The idea that the rights of a person to act badly, and have their privacy protected from censure and opprobrium, is a completely modern concept. Quite frankly, I don't think there exists any "right to privacy" outside of very limited protection against government intrusion and action.

Cleaning wounds is also a relatively modern concept. Are we to assume that morality doesn't evolve in the way that science does? At the very least, the ideas of "this is bad because we say it is bad" or "this is bad for everyone because some people that do this end up doing other bad things" are moral concepts that could use some serious evolution.

Morally speaking, why do you care if someone used cocaine on Saturday night and went to work perfectly sober on Monday morning? What danger does he represent to anyone, even if he's an air traffic controller, bus driver, or school teacher?

The reason you care is because you have been programmed to think cocaine is evil, as opposed to just something that makes people feel good if they're willing to endure some negative side-effects. The only crime in cocaine use exists because the government has created a black market.

Given the example of a child's babysitter, it would depend pretty heavily on how I found out.

If it fell out of a pocket, there are a whole host of issues that would create serious problems. I'm not sure I trust the sort of person who feels the need to bring cocaine to work, particular if the workplace is my home. I don't want my child to be around cocaine either.

If I knew the parents of the babysitter and found out that cocaine had been passed around at a party a week ago, I'd care a lot less. I might be inclined to say something like "do what you like on your own time, but never bring anything like that into my house or near my child," but I expect that would be enough of a reaction.

If you are a drug-addict, or are cheating on your wife, or embezzeling from your church, and the NY Times wants to run it as a front page story, that's too bad for you (as long as it is true). If your employer thinks that your drug use, or stealing, or adultery is proof that you aren't to be trusted as an employee, again too bad for you.

Let's compare apples to apples. Drug addiction is a condition and not an action, cheating on your wife is breaking a promise but not illegal, and embezzlement is a crime. Further, unlike drug possession (which is currently a crime whether it should be or not), embezzlement relies on a violation of trust... for an employee, that's worse than wife-beating. You can trust a wife-beater even if you think he's a piece of trash, but you can't trust someone with a proven record of stealing from those he has a trust relationship with.

To the extent people ignore the teachings of the Church, they act wrongly.

I understand why a Catholic would say this, but not a Christian. The church should exist to help us understand things that were written thousands of years ago, but it shouldn't invent things that should be held to more importance than the Scripture that we were given.

I mean, praying to saints basically seems like idolatry to me. Being on the internet at work seems like theft to me (I leave for work shortly, before the hypocrisy claims come flying). The only reason to believe in Catholic teachings over Scripture is to make the Catholic Church more powerful. That doesn't seem Christian to me in any way.

Morally speaking, why do you care if someone used cocaine on Saturday night and went to work perfectly sober on Monday morning? What danger does he represent to anyone, even if he's an air traffic controller, bus driver, or school teacher?

None, if I know it's under control. But, a lot of cocaine users aren't under control. I'd view it as warning sign, not necessarily a reason to terminate someone immediately. Ceterus paribus, I trust a non-coke user more than a coke user.

Let's compare apples to apples. Drug addiction is a condition and not an action, cheating on your wife is breaking a promise but not illegal, and embezzlement is a crime. Further, unlike drug possession (which is currently a crime whether it should be or not), embezzlement relies on a violation of trust... for an employee, that's worse than wife-beating. You can trust a wife-beater even if you think he's a piece of trash, but you can't trust someone with a proven record of stealing from those he has a trust relationship with.

You're right, they are very different, under the law, and otherwise. But, they're all things that would cause me to trust an employee less.

Adultery is every bit as much a violation of trust as embezzlement. As Ross Perot said "If a man's wife can't trust him, why should I?" I personally know of a case where workplace adultery caused an incompetent (and possibly alcoholic) person to keep their job (through implicit blackmail) and cost a firm tens of millions of dollars through that incompetence.

Didn't say anyone won't be saved.

Damn Chip, read the next sentence.

No one can know who will or won't be saved.

You don't have to pick a religious fight simply because someone used faith as an example.

(My apologies if your 'Good stuff' comment was not intended as snark).

I mean, praying to saints basically seems like idolatry to me.

The Church does not advocate praying to saints. It advocates asking the saints to pray for us, the same way you might ask a friend to. Saints are to be venerated, but never worshipped.

And the idea that nothing to but scripture needs to be paid attention to is itself massively unscriptural.

I'm no theologian, but the way I understand it, Catholics asks the saints and Mary to intercede with God on their behalf.

I understand why a Catholic would say this, but not a Christian. The church should exist to help us understand things that were written thousands of years ago, but it shouldn't invent things that should be held to more importance than the Scripture that we were given.

I mean, praying to saints basically seems like idolatry to me. Being on the internet at work seems like theft to me (I leave for work shortly, before the hypocrisy claims come flying). The only reason to believe in Catholic teachings over Scripture is to make the Catholic Church more powerful. That doesn't seem Christian to me in any way.

Umm, Catholics are Christians.

