Disqus - Friends of Clean3d

Re: Mob of shouting pro-abortion activists blocks passage of Texas 20-week abortion ban at last minute

Tony DiRienzo — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:39:14 -0000

St. Thomas Aquinas had something to say along these lines:

"If... bad government is carried on by the multitude, it is called a 'democracy,' i.e. control by the populace, which comes about when the plebeian people by force of numbers oppress.... In this way the whole people will be as one tyrant." (St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship: To the King of Cyprus)

It is as though he were looking through the lens of time, seeing the sort of thing that is happening today...

Re: Mob of shouting pro-abortion activists blocks passage of Texas 20-week abortion ban at last minute

Tony DiRienzo — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 12:51:55 -0000

Christopher, I agree with your sentiment, but you are severely misrepresenting the American form of government. America is not (and never has been) a democracy. It is a democratic republic. The democracy (the people) elect the republic (the legislatures, etc.) and the elected republic is tasked with governing the people.

Nothing says that the elected republic must uphold the "will of the majority," and in this sense, the Democratic party is the most "republican" part of America's government (in that they regularly exercise the ability to ignore the will of the statistical majority in favor of a party platform of special interests).

What happened in Texas was the interference of the "democracy" in the proper functioning of the duly elected "republic," and it is tantamount to an open revolt. It saddens me to see the American president applauding such rebellion against the American system of government (which is why I say that I agree with your sentiment).

Re: Same-sex marriage and religious freedom, fundamentally at odds

Tony DiRienzo — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:22:22 -0000

This is an opinion piece, so the author is certainly welcome to express his opinion. However, the opinion presented in this article is fundamentally logically flawed, as demonstrated in the illustration of the Bob Jones University case:

"One can deplore that university’s former policy and applaud the change that was forced on it."

How could one who espouses the view of "religious freedom" put forward in this article "applaud the change that was forced on" Bob Jones University? (To be absolutely clear, I am not by any means defending racism here.) If one's personal or organizational religious view of marriage ought to be protected by the First Amendment, then it matters not who agrees with the propriety of that view. The author clearly finds a religious ban on interracial marriage to be offensive and unsupportable, and would probably find the religious sanctioning of polygamy equally offensive and unsupportable.

But you cannot have it both ways. Which is it? The freedom of every person and religious organization to apply their religious views of marriage to their public sector relationships; or the power of the government to override personal religious liberties in public sector interactions? If you truly uphold the former view (as this article suggests), then you should be decrying the Bob Jones case as injustice and representing the inability of Mormon men to legally take multiple wives as religious persecution.

That said, the government has no authority but that which it has been given from above (God), and will be held accountable for how it represents or misrepresents his laws. Yes, the government is responsible to protect the true institution of marriage as God has defined it.

Re: No country for old homophobes: gay activists ‘lynch’ Ender’s Game author

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:35:38 -0000

I'm actually rather surprised to be reading this. I am not always aware of pop culture, and had not heard that Card was publicly opposed homosexuality. Having read his Homecoming series of science fiction novels, I had rather assumed the opposite. In those books, he seemed to me to be rather sympathetic to homosexuality under normal circumstances, only insisting that one must put the needs of community above one's own desires. (In that series, a very small group of people are faced with the risk of extinction, and the homosexual character is required to contribute to the needed population growth by siring children.) Perhaps I misunderstood him.

Re: No country for old homophobes: gay activists ‘lynch’ Ender’s Game author

Tony DiRienzo — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:35:08 -0000

"Whether same sex marriage is right or wrong is a matter or one's belief system..."

I disagree. The public debate on same sex marriage is no longer in the realm of subjective morality and personal beliefs as it was a decade ago. Those opposed to same sex marriage have always largely opposed it on an objective level (that is, by saying it is fundamentally wrong for everyone), but those in support of same sex marriage have previously pushed for society to accept the subjectivity of their view (that is, "tolerance" of different beliefs). However, the primary support for same sex marriage has now moved to objective assertion of fact ("homosexuals deserve the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy," "issues of equality are universal in scope," etc.).

The real problem here is that the source and substance of the supposedly objective assertions being made is almost always personal belief systems, rather than careful reasoning. Therefore, any objection raised is perceived as an attack against the deeply held convictions which the assertions are built on, not as a challenge to the lack of underlying logical structure. Such a personal challenge is received as a threat to the viability of those convictions (not a call to reasoning), and the threatened person experiences extreme duress, being unable to logically support an illogical claim. As a result, they respond via the "fight or flight" mechanism. In general, you will notice these possible outcomes:

The threatened person will dismiss the argument as irrelavent;
or, the threatened person will disengage from the argument if it is purely logical and they are unable to refute it in kind;

or, the threatened person will attack any obviously illogical element of the challenger's argument;

or, the threatened person will revert to ad hominem attacks and enlist a mob of sympathizers to publicly "shout down" their opposition, even to the point of physical violence if deemed necessary.

You will observe that the last possible outcome listed here is the most dangerous to the peaceful operation of society. Violent uprisings of unreasoning mobs tend to end badly for everyone involved. You will also notice that this last outcome is becoming more and more common, and is in fact the case with the response to Mr. Card.

Re: Secular Pro-Life Perspectives

Tony DiRienzo — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:58:14 -0000

You have a strange view of the church-state separation in US government. The actual purpose of the "wall of separation" is to prevent the government from telling people what they may and may not believe. What I see here is quite the opposite of that protection.

Consider for a moment what the state (through Governor Chafee's action) is actually saying: "We are denying public funding for your pregnancy care programs on the sole basis of our objection to what you believe." When objection to a group's publicly-held religious views is the primary motivating factor for denying public funds, the government has violated the church-state separation by establishing a code of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" beliefs.

Your own argument allows for carte blanche to discriminate against religious organizations simply because of what they believe, regardless of the services they provide. By the reasoning you present, a secular organization may fairly be the sole recipient of public funds, but a religious organization which provides an identical service may not receive any public funding until at least one secular group is also being funded.

Speaking more plainly, your reasoning supports placing undue burden on certain pro-life groups as a government-sanctioned penalty for self-identifying as religious.

This goes beyond preventing the promotion of one religion over another, and enters into the realm of active repression of religion.

I would like to point out that you have not presented here any discussion on the specific criteria that were used in selecting the charities to benefit from the Rhode Island legislation, nor do you give any indication that you believe any criteria were used. You do not demonstrate that any secular pro-life organization requested to be part of this license plate program and was denied participation on the basis of being non-Christian (which would constitute an actual violation of the separation of church and state). You have not explained what you found in examining the wording of the legislation that would prevent additional pro-life groups from benefiting from the program in the future. In fact, it is the conspicuous absence of these details in any conversation I have seen about this legislation that leads me to agree with your ultimate conclusion: The veto had little to do with religion, and much (if not everything) to do with defending abortion.

From all appearances, you have unreasoningly assumed the worst in this situation. You have allowed yourself to be caught up in the part of the media sensationalism that you wanted to believe (that a Christian group was receiving an unfair benefit over its peers due to the intentional exclusion of those peers), because of your frustration with religious identification in the pro-life arena. What I appreciate more than anything about this blog is your unrelenting dedication to the underlying universal logic of the pro-life position. I believe you compromise your integrity when you allow your bias to show (as you have done here).

Re: Secular Pro-Life Perspectives

Tony DiRienzo — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:11:44 -0000

I appreciate your response. Please read your first sentence again and consider what you are actually saying, "Tony, it is wrong of you to base your argument on an unsupported assumption; therefore, I will make a similarly unsupported counter-assumption and base my entire response to you on it." I might ask that you conduct yourself with a bit more integrity than that. :)

I am not particularly concerned here with defending Christianity above any other belief system. What I am concerned with is having a reasonable discussion about what constitutes a violation of religious liberties, and where the burden of proof lies in demonstrating that a violation has occurred.

The underlying claim being made in this situation is that providing funding to Care Net through the voluntary purchase of a "Choose Life" license plate constitutes a violation of religious liberties.

The burden of proof falls entirely to those making the claim of wrong-doing. This is a basic legal principle, and it is demonstrated in the assertion that one is "innocent until proven guilty" (which holds such central importance in the American justice system).

Yet it is the application of this very principle which you have rebuked me for: that we should assume innocence until proof of guilt is shown. Your assumption, on the other hand, presumes guilt until you are personally satisfied of innocence (or at least non-guilt). This is a severe injustice, yet your argument demands it.

(As a result, I am tempted to ask why you take issue with my application of such a necessary foundation of justice? If you insist on injustice against a particular subset of the population because of something peculiar to them which you find distasteful, this would rightly be classed as "discrimination." Can you reasonably support your obvious discrimination against Christians in this instance, or have you merely betrayed your underlying unwillingness to equally defend "liberty and justice for all"?)

Regarding the specific topic of the license plate program:

A governor may veto legislation for a variety of reasons. However, vetoing legislation on the claim of a "violation of the separation of church and state" is a direct claim of wrong-doing or negligence on the part of the duly elected legislature. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the one invoking the "separation of church and state" protection (Governor Chafee) to inform the public (the citizens of Rhode Island) of the specific evidence which demonstrates that the alleged wrong-doing did in fact occur.

For the purposes of supporting your stated position in this matter, please provide some reference in the news media to any of the following:

1. That an official investigation into the governor's specific claim of wrong-doing was conducted, and it was found that the legislature had acted wrongfully or negligently.

2. That other pro-life organizations (especially secular organizations) applied for or requested inclusion in the legislation and were denied it (especially on the basis of religion).

3. That Care Net refuses their services to non-Christians or offers their services only to Christians or requires everyone seeking their services to first profess belief in Jesus Christ.

4. That Care Net requires those seeking their services to hear a presentation of the Christian faith.

5. That the legislation included wording to prevent the future addition of non-Christian pro-life organizations to the license plate program or wording which would limit future additions on the basis of religious views.

It is not my responsibility to demonstrate to you that no violation of religious liberties occurred, nor will I attempt to do so. No evidence of this supposed violation has been put forward. There is nothing for me to defend against, nothing for me to refute. There is no real argument here, only a baseless assertion of assumed guilt. Once again, the burden of proof falls to you. Your inability to provide any evidence substantiates my assumption, not vice versa.

Re: Secular Pro-Life Perspectives

Tony DiRienzo — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 20:31:52 -0000

My apologies for offending. My comment about the integrity of your argument was ill-advised.

Thank you for your explanation of questions of fact and questions of law. Unfortunately, I did not continue my studies beyond courses in common law and contract law, and I was unaware of this distinction (though this seems like a common law principle, so perhaps I was not paying enough attention). I will consider my burden of proof argument properly dismissed.

It seems to me that we are having a fundamental disagreement based on our different approaches to this situation. You are arguing against what you consider a violation of the establishment clause, and I am arguing against what I see as a violation of the free exercise clause.

I am personally of the opinion ockraz seems to be putting forward: that the principles of "charitable choice" exemplified in various federal laws and the FBCI criteria outlined in executive order 13279 ought to be observed in situations like this (in order to protect the free exercise rights of faith-based organizations). I was not making any particular claim about the "enviornment" or "atmosphere" of the CareNet RI facility, but rather considering the likelihood of their compliance with the above-mentioned criteria. According to CareNet RI's website, they do in fact appear to be operating in compliance with those principles.

(However, it seems that Governor Chafee justified his decision on the basis of the official website of CareNet (of which CareNet RI is an affiliate). CareNet itself does not appear to be in compliance with the FBCI criteria.)

