Comments on: “Which Philosopher?” http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/ Thu, 03 Jun 2010 05:19:04 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jean-Therese Delacroix http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Jean-Therese Delacroix Sun, 09 Aug 2009 02:29:06 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-88 Kudos to you for writing this article! First, what disturbs me as a Francophile is this: they do not realize that the consequences of FULLY separating religion -- or at least morality -- from state (which is different from the PARTIAL separation in the U.S. Constitution) is causing people to be torn apart. Such examples include hijab-wearing being prohibited in public universities (which means that laws can be passed where a Catholic is arrested for wearing a golden cross-pendant to school). Second, they have not turned to international precedent when defining the dangers of such a case. If anyone has studied Chinese history, one would recognize some Legalist philosophy in all of this. Now, the Legalist philosophy states that all people are bad at heart and must be subdued via laws and strict punishment (such as burying scholars alive in Emperor Qin's day) in order to maintain order and stability. Having said this, the French system is, in many ways, different from the Chinese (i.e., rule of law is good but people aren't necessarily bad at heart). However, if they do not keep this in mind, unimaginable excesses such as the example I mentioned can happen if left in the wrong hands. Kudos to you for writing this article! First, what disturbs me as a Francophile is this: they do not realize that the consequences of FULLY separating religion — or at least morality — from state (which is different from the PARTIAL separation in the U.S. Constitution) is causing people to be torn apart. Such examples include hijab-wearing being prohibited in public universities (which means that laws can be passed where a Catholic is arrested for wearing a golden cross-pendant to school).

Second, they have not turned to international precedent when defining the dangers of such a case. If anyone has studied Chinese history, one would recognize some Legalist philosophy in all of this. Now, the Legalist philosophy states that all people are bad at heart and must be subdued via laws and strict punishment (such as burying scholars alive in Emperor Qin’s day) in order to maintain order and stability. Having said this, the French system is, in many ways, different from the Chinese (i.e., rule of law is good but people aren’t necessarily bad at heart). However, if they do not keep this in mind, unimaginable excesses such as the example I mentioned can happen if left in the wrong hands.

]]> By: David Charkowsky http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-86 David Charkowsky Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:30:24 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-86 Can we explain this disorder with a personalism that is grounded in the capacity for preferences? If I identify with my preferences, I naturally defend them against anyone (or any Church, or any God) who threatens their fulfillment and expression, because I center my life on their fulfillment and expression. Those without the capacity for preferences (or the ability to express them) are automatically excluded from the community of persons. Those with preferences different from my own are on shaky ground. Can we explain this disorder with a personalism that is grounded in the capacity for preferences?

If I identify with my preferences, I naturally defend them against anyone (or any Church, or any God) who threatens their fulfillment and expression, because I center my life on their fulfillment and expression.

Those without the capacity for preferences (or the ability to express them) are automatically excluded from the community of persons. Those with preferences different from my own are on shaky ground.

]]> By: Christian Jensen http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-85 Christian Jensen Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:47:13 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-85 Check this out for yourself. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp Check this out for yourself. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp

]]> By: walter simons http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-84 walter simons Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:18:56 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-84 Once again, now with passion, for Mr. Plunkett: you left out the section that says this is all voluntary. As multiple sources have confirmed--and a complete reading of the section will tell you-- "McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would "tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner" is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn't just wrong, she's spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That's a Pants on Fire.--and of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. See: www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/. This is not the first time that McCaughey is caught spreading vicious lies: www.brianbeutler.com/2009/02/misinformation/ I am writing as the father of two children whose grave disabilities are NOT covered by private health insurance ("pre-existing conditions"). Yes, that wonderful world of private enterprise you folks love so much. Now we finally have a chance to correct this hideous situation which devastates thousands of families, but conservatives, mislead by the media, by people like McCaughey, and by MacKenzie's post, are mindlessly doing the bidding of private insurance companies to vote the bill down. And no, the bills cannot provide public funds for abortion either. Shame on you for lying. Once again, now with passion, for Mr. Plunkett: you left out the section that says this is all voluntary. As multiple sources have confirmed–and a complete reading of the section will tell you– “McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would “tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner” is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn’t just wrong, she’s spreading a ridiculous falsehood. That’s a Pants on Fire.–and of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/betsy-mccaughey/mccaughey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/.

This is not the first time that McCaughey is caught spreading vicious lies: http://www.brianbeutler.com/2009/02/misinformation/

I am writing as the father of two children whose grave disabilities are NOT covered by private health insurance (“pre-existing conditions”). Yes, that wonderful world of private enterprise you folks love so much. Now we finally have a chance to correct this hideous situation which devastates thousands of families, but conservatives, mislead by the media, by people like McCaughey, and by MacKenzie’s post, are mindlessly doing the bidding of private insurance companies to vote the bill down. And no, the bills cannot provide public funds for abortion either.

Shame on you for lying.

]]> By: maryanne http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-83 maryanne Fri, 07 Aug 2009 23:32:31 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-83 i am french... it is the same with science... many french will beleive more in science then God, they reply that science is all proved... but again...they missed the all thing. mary anne i am french… it is the same with science… many french will beleive more in science then God, they reply that science is all proved… but again…they missed the all thing.
mary anne

]]> By: Dan Plunkett http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-82 Dan Plunkett Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:26:58 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-82 Walter Simmons above is the one who is WRONG. The provision does exist (I checked) at the house.gov web site. I copied the following directly from the bill that resides on the House of Representative's web site. This is only a partial as its too long (go there yourself if you like): ‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner de9scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph(3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following: ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to. ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses. ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy. ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal2 service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title. ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include— ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes; ‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is un-able to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy). ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement Walter Simmons above is the one who is WRONG. The provision does exist (I checked) at the house.gov web site. I copied the following directly from the bill that resides on the House of Representative’s web site. This is only a partial as its too long (go there yourself if you like):

‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner de9scribed in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph(3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following: ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to. ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses. ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy. ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal2 service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title. ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include— ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes; ‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is un-able to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (also known as a health care proxy). ‘‘(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement

]]> By: Henry Tipton http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-81 Henry Tipton Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:48:14 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-81 There are good people that are not religious. Their intentions are good. They have forgotten or refuse to understand what is truly the ethical and moral codes are based upon. When we understand what our Heavenly Father has designed for us and understand that religious values do not change as good intentions change with the changing of leadership. We do not have to quote the bible during times of decision but must understand the will of God before defining the difference between right and wrong. There are good people that are not religious. Their intentions are good. They have forgotten or refuse to understand what is truly the ethical and moral codes are based upon. When we understand what our Heavenly Father has designed for us and understand that religious values do not change as good intentions change with the changing of leadership. We do not have to quote the bible during times of decision but must understand the will of God before defining the difference between right and wrong.

]]> By: walter simons http://www.htcatholic.org/2009/08/philosopher/comment-page-1/#comment-80 walter simons Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:29:02 +0000 http://www.htcatholic.org/?p=1545#comment-80 There is no such provision in any of the proposed bills for healthcare reform and pure invention. Betsy McCaughey is lying. This has been debunked several times. Just check it. There is no such provision in any of the proposed bills for healthcare reform and pure invention. Betsy McCaughey is lying. This has been debunked several times. Just check it.

]]>