1Grace is littleroundtop

Being Mindful of Our Blessings
http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/24/4916

Your ballots at work: waterboarding is torture.
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/16/your-ballots-at...

Christmas in the trenches
http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/24/christmas-in-th...

In Support of Rick Warren
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/05/in-support-of-r...

Struggling with Tolerance
http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/22/obama-and-rick-...

Matthew 18:15-17

1Grace is littleroundtop

Being Mindful of Our Blessings
http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/24/4916

Your ballots at work: waterboarding is torture.
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/16/your-ballots-at...

Christmas in the trenches
http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/24/christmas-in-th...

In Support of Rick Warren
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/01/05/in-support-of-r...

Struggling with Tolerance
http://blog.sojo.net/2008/12/22/obama-and-rick-...

Matthew 18:15-17

Can you honestly answer that without concern of winning a debate ?”

This is utterly absurd!

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve been saying, or are you simply unable to hear what I say without interjecting your unfounded conclusions?

For the most part, I have ignored your convoluted tangents in this exchange because they are completely irrelevant to the topic we are discussing, but that does not give you license to twist what I have said to suit your agenda.

At no point have I suggested that those guilty of terrorist acts should go free – never, not in any way shape or form.

How you are able to suggest that I have implied that in any way is really not my concern.

I know what I’ve written, I know what I’ve intended to say, and I know what I’ve implied. Your conclusions about what I have said come from your own agenda, not anything I have written.

“Situational ethics to me when you are pro life till your daughter gets pregnant”

True, but I don’t have a daughter, so what’s your point?

“You believe in giving clean needles to heroin addicts because they are going to shoot up anyway”

No, I support needle exchange programs because they are a cost-effective PUBLIC HEALTH intervention to prevent the transmission of HIV, HBV, and other blood-borne pathogens. (remember – I’m a few months away from an MPH, so I know a thing or two about public health)

“you ridicule abstinence only education because the kids are going to to do it anyway”

I have never ‘ridiculed’ abstinence-only education, and I defy you to find any post in which I have done anything other than cite PUBLIC HEALTH studies that have found abstinence-only programs to be not only ineffective, but also INCREASE THE RISK of STIs.

“you believe teaching sex outside of marriage is morally equal to sex inside marriage is a trade off that is necessary”

I have never suggested or implied anything of the kind – never. That is completely out of my character. I’m disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I’ll presume you have me mistaken for someone else.

“By the way the Catholic organization you stated helped you with your vote is solidly behind abstinence education”

I am very well aware of Catholic teaching on sexual morality – I’ve dealt with it my whole life. There are times when I feel that it is much more responsible of me to speak as a PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSIONAL than a Catholic.

You may feel that that is an incompatible dichotomy, but how I chose to negotiate Catholic teaching with the SCIENCE OF PUBLIC HEALTH is between God and me, not you and me. Incidentally, Catholics do not see a dichotomy between our beliefs and science.

“Hopefully you read this book of yours after that last debate you had with me”

Which book? Situation Ethics? I’ve read it, and it is quite clear from this exchange that you really don’t have a clear concept of teleologic ethics, even though you seem to feel that it is appropriate for our government to practice situation ethics.

“I would appreciate you promoting your views on someone else . I see no respect or willingness to believe that indeed justice and concern was at the depth of our opinions”

What has compelled you to respond to me in the first place? If you don’t like what I write, don’t read it, don’t respond to it, pretend I don’t exist – but DO NOT reinterpret things I have said to suit your anti-liberal agenda.

I’ve been through this before with you, Mick Sheldon, and I resent your allegations that I have made statements, or implied anything that is completely outside of my character.

Cease and desist!

I’ve been a nurse too many years – my first four years at Harborview – not to recognize your tactics for what they are, so don’t bother playing the martyr – you’ll get no further responses from me.

From a comment posted by 1Grace below: “Obama will call for a panel to conduct a systematic review of each of the 245 remaining detainees' cases to determine which ones can be released and which should be prosecuted or remain confined.”

Well, there it is. You really haven't understood the point I've been trying
to make.

Whose fault is that .

This is situational ethics at its best . Our court system , best in the
world in my opinion promotes innocent till proven guilty . It does not
always deliver justice , but the cliché is true , its better then any other
system ,

The question is it just to send terrorist murderers free ? With or without
a trial. “

Can you honestly answer that without concern of winning a debate ?

Biblically I would say it is never just to release a murderer free on
society, but in our culture , legal system , we have decided it is the
LESSER OF TWO EVILS , situational ethics of a system that requires the
BURDEN of proof sometimes allows a murderer to go free so as a culture we
make sure the innocent is never imprisoned unjustly . These are our values
of western civilization for the most part .

But even with a trial , imprisoning a person who is innocent is as INJUST
as allowing a guilty person to be free in the eyes of God . Would you not
agree somewhat at least ? it appears to me you are putting the judicial
system above situational ethics , when it is based on situational ethics .
You need a witness , you need dna , you need proof , it does not require
justice to be served , it requires proof . I am not saying this is wrong ,
better then any other system man has thought of , but it is based on
situational ethics . Justice is not always served .

