[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 4 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Quote

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

It is also the argument against a President who has sole authority in declaring who is or is not an illegal enemy combattant.

As well as issuing pardons?

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 4 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Quote

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

It is also the argument against a President who has sole authority in declaring who is or is not an illegal enemy combattant.

As well as issuing pardons?

No. The effect of a declaration by the president of an enemy combattant bypasses and negates the rule of law - if a country is ruled by its laws it means that the same laws apply equally to everyone. EC allows the president to either A) utitlize normal federal courts or B) utilize the military and military commisions for the same acts - in the case of Jose Padilla, the same person.

Everyone has the possibility to be pardoned.

[jdonn]

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

[jtfanclub]

[quote name='hotShot' date='Feb 5 2009, 12:41 PM'] [quote name='luke warm' date='Feb 5 2009, 04:37 PM'] That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible. [/QUOTE]
and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended [/QUOTE]
The pope is by definition only infallible in matters of faith/ religion.
He is therefore fallible in recognizing antisemitic people. [/quote]
Not even then. The Pope is only infallible when he's ex cathedra, which in effect means that he's infallible when he says he's infallible. If he misreads a line in the Bible, the Bible doesn't have to be changed.

From Wiki:

[quote]Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;
Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.[/quote]

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

Josh,

I believe the two issues in the sense discussed are inseperable - fallibility and legal ramifications.

Legal structure is what eliminates the arbitrary nature of fallibility.

Quote

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

Yes, I agree. But as presidential pardons are an integral part of the checks and balances of our form of government, they do not create the violation of being a nation of laws (not to the degree, anyway, as the Military Commisions Act)

To wit:

Person "A" is suspected of an act of terrorism, which is a federal crime. Legal structure dictates that a federal crime be prosecuted in federal court - that means it applies equally to all persons suspected of terrorism.

Person "B" is suspected or an act of terrorism, but the President declares him an enemy combattant and sends him to a military brig with no rights.

MCA allows persons "A" and "B" to get different treatment for the same crime. This puts the Executive into the role as monarch, above the law.

My point is that the flaw in the monarchial model is fallibility.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

Josh,

I believe the two issues in the sense discussed are inseperable - fallibility and legal ramifications.

Legal structure is what eliminates the arbitrary nature of fallibility.

Quote

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

Yes, I agree.

I hope you will not be insulted that I stopped reading at this point.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

If a person is guilty of a crime, and everybody knows it, and there's a mountain of evidence, and the person even admits they're guilty, they will still be found not guilty if the system failed them (for example, breaking down their door and searching their property without a warrant).

The fact that the President may screw up is not a reason to disallow pardons, any more than the fact that the police may screw up is not a reason to allow warrantless searches. It's part of the system that sometimes, guilty men go free so that innocent men will not be punished.

The reverse is not true- the President (and the Courts) should not be allowed to punish people because they might be guilty.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 5 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

If a person is guilty of a crime, and everybody knows it, and there's a mountain of evidence, and the person even admits they're guilty, they will still be found not guilty if the system failed them (for example, breaking down their door and searching their property without a warrant).

The fact that the President may screw up is not a reason to disallow pardons, any more than the fact that the police may screw up is not a reason to allow warrantless searches. It's part of the system that sometimes, guilty men go free so that innocent men will not be punished.

The reverse is not true- the President (and the Courts) should not be allowed to punish people because they might be guilty.

JT, do you understand the difference between "a reason" (or similarly "an argument") and "irrefutable proof"?

Seriously, what is your point, that since some guilty people go free it is irrelevant that more guilty people go free?

Btw, the fact the police screw up IS a reason to allow warrantless searches (more specifically, the fact that some guilty people get away due to warrantless searches being illegal is a reason to make them legal.) That doesn't mean I agree that warrantless searches should be legal.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 5 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

Josh,

I believe the two issues in the sense discussed are inseperable - fallibility and legal ramifications.

Legal structure is what eliminates the arbitrary nature of fallibility.

Quote

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

Yes, I agree.

I hope you will not be insulted that I stopped reading at this point.

ROFLOL

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Btw, the fact the police screw up IS a reason to allow warrantless searches (more specifically, the fact that some guilty people get away due to warrantless searches being illegal is a reason to make them legal.)

Such a good reason, in fact, that they're NOT inherently illegal; there are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Seriously, what is your point, that since some guilty people go free it is irrelevant that more guilty people go free?

The system is designed so that as much as it can stupid mistakes may cause people guilty people to free, but they will never allow innocent people to be imprisoned.

Therefore, just because someone is fallible is a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be imprisoned, but it is not a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be set free.

What, I have to put this in math terms or something?

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 5 2009, 03:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 02:13 PM, said:

Seriously, what is your point, that since some guilty people go free it is irrelevant that more guilty people go free?

