What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Let's be sure not to be human, now

Reader Mike T. suggested that someone here blog about this story. Probably readers have already seen it. Firemen and police weren't "allowed" (the scare quotes are intentional) to rescue a suicidal man from the water because of legal worries leading to departmental rules against water rescue. You see, they aren't certified in land-based water rescue, so they could be sued (heaven forbid) if they tried to rescue someone from the water. What, exactly, might happen that would lead to a lawsuit isn't clear. It's not as though the man could sue them for not letting him die. But suppose he struggled, and he inhaled some water, and then he sued them for trying to rescue him and precipitating the situation. Who knows? I'm just making up a scenario in which they could be sued. Presumably the department would have fired anyone who tried to rescue the man, because otherwise the department could be sued.

Fire chief Zombeck literally told the news that he would rescue a drowning child under similar circumstances if he were off duty but, if he were on duty...well...there are these procedures he would have to follow, you see. Which presumably means, "Nope. I'd let a little girl drown under the same circumstances. Maybe I'd beg a bystander who wouldn't lose his job to go rescue her."

This is insane. Putting on the uniform, being on duty, means that you aren't allowed to help people.

Sort of. Of course, they could have just acted like human beings and damned the consequences. Is that really asking too much? It doesn't seem to me that it is. I'll bet there would have been many contributions to a legal defense fund, not to mention offers of a job, should someone have behaved like a decent human being and suffered repercussions.

But the fact that the system puts huge pressures on its rescue personnel, its firemen and police, pressures that these grown men are unwilling to defy, not to help someone--not even an innocent child--means that the system is seriously warped. It's enough to make one wonder how many other protocols there are like this, and when they might become relevant to one's own life. In how many other situations are "rescue" personnel not allowed to rescue?

Alameda had better change its protocols fast. And stop whining about budget cuts, for crying out loud. What a pathetic liberal response: "What's that you say? We have an insane rule in our department? Well, throw some more money at us and maybe we'll change it."

And if there are other cities with relevantly similar laws, it might behoove ordinary folk to know about it. So you can be sure to call a neighbor instead of a policeman or fireman if you actually need help.

Comments (31)

When I saw that report on TV, I couldn't believe that it happened in America. I know that sounds corny. I'm not surprised that a bureaucracy would have some stupid regulations, or even that some bureaucrat would defend them so egregiously. But I thought that Americans knew when "just following orders" doesn't cut it. Come on, it's a job versus a life. If your department is worried about being sued, then you say, "I quit" and then you go save the guy's life. It's probably true that there'd be lots of new job offers as a result, but I think that's beside the point: even if there wouldn't be, so what? You don't calculate your career prospects; you save the person who's drowning in front of you. "Just following orders." Disgusting. That isn't America.

I completely agree with you. And it sounds like there were quite a few men just standing around in that situation, so _none_ of them were willing to stop worrying about consequences. That's almost frightening.

I get the strong sense that our country is turning into a Robot Country. Here are some examples: People feel that they must not do things for themselves but must call the "professionals." (Wasn't there anyone who was an excellent swimmer at the beach, an ordinary citizen, who could have gone in for the guy?) Then if the professionals have a rule that they can't take care of the problem, everybody feels that they must just stand around and let someone die. On the other side of the coin, the TSA agents are told that they must pat down children, and local police are told that they must arrest whomever the TSA tells them to arrest, if someone objects to being patted down or having his child patted down.

So someone makes up insane rules, either about what must be done or about what must not be done, and then we all--ordinary citizens and professionals alike--robotically follow them. It's terrifying.

But suppose he struggled, and he inhaled some water, and then he sued them for trying to rescue him and precipitating the situation.

Actually, the law insulates firemen and other professional rescuers from liability for injuries to the rescued individual arising from their rescue efforts. At least, it does traditionally and in most jurisdictions. I don't know if California has abrogated its "fireman's rule"; it is a very odd, place, after all.

More likely is that the policies are there to prevent incurring liability to the firemen themselves, or to bystanders. The theory would be "the county has a duty to provide firemen with the training and equipment they need to do their job properly; firemen are not trained and equipped to effect a water rescue; ordering firemen to effect a water rescue would violate the aforementioned duty; if an injury occurred as a result, the county would therefore be liable."

That, of course, doesn't change the insanity of the situation one iota.

