When it comes to Ebola, there's what the experts say -- no, travel bans won't work; no, we should not quarantine everyone who sneezes on a subway; no, you can't get Ebola by looking at a picture of President Obama -- and then there are the politicians who don't care what the experts say. Like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who imprisoned a nurse, with no Ebola symptoms whatsoever, because in his expert medical opinion, she's
The thing is, Douthat does actually point out a bit of a theological problem for the Church in this area. Unlike ghey marriage (or ghey <i>anything</i>) or abortion or American exceptionalism or male-only priests, divorce and remarriage is a subject that is addressed in the Bibble by the alleged actual words of the alleged Jesus, and he is damn sure against it.
Quite a lot of canon law is shit the Church made up during the first millennium (including the idea of sainthood), but the position on divorce is pretty much a direct quote from one-third of God. They already dance around it with &quot;annulment&quot;, but directly formalizing divorce would be a big step.
Incidentally, every divorced Baptist (e.g.) is an adulterer/ess too.
1.) This is assuming that Jesus actually made all of the statements that are attributed to Him, and that those statements were accurately transcribed in the Bible. That&#039;s a big assumption, since He didn&#039;t leave any writings of His own and the earliest parts of the Gospel were written decades after His death.
2.) To be honest, can any religion be based on teachings of a divinity who, in its members&#039; estimation, got it wrong occasionally? And can someone be an adherent of a religion while being skeptical of its source of inspiration and its foundational texts? If all it provides are a list of suggestions, and it bases those on the teachings of a person or divinity who the organization regards as having been wrong about a few things, can that in any way function as a religion? Give the Catholics a break; if something like divorce has special rules in their system of belief, how does that affect you? Catholicism doesn&#039;t require any lay people to believe in it; its adherents follow it by choice.
3.) Marriage and divorce are social arrangements based on customs, not basic laws of nature. Religions take positions that permit and proscribe social customs all the time -- it&#039;s in their mission statements.
Christie based his actions on the principle of safeguarding the public health. Public health officers possess extraordinary extralegal powers that they are permitted to exercise in emergency situations and in situations that directly affect the health and safety of the public. The power to quarantine is an example of this; it is an extrajudicial restriction of someone&#039;s freedom in the name of public health. Getting a disease isn&#039;t a crime, yet diseased people can be confined against their will on the authority of a public health officer. The safeguard is that such actions have to be based on solid science and on evidence that the confined person actually has or is very likely to have a contagious disease that they can easily transmit to other members of the public in public spaces and that the disease presents a clear and imminent danger to public health. <b>Christie&#039;s arrogance</b> is that he imposed a blanket quarantine without any evidence that it was effective or needed, and confined at least one person without any determination that she possessed a dangerous disease that could be casually transmitted to others. A state governor does have the authority to act as a public health officer, but they have to use such authority <i> conservatively, wisely and for sound scientific reasons.</i>
TL;dr: Christie used his public health officer authority as governor in an ignorant, unsound way in this episode.
Christie and Cuomo each made a stupid, panicked and uninformed decision here, and they rightfully caught holy hell for it. Both have backed off in the face of withering criticism from the medical and public health communities. Aside from massively inconveniencing a handful of people the actual result is a bit of bad PR for the two, especially Christie. There has not been any lasting harm to the welfare of the public or to the health of the democracy as a result of this episode, which is essentially over now. The NYC press loves to catastrophize everything, but let&#039;s have a bit of perspective.
The annulment that the Catholic Church allows is a bit different from civil divorce, though. Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church, and once a sacrament is given it cannot be taken away. The couple remains married to each other spiritually for all eternity, even if they are allowed to no longer have anything to do with each other in life. And since they remain spiritually bonded, neither one can enter into marriage with anyone else.
They already do. The numerous Saints John are distinguished from each other by the use of their surnames, or for those who lived before the custom of surnames became common, an additional epithet or other unique identifier. As you can imagine, after two millennia and hundreds, if not thousands, of canonizations, there is a quite a lot of name duplication in the saints list.
In that instance it was, because Pope Clement VII refused to grant Henry an annulment due to that prior dispensation. The initial dispensation permitting his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and the subsequent denial of Henry&#039;s petition for its annulment were based on the Catholic Church&#039;s <i>Canon</i> Law, which is distinguished from <i>spiritual</i> law. Canon Law refers to the Church&#039;s administrative laws and it was developed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Spiritual law is derived from God and cannot be contravened.
Relatively speaking, yes.
