for self-transcendence permits human beings
to develop extravagant de-
sires.

-But paradoxically intimate, mutually loving relationships can be sustained
only by a religious norm of agape (or sacrificial love). Only when each party
acts on behalf of the other without excessive regard
for personal return do
loving relationships blossom

-As soon as Niebuhr's focus shifted to the public world of government and
business he found agape
to be a problematic moral standard. ecause of Niebuhr's acute awareness of
human selfishness, especially corporate selfishness, where economics and
government are concerned, he reduced agape to a remote star. Christians can
use agape as a reference point
to get their moral bearings, but in the public
world the total actualization of love will never be reached

- At least among Protestant ethicists there has been a heavy emphasis on
other-regard and self-sacrifice as distinctive characteristics of an agape
rooted in the doctrine of the Atonement. Feminists contend that this view of
agape
is far too narrow
-
reflecting largely male experience

-Women have a
tendency to give themselves over to others to such an ex-
tent that
they
lose themselves

-Agape defined exclusively as other-regard or self-sacrifice is not an ap-
propriate virtue for women who are prone to excessive selflessness

-Shaw advocated that self-sacrifice be balanced by self-assertion and
that sacrifice be made manifest by women in the public realm as well as in
the domestic sphere

-Christian ethicists who have stressed self-sacrifice as a central Christian
virtue have frequently done so on Chris tological grounds. They assert that
the life and especially the crucifixion of Jesus reveal him to be a person who
pours himself out completely
in service to others. Then they conclude that
his followers should also live a life of complete self-giving.

Back 59

Barbara Andolsen- Agape in Feminist Ethics

Front 60

-The sbmetimes deeply religious andlor theological underpinnings of our basic attitudes concerning the nature of peoples and
the kind of public policies we must respond with remains unacknowledged or unconscious.

-often, we are t.-pt.J to live our lives as if we
live in a monolithic society and as if our responses to events and histories should reflect this.

-we often rely on positivist approaches
that seek to create scientific descriptions through objective generaltzations.T This is accomplished by banishing (or attempting to banish) all
other human characteristics except rationality and then decontextualizing (or attempting to decontextualize) ourselves to become detached
observers.

-actions and relationships change depending on our style of
knowing.

-The Black Matriarch is an image largely shaped by powerful repre_
sentatives of the wh],.: dominant group through the-fantastic hegemonic imagination. Like all these images and stereotypes of Black
womanhood, she serves to throttle Black life into ,narrow, haunting
spaces.-

- Moynihan
portrayed Black men as deviant, effeminate, and passive. Black
women were labeled doubly devianf, masculine, and unnaturally superior.2

-It is ironic that themodern
day Protestant work ethic has moved so far from the sixteenth-century
theologian and church reformer
John calvin's ideal. This becomes
striking when paired with notions of the poor and poverty.

-As Keith-Lucas notes, there is a fine line bet*eei believing that God
has chosen those who are successful and berieving that if one man-
ages to-be successful, then God will choose one.

- the religious values that are at the core of these policiesa: appeal to the person as an independent unit; the autonomous, selfdetermining ego; stress on personal responsibility; and the abhorrence
of dependency-belie a basic inabilitl ot un*iilingness ro recognize
structural evil and/or inequities that require. public policies that irove
beyond the notion that governmenr must work through individuals
who care about themselves first and foremost, if not exclusively

-What does it mean when more than 93 percent of the budger reductions in entitlements have come from programs for poor people?

-it seems irrelevant to most people that viewing the self as an unproblematic center of the universe turns gospel on its head.

-Everyday life has become commodified as corporate profits shoot
through the roof in an ironic but deadly gambol-in 1994 alone, the
profits of the Fortune 500 companies shot up 54 percent while the
gain of sales was only 8
percent.

-Public policy and public policymaking should give us institutions that
guarantee that the mechanisms of a pluralist democracy such as the
United States operate with a great deal of fairness for all citizens.

-The two cuts for 2006 stun.51 They allow people earning upward of
$200,000 a year to claim larger write-offs for a spouse and their children, and expenses such as moftgage interest on a vacation home.

-

Back 60

Emilie M. Townes- To Pick One’s Own Cotton: Religious Values, Public Policy, and Women’s Moral Autonomy

Front 61

-The christian tradition has had exceptional women in every period but this hasnt rly affected official doctrine.

-Patriarchal religion tends to be authoritarian.

-If contraceptives instead of bombs had been dropped on hiroshima- church wouldve protested.

-women's liberation is spiritual bc it humanizes women and species as a whole.

-Mother/father god needed.

-women have been kept in a low caste- perpetuated thru the idea of separate but equal.

-psychoanalysis perpetuated male domination by calling people neurotic.

-women alienated from organized religion have often retained sense of transcendence.

-Exodus community linked with sisterhood. Sisterhood of man is bonding of men and women for liberation from sexual stereotypes.

Back 61

Mary Daly- The Spiritual Revolution: Women’s Liberation as Theological Re-education

Front 62

-feminism criticizes yet incorporates elements of liberalism.

-Catholic thought and practice havent adequately addressed contemporary feminism.

-Feminists view catholic church's attempt to define "christian feminism" with skepticism.

-Feminism requires women be taken seriously as moral agents.

-John stuart mill and wollenstonecroft helped develop feminism from liberalism.

-major task of women is extrication from social interdependence.

-liberal feminist critique of parent liberalism is idea of relations as contractual.

-reject idea that what is most worth having and doing is what men think worth having and doing.

-Pope John Paul II viewed women's traditional role as mothers.

-Christ-Bridegroom/Church-Bride analogy. and example of Mary given.

-Before catholics and feminists find common ground church must be able to address their critique.

Back 62

Mary C. Segers- Feminism, Liberalism, and Catholicism

Front 63

-the church has used the idea of procreation and the union between male and female as a sign for God's intimate and loving relation to his church. A man is an exemplar of masculinity which enables the priest to represent Christ in the mystery of God made man.

-Israel was feminine and and the church is feminine, therefore the priest representing Christ has to be masculine. And therefore by their gender, women are precluded from being ordained.

- I absolutely agree that the role of women in the church is inadequate. What the most extreme feminist critics say about the actual standing of women is justified. It is a male-dominated institution, and was so even in the heyday of powerful Mother Abbesses. But I should also make clear that I am not in favor of ordaining women.

- It is possible that women can achieve everything that they need, and far more than they have imagined they need, without negating the nuptial mystery, indeed, even invoking it to justify an equal share of authority for women.

-How would the women's powers be circumscribed? What areas of faith and morals would be allocated to their specific care? This would be the most central issue of all. The obvious topics on which women could be expected to advise the Holy See would surely be women's concerns, connected with life, that is with procreation and dying.

-. It does not subvert hierarchical principles, but introduces a countervailing power to strengthen the hierarchy. It does not break the link with the Bible, since it is a new way of appreciating and enacting the feminine principle in the church.

Back 63

Mary Douglas- A Modest Proposal: A Place for Women in the Hierarchy

Front 64

-"It's not
like we're creating this. This is happening whether
we're here or not. Our founder was just smart enough
to capitalize on it." GGW's foundel Joe Francis, has
likened the flashing girls he captures on his videos to
seventies feminists burning their bras. His product,
he says, is sexy for men, liberating for women, good
for the goose, and good for the gander.

-"I've had discussions with friends who were like,
'This is so degrading to females,"' said Leist.
,,I
feel
that if you walk up to someone all sly and say,
.Come
on, get naked, show me your box,' that,s one thing.
But if you have women coming up to you begging to
get on camera and they're having fun and being sexy,
then thatt another story."

-Because we have determined that all empowered women must be overtly and publicly sexual, and
because the only sign of sexuality we seem to be able
to recognize is a direct allusion to red-light entertainment, we have laced the sleazy energy and aesthetic
of a topless club or a Penthouse shoot throughout our
entire culture.

-The values people vote for
are not necessarily the same values they live by. No
region of the United States has a higher divorce rate
than the Bible Belt.

-Raunch culture is not essentially progressive, it is essentially commercial.

-If men have been appreciating the village belly
dancer or the Champagne Room lap dancer for sexual gratification and titillation over the years, we
have to wonder what women are getting out of this
now. Why would a straight woman want to see another woman in fewer clothes spin-around a pole?

-in
actuality, Playboy is a company largely run by
women.

-Raunch culture feels perhaps the most alien to
aging hippies like my parents-they are all for free
love, but none of this looks loving to them; it looks
scary louche, incomprehensible.

Back 64

Ariel Levy- Raunch Culture

Front 65

-This word of thanks to the Lord for his mysterious plan regarding the vocation and mission of women in the world is at the same time a concrete and direct word of thanks to women, to every woman, for all that they represent in the life of humanity.

-Thank you, women who are mothers! You have sheltered human beings within yourselves in a unique experience of joy and travail. Thank you, women who are wives! hank you, women who are daughters and women who are sisters! Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. Thank you, consecrated women! Following the example of the greatest of women, the Mother of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, you open yourselves with obedience and fidelity to the gift of God's love.

-Women's dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude.

-Women have contributed to that history as much as men and, more often than not, they did so in much more difficult conditions.

- Women will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of the future: leisure time, the quality of life, migration, social services, euthanasia, drugs, health care, the ecology, etc.

-Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the "human" as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.

-The Church sees in Mary the highest expression of the "feminine genius" and she finds in her a source of constant inspiration. Mary called herself the "handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38). Through obedience to the Word of God she accepted her lofty yet not easy vocation as wife and mother in the family of Nazareth.

-certain diversity of roles is in no way prejudicial to women, provided that this diversity is not the result of an arbitrary imposition, but is rather an expression of what is specific to being male and female.

Back 65

Letter of Pope John Paul II to Women

Front 66

-with sex we can be rejected in our bodily entirety.

-same-sex love poses the question of what the meaning of desire is- not instrumental to another process, like having children.

Back 66

Rowan Williams- The Body's Grace

Front 67

-Marriage between man and woman normative form.

-Bible, though it speaks of homosexuality rarely, prohibits it.

- Homosexuality is a sin- not a very reprehensible one, but a sin.

Back 67

Richard Hays- Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies

Front 68

-Off-handed rejection of homosexuality not very reflective.

-we are allowed to interpret bible as we wish.

- do we interepret sex biologically or covenentally- if covenentally, we can put homosexuality and heterosexuality on same plane.

-church musnt fall prey to politics, but can it affirm homosexuality based on homosexual holiness?

Back 68

Luke Timothy Johnson- Debate and Discernment, Scripture and Spirit

Front 69

-non-marital sex acts are sodomical- dont result is same biological unity.

Back 69

Robert P. George -Same-Sex Marriage’ and ‘Moral Neutrality

Front 70

-A
LL OF US spend our first years single. Most of us
spend our last years single. As adults, we are single
by circumstance or by deliberate choice. Given these simple facts, it is surprising how little attention and how
precious little support the churches have given to
singleness

-A new ethic for single sexuality is needed, for the tradition that requires celibacy in singleness is not adequate.

-With the advent of the so-called "sexual revolution"
and the birth control pill, fear of pregnancy was gone.
After the "thou shalt not" of Christian tradition, we en
countered the * 'thou shalt'' of contemporary culture. Here,
"love" was all that counted. Women were "liberated"
and virginity was redefined as ' 'bad.'' Now people talked
about sex all the time, with everyone.

-" I 'm wearing the
'heirloom lace' of my grandmother's generation . . . with
the conscience of my mother's generation . . . coping
with the morals of my generation . . . No matter what
I do tonight, I'm going to offend myself."

-. Let us begin with
Christian tradition, which affirms that sex is a gift from
God.

-Sexuality has to do with vulnerability. Eros, the desire
for another, the passion that accompanies the wish for
sexual expression, makes one vulnerable. It creates possibilities for great joy but also for great suffering.

-Similarly, seduction is wrong, for the seducer guards
her or his own vulnerability and uses sex as a weapon
to gain power over another

-Premarital and postmarital sexuality might express
appropriate vulnerability. Gay and lesbian unions, long
condemned by the church because of their failure to be
procreative, might also express appropriate vulnerability

-A few years ago, the United Church
of Christ proposed a "principle of proportionality" for
single sexuality. According to this principle, the level
of sexual expression should be commensurate with the
level of commitment in the relationship.

-An adequate sexual ethic for singles must therefore attend to what is needed for appropriate vulnerability in
sexuality.

-Ne i ther the " t h ou shalt n o t" of t r adi t ional
prohibitions nor the " t h ou s h a l t" of contemporary culture
provides an adequate sexual ethic for singles. " C e l i b a cy
in s i n g l e n e s s" is not the answe r. An appreciation of t he
link be twe en sexuality and vulnerability is the p r e c o ndition for an adequa te sexual e thi c.

Back 70

Karen Lebacqz- Appropriate Vulnerability

Front 71

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Back 71

Galatians 3

Front 72

-Religious people fear imposition.

-Christians ought to be able to bring their political views into the public sphere.

-For Qutb, no god but god and totalitarian notions of religion.

-faith stands in opposition to some elements of culture and is detached from others.

-christ was a bringer of grace- coercive faith is a malfunctioning faith.

-Christians bear witness to christ- not impose their beliefs on others.

-western christians, once dominant, feel marginalized.

-christians must be willing to listen and learn when they interact w/ other cultures.

-if christians are estranged from the world, it can only be because of and insofar as the world is estranged from god.

-Christians have no place to transform the whole culture they inhabit, but shouldnt pursue a policy of accommodation either.