Re: Target the first paragraph on a page or section with CSS

Tony DiRienzo — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:24:16 -0000

Perhaps you've already found the answer to your question by now, but there are other pseudo-elements that could be used (such as p:first-of-type, which will target the first paragraph element of its parent). Also, if you know that you want the paragraph element to observe special styling every time it follows an h1, you can use the + operator. For example, h1 + p { margin-top: 0; }

Re: Priests could face discipline/arrest if they say Mass for military during government shutdown

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 07 Oct 2013 23:00:14 -0000

I really hope these priests continue to obey God rather than man and provide these soldiers with their first amendment rights to free exercise of religion, regardless of "government shutdown" and threats.

Re: Comparing God with Hitler

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:16:21 -0000

It's difficult to respond to the image above directly. Thoughts like those being conveyed expose an underlying negative view of God which motivates the way its author processes information. The author does not believe that God is unjust because of his acts of violence, but rather they accuse God of violence because they already believe him to be unjust. (Usually this is the result of the "how could a loving god..." line of reasoning.)

If one considers that such God-maligning thoughts as those in the image above spring from a common root (the supposed injustice of God), addressing that root would seem to be the best response. When a person begins to see God as loving and good, other skewed perceptions (like the "violent God" or the "angry, hateful God") will fall away.

I read over many of the articles in your series so far, and I think you are heading in the right direction with the way you are handling the flood. The picture of God which you present (especially by drawing in other passages which comment on the flood) demonstrates his overwhelming desire to save people from the destruction they are bringing on themselves. This is a clear OT concept:

"The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy." (Neh. 9:17; Ps. 103:8, 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2)

This overwhelming desire of God to save rather than destroy is seen throughout the OT. A few other examples you may not have mentioned:

Destruction of the two cities -- God seeks out Abraham to intercede on their behalf (this dialog speaks volumes to the nature of God's judgment); even when ten righteous are not found, he intentionally spares Lot's family, and then at Lot's request spares a small town that would otherwise have been destroyed.

The city of Nineveh -- God pronounced judgment through Jonah as a warning, but when the people repented, he did not destroy them. Jonah indicates that he knew all along that it was God's desire to save these people from the destruction they were heading toward. Jonah 4:11 shows that God was not only concerned with saving people, but also with saving the animals in the city.

Ahab and Jezebel -- God spoke judgment against these two as a warning. Ahab repented and was spared. Jezebel did not, and she died according to Elijah's prophecy. 1 Kings 21:29 shows God's strong desire to spare people.

Re: Comparing God with Hitler

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:45:37 -0000

That is actually a very compelling analogy. Since we are created in the image of God, it does not seem unreasonable to understand him better through our structured society (however imperfectly it may reflect his nature). We see that a healthy marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Why shouldn't healthy parenting be a type of our relationship to the Father? (Why is he called the Father, and we are his children if this does not have at least some literal value?)

Re: After accepting population control, poor nations face age and demographic collapse

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:25:32 -0000

And what is the answer to these demographic problems? The world has been trained to believe that having babies is bad, so they will not be able to build a supporting younger population any time soon.

Of course progressive society is not likely to say, "We were wrong," so it will not be surprising to see euthanasia become the popular solution to the escalating financial burden of supporting an aged population. Those with the clarity to see cause and effect relationships will of course see a connection between rampant abortion and the normalizing of euthanasia. But who of the aged would have thought when they were young and fancy-free that through their complicity in normalizing abortion they would actually "lay wait for their own blood"?

Re: Body of newborn baby found in bag of teen caught shoplifting at Victoria’s Secret

Tony DiRienzo — Thu, 17 Oct 2013 23:26:50 -0000

I seem to recall that Jesus spent much of his time with the "trash" of society. "It is not the well who need a physician, but the sick." If these confused young women are trash as you seem to imply, then may this same Jesus seek each one of them out through the conviction of his Spirit and the loving deeds of his followers, so that they may find the healing they so desperately need from the True Physician. And as for us, may we follow the example given by our Lord and cry out in compassion, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do."

Re: Body of newborn baby found in bag of teen caught shoplifting at Victoria’s Secret

Tony DiRienzo — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:08:35 -0000

The only sin called unforgivable in the Bible is "blaspheming (speaking against) the Holy Spirit." This is in St. Matthew 12:31. It is very plain from the surrounding passage that this is in no way talking about abortion.

Abortion is murder. It is not a special sin all to itself. It is just simply a very grotesque form of murder. The Bible is clear that murder will be forgiven those who repent, and that repentant murderers will be admitted into heaven.

When you spread around the unscriptural idea that abortion is unforgivable, you are telling women that there is no hope for them at a time when they need it most. You are robbing them of the forgiveness that God has freely provided for them through Jesus Christ. And you do it with absolutely no basis in Scripture.

May I recommend to you a useful book which I recently read on this topic? It is entitled "Why You Have Not Committed the Unforgivable Sin", by Protestant theologian Jeremy Myers. http://www.amazon.com/dp/06...

I sincerely hope you will change your view on this.

Re: ‘Devastating’: Kansas Supreme Court bars pro-life former Attorney General from practicing law

Tony DiRienzo — Sat, 19 Oct 2013 03:55:11 -0000

It almost seems intentionally sardonic of Planned Parenthood to comment on things which "can never be recovered," though it is not surprising that their only concern is with transient economic commodities ("time and taxpayer money"). What of the discarded human lives which can never be recovered?

Re: A Word from the Lord

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:32:53 -0000

I had an experience of a different side of this issue, which I think would add to this conversation. We attended a church for several years that would occasionally invite guest speakers who were itinerant prophets. (I won't comment on whether they were genuine prophets or not... that is not my point.) Interestingly, the church leadership would only receive words from these prophets which brought them some emotional benefit. If one of the prophets ever spoke any word of correction, they were subsequently labeled a "false prophet" and never invited back. I am aware of multiple instances when the pastors and the leadership were given private corrections or warnings to change by these prophets, which they then used to publicly decry the prophet which the church had originally been told was invited "because we have investigated this man/woman's ministry and feel they have a genuine anointing from God."

It would seem to me that self-interest can motivate the hearer just as easily as the speaker.

Re: A Word from the Lord

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:10:02 -0000

There has also been a false movement in Christianity where the Lord is no longer allowed to "saith" anything. As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Re: A Word from the Lord

Tony DiRienzo — Sun, 03 Nov 2013 15:03:16 -0000

It would seem that my comment was not received in the spirit in which I meant it. I do not disagree with Jeremy's point, and while my personal experience has been more in line with what Peter Kirk describes, I am aware that there is much abuse in this area, especially in certain circles. Jeremy's warning about taking the Lord's name in vain is certainly warranted.

My concern was mostly with Dustin's comments, specifically with the unsupportable sweeping assertions that were being made ("most Christians who say... are deceived or delusional or mistak[en]", "usually people who say God told them things are egotistical"). I don't believe that Dustin has the ability to demonstrate either claim statistically. Rather, the statements seem to be based on a selection of negative personal experiences, which one would generally expect to provide a very narrow and imperfect perspective on the matter as a whole. I was simply trying to make an appeal for balance.

Re: Did Jesus Learn?

Tony DiRienzo — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 00:11:03 -0000

I've run into that same argument, and like you, I am quite convinced that Jesus had to learn just as we do. It is interesting to note how he describes his relationship with the Father: "I only say what I hear from the Father.... I only do what I see the Father doing." Jesus indicates here that he did not know what to say until he first heard it from the Father... he did not know what to do until he first saw the Father doing it. This description is meant to bring to mind the image of a child learning by watching his father. Paul put it this way: "Be imitators of God as dearly loved children" and "follow after me (my example) as I follow after Christ." Like Jesus, we must watch the Father and listen to the Father, and only then can we do as he does. (It is because of this that I find it worthwhile to read the book of Proverbs as though it were written by the Father God to Jesus.)

