CAPITULO IV. FUNCIONAMIENTO DE LOS ORGANOS DEL CONSEJO
MANCOMUNIDAD DE MUNICIPIOS JUNCARIL ASEGRA (ALBOLOTE-P PELIGROS)
BBC News. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4195332.stm> Article on proposed ban of violent pornography. •
Council for Secular Humanism. <http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html> Several articles on feminism •
and pornography.
Pornography and Censorship: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/ •
pornography-censorship/> Philosophical analysis of the legitimacy of banning pornography.
Further reading:
Cornell, Drucilla. Feminism and Pornography. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Harvey, Philip D. The Government vs. Erotica: The Siege of Adam & Eve. Prometheus, 2001.
Strossen, Nadine. Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights. New York University Press, 2000.
PreventIve WAr
In 2002 the Bush Administration published The National Security Strategy for the United States, in which it articu- lated the doctrine of preventive war. In a departure from international law as outlined in the UN Charter, which permits the use of force only in self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack, the Administration asserted that it would act against “emerging threats before they are fully formed.”
Pros
Cons
The UN Charter and international law have to catch up with today’s reality. Nations and nonstate groups have vastly more sophisticated ways of attacking a country than they did in the 1940s. The development of weap- ons of mass destruction (WMD) has changed the way we must look at security. The UN Charter should be amended to reflect this. Until it is, states have a right to defend themselves, even if it means engaging in preven- tive war.
The Bush Doctrine of preventive war creates a precedent that seriously threatens the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the World War II.
History has shown that the UN and diplomacy in gen- eral are often ineffective. When its security is endangered and diplomatic means have been exhausted, a state has to the right to act unilaterally. Article 51 of the UN Charter preserves the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
The US doctrine of preventive self-defense contradicts the cardinal principle of the modern international legal order and the primary rationale for the founding of the UN after World War II: the prohibition of the unilat- eral use of force to settle disputes. The doctrine of pre- ventive war is a recipe for conflict, precipitating wars that might never otherwise have begun.
The US has the military might and economic power to prevent its enemies from building up the strength to attack. Acting when the threat is still small and man- ageable is more rational then dealing with it after it has
The Bush Doctrine contributes to global tension. Some states will arm to defend themselves from a preventive war, while others will arm because they want to attack an aggressor who has killed innocent civilians. Some rogue
Pros Cons
become serious. Preventing the proliferation of WMD is much more efficient than waiting until they have been deployed.
nations will determine that they can avoid a preventive war by acquiring nuclear weapons. Thus, the doctrine of preventive war will stimulate nuclear proliferation. The Bush Doctrine does not achieve the purpose for which it was originally articulated.
The US is a superpower and should act like one when global stability is at stake. As the world’s only superpower, the US is responsible for maintaining global stability. It does not have to resort to war if diplomacy proves suc- cessful; however, war must be an option if diplomacy fails.
The UN was established with the supreme purpose of taking collective action to remove threats to peace. Moreover, the UN Charter requires that all members settle their international disputes by peaceful means. By initiating a preventive war without the UN’s consent, the US has the potential to destabilize the global politi- cal situation and put in danger the peace, security, and justice that states have tried to preserve since the UN was established.
The US has the duty to protect its citizens. The world order established by the UN in 1945 could not protect the US from terrorist attacks in 2001. Terrorists are not concerned with international law or morality. The pri- mary responsibility of the US government is to prevent future attacks on its people.
A preventive war lacks any moral justification because it runs counter to the UN Charter, which stipulates that violence is permissible only in response to an imminent threat or open aggression. As we have seen, US devia- tion from international law in this regard has had serious consequences, creating instability in the Muslim world, isolating the US from its allies, and contributing to the growth of terrorism.
sample motions:
This House believes that the US should not engage in preventive war without the consent of the UN. This House believes that the Bush Doctrine guarantees security from future attacks.
This House believes that states should pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multilateral solutions cannot be found.
Web Links:
The Defense Strategy Review Page. <http://www.comw.org/qdr/preventivewar.html> Articles supporting and condemning pre- •
ventive war.
History News Network. <http://hnn.us/articles/924.html> Article about the immorality of preventive war. •
“Preventive War” and International Law after Iraq. <http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/ •
Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm#_Toc41379606> Article presenting the legal position for opposing preventive war.
Further reading:
Caraley, Demetrios James, ed. American Hegemony: Preventive War, Iraq, and Imposing Democracy. Academy of Political Science, 2004.
Gray, Colin. The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsideration. Juniper Grove, 2008. Nichols, Thomas N. Eve of Destruction: The Coming Age of Preventive War. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
Priestly Celibacy, Abolition of |185
PrIestLy CeLIBACy, ABoLItIon oF
One of the requirements set by the Roman Catholic Church for priests is that they remain celibate. Celibacy is the renunciation of sex and marriage for the more perfect observance of chastity. This vow of celibacy has been propelled to the forefront of public discussion by charges, which began arising in 2002, that the church conspired to protect priests accused of child molestation. The vow of celibacy is seen by some as a cause of the pedophilia that seems to be rampant within the Catholic Church in America. The Vatican has not changed its stance on celibacy in the wake of the controversy, but some within the church have called for the elimination of the requirement to be celibate.
