electricdisk Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Sirach Chapter 31 (this is for cmotherofpirl) 27 Wine is very life to man if taken in moderation. Does he really live who lacks the wine which was created for his joy? 28 Joy of heart, good cheer and merriment are wine drunk freely at the proper time. 29 Headache, bitterness and disgrace is wine drunk amid anger and strife. 30 More and more wine is a snare for the fool; it lessens his strength and multiplies his wounds. 31 Rebuke not your neighbor when wine is served, nor put him to shame while he is merry; Use no harsh words with him and distress him not in the presence of others. And finally - Lest we forget.... Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into WINE! Why? Because the guests had drunk all that was available. Jesus in his merciful goodness, - made more wine!!! Hey it was a wedding. A time for celebration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Yeah Jesus was definitely not drinking grape juice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benedict_x Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Drinking/smoking is legal after 18 here. But you can't drive nor watch a R-rated show till you're 21. How funny is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 The question was about underage drinking for purely social reasons with other college age kids. The question wasn't about drinking as part of family tradition or religious cermony. Again, the question has to be asked, what greater good is accomplished through our act of civil disobedience. Not what little harm there is. Moral code isn't about what you can get away with, it's about right action, regardless of consequence or lack of consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marielapin Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 The only time I drank underage was when I was 18 and I went to France. When I was in college and I was underage I just didn't drink. It was pretty easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullnaChinaShop Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 I have no problem with someone under 21 drinking because to me if you are considered an adult by law, can vote, and can be drafted into the military then it is contradictary to say you can't have alcohol when it is a legal substance. I feel that either they need to adjust the drinking age to 18 or raise the voting and draft ages to 21. Either you are an adult by law and have all the rights and responsibilities that come with it or you do not. I believe that to say you are an adult but you can't have something that other adults can is unjust. I didn't have alcohol very often before I was 21 but I have no problem with someone responsibly drinking after they are 18 or even younger if properly supervised by their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Drinking underage does not become immoral by government fiat. It matters greatly how one goes about drinking under age, since the idea of the law is to prevent the "problems" associated with underage drinking. If one is moderate in drinking (according to age), one commits no sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TempleofVesarius Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 (edited) CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let me be the first to crack open a Molson Canadian and throw her down in opposition!!!! I'm a very social drinker...my friends and I always have bonfires and few beers and sit around telling stories and playing guitar...are we drunks?...no...are we irresponsable?...no...so what is wrong about it? Morality (believe it or not) is based on how the action effects you and others around you. If what we do is done responsibly so that it can hurt no one, then how can it be immoral? And you ever wonder why a law that should be decided by STATE legislature is universally 21 in all 50 states? Lil history for ya...when most states had the legal drinking age at 18 the FEDERAL government threatened to stop funding highways if THE STATES didnt change the law to 21...that is a lil thing i like to call UNCONSTITUTIONAL....just everyone seems to forget that Edited July 29, 2003 by TempleofVesarius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 None of you have answered the full question. Under what cirmcumstances that a moral good for the whole be promoted by individual acts that undermine the legitmate authority of the Government? It is no more moral than selective anarchy. The evil that is done by underage drinking, encouraging underage drinking, or enabling underage drinking is the diminishment of licit civil authority. The Catechism tells us that we are to be obedient to and supportive of legitimate Government for the greater good of society. Think about what you are saying to other posters here. If you are a parent, and you have control and responsiblity for your children, then you can allow your kids to drink in violation of the law. But if you are telling other minors it's okay to drink, that is shameful. You aren't there to see what other are doing when they drink, especially underage drinkers. How many of you lived in a society as an adult when 18 was the legal drinking age? How many of you know people with drinking problems that developed when they were younger? The level of responsiblity and maturity the average 18 year old is much different than a 21 year old. The fact you can smoke or go see R rated movies is moot. 18 year olds also cannot enter into the same kind of legal contract a 21 year old can. Go try and rent a car. Insurance rates for 18 year olds arent' higher just because they have more disposable income. TOV, What's wrong with underage drinking? It's breaking the Law! When is it morally okay to break the Law? Can you answer that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TempleofVesarius Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 (edited) What about when the LAW IS WRONG??? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT???? You cant base you morals on a laws. Laws are made by men and men, at least in my experience with them, are very often wrong. None of you have answered the full question. Under what cirmcumstances that a moral good for the whole be promoted by individual acts that undermine the legitmate authority of the Government? Now the key word there is legitamate... ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS LEGITAMATE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN OR CANNOT HAVE A BEER********UNLESS IT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS>>> Guess what...its doesnt interfere with anyone elses rights. Edited July 29, 2003 by TempleofVesarius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Winchester, I don't know what you mean about Government having authority 'by fiat'. Governments are a tool used by God, as an element of the nature of humans. In this sense, governments derive their authority from God by the fact of the qualities God gave humanity. Disobedience directed towards our government is not just a small thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 TOV, It is the government's right. 1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6 Also, are yoy familiar with the phrase, 'avoiding the near occaision of sin'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 What about when the LAW IS WRONG??? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT???? You cant base you morals on a laws. Laws are made by men and men, at least in my experience with them, are very often wrong. Now the key word there is legitamate... ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS LEGITAMATE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN OR CANNOT HAVE A BEER********UNLESS IT INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS>>> Guess what...its doesnt interfere with anyone elses rights. ToV, No need to shout like a child. Why is the law wrong? The law exists because the majority wanted to be protected from underage drinking. Maybe you don't drive drunk. But are your personal rights and traits to be considerd more important than the collective rights of persons who don't want to have a society with drinking 19 year olds? Are you the exception to the rule as far as your behavior, or is there evidence collected over years of observing a lot more drinking 19 year olds. The Government derives it's power by the power that people (who are created as social beings) give it to help establish and maintain an orderly society. 1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence. You are also putting the cart before ther horse. The law is based on morals. A higher moral reason is required to usurp that moral base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Here we go jasjis I guess it comes down to this, I reject the Concept that it is in the right authority of the Government to restrict the consumption of alcohol, the drinking of which is encouraged in scripture and miraclously enabled the drinking of by Christ Himself, I reject the notion that they have the authority to do so in anyway. Thus I see little defferance between it and other restictions which were not under its authority, such as who can marry whom, as mentioned above. The Government is here to serve us not to micromanage our lives by telling us what beverage is appropriate to what age. I do not accept that it has the authority to pass such a law which has nothing to do with public safety or civil order but entirely to do with the Protestant notion that Alcohol is BAD, which is in direct contradiction with Catholic Tradition and with Scripture. Please do not tell me that it has to do with Drunk Driving, we have laws agianst that and no one here is argueing that those laws are not in the perview of the Government, however the actual consumption of alcohol is NONE OF THE GOVENMENTS BUISNESS, it cannot rightly legeslate on this matter and therefore has no Authority to defy, thus defying its fiat is not sinful, it is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 In addition, the fact that some States restrict the right of parents to give their own Children Alcohol, is absolutely absurd and a gross violation of the parental authority given by God to the Human Family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts