Skip to main content

A little perspective

Blogger John C. Bambenek went through some stats in effort to compare the sex scandal that's been embarrassing the Catholic Church for a while now with the number of unreported child sex crimes that slip through the hands of Planned Parenthood every year. He concludes that the numbers in the church scandal "amount [to] roughly... the amount of sexual abuse cases covered up by Planned Parenthood in Ohio for only one year." That gives some much needed perspective (and in no way condoes either organization's misdeeds). I suspect that there is a very important difference in outlook skewing the figures. If you do something you know is wrong, you are not likely to do it as much as someone who denies that the act is wrong at all. This has implications for policy (and policy debate!). If you propose something like "hosting a teenage drinking party is a bad idea," and people tell you "oh, they'll just do it anyway" you can kindly point out that you know that, but think they'll do it less if you don't help them. You need to add that it is important that teenage drinking parties are not seen as worthy of respect. This doesn't mean you'll win the debate, as the cost of enforcement (on many issues more so than the one I'm using) has to be taken into account. But it does mean that laws that can't be enforced 100% may still be worthy of merit. And who wants to live in a society where laws are enforced 100%? Not me, that's for sure. A little mercy goes a long way at times. Partial triumphs matter, especially when dealing with the young. Getting them to do less experimentation with drugs, alcohol and sex means they have much better odds of reaching the age of maturity and doing so unscarred. I'm sure somebody out there is giggling over my comments on the wild life, thinking to themselves, "well, it didn't hurt me any." To which I can only say it's possible to flip a coin and get heads any number of times in row, but I wouldn't bet on it. It's also possible to be a fish and not know you're wet. It seems to be that the argument from imperfect enforcement is not enough on it's own to nullify a claim to restrict something. To succeed, it also needs to prove that the cost of reasonable enforcement is higher than the damage a vacuum can create. Something will rush in to fill that gap and the costs of that might be higher than anyone realizes in the long term. Voters can't count on governments and interest groups to think beyond the election cycle and their personal interest; it is we who have to think long term, because we will live with our actions long term. Jimmy Akin provides an example here, one that's quite relevant to the daycare debate here in Canada. ***** Postscript After posting this entry, I turned to my copy of Thomas Merton's book No Man is an Island. The book is very good, btw, and I'm certain I'll post more of it in the future. One paragraph struck me as a very nice summary of what I was after in writing this entry:
If, in trying to do the will of God, we always seek the highest abstract standard of perfection, we show that there is still much we need to learn about the will of God. For God does not maintain that every man attain what is theoretically highest and best. It is better to be a good streetsweeper than a bad writer, better to be a good bartender than a bad doctor, and the repentant thief who died with Jesus on Calvary was far more perfect than the holy ones who had him nailed to the cross. And yet, abstractly speaking, what is more holy than the priesthood and and less holy than the state of the criminal? The dying thief had, perhaps, disobeyed the will of God in many things: but in the most important event of his life he listened and obeyed. The Pharisees had kept the law to the letter and had spent their lives in the pursuit of a most scrupulous perfection. But they were so intent upon perfection as an abstraction that when God manifested His will and His perfection in a concrete and divine way they had no choice but to reject it.
Odd, isn't it, that our "Catholic" Prime Minister(s) (Chretien, Martin, Trudeau, even Clark) are so scrupulous about building a perfect Rawlsian superstate? There's nothing whatever Catholic about that end, and certainly nothing about the scrupulousness with which that vision is being followed. If they truly think Rawls has pierced the mind of God, maybe they could run on that?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi