No Knock raids

[Winchester]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

I gave you a legal definition from a court of law. You have no case, other than the one I just gave you.

Yes I can. I just choose not to force you, being the benevolent dictator that I am.

But why stop with sinful behavior? Let's penalize stupidity too - starting with your assertion that prostitution is not a crime that should be punished!

Just so we're clear. You think that one source that you proof-texted means that I'm making up what I'm saying. Seriously. 

You should leave punishment for sin to God.

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

Just so we're clear. You think that one source that you proof-texted means that I'm making up what I'm saying. Seriously. 

No, I think you found some information that supports your view, but you are nevertheless incorrect.

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

You should leave punishment for sin to God.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

[Theoketos]

No knock warrants are a violation of the Church's preferential option of poor. 

[Winchester]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

No, I think you found some information that supports your view, but you are nevertheless incorrect.

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

No, it's a pretty common understanding.

Do you think being against getting violent over sin means I endorse sin?

I don't believe getting violent over sin is within any man's authority. So while I might obey the idiotic rules of the violent pieces of poo that run the state, I'm not going to endorse them. Nor call for violence. The way to address sin is through moral suasion, not violence.

And Elliot Ness was the bad guy.

4 hours ago, Theoketos said:

No knock warrants are a violation of the Church's preferential option of poor. 

How so?

Edited November 3, 2021 by Winchester

[Theoketos]

Who suffers the most from no knock warrants? How often are the innocent murdered by the state with impunity accidently because of no knock warrants? It is not the rich. 

Winny, I would agree with you. No Knock warrants are contrary to the common good and natural law.

There is clear teaching from Leo XII, St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Gregory IX, and Pius XII (off the top of my head) that teach the state, aka Caesar, is not required to make everything sinful (like prostitution or drunkenness) illegal. 

 

Leo XIII, Encyclical <Libertas Praestantissimum> (June 20, 1888):

For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, the Church does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. . . . But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake. . . .

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare requires. . . . And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercises her own liberty. . . .

Pius XII, <Ci Riesce> (December 6, 1953):

The duty to suppress moral and religious error cannot, therefore, be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinated to <higher and more general norms> which, <under certain circumstances>, permit and may even make it appear that the best choice for promoting <greater good> is the toleration of error.

Aquinas quotes Augustine so that both advocate legal tolerance of prostitution by noting: "Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: 'If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.'" If these social practices were to be suppressed, the public reaction might be such as to threaten the peace of society. 

 https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q10_A11.html

Good luck convincing the religious right of this. Catholic Theology tolerating Harlotry legally (and the Sistine Chapel with its Nudity) is cited by all the major Protestant Reformers such as Calvin as proof the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon or etc. 

Personally, I think if we followed the old school thoughts on Church and State we would never have had to fight and loose the culture wars (again and again). 

 

For the record, prostitution, drunkenness, willful and knowing protestantism are mortal sins which endanger salvation. Don't do them. 

Jesus Christ loves you just the way you are, and call you to repentance and perfection as a Catholic. 

I don't expect Caesar to use violence to get you to see that. It's my job as your neighbor. 

Protestants have a long history and more recent one too of using state violence to impose their theology. Catholics fall into this error too sometimes. It is never helpful in the long run. 

[Peace]

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

No, it's a pretty common understanding.

Do you think being against getting violent over sin means I endorse sin?

No, that's silly, and I never wrote that. Everybody knows about tolerance and that not every sin needs to be criminalized. I don't think people should be thrown in jail for masturbation, and that does not mean I endorse masturbation. There is your example.

13 hours ago, Winchester said:

I don't believe getting violent over sin is within any man's authority. So while I might obey the idiotic rules of the violent pieces of poo that run the state, I'm not going to endorse them. Nor call for violence. The way to address sin is through moral suasion, not violence.

So you want to sit murderers, rapists, thieves, pimps and hookers down for a cup of tea and explain to them why they should be good people?