-christians should engage with all aspects of culture.

Back 72

Miroslav Volf- A Public Faith

Front 73

- Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

-rvd wright- Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

-we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

-I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

-Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways.

-Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch.

-Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.

-I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

-The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static

-This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care

-"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

Back 73

Barack Obama- Philadelphia Speech on Race, March 18, 2008

Front 74

-King’s dream of a more democratic America had become, in his words, “a nightmare,” owing to the persistence of “racism, poverty, militarism and materialism.”

-Militarism is an imperial catastrophe that has produced a military-industrial complex and national security state and warped the country’s priorities and stature (as with the immoral drones, dropping bombs on innocent civilians). Materialism is a spiritual catastrophe, Racism is a moral catastrophe, most graphically seen in the prison industrial complex and targeted police surveillance in black and brown ghettos rendered invisible in public discourse.

-The age of Obama has fallen tragically short of fulfilling King’s prophetic legacy. Instead of articulating a radical democratic vision and fighting for homeowners, workers and poor people in the form of mortgage relief, jobs and investment in education, infrastructure and housing, the administration gave us bailouts for banks, record profits for Wall Street and giant budget cuts on the backs of the vulnerable.

Back 74

Cornel West- Dr. King Weeps from His Grave

Front 75

-religion kept private even though most americans believe in god.

-rhetoric that refuses to acknoweldge that rational people can take religion seriously.

-our culture says religion shouldnt be taken seriously even by those who profess belief in it.

-autonomous religion plays vital role as free critic of secular society.

-what are protesting indians left to do when sacred land is taken for building stuff.

-some take the view that if u cant practice ur faith anymore- no biggie. pick a new one.

-Liberals have shied away from god talk and ceded it to the right wing.

Back 75

Stephen Carter- The Culture of Disbelief, 3-22

Front 76

-Mainline protesatntism dying in america.

-Mainline protestants have shied away from public square. why?

-Raushenbusch thought victorian family and democratic ideal were aligned.

-christians shouldnt think democracy is "their" from of govt.

-

Back 76

Stanley Hauerwas- The Democratic Policing of Christianity

Front 77

-courts have increasingly referred to religion as a private matter.

-notion of secular state can be prelude to totalitarianism.

-christian writers such as Niebuhr tend to be dismissed as old hat.

-religion of relativism fills naked public square.

Back 77

Richard John Neuhaus, “The Vulnerability of the Naked Square”

Front 78

-We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

-"Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life."- I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

-At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

-And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.

-They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.

-Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

-I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

-secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.

-Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Back 78

Barack Obama- Call to Renewal Keynote Address

Front 79

-In early summer, newspaper accounts had created the impression in some quarters that official church spokespeople would ask Catholics to vote for or against specific candidates on the basis of their political position on the abortion issue.

-bishops will teach -- they must -- more and more vigorously and more and more extensively. But they have said they will not use the power of their position, and the great respect it receives from all Catholics, to give an imprimatur to individual politicians or parties.

-God doesn't insist on political neutrality. But because it is the judgment of the bishops, and most of us Catholic lay people, that it is not wise for prelates and politicians to be tied too closely together.

-I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.

-When should I argue to make my religious value your morality? My rule of conduct your limitation?

-Almost all Americans accept some religious values as a part of our public life. We are a religious people, many of us descended from ancestors who came here expressly to live their religious faith free from coercion or repression. But we are also a people of many religions, with no established church, who hold different beliefs on many matters.

-"Yes," we create our public morality through consensus and in this country that consensus reflects to some extent religious values of a great majority of Americans. But "no," all religiously based values don't have an a priori place in our public morality.

-This "Christian nation" argument should concern -- even frighten -- two groups: non-Christians and thinking Christians.

-My church and my conscience require me to believe certain things about divorce, birth control and abortion. My church does not order me -- under pain of sin or expulsion -- to pursue my salvific mission according to a precisely defined political plan.

-I believe that legal interdicting of abortion by either the federal government or the individual states is not a plausible possibility and even if it could be obtained, it wouldn't work. Given present attitudes, it would be "Prohibition" revisited, legislating what couldn't be enforced and in the process creating a disrepect for law in general.

-Unless we Catholics educate ourselves better to the values that define -- and can ennoble -- our lives, following those teachings better than we do now, unless we set an example that is clear and compelling, then we will never convince this society

-

Back 79

Mario Cuomo, “Religious Belief and Public Morality

Front 80

-What is good can still be what is easy. difficult things arent the only things that can be moral

-aquinas- essence of virtue consists in good, not difficult.

Back 80

Joseph Pieper- Leisure: The Basis of Culture