We don't pray to Saints for them to help us, we ask Saints to pray for us so God will help us. Do you ever ask a living person to pray for you? Same thing.

Edit: Cokes to tbfg9 and GGC!

If you get your job done, it's not theft. I'm not on a time clock, don't take a lunch, and certainly don't get to work only 9 to 5. If I'm here until 10, no body pays me extra. A salaried employee is paid to get a job done, as many or few hours as that takes.

The Church only "invents" rules in order to help people live correctly. All the Sacraments are Biblically based.

The problem with your last point is that the Church predates Scripture. The Church was established on Pentecost, ~33 AD. The books of the Bible were not codified until the early 4th century. Without the Catholic Church (which was one with the Orthodox Churches at that time) you wouldn't know what was Scripture and what wasn't.

IIRC, Judaism doesn't really have a definitive teaching on the afterlife, does it?

In short, that's basically correct. (That doesn't mean that Judaism denies the existence of an afterlife, as some mistakenly think; the phrase you're looking for is "world to come," though that phrase is also used to refer to the time after the messiah.)

Andy, as a set of questions, what sort of testing do you want to see implemented? Urine testing, blood testing, both, other? Do you want scheduled testing, random testing, or both? Regular season testing, offseason testing, or both? What frequency - once a year, twice a year, monthly, or even more often? What do you think should be tested for? All PEDs, all recreational substances, HGH, others? Basically, is it more or less than what is currently done in the MLB (and MiLB) testing program?

For now, given the current knowledge about the efficacy of blood testing and the lack of real PED qualities of HgH, I'd leave the testing more or less as it is today. I agree with Srul that it's pointlessly invasive to begin testing for an unproven substance by means of an uncertain test.

To the extent that I'd add or drop specific drugs from the list of banned substances, I'd eliminate recreational drugs like cocaine, LSD and pot. Not that I'd want any Yankees trying those drugs, but with luck maybe some key Red Sox players might get bored some off day. (smile) That said, testing for those sorts of drugs might be put in individual players' contracts by individual negotiation(s).

As for adding drugs, I'd mostly want to see MLB keep up as best it can with the newer "designer drugs," and as soon as any of those are shown to have significant PE qualities, I'd add them to the list. And if the only way that those drugs could be detected would be through random blood testing, I'd strongly suggest to the players union that they agree to that.

I'd also issue a list of banned contacts that would include any unlicensed doctor, and any individual who's ever been shown to have sold any listed PED without a prescription would be on that list. The idea would to keep away the magic muscle crowd, as symbolized by vermin like Conte and Anderson.

As to how to prevent leaks, the only thing I might add is some sort of a provision that would set fairly large monetary penalties for unauthorized release of players' names, to be paid directly by MLB to the player in question. And make it a big enough penalty so that MLB would be more seriously motivated to root out the person who did the leaking.

All that's not perfect, but anyone who reads it with an open mind should realize that I'm trying to take the two major considerations---keeping PEDs out of the game, and protections against unauthorized release of medical information---into account. And I'd appreciate it if any responses would address the substance of what I just wrote rather than references to lynch mobs and jihads.

The idea that the rights of a person to act badly, and have their privacy protected from censure and opprobrium, is a completely modern concept. Quite frankly, I don't think there exists any "right to privacy" outside of very limited protection against government intrusion and action.

To be clear, the U.S. does not recognize a "right to privacy" in the sense you're talking about in the first sentence. Many European countries do, treating personal information as "owned" by the person who the information is about. But in the U.S., that's generally not the case; the first amendment is usually considered to trump most such claims.



(There is a tort called the "public disclosure of private facts," but it's not widely accepted, is narrowly construed, and would very likely not apply to anything newsworthy.)

Damn Chip, read the next sentence.

No one can know who will or won't be saved.

You don't have to pick a religious fight simply because someone used faith as an example.

(My apologies if your 'Good stuff' comment was not intended as snark).

How am I the one picking a religious fight? Have I been issuing blunt theological rulings on which gods adherents of particular faiths worship?

give me a ticket for an aeroplane
I ain't got time to take a fast train
lonely days are gone
I'm going home
my baby just wrote me a letter

Warning sign
Warning sign
I hear it, but I pay no mind

Hear my voice
Hear my voice
It's saying something
It's not very nice

Pay attention
Pay attention
I'm talking to you
And I hope you're concentrating

I've got money now
I've got money now
C'mon baby
C'mon baby

Warning sign of things to come
Happened before, it'll happen again

Hear my voice
Move my hair
Move it around a lot
I don't care what I don't remember

The addictive and abuse tendencies of hard drugs is much higher than for alcohol...

Given how remarkably addictive alcohol is I'd be amazed if this was in fact the case. Any sources?

edit: I'm speaking as someone who lived in and around New York City in the 70s and 80s. I make no claim to objectivity (not to mention the sample size problem) but I knew a lot of people who used cocaine recreationally but very few that I'd call addicts. On the other hand I knew a hell of a lot of people who could reasonably be described as alcoholics, and certainly were problem drinkers in the sense that their drinking caused themselves or other people serious problems.