Necessary Roughness Rotating Header Image

aardies

Paying for Consequences, Known and Unknown

The New York Times has an article about a vaccine that is quite successful against HPV, a family of viruses of which two have been demonstrated to cause cervical cancer. HPV is sexually transmitted.

Dr. Wheeler and most other public health specialists argue that vaccinating young girls and eventually, boys, before they become sexually active is the best overall prevention strategy and the most effective way to continue to research the vaccines’ efficacy (although no effectiveness studies have yet been done in males). But some conservative Christians oppose mandatory vaccination, and have argued that the vaccine would promote promiscuity and detract from their, and the Bush administration’s, abstinence messages in the United States and abroad.

I don’t oppose mandatory vaccination on religious grounds. I oppose the “mandatory” part of that on personal liberty grounds. Some vaccines are known to have side effects that in some cases can be worse than the original virus. Risks must be weighed. Schools will often not allow kids into school that aren’t vaccinated. That’s fine, because admission to a school is voluntary (even if the funding isn’t).

(more…)

InstapaperShare

Liturgy, Hymnody, Homily

“Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. — 1 Corinthians 10:23-24, NIV

By now most readers have taken a look at the service I attended Wednesday evening. Rather than take it play-by-play and say what I didn’t like about it, I think it’s more constructive to suggest positive practice.

(more…)

InstapaperShare

Here’s Hoping for Impartiality

Come the second weekend of January, unless I’m out of town, I’ll be donning the vertical black-and-white stripes to begin officiating another season of Upward basketball.

Being a referee has brought its share of experience and decisions. There have been instances where I’ve “known” a foul was probably made, but I had to call what hit my retinas. I’ve received criticism for calling games too tight, as if the NBA the kids watch is a showcase of rule obedience. Sometimes (not often) a kid can be so bad that calling has to be relaxed for that kid so that the game can continue, but that earns the ire of the parents with able kids who are held to a higher standard.

One thing I’ve not been accused of, thankfully, is favoritism, even in the occasional occurence of refereeing a niece or near relative. Favoritism in my opinion is not measured by how many calls “go” a certain way. Rather it is the deviation from the rules because a referee wants to see a certain result. It’s hard to prove because favoritism requires intent, but the first criteria must be deviation from the rules.

When “we” pick a Supreme Court nominee, we’re not picking the strongest players of the game. We are picking the referee. Someone who can hold the rules in his/her hand and determine against the text of the Constitution whether a behavior is explicitly allowed. They are not to change the rules, no matter how much a particular consequence is desired.

(more…)

InstapaperShare