The Lord Jesus walked the face of the Earth and most people were not persuaded to do good. But you are gonna come in with a cup of tea and right the wrongs of the world through your personal charm and abilities of reason?

I think that's silly. And I doubt you even believe it. You are just against anything government and because you don't want to pay taxes. Admit it!

1 hour ago, Theoketos said:

Who suffers the most from no knock warrants? How often are the innocent murdered by the state with impunity accidently because of no knock warrants? It is not the rich. 

Winny, I would agree with you. No Knock warrants are contrary to the common good and natural law.

There is clear teaching from Leo XII, St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Gregory IX, and Pius XII (off the top of my head) that teach the state, aka Caesar, is not required to make everything sinful (like prostitution or drunkenness) illegal. 

 

Leo XIII, Encyclical <Libertas Praestantissimum> (June 20, 1888):

For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, the Church does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. . . . But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake. . . .

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare requires. . . . And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercises her own liberty. . . .

Pius XII, <Ci Riesce> (December 6, 1953):

The duty to suppress moral and religious error cannot, therefore, be an ultimate norm of action. It must be subordinated to <higher and more general norms> which, <under certain circumstances>, permit and may even make it appear that the best choice for promoting <greater good> is the toleration of error.

Aquinas quotes Augustine so that both advocate legal tolerance of prostitution by noting: "Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De ordine 2.4]: 'If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.'" If these social practices were to be suppressed, the public reaction might be such as to threaten the peace of society. 

 https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q10_A11.html

Good luck convincing the religious right of this. Catholic Theology tolerating Harlotry legally (and the Sistine Chapel with its Nudity) is cited by all the major Protestant Reformers such as Calvin as proof the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon or etc. 

Personally, I think if we followed the old school thoughts on Church and State we would never have had to fight and loose the culture wars (again and again). 

 

For the record, prostitution, drunkenness, willful and knowing protestantism are mortal sins which endanger salvation. Don't do them. 

Jesus Christ loves you just the way you are, and call you to repentance and perfection as a Catholic. 

I don't expect Caesar to use violence to get you to see that. It's my job as your neighbor. 

Protestants have a long history and more recent one too of using state violence to impose their theology. Catholics fall into this error too sometimes. It is never helpful in the long run. 

Just because some sinful activity can be tolerated does not mean that it should be tolerated. If you want to make the argument that prostitution, drug dealing, theft, or whatever else you want to throw in there, should be tolerated, the burden is on you to demonstrate that tolerating the evil results in a greater good. Perhaps that may have been the case with prostitution a thousand years ago in particular places and times. But from that it does not conclude that prostitution should be tolerated here today in the place in which I live, in almost a completely different society.

[Winchester]

On 11/3/2021 at 9:24 AM, Peace said:

No, that's silly, and I never wrote that. Everybody knows about tolerance and that not every sin needs to be criminalized. I don't think people should be thrown in jail for masturbation, and that does not mean I endorse masturbation. There is your example.

So you want to sit murderers, rapists, thieves, pimps and hookers down for a cup of tea and explain to them why they should be good people?

The Lord Jesus walked the face of the Earth and most people were not persuaded to do good. But you are gonna come in with a cup of tea and right the wrongs of the world through your personal charm and abilities of reason?

I think that's silly. And I doubt you even believe it. You are just against anything government and because you don't want to pay taxes. Admit it!

 

This is why it's important to distinguish between what is merely sinful and what is sinful but also criminal.

If two people who are both unmarried decide to exchange sex for money they may well commit a sin, but they are not engaging in a crime. There is no aggrieved victim. It's neither a crime nor a tort. If one or both are married, then there's a good argument for the spouse being an aggrieved party. 