In times of war , we have POWs not trials . Or I believe we should . That is
the only thing I have advocated for , not keeping the status quo or public
trials also . Congressional oversight in military hearings would have been
my idea if anyone thought I had an opinion worth having . This to keep the
soldiers we have in the field as safe as possible , our civilians and
future neighbors of the people that live next to the people we release if we
do. We already have released some who have returned to terrorist activities
. Regardless if the war was just or not , which I believe was unjust ,, it
is situational ethics to treat these POWS differently then we treated them
during WW 2. Fairly , humanely , and release when the conflict was over .
Wars should never be fought with out understanding the whole cost . This
President who I believe to be an HONEST man , did not consider the cost .
War is not just , to fight it is not just , and to be part of it is not just
. Any one who tells you a war can be fought justly is a liar.
We can try and be as humane as we can , kill as few innocent people as
possible . Innocent people will die .

Taking you as a man of God I find your words hurtful , I guess I am thin
skinned but was so way before this election . Situational ethics to me when
you are pro life till your daughter gets pregnant . You believe in giving
clean needles to heroin addicts because they are going to shoot up anyway ,
you ridicule abstinence only education because the kids are going to to do
it anyway and you believe teaching sex outside of marriage is morally equal
to sex inside marriage is a trade off that is necessary, By the way the
Catholic organization you stated helped you with your vote is solidly behind
abstinence education . Like me they see a greater danger besides just
disease , but the pain and suffering , and conflict inside our own souls
with out of wedlock marriage . Hopefully you read this book of yours after
that last debate you had with me . Either way , I would appreciate you
promoting your views on someone else . I see no respect or willingness to
believe that indeed justice and concern was at the depth of our opinions.

“The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals,” the president said.

Obama signs order to close Guantanamo in a year
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr...

“…consistent with OUR values and our ideals”

Maybe these are not your values and ideals, nor those of the previous administration, but they are the values and ideals of many of us who put Obama in office (pre-emptive strike: we’re not talking about abortion – see “Faithful Citizenship” from the USCCB).

You don’t have to agree with it, you don’t have to like it, and maybe you think it’s stupid, but I don’t think I need to remind you that many of us who voted for Obama believe that the invasion of Iraq was stupid (I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats in Congress who supported the invasion; I voted for Patty Murray and Jim McDermott who opposed the invasion of Iraq).

Those of us who have been disgusted by the policies and behavior of the bush administration have had to ‘get used to it’ for the last 6 or more years.

Now it’s your turn.

Nothing wrong with that , that is not what you have been advocating , or has
it been even close to the way your conversing with me .

Yes thankyou for conceding to the problem . Where does the burden of proof lie with dealing with prisoners of war. History tells us in POWs we wait till the conflict is over
to be released ,

Do we offer trials to people who could jeapordize national security , as President Obama has seen not to do in some cases . The government looks at these things is a case by case . That is why their have been detainees already released , obviously the government has goofed because many have reportedly returned to terrorist cells and acts.

That is exactly what I suggested in the first place.

Maybe it's not such a radical idea after all.

Thank you for conceding that much.

Now the question is, upon whom does the burden of proof rest?

Well, there it is. You really haven't understood the point I've made.

Where’s your proof that they haven’t been falsely imprisoned?

When Bush stated the same it was greeted with liar, etc . I totally agree with treating the prisoners as POWS , obeying the geneva Convention, and not the way the last Administration has . But I believe Obama has the smarts and ability to change course on certain issues when he sees all of the situation , and not just through an idealogical lens .

I understand your frustration. The language we use and terminalogy appears to be different here then what we are use to . If I said I was pro gay most would expect me to be pro marriage rights for gay people . To say I was pro life one would expect I would support pro life issues , such as Supreme Court Justices that support a more literal understanding of the Constitution.

Here it means I am pro life , after a discussion it turns out it on the list of importance under CSI reruns It is used politically to attract Evangelical voters in my opinion , when push comes to shove it means little .

Unfortunately . Just think If President Obama was pro life , one he would never have gotten the Democratic Party denomination , but wow , I would have voted for him .

I guess I don't understand enough , and I thank God for not being able to .
Interestingly thoughtFundamentalism is often ridiculed on these pages .
If you ask me , no one does so i will give my two cents , its extremism that is the problem . Leting the Terrorists go and be released so they can go torture and murder others again is as wrong as torture .

In our society, it's no longer acceptable for a husband to brutalize his wife and children, as was his accepted perogative not so long ago. Even police officers lose their right to carry firearms if they do so, and long-term legal immigrants are deported if they violate this changed standard.

This means that change is not impossible; and that we corporately can learn to change our behavior, to the extent that we recognize that some of our temptations are wrong and can be expected not to act them out.

If it can happen at the heart of a human society, the family, this offers the probability that if the effort is made, it can extend from your house, to the White House and beyond.

We can have a human society where the Geneva Convention and the treaties against torture are not called “quaint” artifacts that have become obsolete and are thrown on to the garbage heap by those seeking to respond to serious events by jettisoning all morality and progress.

If we can make extraordinary progress intellectually and technologically – thought impossible by some theologians and philosophers for millenia – then it is not just possible, but probable, that we can make similar advances ethically.

Mankind will continue to have the same broken propensities – but we can together finally recognize that we don't have to give into all our bad impulses most of the time nor deify them, nor see what is clearly recognized as individual sin somehow transmuted into good when ordered by powerful politicians.

If this is not so, then we certainly have no grounds for preferring any particular bvehavior over any other, or any particular claim to defend our own over anyone else's, except on the same grounds – “I, me, mine.”

And in that case, there won't even be civilization, just a helter-skelter of everyone against all in selfish pursuit of getting whatever they can, however they can, for only self.

In some ways, that is where we have been going and what is bringing our financial world down.

As I read history, mankind's character has remained pretty consistent. Affluence might have given some of us a certain patina of civilized behavior. Underneath it all, when it comes down to us or them, you or me, aren't we “barbarians?