Pros
Cons
Until 1139, priests in the Western church were permit- ted to marry. The Bible does not mandate celibacy and, in fact, St. Peter, the first pope, was married. The true history and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church include the option for priests to marry.
The earliest church fathers, including St. Augustine, supported the celibate priesthood. In the fourth century, church councils enacted legislation forbidding married men who were ordained from having conjugal relations with their wives. We do not know if any of the apostles, other than Peter, were married, but we do know that they gave up everything to follow Jesus. More impor- tant, Jesus led a celibate life.
The number of priests in America is on the decline, and many parishes are without a priest. The prohibition on marriage pushes some men away from the priest- hood. The requirement of celibacy drastically reduces the pool from which the church can select priests and means that the church is not always getting the “best and the brightest.”
Protestant churches, which do not require celibacy, also are having problems recruiting clergy. Worldwide, the number of new priests is increasing. Only the developed world has seen a decline in priestly vocations. A recent study showed that vocations were on the rise in dioceses in the US that were loyal to the teachings of the church, including priestly celibacy.
Protestant clergy successfully balance their work in the church and their families. Were priests permitted to marry and have families, their families could serve as examples to others. In addition, marriage can provide a priest with increased social support and intimacy.
A celibate priest can devote all his time to his parishio- ners. A married priest must spend time with his family. Protestant clergy have balanced their work for the church with their family responsibilities only with difficulty. Many wives and families of Protestant clergy report feel- ing second to the congregation.
Priestly celibacy is outdated. It sets the priest apart from
the world and the experiences of his parishioners. The priest is set apart from the world. He has a unique role: He represents Christ to his parishioners. Just as Jesus led a life of chastity dedicated to God, a priest must offer his life to God’s people.
Celibate priests can never experience the intimate and complicated marital relationship. They lack credibility when conducting marital and family counseling. Mar- ried priests can better serve their parishioners because of their marital and family experiences.
The celibate priest has a unique understanding of the power of self-control and the giving of the self, which are key ideas in marriage. The priest is married to the church and can counsel couples and families using that knowledge.
Pros Cons
The prospect of celibacy draws sexually dysfunctional men to the priesthood. They hope that by totally deny- ing their sexuality, they will not engage in pedophilia, but unfortunately they often cannot overcome their deviant desires. Permitting priests to marry would bring men with healthy sexual desires to the priesthood.
Celibacy and pedophilia are not connected. Sexual abuse also occurs in religions where clergy are permitted to marry. Studies have shown that sexual abusers account for less than 2% of Roman Catholic clergy, a figure com- parable to clergy in other denominations.
sample motions:
This House would permit priests to marry.
This House would have the Vatican stop requiring priestly celibacy. This House believes that a married priest is a better priest.
Web Links:
Celibacy of the Clergy. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm> Detailed article on the history and theology of priestly •
celibacy.
How to Refute Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy. <http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/00199.html> Clear pre- •
sentation of arguments against celibacy, with refutations.
Vatican News Agency. <http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur97.htm> Questions and answers from ZENIT, a news •
agency specializing in covering the Vatican.
Further reading:
Cozzens, Donald. Freeing Celibacy. Liturgical Press, 2006.
Schoenherr, Richard A. Goodbye Father: The Celibate Male Priesthood and the Future of the Catholic Church. Oxford University Press, 2004.
Sipe, A. W. Richa. Celibacy in Crisis. Routledge, 2003.
Stravinska, M. J., ed. Priestly Celibacy: Its Scriptural, Historical, Spiritual and Psychological Roots. Newman House Press, 2001.
PrIvACy vs. seCurIty
In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which gave new rights and powers to law enforcement agencies. For example, the act gives the FBI greater latitude in wiretapping and in the surveillance of material transmitted over the Internet. Legislators have also proposed national identification cards, facial profiling systems, and tighter restrictions on immigration. All of these measures are aimed at protecting Ameri- cans from further terrorist attacks. But this increased security comes at a cost: The government will be able to gather more information about the private actions of individuals. To some observers, this invasion of privacy is unwarranted and represents an attack on fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
Pros
Cons
The primary function of government is to “secure the general welfare” of its citizens. Security is a common good that is promised to all Americans, and it must take primacy over individual concerns about privacy.
The right to privacy underlies the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable “search and seizure.” When the government collects and shares information about its citizens, it is conducting an elec- tronic version of such prohibited searches.
Privacy vs. Security |187
Electronic surveillance—of financial transactions, for example—is an essential tool for tracking the actions of terrorists when they are planning attacks. The govern- ment cannot stand by and wait until criminal acts are committed; it must stop attacks before they happen.
Any proposal that increases the power of government agencies should be dismissed. Historically, government agencies (e.g., the IRS) have abused their power over citizens. Increased power means a greater potential for abuse.
Tighter security controls at airports and borders will help prevent damage and loss of life. In addition to their deterrent effect, they will enable officials to stop attacks as they are happening.
Tighter security controls can be used to target specific ethnic and religious groups in a way that is unfair and discriminatory.
Tighter immigration laws and more rigorous identifica- tion procedures for foreigners entering the country will reduce the possibility of terrorists entering the country.
Preventive measures affect the innocent as well as the guilty. This is especially true in the case of foreign nation- als: Tighter immigration controls may exclude foreigners whose presence in America would be beneficial to the country.
The right to privacy is by no means absolute, and Ameri- cans already allow the government to control some of their private actions. (The government can require driv- ers to wear safety belts, for example.) Any intrusions on privacy for the sake of security would be minimal, and fundamental rights would still be respected.
History has shown that the invocation of national secu- rity has often led to the restriction of fundamental rights. For example, Japanese-American citizens were interned during World War II to increase security. We should not allow the government to take even small steps in a direc- tion that can lead to something worse.
sample motions:
This House supports the creation of a national identity card. This House would give the government more power in time of war.
Web Links:
Privacilla.org. <http://www.privacilla.org> A Web site devoted to gathering information on privacy issues and links to privacy •
Web sites.
Privacy vs. Security: A Bogus Debate? <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2002/tc2002065_6863.htm> In •
an interview for Business Week, David Brin, author of The Transparent Society, argues that the conflict between privacy and secu- rity is a false dichotomy.
Privacy vs. Security? Privacy. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-rotenberg/privacy-vs-security-pr_b_71806.html> Article •
supporting respect for privacy over need for security. Contains link to opposing viewpoint.
Further reading:
Cohen, David B., and John W. Wells, eds. American National Security and Civil Liberties in an Era of Terrorism. Palgrave, 2004. Darmer, M. Katherine, Robert M. Baird, and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds. Civil Liberties vs. National Security in a Post-9/11 World. Prometheus, 2004.
Dempsey, John X., and David Cole. Terrorism & The Constitution, Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. First Amendment Foundation, 2002.
Leone, Richard C., and Greg Anrig, Jr., eds. The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. PublicAffairs, 2003. Sidel, Mark. More Secure, Less Free? Antiterrorism Policy and Civil Liberties After September 11. University of Michigan Press, 2004.
ProstItutIon, LegALIzAtIon oF
Prostitution has long been opposed on moral grounds, but recently concerns about sexually transmitted diseases, par- ticularly AIDS, and about the violence that surrounds prostitution have contributed to renewed demands to stop the selling of sex. Criminalizing prostitution has not worked, and some nations have moved to regulate or legalize it to protect prostitutes and monitor the conditions under which they work. In Singapore and Denmark, selling sex is legal; the Dutch city of Amsterdam and the Australian state of New South Wales have no laws for or against prostitution. Nevada has made prostitution lawful in a limited number of licensed brothels. This arrangement also has enjoyed notable success in the Australian state of Victoria.
Pros
Cons
Prostitution is an issue of individual liberty. The control of one’s own body is a basic human right. We do not impose legal penalties on men and women who choose to be promiscuous. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make consensual sex illegal?
Prostitutes do not have a genuine choice. They are often encouraged or forced to work in the sex industry before they are old enough to make a reasoned decision. Many have their reasoning impaired by an unhappy family background, previous sexual abuse, or drugs. They may be compelled to enter prostitution by circumstances beyond their control, such as substance addiction or the necessity to provide for a family.
Prostitution has existed in all cultures throughout his- tory. Governments should recognize that they cannot eradicate it. Consequently they should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer, rather than persist with futile and dangerous prohibition.
Governments have a duty to protect the moral and physical health of their citizens. Legalizing prostitu- tion would implicitly approve a dangerous and immoral practice. Prostitution is never a legitimate choice for a young girl.
Prostitutes have performed a valid social function for thousands of years. Prostitution actually helps maintain marriages and relationships. A purely physical, commer- cial transaction does not jeopardize the emotional sta- bility of a relationship. In Italy, for example, visiting a prostitute does not violate the law against adultery.
Prostitution harms the fabric of society. Sexual inter- course outside of marriage or a relationship of love shows disregard for the sanctity of the sexual act and for the other partner in a relationship. Emotional commitment is inextricably linked to physical commitment.
Many libertarian feminists believe that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women. The majority of prostitutes are women. Once the danger of abuse from male clients and pimps is removed, the capacity of women to control men’s sexual responses in a financially beneficial relationship is liber- ating. Furthermore, many campaigners for the rights of prostitutes note that the hours are relatively short and the work well paid. Prostitutes are paid for services other women must provide without charge.
Feminists overwhelmingly oppose prostitution. The rad- ical feminist school that emerged in the 1990s supports the idea that prostitution leads to the objectification of women. Men who use women’s bodies solely for sexual gratification do not treat them as people. This lack of respect dehumanizes both the prostitute and the client and does not represent a victory for either sex.
Some studies suggest that prostitution lowers the inci-
dence of sex crimes. How can you prove that some individuals who visit pros-titutes would otherwise have committed violent offenses?