BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 01:49 AM

This page (click) appears to give pretty good information about the availability of abortion providers in the U.S. While it's true that many counties do not have abortion providers, only one American woman in ten has to drive more than 100 miles to an abortion provider, and seven in ten travel less than 50 miles.

Nine in ten abortion providers reported being the target of some sort of harassment. I found that disturbing.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:08 AM

You know, many of the pictures we get to see of people stood outside clinics intimidating patients and staff tend to include old men in dog collars.

Just saying like...

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 02:25 AM

Joe, (and I'm not going to harass you about this)..but how do you reconcile your stance on abortions, and your Catholic faith? It seems to be conflicted.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:04 AM

only one American woman in ten has to drive more than 100 miles

That may indeed be true if the nation is taken as a whole, oe, but it is most certainly NOT the case in states that have enacted the so called TRAP laws- or in the states that now, thanks to the Republicraps & fundagelicals - and Catholics, I may add - have a single facility for the entire state.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 11:45 AM

GfS, I think that abortion is sometimes the least harmful of a selection of bad choices. When there is no good choice, one chooses the least harmful one. So, I am a pro-choice, anti-abortion Catholic.
Many of us are.
Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 12:38 PM

Steve Shaw says: I note that the number of states in the US with no abortion clinics has gone up to six.

I'd like to see that data, Steve. I've seen lists that show states with one or two clinics, but haven't seen states with no clinics at all. And then, perhaps it would be better to determine how many abortion providers are in a state. I've read that the majority of abortions in the U.S. are performed in abortion clinics, but some are performed in hospitals, outpatient surgery centers, and other medical clinics. Many locations simply do not have enough demand to justify a a dedicated abortion clinic. Some don't even have hospitals.

Musket contends that photos of anti-abortion demonstrations include photos of "old men in dog collars," and I wouldn't disagree. It does seem to be younger priests who are most vehemently opposed to abortion, homosexuals, and the like; but some of the old guys are like that, too. Many of the old guys have heard enough confessions to develop compassion that tends to overrule legalism.

My point is (and has always been) that Catholic positions on the "sex issues" are not universal. There is a wide diversity of thinking, even among bishops - and popes. Many of us don't buy into the legalism and absolutism and authoritarianism that are primary aspects of the stereotype seem by many outsiders.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:19 PM

I made a mistake there, sorry: it was six states with just one provider, not none. The vast majority of counties have no providers, as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 09:32 PM

Or should that be clinics...

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:39 PM

Joe, (and I'm not going to harass you about this)..but how do you reconcile your stance on abortions, and your Catholic faith? It seems to be conflicted.

GfS

It's called free will.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:01 AM

Musket says: I assume the word "doctrine" still means what I thought it does? Enlightened discussion between intelligent people who happen to be Catholics has nothing to do with the aims and objectives of the Vatican. The best you can say is that you give respectability to their aims and objectives, many of which aren't supportable.

Well, no, Musket, the Catholic thinking on doctrine probably does not fit your stereotype. The pope and the bishops together form the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. They are supposed to discern the sensus fidei (click) (sense of the faith) that is commonly held by all Catholics - I'll bet that's far more democratic than you expected.

There are different levels of doctrine (church teaching). The one people hear of most is dogma, the infallible teaching that is found primarily in the fourth-century Nicene Creed - the core beliefs of most Christians, plus a few other Catholic-specific things. The next level is simply called doctrine - official teachings that Catholics are generally expected to believe, but which are open to discussion. And then there are other teachings and interpretations, which Catholics are encouraged to consider seriously. In all matters, the individual's conscience is the final decider. The Church may impose sanctions to compel acceptance of things when there's an impasse with an individual. Excommunication is the stiffest sanction, but it can usually be removed by administrative procedures. And in general, an excommunication issued by a local bishop applies only within that bishop's local diocese.

The Church cannot condemn an individual to damnation - only God can do that. Interestingly, if a person obeys a Church directive and fails to obey his own conscience in the process, that could conceivably result in damnation, if serious enough and fully intentional. Unlikely, but conceivable.

Yes, Musket, some Catholic teachings aren't supportable, especially in the area of sexuality. But those teachings are often not as rigid and unforgiving as your stereotype leads you to think. And do you really the Catholic social teachings unsupportable? The moral teachings the Church spends most of its time on, have to do with social justice, not sex - preferential option for the poor, support of the rights of immigrants and workers and the homeless, condemnation of the U.S. war in Iraq, condemnation of capital punishment, and many other teaching that support the oppressed. Are those unsupportable? Donald Trump seems to think so.

---

Steve Shaw says:That is not true. Catholicism and its institutional structures have a good, firm grip in much of Central and South America, the Philippines and in large parts of Africa.
Steve's stereotype is far from universally applicable. The Catholic bishops have often been at odds with the governments in the areas Steve lists, to the point where church leaders have often been targets for assassination by government troops. The bishops' conference of Latin America has often been labeled "Marxist" because of its initiation of the concept of the "preferential option for the poor." The Cardinal in Manila was instrumental in the 1972 overthrow of the corrupt Ferdinand Marcos regime in the Philippines.

It is true, however, that repressive regimes in the third world always seem to be able to form alliances with repressive bishops; and those regimes often find it expedient to legislate the repressive bishops' draconian moral concepts. Indeed, many right-wing Catholic political leaders are members of Opus Dei, a right-wing Catholic organization with vast political and financial power in economies, nations, and the Church. Opus Dei is a minority, but a very scary minority.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:05 AM

So a press communique from the Vatican stating the catholic position on dealing with public health issues is the position of...?

What exactly?

Who is required to take heed of it?

Yes, the church sounds out vocally on social issues, but is rather precious when the results of it's own confusion is questioned. Lamenting the state of vulnerable people whilst systematically hiding its own predators doesn't sound like the actions of this democratic system to me. In fact, I do believe they are to hold a criminal court for a whistle blower shortly, except the Italian government has stated it won't host a prisoner for something that isn't an offence in Italy.

Interesting use of "open" and "democratic" if you ask me.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 03:01 AM

It may be a novel concept to you, Musket, but the Catholic Church doesn't just bark out orders and expect obedience. The Church tries its best to present its positions rationally.

Rationally....are you familiar with that word? It's not brainwashing or ideology. It's logical thinking, an attempt to convince others that one's position on an issue makes sense. That's the way the Catholic Church usually operates - by instruction and persuasion, not by threats and edicts.

And yes, in a church with a billion members, there's plenty of dirt for you to find fault with. The same thing happens wherever you bring two or more humans together. Somebody's gonna screw up, and some idiot is gonna blame everyone in the organization instead of putting the blame on the few who deserve it.

Maybe you absolutists wouldn't understand that, though - you who see yourselves as perfect and everyone else as unworthy.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 03:21 AM

Where do you armchair experts get your information about the Catholic Church, anyhow? News reports?
While news reports are usually accurate, it's difficult for them to convey perspective. The news media generally focus on problems, not on successes. Good news doesn't sell papers. So, readers get the impression that the bad stuff overwhelms everything they don't have direct experience with.

I don't deny the bad aspects of the Catholic Church, but they're about 10 percent of the total experience. The mediocre and mundane account for another 50 percent or so, and the really good stuff is maybe 40 percent.

40 percent good ain't bad, unless you're obsessed with the 10%.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 03:23 AM

Rationally? Brainwashing? Ideology?

In case you hadn't noticed Joe, your lot are the ones expecting loyalty to a concept that is irrational. You don't arrive by reason to an idea of telling a fantasy concept that you are impure or need saving. You don't work on an idea that someone lived amongst other humans whose mother was a virgin, that his conjuring tricks were something other than that, that he died and still walked amongst others, that his father was a god, that babies who a priest hasn't thrown water on can't go to the same mythical land as others when they die... I shan't go on, you know the stories far better than I do

You can say what you like but churches talk of obedience, living your life to a script provided by them and interfering in the lives of all, including those not impressed by bigotry and not in need of comfort blankets.

That Jesuit quote Jim keeps repeating about giving them a child? Yeah, if every member of a cult made a choice as an adult having never been influenced by superstition as s child, how would your billion stack up?

Brain washing indeed Joe...,.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 03:31 AM

Damn. And all this time, I thought the talk about giving a Jesuit school a child at a young age, was about the importance of education.
Musket, do you advocate keeping children out of school, lest their little minds be polluted with ideas? Above all other educators, the Jesuits emphasize critical thinking. But you don't know critical thinking - all you know is propaganda and ideology.

I've carefully explained all this stuff, carefully admitting all the shortcomings; and you twist it all with your xenophobic propaganda. I've lived a lifetime as a Catholic, among many other Catholics. We came out just fine, most of us. Yes, we have a few strange ones on the fringe, but doesn't every group?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:34 AM

Real critical thinking would lead you to conclude that a God almost certainly does not exist and that religion predicated on his supposed existence is a fraud. All your critical thinking is carried out within your carefully-erected ringfence, which means that you're actually defrauding yourself. Rationality based on entirely irrational concepts is, to say the very least, a house built on shifting sand.

I get my knowledge of Catholicism from having been a practising Catholic for thirty years, from having endured the whole of my primary and secondary education in Catholic schools, from teaching in a Catholic school for seven years and from being in a family that still contains devout Catholics. And I do try to keep up.

And I'd suggest that your "different levels of doctrine" may be well known to blokes who have spent eight years studying theology but they are are not writ large in the minds of ordinary Catholics. I'd even be so unkind as to suggest that the resultant confusion sown is fairly deliberate.

As for your billion members, well that includes me and several other members of my family who now vehemently oppose the Church, and there are plenty more where we come from. Talk about bums on pews instead and your numbers wouldn't like quite so impressive. Hotel California, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 07:29 AM

" I thought the talk about giving a Jesuit school a child at a young age, was about the importance of education"
You know as well as I do that religious schools have always done more than provide children with an education - often to the detriment of real education.
It was always about winning hearts and minds (not to mention souls) rather than passing on knowledge,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 09:01 AM

Yes, we have a few strange ones on the fringe, but doesn't every group?

Joe, you are talking, once again, about the Cathlic Church IN THE U.S.- the same situation does NOT pertain in many other parts of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:19 AM

Here we go again" Steve assures us that real critical thinking would almost certainly lead us to conclude that a god almost certainly does not exist. He then claims that our thinking is ring fenced and rationality based on entirely irrational concepts. Not only is that an assertion unsupported but it does not occur to him that we might think the same about what he believes.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:25 AM

Like I said Joe. If children are taught bullshit they believe bullshit.

I repeat. If adults with no prior knowledge were asked to be members of any cult, they would weigh it up. If they were told lies as children, those lies stick.

For me, what I just said seems to be proving itself out on these threads. Rather than admit to doctrine, you say people ignore what the Pope says. Fine. Perhaps people should take an IQ test to see if they are too vulnerable for membership? Is that a logical conclusion to your boutique stance? I'm sure the script is for people to believe what priests tell them.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:04 PM

"He then claims that our thinking is ring fenced and rationality based on entirely irrational concepts."

Of course it's ringfenced. Your starting premise is the existence of God. He's your ringfence. Without him you'd have nothing to think about. When it comes to rationality, well you set evidence aside (bad for rationality) in order to believe (not rational) in an entity who doesn't fit any of the laws of nature, who no-one has ever seen or heard, who is supposedly infinite, all-seeing and all-powerful (irrationality taken to extremes) and who can't be explained. Everything can be explained with an explanation that's infinitely inexplicable in itself. So you take this thoroughly irrational starting point and build a whole theology out of it. Oh, your theology may contain reasoning of a kind and may even reach good conclusions about why we should be good, etc. (though we heathens manage to do that too). But as soon as you start talking about God's love, God's will or God's mercy as explanations for what happens in the world, or suggest that we could pray to him for things, or use him or his mother as examples to us all, or pretend that he could do arbitrary magic on random people, not only have you become severely irrational, you've gone barking mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:24 PM

Mr. Musket, you should be ashamed of yourself for your outbursts of shallow derision! Go sit in the corner with Messrs Shaw and Carroll and Campin and F (greg f), and pay attention. Honestly, you lot and your mindless literalism are making me run out of dunce caps!

For extra homework, you are to study the writings of Joseph Campbell and Karen Armstrong on the subject of myth. For those of you with no experience reading actual books, you may view Campbell and Armstrong on YouTube.

As I have said time and time again until I am blue in the face and then some, the ancient sacred writings of various cultures and peoples and religions are meant to be read and regarded in the spirit in which they were written - and they were not written in terms of shallow literalism. These ancient writings are not meant to be scientific or historical, although they were written in the context of the science and history of their time. These writings are sacred stories meant to embody the identity and ideals of a people, to show who they are and what they want to be - and what they hold most sacred. The sacred writings of various peoples have many features in common. Many of them speak of some sort of guru who is the embodiment (incarnation) of the faith of a people, although the guru is rarely the founder of the group's religious organization. Most also speak of a god, a distant, incomprehensible entity that is the source and focus of all that they hold sacred.
The birth of the guru is always related in legendary terms, because the birth was insignificant at the time it took place and nobody had reason to record the birth. Sometimes, the guru was said to be born of a virgin, perhaps indicating a tie with the Divinity because no warrior male was necessary in the conception.
These sacred stories were passed from generation to generation, often gaining details and variations. As is usually the case with a good story, the story takes on a life of its own, and it moves out of the control of any individual.
Yes, there are fundamentalists in every group who will obsess over the exterior aspects of the text and insist on a literal understanding of every jot and tittle. And yes, there will be literalist detractors who will insist that the only valid interpretation of a text, is that of the fundamentalists; and then they proceed to build their own, mockingly fundamentalist interpretation of the text which they then condemn.

