http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7822794.stm
The news that all travelers to the US will be required to fill out an online visa application 72 hours prior to departure struck me as a foolish move for a country in the depths of what can only be described as an economic crisis. While the system itself is not necessarily a bad idea as an alternative to in-flight paperwork, the notion that those needing to travel on short notice will no longer have the traditional option is frankly idiotic. Each weekend airlines fill their empty seats with cheap deals from spontaneous travelers wishing for city breaks in DC, New York, Boston and Philadelphia. A 72 hour cut off will deter many of these travelers, cutting off much needed revenue from hotels and other tourist infrastructure. At a time when hotels are finding themselves empty, such a move could be disastrous. Not all short notice travelers do so for fun. It is unclear what would occur if an individual needed to visit a dying family member or attend a funeral. A restriction of that sort seems morally dubious to say the very least.
The other group of passengers that it harms are business travelers. On many occasions I have found myself in-flight less than 72 hours after being told that the company needed me elsewhere. Business moves quickly and investment is often a decision made on very short notice. In the middle of an economic downturn such an imposition on business travel can hardly be a move that will stimulate economic resurgence.
A third group of passengers could also be harmed – the ill prepared. The foreign office is concerned that many of those traveling will simply not know, or understand the restrictions. This could lead to chaos in US airports and an unfortunate number of deportations. Fears also abound that it will harm the economies of US border towns. Tourists that are visiting Canada (Vancouver for instance) will be far less likely to plan ahead for the US Visa-waiver that they will now need for a day trip to anywhere south of the border (Seattle for instance). As I am sure you can all understand, I have the least possible sympathy for this particular group, though I am not anxious for their woes to impede my travel.
There are several positives to such an online system however. In theory it will speed up the immigration process as agents will know who to question in greater depth, there will be one fewer irritating announcement that disrupts the final attempt at sleep prior to landing and possibly, just possibly, it will increase security in a less invasive manner than other US policies. This can only be a positive. No one is hoping for a repeat of the disasters of the past decade and such security checks are an inevitable part of the peace of mind we all enjoy. That having been said, a system without a provision for spur of the moment or necessity driven travel is a system that is broken and that will inevitably lead to problems.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Atheism - A Primer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm
After reading the BBC story linked above, I got angry for the umpteenth time about something that has been niggling me ever since this campaign started. It's quite simple people, if you believe in a God, you're a theist, more than one, a polytheist, and if you believe there is not even a single God, then you are an atheist. Pretty simple, right?
Evidently not. Everyone from the BBC to the individuals responsible to the ads are referring to them as ads for Atheism. Let’s check again what they actually say. ‘There’s probably no God.’ Enter Thomas Henry Huxley. For those of you who are unfamiliar, I strongly recommend reading the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley. This great man, a bastion of the scientific community, coined the term agnostic and to this day it is perhaps best described in his own words:
‘When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.’
Personally, I am tired of individuals describing those signs as Atheistic. They are not. If anything they represent a weak agnosticism founded upon doubt. What surprises me about the complaint made against them is that they are the best thing that could have happened to the church. Most individuals who see those signs will not be readily influenced by them, however, a significant number of people will see them and begin to think. This thought will lead them to their vicar, to the bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or to their preferred religious format, whatever that may be. As a result, it is not an advertisement that wins the argument, simply one that raises its profile, calling out the troops on either side in the search for truth. Personally, as many of you will know, I am an agnostic, but should new evidence emerge, I will always be willing to listen.
After reading the BBC story linked above, I got angry for the umpteenth time about something that has been niggling me ever since this campaign started. It's quite simple people, if you believe in a God, you're a theist, more than one, a polytheist, and if you believe there is not even a single God, then you are an atheist. Pretty simple, right?
Evidently not. Everyone from the BBC to the individuals responsible to the ads are referring to them as ads for Atheism. Let’s check again what they actually say. ‘There’s probably no God.’ Enter Thomas Henry Huxley. For those of you who are unfamiliar, I strongly recommend reading the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley. This great man, a bastion of the scientific community, coined the term agnostic and to this day it is perhaps best described in his own words:
‘When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.’
Personally, I am tired of individuals describing those signs as Atheistic. They are not. If anything they represent a weak agnosticism founded upon doubt. What surprises me about the complaint made against them is that they are the best thing that could have happened to the church. Most individuals who see those signs will not be readily influenced by them, however, a significant number of people will see them and begin to think. This thought will lead them to their vicar, to the bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or to their preferred religious format, whatever that may be. As a result, it is not an advertisement that wins the argument, simply one that raises its profile, calling out the troops on either side in the search for truth. Personally, as many of you will know, I am an agnostic, but should new evidence emerge, I will always be willing to listen.
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Video Games as Culture and Society
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7821612.stm
In reading the news over the past few days I have become increasingly interested in the rise of the video game as a cultural medium and the moral messages they include. As a member of the video game generation, they have always been a part of my cultural experience. The years that certain games emerged and the systems that went with them, had a definitive effect on the manner in which I socialised and the way in which I interacted with other members of my generation. I have never been convinced that video games breed violent or inapropriate behaviour, or at least, no more so than any other medium. Movies, books and television play a similar role in our society and, in my mind, it would be helpful if more people saw them as equals rather than in an artistic hierarchy. That having been said, there is an extent to which a virtual environment in which you are able to make your own moral decisions, and in which these moral decisions have a specific outcome on the extent to which you are rewarded/punished may well have a stronger influence on future behaviour.
More modern games, especially those that are designed as simulators for an actual society (rpgs, mmorps, etc.) seem to be taking increased notice of systems of morality and in doing so could be said to be helping to address a long standing problem in the genre. I call it a problem in the sense that it provides a greater degree of realism with a system of morality in place, than a traditional video game would display. What is interesting for me and specifically my studies is that the systems employed are almost always simple systems of Kantian ethics. There are a series of rules that cannot be broken and, if one breaks them, a set punishment is allotted for the breaking of those rules. In many cases the punishment is the loss of life, or a fine. In others, perhaps games with a more advanced system, the retribution can be in the form of loss of standing or opportunity and in a very few, being stonewalled or met with open hostility by certain sections of the programming.
Mmorps seem to take ethics to a different level. World of Warcraft, for instance, allows a degree immoral behaviour to occur, but associates it with risk. Player killers exist in almost every game of this type, though their are usually a sufficient number of disincentives to discourage such behaviour. If such societal retribution is not sufficient, i.e. the moderators or program itself does not take direct action, then the emergence of society based on mutual protection can be seen. Players group together in guilds specifically designed to usurp power from other unruly players and fight back against those that have harmed them in the past. Retributive justice is taken into the hands of society at large with little account for the state or how the situation might more effectively be managed.
A full scale study of such phenomena would no doubt be fascinating. A blank world with the opportunity for colonisation and the emergence of powerful players with vassals and governmental systems. Would stable governements emerge? Surely the game would begin as life was described by Hobbes, 'Nasty, brutish, and short.' Later a social contract might make an appearance, a form of end user license agreement to force players to obey certain rules and regulations. In any case the amount that could be learnt by philosophers about morals and government would be invaluable. Our culture given a fresh start, allowed to develop from a blank state, into whatever government that may emerge.
In reading the news over the past few days I have become increasingly interested in the rise of the video game as a cultural medium and the moral messages they include. As a member of the video game generation, they have always been a part of my cultural experience. The years that certain games emerged and the systems that went with them, had a definitive effect on the manner in which I socialised and the way in which I interacted with other members of my generation. I have never been convinced that video games breed violent or inapropriate behaviour, or at least, no more so than any other medium. Movies, books and television play a similar role in our society and, in my mind, it would be helpful if more people saw them as equals rather than in an artistic hierarchy. That having been said, there is an extent to which a virtual environment in which you are able to make your own moral decisions, and in which these moral decisions have a specific outcome on the extent to which you are rewarded/punished may well have a stronger influence on future behaviour.
More modern games, especially those that are designed as simulators for an actual society (rpgs, mmorps, etc.) seem to be taking increased notice of systems of morality and in doing so could be said to be helping to address a long standing problem in the genre. I call it a problem in the sense that it provides a greater degree of realism with a system of morality in place, than a traditional video game would display. What is interesting for me and specifically my studies is that the systems employed are almost always simple systems of Kantian ethics. There are a series of rules that cannot be broken and, if one breaks them, a set punishment is allotted for the breaking of those rules. In many cases the punishment is the loss of life, or a fine. In others, perhaps games with a more advanced system, the retribution can be in the form of loss of standing or opportunity and in a very few, being stonewalled or met with open hostility by certain sections of the programming.
Mmorps seem to take ethics to a different level. World of Warcraft, for instance, allows a degree immoral behaviour to occur, but associates it with risk. Player killers exist in almost every game of this type, though their are usually a sufficient number of disincentives to discourage such behaviour. If such societal retribution is not sufficient, i.e. the moderators or program itself does not take direct action, then the emergence of society based on mutual protection can be seen. Players group together in guilds specifically designed to usurp power from other unruly players and fight back against those that have harmed them in the past. Retributive justice is taken into the hands of society at large with little account for the state or how the situation might more effectively be managed.
A full scale study of such phenomena would no doubt be fascinating. A blank world with the opportunity for colonisation and the emergence of powerful players with vassals and governmental systems. Would stable governements emerge? Surely the game would begin as life was described by Hobbes, 'Nasty, brutish, and short.' Later a social contract might make an appearance, a form of end user license agreement to force players to obey certain rules and regulations. In any case the amount that could be learnt by philosophers about morals and government would be invaluable. Our culture given a fresh start, allowed to develop from a blank state, into whatever government that may emerge.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Israeli Military Action
I recently read an article on the BBC website that asked the question; in Gaza, who is a civilian? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7811386.stm I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the writing and the depth of the analysis and would highly recommend it to all readers. The only frustrating part of the article was the lack of a conclusion. Certainly the author brought into question whether the war was just (namely on the grounds of proportional response and minimizing civilian casualties) but she made no attempt at answering the question she herself had set. Admittedly it is perhaps the most difficult and critical question in an age that has seen warfare change drastically. It is easy to become outraged by stories of children being killed by bombs that failed to destroy an obviously military target. What is difficult is how to judge, for instance, the destruction of the science laboratories at the Islamic University or the slaughter of over 40 Police Officer Trainees on their parade ground.
In the first case the destruction of the science labs was purported to be due to their use in weapons research. Firstly, I think it is very easy to claim that almost any scientific research is weapons based. Certainly anything that can be labeled physics, chemistry, or engineering. As a reason for destruction I think it is inexcusable unless the following conditions are met; either that proof can be provided that weapons are being manufactured in those facilities, or that the weapons being researched are banned by international treaties etc. In either case, the international community has every right to demand proof as a reason for destruction. Destruction of University buildings seems particularly foolish from several other standpoints. Most of the young, liberal and educated Palestinians living in Gaza will have some sort of connection to the University. These are the individuals that ultimately could be expected to be the supporters of moderate government and peaceful coexistence with Israel. Destruction of an educational facility is likely to encourage many of them to adopt conservative views and, at the very least, view future interaction with Israel with increased skepticism.
The Police Trainees are an exceptionally difficult case. The Israeli government has claimed that many of them are also terrorists of some description and even that they have taken part in past rocket attacks. Once again they have made these claims without offering any form of proof to the international community. In addition, these were individuals being trained in first aid, riot prevention and generally in keeping the peace in a community that badly needs them. Such individuals are most likely to do far more good than harm, particularly as Israel has been unwilling to indicate how many of the forty they suspected.
The last thing I wish to touch on is proportionality. Since 2001 only 18 Israelis have died from rocket fire. The newest reports from Gaza have indicated that over 700 Palestinians have been killed since the beginning of this assault. I completely fail to see how this can be justified as proportional. The Israeli government has claimed that the political wing of Hamas is just as culpable as the terrorist wing and therefore all of the governmental agencies it controls are legitimate targets. Best as I can judge, this is Israel begging the rest of the Islamic world for a fight and I would be astounded if the recent rocket fire from Lebanon proved to be the last.
In the first case the destruction of the science labs was purported to be due to their use in weapons research. Firstly, I think it is very easy to claim that almost any scientific research is weapons based. Certainly anything that can be labeled physics, chemistry, or engineering. As a reason for destruction I think it is inexcusable unless the following conditions are met; either that proof can be provided that weapons are being manufactured in those facilities, or that the weapons being researched are banned by international treaties etc. In either case, the international community has every right to demand proof as a reason for destruction. Destruction of University buildings seems particularly foolish from several other standpoints. Most of the young, liberal and educated Palestinians living in Gaza will have some sort of connection to the University. These are the individuals that ultimately could be expected to be the supporters of moderate government and peaceful coexistence with Israel. Destruction of an educational facility is likely to encourage many of them to adopt conservative views and, at the very least, view future interaction with Israel with increased skepticism.
The Police Trainees are an exceptionally difficult case. The Israeli government has claimed that many of them are also terrorists of some description and even that they have taken part in past rocket attacks. Once again they have made these claims without offering any form of proof to the international community. In addition, these were individuals being trained in first aid, riot prevention and generally in keeping the peace in a community that badly needs them. Such individuals are most likely to do far more good than harm, particularly as Israel has been unwilling to indicate how many of the forty they suspected.
The last thing I wish to touch on is proportionality. Since 2001 only 18 Israelis have died from rocket fire. The newest reports from Gaza have indicated that over 700 Palestinians have been killed since the beginning of this assault. I completely fail to see how this can be justified as proportional. The Israeli government has claimed that the political wing of Hamas is just as culpable as the terrorist wing and therefore all of the governmental agencies it controls are legitimate targets. Best as I can judge, this is Israel begging the rest of the Islamic world for a fight and I would be astounded if the recent rocket fire from Lebanon proved to be the last.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Faith and Reason in the Moral Philosophy of Anselm of Canterbury
I suppose I should begin by admitting that this will no doubt be of little or no interest to the vast majority of you who read this blog. However, it is an idea that has occupied a considerable amount of my thought of late, so writing it up seemed the only alternative. This idea is very much half baked, be warned...
One of the common areas of concern in Medieval Moral Philosophy is the point at which rationality is supposed to end and faith is supposed to begin. It is quite clear from the writings of Anselm of Canterbury that he does not wish for man to rely on faith alone in moral matters. Indeed, God has given man the capacity of reason in order (partially) to discern moral truths and to decide what the best moral actions are. What is also clear is that Anselm believes that faith has an important role to play in such moral decisions. He certainly would not have sanctioned activities that were 'unchristian' and goes to great lengths to show that going against the will of God is the greatest sin. The question then becomes one of where reason ends and faith begins.
Now this is not a topic that Anselm addresses with great clarity so a certain degree of guess work must take place. When discussing the truth, Anselm states that the senses do not lie but that the soul can. Perhaps this is the cue for when faith must play its most critical role. If man cannot rely upon his soul to empirically interpret his surroundings, then he must derive the assurances necessary for action from another source. Faith usurps reason only at the point that reason becomes unreliable – when we convert what we believe we know into action. At such a point surety of correct moral action becomes impossible and it is here that Anselm's conception of will becomes especially important. For Anselm, 'uprightness of will' is an end unto itself and the only worthwhile reason for good moral action. Faith then, is what allows the moral agent to have confidence in their 'uprightness of will'. It allows them to act secure in the knowledge that, even if they cannot trust their senses, they can trust their motivation and therefore their moral action.
