Booze And Hohos

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Didymus]

i dont think it would be totally analogous to the prohibition, since society isn't as addicted to the taste of ho hos as they are to alcohol during the prohibition, when many stopped at nothing to smuggle it in..

[ardillacid]

Booze and ho-hos is probably the worst combo ever [img]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/blink822/th_puker.gif[/img]

[Balthazor]

Dairy.....
you come up with some wierd topics....

But no I do not think it would be sinful for a person to partake in hohos even if the government outlawed them. Governments outlaw a lot of stuff in different countries....including Catholic Mass... and it doesn't people who go or partake sinful.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Wow. Saw the title and couldn't resist checking it out....thought it had something to do with AA and prostitutes


I'm sure it's coming down the pipeline somewhere...just a matter of time before the govt outlaws anything 'they' think is bad for us: ho-hos, twinkies, krisy kremes,...religion, Mass, heterosexuality, marriage...

[Deb]

I don't think there are very many people with Ho-Ho's addictions and most would not even notice if they disappeared from the shelves.
When the government starts to do away with those things that people use to escape from the reality of their lives, that is when people react. Addictive substances are the main thing people do not want to be without. Comparing prohibition to a loss of ho-hos? This might be more in line for the lame board, not the debate table.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I totally thought that that said "booze and hobos"....

[rachael]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1610346' date='Jul 27 2008, 10:51 PM']I totally thought that that said "booze and hobos"....[/quote]
hohos.


lol

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Balthazor' post='1609780' date='Jul 27 2008, 07:16 AM']Dairy.....
you come up with some wierd topics....

But no I do not think it would be sinful for a person to partake in hohos even if the government outlawed them. Governments outlaw a lot of stuff in different countries....including Catholic Mass... and it doesn't people who go or partake sinful.[/quote]

We have the duty to obey all laws that are not unjust. Thus, I think that your comparison doesn't quite work. If the government outlawed the Catholic Mass, that would be an unjust law. However, if the government were to outlaw hohos (lawl), this law would not be unjust, and so we would have the responsibility to follow it.

That said, where did this topic come from?

[Aloysius]

I absolutely disagree with the mindset that says we must follow the law except if it makes us do something immoral. It's an absolutely dismal worldview... the government has limits to what it can and cannot legislate and when it oversteps those limits, even if it is not making us do something immoral, it is making an unjust law because justice does not permit it to make a law about it. the relevant passages in the Catechism are easily interpretted this way, though I can see how others interpret them the other way so it's up to debate, but I simply cannot ascribe to the belief that could justify tyranny over every little aspect of our lives just because it doesn't require us to do something immoral.

if the state made it a law that everyone must wear a blue jumpsuit, it would be an unjust law, even though it is not immoral to wear blue jumpsuits... the state does not have the authority to require such a thing. nor does the state have the authority to regulate what individuals and families choose to eat and drink (ie hohos and alcohol), and when they make such a law they are overstepping their authority and need not be obeyed.

[XIX]

It's not dismal at all! All it really does is prevent us from having alcohol whenever we want to.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1610922' date='Jul 28 2008, 06:13 PM']I absolutely disagree with the mindset that says we must follow the law except if it makes us do something immoral. It's an absolutely dismal worldview... the government has limits to what it can and cannot legislate and when it oversteps those limits, even if it is not making us do something immoral, it is making an unjust law because justice does not permit it to make a law about it. the relevant passages in the Catechism are easily interpretted this way, though I can see how others interpret them the other way so it's up to debate, but I simply cannot ascribe to the belief that could justify tyranny over every little aspect of our lives just because it doesn't require us to do something immoral.

if the state made it a law that everyone must wear a blue jumpsuit, it would be an unjust law, even though it is not immoral to wear blue jumpsuits... the state does not have the authority to require such a thing. nor does the state have the authority to regulate what individuals and families choose to eat and drink (ie hohos and alcohol), and when they make such a law they are overstepping their authority and need not be obeyed.[/quote]

Agreed; a law that "oversteps the bounds" of government is inherently unjust. This does not contradict my original statement that all laws that are not unjust must be followed as per the duty to be obedient to legitimate authority.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='XIX' post='1610924' date='Jul 28 2008, 06:18 PM'] It's not dismal at all! All it really does is prevent us from having alcohol whenever we want to.[/quote]

I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty darn dismal to me!!

[Winchester]

England made it illegal to wear green. So all people who wore green on Saint Patrick's Day (the law being the reason it's a tradition) were sinning.

Bullmanure.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1611017' date='Jul 28 2008, 08:07 PM']England made it illegal to wear green. So all people who wore green on Saint Patrick's Day (the law being the reason it's a tradition) were sinning.

Bullmanure.[/quote]

That would be another example of an unjust law that should be protested, but does not contradict the statement, "All just laws passed by legitimate authority ought to be obeyed."