The thing is, Douthat does actually point out a bit of a theological problem for the Church in this area. Unlike ghey marriage (or ghey <i>anything</i>) or abortion or American exceptionalism or male-only priests, divorce and remarriage is a subject that is addressed in the Bibble by the alleged actual words of the alleged Jesus, and he is damn sure against it.
Quite a lot of canon law is shit the Church made up during the first millennium (including the idea of sainthood), but the position on divorce is pretty much a direct quote from one-third of God. They already dance around it with &quot;annulment&quot;, but directly formalizing divorce would be a big step.
Incidentally, every divorced Baptist (e.g.) is an adulterer/ess too.
Every day, 4 to 5 million New Yorkers ride packed subways, sharing their air with people who have persistent drug-resistant TB.
Every day.
1.) This is assuming that Jesus actually made all of the statements that are attributed to Him, and that those statements were accurately transcribed in the Bible. That&#039;s a big assumption, since He didn&#039;t leave any writings of His own and the earliest parts of the Gospel were written decades after His death.
2.) To be honest, can any religion be based on teachings of a divinity who, in its members&#039; estimation, got it wrong occasionally? And can someone be an adherent of a religion while being skeptical of its source of inspiration and its foundational texts? If all it provides are a list of suggestions, and it bases those on the teachings of a person or divinity who the organization regards as having been wrong about a few things, can that in any way function as a religion? Give the Catholics a break; if something like divorce has special rules in their system of belief, how does that affect you? Catholicism doesn&#039;t require any lay people to believe in it; its adherents follow it by choice.
3.) Marriage and divorce are social arrangements based on customs, not basic laws of nature. Religions take positions that permit and proscribe social customs all the time -- it&#039;s in their mission statements.
Christie based his actions on the principle of safeguarding the public health. Public health officers possess extraordinary extralegal powers that they are permitted to exercise in emergency situations and in situations that directly affect the health and safety of the public. The power to quarantine is an example of this; it is an extrajudicial restriction of someone&#039;s freedom in the name of public health. Getting a disease isn&#039;t a crime, yet diseased people can be confined against their will on the authority of a public health officer. The safeguard is that such actions have to be based on solid science and on evidence that the confined person actually has or is very likely to have a contagious disease that they can easily transmit to other members of the public in public spaces and that the disease presents a clear and imminent danger to public health. <b>Christie&#039;s arrogance</b> is that he imposed a blanket quarantine without any evidence that it was effective or needed, and confined at least one person without any determination that she possessed a dangerous disease that could be casually transmitted to others. A state governor does have the authority to act as a public health officer, but they have to use such authority <i> conservatively, wisely and for sound scientific reasons.</i>
TL;dr: Christie used his public health officer authority as governor in an ignorant, unsound way in this episode.
Christie and Cuomo each made a stupid, panicked and uninformed decision here, and they rightfully caught holy hell for it. Both have backed off in the face of withering criticism from the medical and public health communities. Aside from massively inconveniencing a handful of people the actual result is a bit of bad PR for the two, especially Christie. There has not been any lasting harm to the welfare of the public or to the health of the democracy as a result of this episode, which is essentially over now. The NYC press loves to catastrophize everything, but let&#039;s have a bit of perspective.
The annulment that the Catholic Church allows is a bit different from civil divorce, though. Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church, and once a sacrament is given it cannot be taken away. The couple remains married to each other spiritually for all eternity, even if they are allowed to no longer have anything to do with each other in life. And since they remain spiritually bonded, neither one can enter into marriage with anyone else.
They already do. The numerous Saints John are distinguished from each other by the use of their surnames, or for those who lived before the custom of surnames became common, an additional epithet or other unique identifier. As you can imagine, after two millennia and hundreds, if not thousands, of canonizations, there is a quite a lot of name duplication in the saints list.
Naw, either Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands.
Or all drivers. Apply for a MV operator&#039;s licence and say goodbye to your freedom.
Quarantine the doughnuts!
It&#039;s an epidemic of Kardashianuptualia !!!
Or Jebediah Springfield.
In that instance it was, because Pope Clement VII refused to grant Henry an annulment due to that prior dispensation. The initial dispensation permitting his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and the subsequent denial of Henry&#039;s petition for its annulment were based on the Catholic Church&#039;s <i>Canon</i> Law, which is distinguished from <i>spiritual</i> law. Canon Law refers to the Church&#039;s administrative laws and it was developed by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Spiritual law is derived from God and cannot be contravened.
&quot;Christie said he had &ldquo;no second thoughts&rdquo; This is a problem when your first thoughts are consistently wrong.
Bush III, The Resurgification.