Thursday, January 30, 2020
Capital punishment and why does the Church (Christianity) oppose it so much Essay Example for Free
Capital punishment and why does the Church (Christianity) oppose it so much Essay Man is a sacred and precious creature created by God. When God has created the Universe, light, the birds, animals, the trees, water and the earth, he had given a lot of importance to man. Evidence from the Bible suggests that God had left creating man as his final task, and after he had created man, God was so amazed, satisfied with himself and fulfilled with his own creation, that he decided to rest (on the Seventh day). Through his creation of man, he had provided a reflection of himself (The Old Testament: Genesis 1). In deed God has given a lot of importance to man, and no one has the right to take away or destroy the life this very special and beautiful creation of God.            Countries throughout the World are beginning to understand the importance of capital punishment and are slowly outlawing such laws. However, certain developed countries such as the US are still encouraging Capital punishment. The US had stopped capital punishment for some period of time (from 1972 to 1977). However, the practice resumed again following Gregg V. Georgia case (Horigan, 2004). Most of the states in the US permit Capital punishment only in very specific instances. However, the very existence of such an option in the judiciary system, does suggest the States Support to this inhuman act. The rate of execution in the US has dropped since the 1930’s, but this has no fully ended. The largest number of executions is performed by the State of Texas, and the highest percentage of the population executed by the State is Virginia (Robinson, 2006). The response of the US public to capital punishment is somewhat mixed. However, the reaction of the Canadian people to capital punishment was also similar, but the Country has abolished capital punishment. Depending on the seriousness of their crime, the crimes are imprisoned even for indefinite periods (Robinson, 2006). Canada has also shown that imposition of capital punishment does not necessarily result in a drop in the crime rates. The Japanese on the other which permit capital punishment have a crime rate much below that of the US. Hence, it can be demonstrated that capital punishment may not play an important role in crime (Robinson, 2006). In the US, many people who have been executed by the law, were found not even to be given a proper lawyer during their trials. Several states in the US that have capital punishment in their legal systems seem to have a higher criminal rate than those which do not have capital punishment (Robinson, 2006). People may feel that by incorporating capital punishment in their legal systems, the State is cheapening the value of human life. Hence, the crime rates in such states are on the rise. Several other factors such as poor socio-economic status, low educational levels, poor living conditions, etc, may be related with an increase in the crime rates.            The Church has seriously opposed the use of capital punishment in case of serious crime. Pope John Paul II has opposed the imposition of death penalty by the State (Dulles, 2001). Christians give a lot of importance to life and have opposed any action that could result in the ‘violation to the right to life’ such as murder, abortion, suicide, euthanasia, etc. Christians usually feel that as God has controlled life, no one including the Governments and the Courts can take away a human life.            In the Old Testament, death was specifically suggested to those who had sinned or committed offences (such as murder and adultery). The Sacred Covenant during Noah had mentioned that anyone who offenders and disobeys God be stoned or hanged to death. Several episodes in the Old Testament such as those of with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16), have given instances in which capital punishment was performed to penalize sinners. People who helped to execute the will of God by ending the life of the offenders were considered as Agents of God. Many Countries of the World still follow the Old Testament of capital punishment in penalizing serious crimes.            However, things have changed since the New Testament times. Although Jesus Christ had not spoken much about the use of capital punishment by the state, indirect instances are present in the New Testament which may suggest that Jesus was against the practice of capital punishment. One of these instances included the Stoning of a woman who had sinned. Jesus did not allow his disciples to pronounce curses of destruction of death on people who did not have feelings of love towards others. In John 19:11, Jesus told Pilate that he had the authority to sentence anybody who had sinned against God, and that Pilate had the right to fulfill God’s intentions. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus told Peter to put back his sword when he was arrested. Jesus even put back the soldier’s piece of ear, after Peter had cut it with his sword. In Luke 23: 41, Jesus tells the thief crucified on his side, that they were receiving punishment for the sins that they had committed on earth.            