In such a model it is not that faith provides us with a different course of action than reason, but rather, faith provides us with the assurance that reasoned action is morally right action. It is worth pointing out that the action may still be less than perfect. Anselm allows that the right action, committed for the right reason, may occur to the wrong person. This, while unfortunate and unjust towards that individual, is, to Anselm's mind, still a just action as long as it truly is a case of mistaken identity etc. Faith mitigates these fears further. For Anselm, it leaves one secure in one's actions and able to act in the knowledge that the action will be just.
One of the common areas of concern in Medieval Moral Philosophy is the point at which rationality is supposed to end and faith is supposed to begin. It is quite clear from the writings of Anselm of Canterbury that he does not wish for man to rely on faith alone in moral matters. Indeed, God has given man the capacity of reason in order (partially) to discern moral truths and to decide what the best moral actions are. What is also clear is that Anselm believes that faith has an important role to play in such moral decisions. He certainly would not have sanctioned activities that were 'unchristian' and goes to great lengths to show that going against the will of God is the greatest sin. The question then becomes one of where reason ends and faith begins.
Now this is not a topic that Anselm addresses with great clarity so a certain degree of guess work must take place. When discussing the truth, Anselm states that the senses do not lie but that the soul can. Perhaps this is the cue for when faith must play its most critical role. If man cannot rely upon his soul to empirically interpret his surroundings, then he must derive the assurances necessary for action from another source. Faith usurps reason only at the point that reason becomes unreliable – when we convert what we believe we know into action. At such a point surety of correct moral action becomes impossible and it is here that Anselm's conception of will becomes especially important. For Anselm, 'uprightness of will' is an end unto itself and the only worthwhile reason for good moral action. Faith then, is what allows the moral agent to have confidence in their 'uprightness of will'. It allows them to act secure in the knowledge that, even if they cannot trust their senses, they can trust their motivation and therefore their moral action.
In such a model it is not that faith provides us with a different course of action than reason, but rather, faith provides us with the assurance that reasoned action is morally right action. It is worth pointing out that the action may still be less than perfect. Anselm allows that the right action, committed for the right reason, may occur to the wrong person. This, while unfortunate and unjust towards that individual, is, to Anselm's mind, still a just action as long as it truly is a case of mistaken identity etc. Faith mitigates these fears further. For Anselm, it leaves one secure in one's actions and able to act in the knowledge that the action will be just.
Monday, 5 January 2009
Political Ramblings
This morning, in the course of my normal pot of coffee and waking up period, I read Gene Stone's recent book, The 12-Step Bush Recovery Program. It had its charms though it fell foul of one of my pet peeves – constantly using propaganda to denounce propaganda. On the plus side, it got me thinking of the election and an argument that I had with almost all of my friends in the United States. As almost everyone who reads this blog will know, I am an American citizen. When it comes to election times, I have something of a novel approach to voting. I actually vote for the candidate that best expresses my place on the political spectrum. What has constantly astonished me is that many individuals do not. To them it is a two party system and their choices are entirely limited to whichever candidate they decide is the lesser of two evils. Some call this a cynical form of Pragmatism. I consider it the greatest marketing job of the last century. From my, rather informal, conversations with any number of Americans I feel safe in saying that a third party could quite happily arise if such a fallacy could be dispelled. Although interesting, that is not the question I intended to address. What I have been wondering for the past few months is whether individuals have a moral obligation to vote for their beliefs, or alternatively whether they have a moral obligation to vote negatively (against the candidate they feel will do the most damage).
My problem with negative voting, a symptom of many Republicans and Democrats, is that the true will of the people is not being expressed. In the short term, it causes candidates to be elected who have a small genuine mandate and who are extremely centrist. It distorts the political spectrum by allowing candidates who stand for very little or who differ from their opponents in comparatively minor ways a very good chance of success. As an end result, the will of the people is only shown in terms of denial. Rather than candidates that the people want, they simply ensure they do not get what they do not want. This has the further disadvantage of stifling the range of political debate, leaving the national conversation of where America should be heading stilted and with most of the electorate ill-informed of its full range of options.
On the one hand there is a strong moral case for avoiding the worst case scenario, that is for the prevention of harms. On the other, there would seem to be an equally strong case for the promotion of good deeds and the even greater prevention of harms. I suppose it becomes something of a gamble. Do you want a fairly good chance of avoiding harm, or do you want a slimmer chance of promoting active good? Personally I have always chosen the latter and hopefully my vote as one that they didn't receive has caused the two main political parties to examine their positions on various issues and understand that they did not do enough for my vote and that therefore I am not willing to cast it in their favor. I can only hope that some day more of my compatriots are willing to do the same and encourage a genuine political spectrum and therefore genuine political debate to develop.
My problem with negative voting, a symptom of many Republicans and Democrats, is that the true will of the people is not being expressed. In the short term, it causes candidates to be elected who have a small genuine mandate and who are extremely centrist. It distorts the political spectrum by allowing candidates who stand for very little or who differ from their opponents in comparatively minor ways a very good chance of success. As an end result, the will of the people is only shown in terms of denial. Rather than candidates that the people want, they simply ensure they do not get what they do not want. This has the further disadvantage of stifling the range of political debate, leaving the national conversation of where America should be heading stilted and with most of the electorate ill-informed of its full range of options.
On the one hand there is a strong moral case for avoiding the worst case scenario, that is for the prevention of harms. On the other, there would seem to be an equally strong case for the promotion of good deeds and the even greater prevention of harms. I suppose it becomes something of a gamble. Do you want a fairly good chance of avoiding harm, or do you want a slimmer chance of promoting active good? Personally I have always chosen the latter and hopefully my vote as one that they didn't receive has caused the two main political parties to examine their positions on various issues and understand that they did not do enough for my vote and that therefore I am not willing to cast it in their favor. I can only hope that some day more of my compatriots are willing to do the same and encourage a genuine political spectrum and therefore genuine political debate to develop.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Vatican Law
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7807501.stm
The timing of this announcement from the Vatican seems somewhat auspicious given my previous post. It seems that the Vatican has thrown off Italian Law and is seeking to pick and choose their own laws from standard Italian Law and as their religion dictates.
This has a number of potentially damaging ramifications. The most worrying perhaps is that the Vatican is, in essence, codifying a series of ideal Catholic Laws. Such a move will potentially cause many Catholics to find themselves in an even more difficult quandary, should Vatican Law differ from the laws of their home states. Of course, many would say that every religious individual living in a secular society has always lived in this position. There would seem to be a difference however between often loosely defined and interpretive religious beliefs and a codified series of laws aimed directly at modern life. The main potential pitfalls centre around family issues such as divorce, abortion, and contraception. It will be interesting in future years to see if the Vatican exerts further pressure on other mainly Catholic nations (Malta is a prime example) to adopt similar laws to those held by the Vatican itself.
This having been said, it is difficult to imagine that the Vatican will act with temporal force that it has in previous centuries. Should they choose to however, it is unclear how the world would respond.
The timing of this announcement from the Vatican seems somewhat auspicious given my previous post. It seems that the Vatican has thrown off Italian Law and is seeking to pick and choose their own laws from standard Italian Law and as their religion dictates.
This has a number of potentially damaging ramifications. The most worrying perhaps is that the Vatican is, in essence, codifying a series of ideal Catholic Laws. Such a move will potentially cause many Catholics to find themselves in an even more difficult quandary, should Vatican Law differ from the laws of their home states. Of course, many would say that every religious individual living in a secular society has always lived in this position. There would seem to be a difference however between often loosely defined and interpretive religious beliefs and a codified series of laws aimed directly at modern life. The main potential pitfalls centre around family issues such as divorce, abortion, and contraception. It will be interesting in future years to see if the Vatican exerts further pressure on other mainly Catholic nations (Malta is a prime example) to adopt similar laws to those held by the Vatican itself.
This having been said, it is difficult to imagine that the Vatican will act with temporal force that it has in previous centuries. Should they choose to however, it is unclear how the world would respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