I've never argued against self defense. You or anyone else injecting themselves into a situation where people are consensually engaging in vice isn't self defense. You have no right to prevent people from flooping each other and exchanging money for it. And getting violent isn't going to solve it. You will never solve sin. You will also never solve the problem of crime, but in the case of crime, the situation involves a victim that has a right to self defense. Justice isn't about stamping out sin, it's about restoring an aggrieved party. The modern obsession with state punishment instead of restorative justice makes this conversation more difficult than it would be. But it would be difficult because you are every bit as hard headed as me.

 

I'm trying to appreciate that in you. As I sit here, I'm realizing that I would have argued pretty much the same as you when I first came to PM. "A right is a right because it's right," was one of my sayings. That might still be true, but I don't believe any more in the punishment system.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

This is why it's important to distinguish between what is merely sinful and what is sinful but also criminal.

We already do that. There are already many immoral and sinful actions that are not criminalized. You can think of plenty yourself. Prostitution is not one of them. Get over it.

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

If two people who are both unmarried decide to exchange sex for money they may well commit a sin, but they are not engaging in a crime.

Wrong. They have engaged in a crime. Prostitution is a crime. Here is the definition of "crime":

Quote

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crime

an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government

Prostitution is punished by the government broadly in the place in both you and us live, with very few exceptions. It is a crime.

If you don't believe me, go solicit an undercover police officer for sex and see where you end up. I'm sure they are gonna let you off the hook when you explain to them that "Prostitution is not a crime".

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

There is no aggrieved victim. It's neither a crime nor a tort. If one or both are married, then there's a good argument for the spouse being an aggrieved party. 

The presence of "an aggrieved victim" is not a requirement for an action to be a crime or to be criminalized.  If we followed your logic, I could freely pay you $100 to take a gun and shoot me in the head because I have a headache (otherwise called euthanasia). By your silly logic unattached people should be allowed to blow each other's brains out for a fee, as long as all parties involved are happy with the result. That's insane, and it clearly contradicts the Catholic Church's teaching that euthanasia should be criminalized.

Secondly an act of prostitution has at least two victims, both the prostitute and the "trick". They both damage themselves by engaging in this immoral act, whether or not they feel badly about what they have done.

Thirdly, allowing prostitution to flourish can have all sorts of indirect consequences such as unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking, the general lowering of moral standards, etc.

Yet you do not care and have no problem with allowing all of that to occur, just to advance this libertarian (and frankly non-Catholic) view of "freedom" which everybody knows for you is simply a smoke screen for "I don't want to pay any of my money in taxes."

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Peace

[Winchester]

16 hours ago, Peace said:

We already do that. There are already many immoral and sinful actions that are not criminalized. You can think of plenty yourself. Prostitution is not one of them. Get over it.

Wrong. They have engaged in a crime. Prostitution is a crime. Here is the definition of "crime":

Prostitution is punished by the government broadly in the place in both you and us live, with very few exceptions. It is a crime.

If you don't believe me, go solicit an undercover police officer for sex and see where you end up. I'm sure they are gonna let you off the hook when you explain to them that "Prostitution is not a crime".

The presence of "an aggrieved victim" is not a requirement for an action to be a crime or to be criminalized.  If we followed your logic, I could freely pay you $100 to take a gun and shoot me in the head because I have a headache (otherwise called euthanasia). By your silly logic unattached people should be allowed to blow each other's brains out for a fee, as long as all parties involved are happy with the result. That's insane, and it clearly contradicts the Catholic Church's teaching that euthanasia should be criminalized.

Secondly an act of prostitution has at least two victims, both the prostitute and the "trick". They both damage themselves by engaging in this immoral act, whether or not they feel badly about what they have done.

Thirdly, allowing prostitution to flourish can have all sorts of indirect consequences such as unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking, the general lowering of moral standards, etc.

Yet you do not care and have no problem with allowing all of that to occur, just to advance this libertarian (and frankly non-Catholic) view of "freedom" which everybody knows for you is simply a smoke screen for "I don't want to pay any of my money in taxes."

 

I just know how to keep my hands to myself. It's a skill I advise you learn before you throw a stone at the wrong sinner.