Christianity believed in the concept of ‘love thy neighbor as thy self’, and Jesus in his preaching expressed that this feeling should be extended to every aspect of life. We could potentially extent its application for use to prevent capital punishment. In the New Testament after Christ, there may be several instances in which capital punishment was encouraged. However, these instances may not directly support capital punishment. In Acts 5: 1-11, capital sentences were imposed because they disobeyed Simon Peter. The Letter to the Hebrews also encouraged the Mosaic Laws on capital punishment. St. Paul told the Romans that death sentence was a mean of expressing God’s intentions against sinners. However, there have also been instances in the New Testament in which the Church and Christians have opposed death sentence. During the early Christianity period, the Church did not approve Christians to function as executioners of death sentences (Dulles, 2001). St. Augustine felt that the Fifth Commandant should be utilized even to prevent execution of death sentences and killing of criminals. He wrote an entire book about Capital punishment named The City of God.            The idea of capital punishment changed a bit during the Middle Age. Christianity had some influence on the people, and the Courts were told to impose capital punishment only for people who committed serious crime. This was mainly as a self-defense mechanism to prevent the criminals from committing further crime and to ensure that the society was safe. Some of the theologists felt that capital punishment was more of a hatred act against the criminal than one to enable him to reform in the future (Dulles, 2001). Even though the Church opposed death sentence, it constituted a body to pronounce and capital punishment. The Church even conferred the State the power to issue death sentences in the later part of the 16th century. It derived this power from the Commandant â€Å"thou shall not murder†, and it was performed in several instances. Slowly the Church began to approve capital punishment only in the case the criminal committed a serious crime. Slowly the attitude of the Church towards capital punishment began to change as they felt that life was a precious gift given by God and it was morally wrong to take one’s life for sins committed. The Italian thinker Gino Concetti, wrote a Book L’Osservatore Romano in 1977, demonstrating the importance and sacredness of God-given life. He said that humans could not destroy the life of another human, and even the criminals who had performed serious crimes should not be punished with death sentence.  He said that there should not be any circumstance in which capital punishment was justified as no person had the right to take the life of another and destroy one of God’s precious creations. We should be able to respect the view that God is expressing himself in man. This work had really changed the attitudes of Christians and the Church towards capital punishment. Many people felt that the Church itself did not respect or identify this view of life before. There was a uproar against capital punishment in the 20th century in Europe. Several European countries who believed in Christianity began to incorporate the latest teachings and beliefs of the Church in their Legal systems. The Governments began to underhand the importance of life (Dulles, 2001). Since, the criminal is also a human being; he is a precious creation of God and has a reflection of God in himself. His actions have an element of God expressed in it. Hence, it would be morally wrong to even punish the most serious criminals with capital punishment. In the Old Testament, the view that a criminal action should be punished with a similar action by the law-enforcement agency existed. However, a person may be expressing the Will of God through his actions.            Christianity has developed over a long period, and now it does not permit both, direct destruction (taking the life of a specific person) and indirect destruction (actions performed without the intention of killing another person). In some instances, taking the life of another person by mistake may be pardoned by the Church. The Church is also against any individuals taking the life of another on the advice of the State (Pesenke, 1981). God does not allow one human to take the life of another because God is the creator of the human beings and can create or destroy a life. Any person who takes the life of another with a mental intention is sinning against God. A Human life is the most precious work of God, and destroying it would be against the Will of God. No political or legal body in the World has the right to interfere with God’s creation. It is not justified for any Court or King to take the life of any individual including a criminal.            Many countries feel that capital punishment should be permitted at least to end the life of criminals who committed serious crimes. They may also be considering that it would be a cheaper option to end the life of such criminals than to punish them with life-imprisonment. However, the legal and the political systems should not cheapen human life, and should consider them as important to God. Having capital punishment options in the legal system is not going to reduce crimes. It is essential that the Government provides a socio-economic environment that may permit development and reduce frustration of the people.            The Jews believed firmly in capital punishment and permitted it following murders, adultery, worship of idols, war crimes, and kidnapping. They feel that capital punishment would ensure that the society is safer from the actions of the criminals in the future. They also feel that anybody who destroys God-given creations should be punished with death sentence. A counsel usually issues death sentences in Jewish courts. The court will examine the criminal during the trial and 2 neutral witnesses should provide evidence for the case. As the process of issuing capital punishment under Jewish laws is very stringent, such sentences may usually occur less frequently. In several situations (such as wars, emergencies, dealing with non-Jewish criminals, etc), the stringent process is relaxed and death sentences are issued more easily. In such situations Noah-Laws are usually applicable. Usually just one neutral witness is required (FAQ, 2006). During the later part of the 20th century, Jewish thinkers began to oppose the use of capital punishment by the legal system. The ideas of Christian theologists are now being followed by the Jewish thinkers with regard to death sentence. Only in extremely serious crimes are capital punishment allowed by Jewish courts (FAQ, 2006).            Capital punishment is not only an ineffective way of dealing with crime (as it does not reduce the crime rate), but is also an immature way (as hatred and revenge are spread). It also cheapens the importance of God-given life. The Government should look at alternative to punish or reform the criminals. References: Dulles, A. C. (2001). â€Å"Catholicism Capital Punishment.†First Things 112, 30-35. http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175%20 FAQ (2006). Question 12.21: What is the Jewish position on Capital Punishment? Retrieved on April 8, 2007, from FAQ.org Web site: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance from Web site: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/06-Jewish-Thought/section-22.html Horigan, D. P. (1996). Buddhism Capital Punishment. Retrieved on April 8, 2007, from The Engaged Zen Foundation from Web site: http://www.engaged-zen.org/articles/Damien_P_Horigan-Buddhism_Capital_Punishment.html Pesenke, H. C. (1981). Christian Ethics: Volume II – Special Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II, Bangalore: TPI. Robinson, B. A. (2006). Facts about capital punishment: Part 1: data trends. Retrieved on April 8, 2007, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance from Web site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut3.htm The Bible Gateway (2007). Genesis 1 (New International Version). Retrieved on April 8, 2007, from The Bible Gateway from Web site: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Reflections Based on the Work of Bernard Lonergan :: Bernard Lonegran Essays
Reflections Based on the Work of Bernard Lonergan ABSTRACT: The theory of agency, it has been claimed, seems to involve two strange notions: on the one hand, that of a self who is not merely an event, but a substance; and that of causation, according to which an agent, who is a substance, can nevertheless be the cause of an event. The understanding of the conscious subject as constituted by the operations of experience, understanding, judgment and decision, proposed by the Canadian philosopher and theologian, Bernard Lonergan, might resolve the puzzle, and provide the basis for an understanding of human freedom that is the affirmation of neither determinism nor arbitrariness. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments in the proposal's favor is that any attempt to refute it in theory would entail its adoption in practice. I. Introduction The theme of freedom is an early and enduring one in the works of the Canadian philosopher and theologian, Bernard J. F. Lonergan (1904-1984). It was the subject of his 1940 doctoral dissertation at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome (subsequently published as Grace and Freedom in 1971). Lonergan devoted further explicit attention to the topic in his study of human understanding, Insight, and again, in 1972, in Method in Theology. Since the focus of the doctoral thesis is centred on supernatural grace, I shall turn to the two later works, and other articles, for the elaboration of Lonergan's understanding of human freedom. II. Consciousness and Subjectivity What Lonergan wants to propose concerning human freedom cannot be understood apart from his view of the human subject who is free. In many ways, in fact, Lonergan's understanding of freedom, like his cognitional theory and his theological methodology, is simply an application of a more basic theory of subjectivity. In Lonergan's view, while there is a great emphasis on the human subject in contemporary philosophy, the understanding attained is either incomplete or mistaken. The study of the subject is nothing other than the study of oneself inasmuch as one is conscious, and should proceed as follows: It attends to operations and to their centre and source which is the self. It discerns the different levels of consciousness, the consciousness of the dream, of the waking subject, of the intelligently inquiring subject, of the rationally reflecting subject, of the responsibly deliberating subject. It examines the different operations on the different levels and their relations to one another. One's view of human subjectivity will be inaccurate or mistaken to the degree that one either does not advert to all the different operations of consciousness, or to their inter-relationship.