The system is designed so that as much as it can stupid mistakes may cause people guilty people to free, but they will never allow innocent people to be imprisoned.

Therefore, just because someone is fallible is a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be imprisoned, but it is not a good reason for them to be unable to declare that someone should be set free.

What, I have to put this in math terms or something?

Sorry, I didn't realize "the system" is my god, judge, religion, world view, and moral compass, and that any reason to do something that goes against "the system" must not be a good reason.

I must be in the matrix or something.

Btw I also notice you don't say the system wouldn't like to reduce stupid mistakes, only that they must go in one direction as often as possible.

I would enjoy seeing you put it in math terms, then I could prove to you that you're wrong instead of simply laughing about it to myself.

[PassedOut]

jtfanclub, on Feb 5 2009, 02:00 PM, said:

Not even then. The Pope is only infallible when he's ex cathedra, which in effect means that he's infallible when he says he's infallible.

Papal infallibility is a fairly recent concept, although it has since been applied retroactively.

Because Rome endured the dark ages, the Roman church diverged from the original Christian church in ways unacceptable to Orthodox christians. The main sticking point is the Roman church changing the original Christian doctrine of the Trinity by inserting the filioque into the Nicene creed. (Protestant churches, too, perpetuate this historical error.)

The pope was originally "first among equals" of the Christian bishops because of the political importance of Rome at the time. But the concept of papal infallibility would have been ridiculous to the original Christians.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Feb 5 2009, 03:30 PM, said:

I would enjoy seeing you put it in math terms, then I could prove to you that you're wrong instead of simply laughing about it to myself.

Um, sure. If you're attempting to show A+B<C, and A and B are ranges, there is a good argument for using the largest value in the range for A and B. There is no good argument for using the smallest value.


Our system is based on "innocent until proven guilty".
This principle is violated by a fallible person imprisoning people arbitrarily.
This principle is not violated by a fallible person freeing people arbitrarily.

That's why the President shouldn't be allowed to declare people enemy combatants and avoid the justice system, but the President can be allowed to pardon people without violating these rules.

Fallibility means that a person could, in theory, make a mistake. If you think that pardons are a bad idea because the President has a miniscule chance of being wrong, that just goes against our whole idea of justice.

If you want to throw out the whole equation, and start with a whole new justice system, then let's see it.

[Lobowolf]

jtfanclub, on Feb 5 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

Our system is based on "innocent until proven guilty".



This principle is violated by a fallible person imprisoning people arbitrarily.
This principle is not violated by a fallible person freeing people arbitrarily.

I don't know that that's quite accurate; that's one way of construing it, but the system is also "based on" the notion that guilty people should be punished. It just so happens that there are extensive safeguards to attempt to be sure that people are not wrongly convicted, but that doesn't make "innocent until proven guilty" the be all, end all as far "THE basis for our system."

The principle that guilty people should be punished IS violated by a fallible person freeing people arbitrarily. As is the principle that people are equal in the eyes of the law - yet another principle.

[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Feb 5 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

Our system is based on "innocent until proven guilty".

Awesome. That helps show why the infallibility of anyone is a good reason that one person shouldn't be able to pardon a convict who has already been proven guilty.

[mike777]

"A pardon is the forgiveness of a crime and the penalty associated with it. It is granted by a head of state, such as a monarch or president, or by a competent church authority"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon


I always viewed the pardon as more of an act of Grace.....undeserved forgiveness. Not as an act of Justice.

For me, I am very happy, indeed proud, our Founding Fathers gave the Executive such a broad power.

[PassedOut]

The holocaust-denying bishop is investigating whether or not he should recant: Bishop Will Read Up On Auschwitz, But May Not Recant

And if that were not trouble enough, some liberal nit-pickers are objecting to some of his other statements also:

Quote

In one letter from 2001, addressed to his “friends and benefactors” in Canada, Bishop Williamson came down firmly against college education for women, arguing that “women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God’s Nature which characterizes our times,” and concluding: “True universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.” In the same letter the Bishop also asserted that for women, wearing trousers was another violation against nature and should be discouraged.

Note the careful use of logic in the bishop's argument.

On the other hand, there is some good news for catholics also:
Indulgences Return,and Heaven Moves a Step Closer for Catholics

Quote

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago — the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife — and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

Lutherans are not eligible.

[Winstonm]

I am in the market for a writ of absolution - slightly used OK.

[peachy]

Trinidad, on Jan 24 2009, 02:04 PM, said:

Some extra information to put things in perspective.

1) Inciting hatred against a minority group is a violation of Dutch Law. This is a direct consequence of what happened when in 1933 our neighbors democratically elected a government.

Don't wish to be a devil's advocate here, but the wording must have suffered in translation from Dutch, or maybe the text is not complete and only relevant part was quoted. Implication I get is, that inciting hatred against a majority group is not a violation of Dutch Law.