Would that result, though, in their ordering the firemen _not_ to attempt the water rescue? I guess things could really get that kooky: "You can be required on pain of probable loss of your job to stand by and watch a child drown [the "child" reference is based on the hypothetical question they asked the fire chief], because if you attempt such a rescue without the supposedly necessary training and/or equipment, you might sue _us_, the department, for allowing you to attempt it while on duty."

Heck, in that case, maybe they should sue the department for the mental anguish caused by being forced on pain of job loss to watch the guy drown! Then there'd be a parallel lawsuit threat on the other side.

There are a few highly instructional lessons here:

1. The reaction of the police and firefighters was the antithesis of "heroic." As Lew Rockwell's blog observed, cases like this should serve as sober reminders that heroism is rare in government like it is everywhere else; the average cop and firefighter are closer to DMV employees than true heroes.

2. The absolute insanity that litigation could arise from this short of something extreme like forcing a firefighter who can't swim to go into the water.

3. That the state of our culture has gotten to the point where a government employee can admit that he'd let a child drown in front of him, while working on the tax payer's dime specifically as an emergency service employee, and there is no public uproar or political demand for his career to be ended.

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs. I´m not sure how widely this was known at the time, but you had a similar thing happen at Columbine. Officers arrived on the scene fairly early in the episode, or at least midway, and heard shots and waited outside for orders while knowing shooting was happening in a school. Had they risked entering without a comfortably sufficient level of knowledge about the situation they´d have easily overpowered the two boys with the guns, who were only effective against the unarmed and afraid. It is easy to be an arm chair general, but it seems to me the risk to themselves was easily justified by the level of carnage that could have been inflicted in such a setting, and in fact was. though it could have been an organized band that could have planned an ambush of the officers. It really does surprise and disappoint me that at least one officer didn´t disobey unrealistic orders when the lives of children were at stake to at least explore the situation with his own eyes. So you had 911 operators telling students to stay put and not try to escape because it was safer to wait for the police, meanwhile the police were outside doing nothing and waiting for orders. I think there were some policy changes as the result of this, but it is disappointing all the same. There is a price to being so risk averse.

Heck, in that case, maybe they should sue the department for the mental anguish caused by being forced on pain of job loss to watch the guy drown! Then there'd be a parallel lawsuit threat on the other side.

I'm afraid the state is ahead of you there. There's not generally a mental-anguish claim for observing the death of someone who is not a close relative. It's a sensible rule in its own context. This sort of inanity can't flow from liability aversion alone; there are too many individual decisions involved.

A similar story from a while back here in Colorado: a rafting guide gets arrested for trying to help a young girl who had fallen from his raft.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_15281357

I am never surprised or particularly troubled to find that bureaucracies have ridiculous regulations -- its in their nature. I am, however, becoming disheartened to see more and more average Americans choosing to meekly comply with petty managerial tyranny rather than have the courage and common sense to do the right thing.

Folks who have never participated in a rescue and experienced cold water in a non-recreational situation should show some humility.

Attempting to rescue a 300#, 6'3" male intent on suicide doesn't strike me as a simple task.

"One man ventured out to Zack on his kite surf board and tried to convince him to come back in -- to no avail."

Had he wished assistance, he could either have walked back on his own or used the wind surfer's board for support (he would have had a wet suit). Forcibly bringing him in in a safe manner would have required at least three or four persons. On dry land, the police can simply taze such a person and cuff him and off we go to the psyc ward. That option isn't available when the person is neck deep in cold water. Sending one fireman out doesn't seem like a good idea. So three or four firemen are going to have to strip down and attempt to rescue a 300#, 6'3" mentally disturbed adult male in a difficult environment in circumstances for which they have no training or experience and lack the proper equipment.

The child thing is a red herring. Had it been a child, bystanders would have likely effected a rescue before the firemen arrived. I don't care what "official position" the spokesman felt he had to relate, no one would let a child in distress drown under those circumstances.

(I have participated in or observed four such situations, three in California and one in Hawaii. In three of them there were no lifeguards and no one needed to be called - so my experience is that when folks want help they get it.

1. A young boy was being pulled out by a rip current at a beach just south of Laguna. He was trying to swim against it (which is a no no). I grabbed him and swam out laterally and that was that.

2. A teenage girl stepped off the third break at Huntington and panicked. I was closest so I used my board to support her until the lifeguard came and took her in.

3. A woman got into trouble at San Onofre and was calling for help. Several people went in and brought her out.

4. Two young boys got trapped behind 6'-8' shore-pound at Makaha. They were able to tread water but looked quite unhappy. Their mother was freaked out and was yelling for someone to go get them - why she let them near the water is another question, perhaps natural selection at work? Anyway, my companion and I had rolled our eyes and grabbed our fins when a couple of military types beat us to it (yea!).)

Titus is right as to liability. It also seems that all this has resulted in a policy change and the firemen will get their training.

Lydia and Mike, typical conservative and libertarian response - expect others to risk their lives while starving them of the ability to do it safely and properly. This of course carries over into the private sector where mere miners and oil rig workers are expendable - profit and low taxes uber alles, after all.

Al,

#1: The issue of bringing him in when possibly dangerous is of course a legitimate thing to raise, but police are supposed to be able to subdue dangerous people. They do it all the time in criminal situations. When our police say, "Oh, we just can't deal with a 6' 3" male," we have a problem.

#2: The whole "dealing with a potentially violent person" doesn't explain their having asked a bystander to get out his _dead body_. That just shows that we're dealing with a truly robotic rule here: No policemen in the water. The bystander presumably didn't have fancy-dancy equipment when he went into that cold, cold water, and look, he ain't dead.

#3: Whether you care or not, _I_ care, and all sensible people should care, what the fire chief said about refusing to rescue a child if he were on duty. Something is severely wrong if he would refuse to rescue a child precisely because he was on duty under circumstances where he would rescue a child if he were off duty.

#4: Stop being a threadjacker extraordinaire. This has nothing to do with miners. Sheesh.

Oh, and Al,

#5: The difference between you and Titus here is that he knows this is crazy and you want to pretend it isn't. For some reason, that "Move along, folks, nothing to see here" inclination is just overwhelming in you if someone you perceive as to the right of yourself is bringing up the insanity and deploring it. Unless, perhaps, you can find some way of spinning it as being really the fault of the right.

How about the simple "I'll be damned if I'm risking my neck for someone who wants to die anyway!"?

It's advised that those without proper training rescue drowners, as they instinctively resist you and kick you under the water, causing you to drown with him. I'd imagine the risk is higher for those wearing gear appropriate for subduing someone of his size.

All the legalize could just be a way for them to avoid having to state their true and, it would seem to me anyway, perfectly understandable motive.

So three or four firemen are going to have to strip down and attempt to rescue a 300#, 6'3" mentally disturbed adult male in a difficult environment in circumstances for which they have no training or experience and lack the proper equipment.

Would that one could be exactly trained for every contingency. It is certainly arguable that their training and common sense would have been good enough for the situation. The guy didn't have a gun or other lethal weapon, after all, and three or four men will definitely overpower even a 6'3" man. One may not know how to drive a car, but if the man in the driver's seat slumps over, common sense should be enough to tell one to slam on the breaks (or take whatever other action is reasonable). To wait for perfect training is overreaching, at best, and can get people killed, at the worst.

Oh, and by the way, really depressed people do not usually put up a fight when they are trying to kill themselves. If they do, that is an encouraging sign, actually.

No, this reeks of CYA. Oh, and the, in my opinion, negligent fire chief should learn an old adage from Canon Law: necessitas non habet legem - necessity knows (has) no law.

The Chicken

One more thing...

I hope these men showed better character if they served in the military. This incident not a matter of law. It's a matter of character, plain and simple.

The Chicken

"#1: The issue of bringing him in when possibly dangerous is of course a legitimate thing to raise, but police are supposed to be able to subdue dangerous people."

And firefighters aren't and the way one would subdue a large dangerous person who was putting another in danger would likely turn this into suicide by cop. As I pointed out, the way this would likely be handled on dry land would be to taze and restrain. Not a good option in five feet of cold salt water, 450 feet from land.

"It is certainly arguable that their training and common sense would have been good enough for the situation."

OK, please argue it noy merely assert it.

"The difference between you and Titus here is that he knows this is crazy..."

I don't really know, neither does Titus, and neither do you. Assuming that the statement was CYA seems more likely then assuming that bystanders and firemen alike would treat a young child who wants to be helped the same way as they treated a large mentally disturbed man who wished to die. Would it have been nice to have been able to rescue him - well, yes. Would it have been worth the life of someone else - nope. How do you subdue someone when you can't taze him and you only have a head to swing at with a billy which firemen aren't trained to use?

One other thing occurred to me while planting some tomatoes and then we read this just above.

"All the legalize could just be a way for them to avoid having to state their true and, it would seem to me anyway, perfectly understandable motive."

Bingo.

Look, the spokesman could have replied, "of course we are going to ignore the rules and rescue a child and for that matter an adult who wants to be helped but given our level of training and equipment, we are not about to stick our necks out for the crazy fat man who wants to die anyway", He could have said that and the lawyers would be lining up to file that suit.

Lydia, you were the one who brought up the subject of budgets; I was merely pointing out that expecting to have low taxes and highly trained public servants may be unrealistic. Miners and oil rig workers die when we fail to adequately fund the depts. that enforce the safety rules.

All the legalize could just be a way for them to avoid having to state their true and, it would seem to me anyway, perfectly understandable motive.

So he was lying about the child? And they couldn't have rules, at least for the firemen, that made some sort of distinction between people likely to resist and people not?

And there were cops there, too, not just firemen.

I was merely pointing out that expecting to have low taxes and highly trained public servants may be unrealistic.

No, I agree with the Chicken. I think the whole "gotta be trained to do every possible thing" culture is dumb, dumb, and dumber. If being a policeman doesn't mean being able and willing to handle a variety of contingencies without separate training in each one, we're in trouble. In other words, we're in trouble. What's next? "Oh, I'm only certified to stop _store_ robbers, not to stop _bank_ robbers."

Yes, it is a sad state of affairs. I´m not sure how widely this was known at the time, but you had a similar thing happen at Columbine. Officers arrived on the scene fairly early in the episode, or at least midway, and heard shots and waited outside for orders while knowing shooting was happening in a school. Had they risked entering without a comfortably sufficient level of knowledge about the situation they´d have easily overpowered the two boys with the guns, who were only effective against the unarmed and afraid.

This is precisely what SWAT is supposed to be able to handle effectively. One of Confederate Yankee's contributors is a former SWAT officer, and he frequently points out when analyzing bad SWAT cases in the media that SWAT are not only supposed to be trained for this, but their body armor prevents them from being easy targets. In the recent shooting case of Jose Guerrera, he observed that their body armor would have actually stopped several shots from an AR15.

Al,

From TFA:

"I thought it was kind of weird that they weren't going out to bring the guy in, you know, he was out there, his head was above water, he was looking at everybody, there was plenty of time for them to react," witness Perry Smith said.

For more than an hour, Zack stood up to his neck in the frigid surf off of Crown Beach in Alameda.

That puts it in a different light. Four cops could have easily swarmed him and brought him in.

By the way, the whole idea that if "the fat guy" wants to commit suicide, we might as well not spend any cop energy or take any active steps to prevent it, it's his funeral, he might as well go ahead, is odious and wrong. The suicidal person thinks, and perhaps says, "No one cares about me," and society answers back, "Yep, that's right, no one cares about you." This is inhuman and horrifying, a form of abandonment to which we must not succumb.

"That puts it in a different light. Four cops could have easily swarmed him and brought him in."

I considered that. Depending on a number of variables, subduing a person with a four on one swarm could range from easy to dangerous to all concerned as long as you have a solid reference point - swarming pins a person to the ground. How do you pin a person in water? Oh, and consider that if a 6'3" man is up to his neck, a 5'10" man is up to his nose - Dick Lane used to have a saying, "if you can't breath, you can't wrestle".

Another possibility is that if the police or firemen stripped down (one doesn't walk into deep water wearing boots and canvas or a gun belt) and we have several men walking towards him, he responds by going further out, they have no flotation vests, he has a built in flotation device. If they retreat and he doesn't and then succumbs to hypo, they will get blamed for driving him into a more dangerous situation in violation of policy.

Another point I read on another site was by an EMT who pointed out that if a fireman or PO died while violating policy, the family could possibly lose the pension.

At least you came up with something; still waiting for the for the Chicken's contribution.

If the point is that the police and FD of an island city should have water rescue things worked out, I'll take that point.

Lydia, one can't train for every situation but there is a reason the military and organizations like the FD and PD train and train and train. Extrapolation and innovation are impossible unless the basics are down. You may have been ready to write your doctoral thesis after your first undergraduate philosophy course but maybe not.

"So he was lying about the child?"

A public official in a difficult situation, lying, I'm shocked, shocked!!! As there was no actual child and no actual situation, "lie" may not be the best word but we do live in a fallen world and our politics and public culture are mostly based on lies and misrepresentations and ignorance. Why does this shock you?

"Yep, that's right, no one cares about you."

This is interesting. Let's suppose they were able to rescue him after he was in a cold induced stupor. He was on disability so he also was likely on Medicare or Medicaid. In any case he had a history of depression so he was uninsurable. Do we care enough to provide the community mental health services we Californians were promised when the state mental hospitals were closed back when RR was governor or do we just haul him out, dry him off, and send him home?

Now, before you go all thread-jacky on me, please consider at least why you get all bothered over discrete dramatic events but refuse to deal in a non-ideological way with the underlying causes. We aren't going to deal with the public policy problems around mental illness and deteriorating public services by moral posturing and scolding alone.

Al, considering that they just stood by and let him die, the question of "what to do with him after" is moot. He has to be alive for us even to have that decision to make. That's of interest to me. Liberals are often thrilled to talk about "underlying causes" when they won't even deal with the basics.

I considered that. Depending on a number of variables, subduing a person with a four on one swarm could range from easy to dangerous to all concerned as long as you have a solid reference point - swarming pins a person to the ground. How do you pin a person in water? Oh, and consider that if a 6'3" man is up to his neck, a 5'10" man is up to his nose - Dick Lane used to have a saying, "if you can't breath, you can't wrestle".

If I were an officer, I'd just go under water, knee him hard in the groin and drag him out by his legs.

Another possibility is that if the police or firemen stripped down (one doesn't walk into deep water wearing boots and canvas or a gun belt) and we have several men walking towards him, he responds by going further out, they have no flotation vests, he has a built in flotation device. If they retreat and he doesn't and then succumbs to hypo, they will get blamed for driving him into a more dangerous situation in violation of policy.

Considering the fact that the police quite frequently now send SWAT units to the homes of suicidal people, I think we're long past the point that this would be a credible legal threat. And by that I am referring to the practice of sending SWAT units to the homes of people who are literally a threat to no one but themselves, such as someone barracaded in their home.

Another point I read on another site was by an EMT who pointed out that if a fireman or PO died while violating policy, the family could possibly lose the pension.

This needs reform, then. A police officer or fire fighter who sacrifices their life in service of the community should simply not ever be able to lose their pension rights.

such as someone barracaded in their home.

**With no one else in the house.

This needs reform, then. A police officer or fire fighter who sacrifices their life in service of the community should simply not ever be able to lose their pension rights.

I completely agree. However, I'm trying to imagine someone actually thinking that through while standing there for an hour watching someone die and making the cold-blooded decision on that basis to do nothing. It's a sort of shocking thing.

Lydia, believe me if your livelihood and your families well being depends on your holding a professional license or commission, it is always front and center in your calculations. One of the effects of proper and frequent training is that it allows the presence of mind for such calculations.

My hypothetical, of course, was based on had they retrieved him alive or if he came back in. What then?

Mike, you make it all sound so easy. This time of year it should be easy to find a body of water at those temperatures. Grab some of your friends and run an experiment. Go out the same distance and wrestle around a little.

At least you came up with something; still waiting for the for the Chicken's contribution.

My contribution is: ??? What was I supposed to come up with?

Another point I read on another site was by an EMT who pointed out that if a fireman or PO died while violating policy, the family could possibly lose the pension.

You seem to have a skewed hierarchy of important things. A family that losses a job can usually find another one. A man who loses a life - not so much. I do not recall Christ saying, "No greater love hath a man but that he hold back his life for the sake of a pension." In fact, it might be well to ponder the parable (Luke 12:15 - 34):

And he said to them, "Take heed, and beware of all covetousness; for a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.
And he told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man brought forth plentifully;
and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?'
And he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns, and build larger ones; and there I will store all my grain and my goods.
And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.'
But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?'
So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat, nor about your body, what you shall put on.
For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.
Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds!
And which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his span of life?
f then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest?
Consider the lilies, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
But if God so clothes the grass which is alive in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little faith!
And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be of anxious mind.
For all the nations of the world seek these things; and your Father knows that you need them.
nstead, seek his kingdom, and these things shall be yours as well.
"Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
Sell your possessions, and give alms; provide yourselves with purses that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys.
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Where are the hearts of these men? Is it with fear: the fear of being mocked, the fear of losing a wage, the fear of dying? Those hearts are not worthy of a kingdom. They are hearts worthy of shame.

The heart of a police officer or a fireman must be the heart of every brave man, who thinks nothing of the danger, but only of the need. In a word, these men's hearts are worldly and unworthy of the sacred calling of their offices.

They most certainly could have swum out to the man and if one of them should have died, what an honorable death that would have been. Idiot law, if there is such a law, that would make a man's family lose their livelihood for doing the loving thing. Idiot law and evil.

Three final points:
1) the surf was not very violent. The chances of the policemen drowning were very slight. I wrote part of my dissertation of fluid mechanics, so I have a fairly informed opinion. Certainly, if the man could hold his head above water for an hour, just how bad could the water have been?
2) if the man had retreated farther out, this would have been a very hopeful sign. It would mean that there were fight left in him and the prognosis for recovery better than if he had passively let the police take him away. Why do you think most people who jump off of bridges do so at night? They don't want to be seen. The fact that this man did this in broad daylight was a hopeful sign.
3) The question, "Do we care enough to provide the community mental health services we Californians were promised when the state mental hospitals were closed back when RR was governor or do we just haul him out, dry him off, and send him home?," is a ludicrous red herring, as this could have been a man out swimming who was having a stoke or a petit mal seizure. The police and firemen, by their reasoning, would have been obligated to do the same thing - nothing. It doesn't matter how he got out there. The danger to life and limb is the defining issue. For all you know, the man's brush with death might have shocked him out of his depression. In any case, the danger was not to the man's mind.

Not only the man died in this incident. So did the consciences and souls of those who stood by and did nothing. On the Day of Judgment it will be cold comfort to them (or is that hot suffering) when they try to explain to God that they LET the man die (and if that isn't due deliberation, I don't know what is) in order to save their pensions. They might try the argument that there are rules, you see, but God will point to two little stone tablets in the corner with ten other ones they might have considered, had they been men.

The Chicken







Oh and by the way, they survival times from hypothermia in 60 water are:

WaterTemp.(F)
50 - 60

Exhaustion or Unconsciousness

1 - 2 hours


Expected Time of Survival

1 - 6 hours

so, cut the nonsense. The police would have been in no danger from the coldish water, especially since they were exerting themselves and they had the effects of adrenaline to compensate for the slowing heart rate.

The Chicken

Mike, you make it all sound so easy. This time of year it should be easy to find a body of water at those temperatures. Grab some of your friends and run an experiment. Go out the same distance and wrestle around a little.

As I said, my approach wouldn't be to wrestle him. It'd be outright assault on his person. He wouldn't be able to walk for a week from just the initial blow.

Not only the man died in this incident. So did the consciences and souls of those who stood by and did nothing. On the Day of Judgment it will be cold comfort to them (or is that hot suffering) when they try to explain to God that they LET the man die (and if that isn't due deliberation, I don't know what is) in order to save their pensions. They might try the argument that there are rules, you see, but God will point to two little stone tablets in the corner with ten other ones they might have considered, had they been men.
'

When the Chicken knows how to say it, he really knows how to say it!!

We aren't going to deal with the public policy problems around mental illness and deteriorating public services by moral posturing and scolding alone.

Ok, Al, I'll bite: one set of obscured and under-reported causes of mental illness is that of bad behavior - sometimes coming home to roost on one's self, sometimes having an impact on your kids (like divorce). Much of the mental illness in this country would be solved (without professional treatment) in less than a generation if people lived the Gospel. Can you go along with treating the underlying causes of mental illness by getting people to stop fornicating and stop doing serial divorce and remarriage?

one set of obscured and under-reported causes of mental illness is that of bad behavior - sometimes coming home to roost on one's self, sometimes having an impact on your kids (like divorce).

While I agree with that, the problem in a pluralistic society is determining what is bad behavior. Liberal Protestants have defined away any moral guilt for fornication, while some fundamentalist groups have imposed a horrible burden on their members for such morally neutral behavior as cutting one's hair if one is a women. Since marriage is seen only as a legal contract and not a sacrament bu some groups, what incentive is there for people to consider divorce wrong?

The problem is that there are multiple interpretations of the Gospel and enough rationalizations to cover almost any bad behavior. If we could tighten the interpretation even to the literal sense of the words of the Gospel it would go a long way.

The Chicken

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.