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Health Care System Evolution
This paper is an overview about the evolution of the US health care system from the Great Depression to the current Health Reform Bill. I will give an understanding to Medicare and Medicaid program, which also will include a history of these two programs. Even though these two programs are a very complex in helping many poor, elderly, people with certain disabilities, and as well as low income pregnant women they are getting the care that they need as well as what they deserve. Health Care System Evolution, Medicare/Medicaid. Without the introduction of Medicare/Medicaid in July 1965 there would be many problems in the United States today. We would probably have disease outbreaks, and a large population without any health cost coverage. I believe that many people would not go to see a doctor because the cost of private medical care would be too expensive. I also believe that if Medicare and Medicaid did not come into existence that there would be mast amount of death in this country. Between the Great Depression through July 1965 health care had numerous debates in this country. In the 1930s a third-party payer health insurance was introduced including Blue Cross and Blue Shield and others to cover the cost of care in the event of illness or accidents. This only helped the people who could afford private insurance. The United States still was in need of helping the poor and uninsured. In the 1930s the Social Security Act supported public health care for just mothers and children. There was still a great demand to help all other uninsured people. After World War II the government supported and idea for public financed health insurance. In 1959 the Department of Health and Human Services helped in providing hospital insurance to Social Security beneficiaries. In the early 1960s Congress passed the Kerr-Mills bill, which helped the elderly that weren’t the poorest but who still needed assistance with medical expenses. President John F. Kennedy helped in the start of the 1965 bill for Medicare and Medicaid. This bill was known as the King-Anderson bill. This amended the Social Security Act and this covered hospital and nursing home costs for people over the age of 65. In July 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Amendment into law. With that signing of this law came the introduction of Medicare and Medicaid. Today Medicare/Medicaid has helped millions of elderly, low-income people, people with certain disabilities, and low-income pregnant women have health care because of this law. This program helps pay for services such as hospitals, physician visits, and preventive benefits. Medicaid and Medicare are two of the most enduring social programs in the US, providing different services to different groups of people. †1 Medicaid is a state administrated program, so each state varies in there program. Medicaid is also based on their income. Unfortunately, if their income is too high they will not be eligible for Medicaid. In 1990 the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that requires state Medicaid care program s to cover the premiums for children ages six to eighteen whose family’s income is between 100-120% the federal poverty level. In 1997 the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was introduced. This program helps states to receive federal money for uninsured children whose families are not eligible for Medicaid due to their income exceeds the limit for Medicaid. In 1976 formed the Health Care Financing Administration which is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, then in 2001 the name was changed to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare is a social insurance program that provides health coverage to individuals, without regard to their income or health status. †3 Medicare provides health insurance to people over the age of 65, people with certain types of disabilities and people of all ages with kidney failure. The Medicare program is funded two ways, one by people that paid into most of their working lives by payroll tax revenues, and secondly premiums paid by beneficiaries of the Medicare program. â€Å"Medicare has been one of the fastest growing federal programs. 2 Medicare is broken down to four parts, Part A is the hospital insurance and with this part of insurance all persons aged 65 and older are automatically entitled to this benefit. Part A is broken down to inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health agency and hospice care. Part B is a supplementary medical insurance, which is available to people over the age of 65, which people must paid for through monthly premiums. Part C is the Medicare Advantage that is a set of options for health care under a managed care plan. Then in 2006 Medicare put into law a plan for prescription drugs which is Part D. With these two programs in the United States today helps the poor, elderly, people with certain disabilities get the care that they need and deserve. Today with unemployment at all time high and many baby boomers that will be in need of some type of health insurance; the inception of a new health plan became law. In the year 2010, President Obama signed into law the Health Reform Bill. This will give health insurance to all people. This reform will strengthen Medicare benefits by providing lower prescription drug costs and this will also give a chance to the people who didn’t qualify for Medicaid received the care they need. The reform law will help with Medicare/Medicaid fraud as well as stopping the abuse of Medicare/Medicaid to save taxpayers money. Medicare and Medicaid have come a long way from the Great Depression. I know that there are many abuses within the system and with this new reform bill I do hope that this system will change, because everyone deserves that right health care and to be a healthy person.
Monday, January 6, 2020
Third-Person Pronouns Definition and Examples
In English grammar, third-person pronouns refer to people or things other than the speaker (or writer) and the person(s) addressed. In contemporary standard English, these are the third-person pronouns: He, she, it, one (singular personal pronouns in the subjective case)They (plural personal pronoun in the subjective case)Him, her, it, one (singular personal pronouns in the objective case)Them (plural personal pronoun in the objective case)His, hers (singular possessive pronouns)Theirs (plural possessive pronoun)Himself, herself, itself, oneself (singular reflexive/intensive pronouns)Themselves (plural reflexive/intensive pronoun) In addition, his, her, its, ones, and their are the singular and plural third-person possessive determiners. Unlike first-person (I, our, we, us, ours) and second-person pronouns (you, your, yours), third-person pronouns in the singular are marked for gender: he and she, him and her, his and hers, himself and herself. Formal vs. Informal Usage Third-person pronouns are often used formally or impersonally, where the second person you might be used in more informal contexts. In spoken English, youll often hear people use the plural they and their to agree with collective nouns (which are singular), but its not typically considered correct to do so, especially in formal written English. For example, youd write, The business just started using its new system, rather than their. The Singular They There is disagreement on the topic of whether they should ever be allowed to be singular, however. Authors Kersti Bà ¶rjars and Kate Burridge, in Introducing English Grammar, illustrate pronoun usage and take up that debate: Note that although it is true to say that first person refers to speaker/writer, second person to hearer/reader and third person to third parties, English shows some untypical uses....[Y]ou can be used to refer to people in general (preferable in some varieties of English to the indefinite one), e.g., Chocolate is actually good for you; in special cases of extreme politeness third person forms can be used to refer to the hearer (a kind of distancing technique), e.g. If Madam so desires, she could have the waist taken in a little; they often appear as a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, e.g., If anyone wants it, they can have pavlova with extra whipped cream. We often hear the argument that this singular they is grammatically incorrect because a plural pronoun shouldnt refer back to a singular word and that he should be used instead, but clearly, this is linguistically unfounded. As weve just discussed, English has many examples where for special purposes pronouns depart f rom their central meaningâ€â€as so often is the case, there is no perfect match between form and meaning here. If youre writing for a class or for publication, find out whether guidelines allow for third-person they and their in singular contexts before using the convention, as its not widely accepted in formal, professional writing. However, it is gaining a toehold there and is sometimes also used in contexts where people need to refer to someone who does not identify with a gender-specific pronoun, explains the 17th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style. Singular they usage is more commonly accepted in British English than American English. The Origin of Third-Person Pronouns English does not have a singular gender-neutral pronoun, which is the role that the usage of the singular they is trying to fill. The reason involves the history of the English language and how it adopted conventions from other languages as it evolved. Author Simon Horobin, in How English Became English, explains: Where Latin loanwords were predominantly lexical wordsâ€â€nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbsâ€â€Old Norse loans included grammatical items such as pronouns, conjunctions, and prepositions....The most striking effect of this contact is the adoption into English of the Old Norse third-person plural pronouns, they, their, and them, which replaced the Old English equivalents to enable clearer distinctions between the third person plural pronouns hie (they), hi ra (their), him (them), and the pronouns he, her, and him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)