It is also worth noting that Jesus clearly admitted that he did not have all knowledge, and that only the Father does. Matthew 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even... the Son, but only the Father." If Jesus "knew everything from birth" as those who argued you claim, then this verse cannot be true. It would be interesting to see the mental gymnastics required to work around this.

Re: Erin Brockovich says Essure sterilization device is dangerous

Tony DiRienzo — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 13:12:14 -0000

The most unfortunate part of this story is that so many women still believe the same lie, that they can "be like God" and take control of these decisions themselves. When Eve partook of the fruit, she brought death into her body. Of course, she carefully weighed the options before concluding that eating the fruit was the best course for her life. St. Paul says of Eve that "the woman was deceived," but this did not lessen the consequence of her sin. Similarly, so many women today have been deceived into thinking that "reproductive choices" belong to them and not to God. Yet they are unable to see that the negative impacts these decisions have on their health are the normal, expected result of presuming to circumvent God's design.

As for the device itself, it is not particularly surprising that something designed to cause organ mutilation would cause organ mutilation. However, why something of this sort would be made of nickel when nickel allergies are so common is beyond me (except, of course, for the obvious reason: nickel is cheap).

Re: My strong hunch is that Ken Cuccinelli actually won Virginia

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:27:07 -0000

Senators were meant to be representatives of the state itself, not of the people of the state. (The House of Representatives is the part of Congress which represents the people directly.) Each state has the same number of senators regardless of population because each state, as an individual member of the union has an equal interest in the government of that union. Each individual state has two votes in the Senate. This was intended to prevent the highly populated states from imposing their will on their less populated neighbors. Therefore, California and Wyoming, as states, are equally represented in the Senate. US Senators used to be appointed directly by the legislature of the state they represented, but partisan quibbling in state legislatures was resulting in frequent and prolonged vacancies in the seats of the Senate. In 1913, the 17th Amendment made appointment of Senators an issue of popular vote.

Re: My strong hunch is that Ken Cuccinelli actually won Virginia

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:42:30 -0000

Steve, the biggest thing I take from your comment and blog article is this: We (as ethical people) have been warned to be "shrewd as serpents, yet innocent as doves." I believe you are saying (correctly) that we have often only done the latter.

Re: How To Convince A Girl To Get An Abortion

Tony DiRienzo — Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:24:14 -0000

The American Heritage Science Dictionary, 2002, Houghton Mifflin: "fetus: The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are present."

Note particularly the use of the word "offspring."

Re: How To Convince A Girl To Get An Abortion

Tony DiRienzo — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:15:29 -0000

Well, at least you admit that a fetus is "the young of an animal." While we're on the topic, consider the following:

offspring: 1. The child or young of a particular parent or progenitor. (dictionary.com)

young: 10. young offspring (dictionary.com)
young: idiom - with young: pregnant (dictionary.com)

child: 1. an unborn or recently born person (merriam-webster.com)

child: 4. a human fetus (dictionary.com)
child: idiom - with child: pregnant (dictionary.com)

child: 3. an unborn baby (Collins English Dictionary)

child: ... An unborn infant; a fetus ... (Stedman's Medical Dictionary)

Listed synonym for young: offsrping
Listed synonym for offspring: young
Listed synonym for both: child, baby

baby: 5. a human fetus. (dictionary.com)

baby: 2. an unborn child; fetus. (Collins English Dictionary)

According to the major dictionaries of the English language, a fetus is defined as "offspring," a "child," a "baby," "human" and a "person." Clearly you are not using the word as it is defined. Outside of your peculiar subculture, you can generally expect to have considerably difficulty in communicating with other English speaking people in the future.