But most people aren't like that. They regard their sacred writings as they would regard any good book. They aren't absolutely certain which aspects of the writing are factual and which are not, because factuality is not as important to most people as one might think. Most people have an innate awareness that "the facts" can be misleading, and can be twisted and distorted to lead people away from the actual truth that they hold sacred - things like love and life and tradition and family and relationships. So they read and pass on these sacred writings because the writings tell the story of who they are and what they hold sacred - their identity.

Now, there are scholars who study ancient texts more closely, and their work can be of great value. But their deep study can often distract them from the integrity of the sacred story as a whole. After all, the stories were written for real people, not for intellectuals and not for literalists. And certainly not for detractors.

There are many ancient sacred writings that tell the story of many peoples. All are true, and all are an embodiment of the essence of a people. They should be regarded with the same respect that people deserve. To deride or impose false interpretations on the sacred writings of a people, is to deride the people themselves.

If you do not understand the sacred writings of a people, don't try to reinterpret the writings in your own terms. You are free to follow your own ways - but be sure to allow others to follow their ways without derision.

And please, don't define groups other than yours as "sects" or as conspiracy theories. Most people have valid, valuable reasons for doing what they do. Learn to respect them for that, and you will have a much happier life. Combat and derision are so unsatisfying.

Now, return to your usual seats and conduct yourselves with respect for others and for what they hold sacred - even though you may not understand them.

On second thought, Mr. Shaw, go back to the dunce's chair until you understand that your leaving the Catholic Church a generation ago at the tender age of thirty, does not make you an expert on all things Catholic. It is your right to choose your own way, but not to deride those who have chosen a different path.

That is all.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:34 PM

Go sit in the corner with Messrs Shaw and Carroll and Campin and F (greg f), and pay attention.

So, Joe, you're saying that the situation RE: the (Roman)Catholic Church in the U.S. ISN'T different from that in the less developed parts of the globe?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 01:48 PM

Of course, the Catholic teaching is that it is literalism. I'd ask Joe but his boss the Pope says so, and corporate governance being what it is and all that.

I actually do appreciate your stance Joe, and I reckon you are being sincere. But after trying to polish a turd you now seem to think rolling it in glitter will be ok.

The Catholic position on public health is what it is. No waffle about democracy or bristling over the word "cult" is going to change the fact that the Catholic Church has a view that it says its members are happy with what is dangerous to health, bigoted, misogynist and utterly disgraceful.

Their excuse? Literal interpretation of what you reckon is metaphor in order to exercise control over people.

Is it a language thing? Does the word Catholic mean something else over there?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:05 PM

Anyone else noticing how long it is since there has been any discussion here about Zika?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:07 PM

Ever since the little baby Jesus decided to wade in

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:17 PM

Combat and derision are so unsatisfying. Yet that's the whole tenor of Joe Offer's bitter and frustrated post. I suppose, as an aside, that I ought to congratulate him for producing a post that contains a world-record population density of the word "sacred."

And in many ways that's the point. In the good old days Joe's mob would have had me, Musket, Jim, Jack and Greg dragged to court for heresy. They can't do that now, of course, so they have to think of other ways of defending their religion. Joe's post reveals two time-honoured methods. First, wrap up your faith in a cloak of sacredness and tell us how offensive we're being to those who hold this, that and the other sacred. Why, it would be as bad as if gangs of us stood on street corners and shouted at every passing mother that her baby was execrably ugly. How dare we! Second, tell us over and over and over again that we shouldn't criticise what we don't understand, as if we were all dull-witted dolts. Unfortunately, Joe, we understand you all too well. Reflect that observers from the outside might just see you for what you really are better than how you see yourself. Worse, one or two of us have been both within and without. You don't like that one little bit and you've had another go at me for that in my post. I suppose you're going to tell me that, after two millennia of Christianity, things have changed so much in one generation that I can't possibly have any inkling of how things are. Bullshit, Joe, and you know it. What I know makes you uncomfortable, that's more like it.

Finally, your faux soft-centred philosophical ramblings about what isn't really literal is lifted straight from your theology classes. I remind you once again that very few Catholics are privy to that thinking. School and pulpit teaching, which is what most Catholics get and no more, hardly spend much time delving critically into such niceties, do they? Ignorance or confusion serves the Church far better. About everything, contraception, abortion, creation, what's literal and what isn't...

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM

Had a go in your post, not my post is what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM

Hardly. The title implies Christianity was involved from the start, and Catholicism came in at the fourth post, courtesy of Steve. We had quite a lot of discussion about Zika after that until around a fortnight ago since when we have had odd mention or link but virtually no discussion of it, just the same old same old.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 03:01 PM

Sorry, it was the seventh post, not the fourth, where Catholicism was first mentioned, but it was Steve who raised it. I wouldn't want anyone to feel I had misled them over that!

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 04:09 PM

DMcG: " ...where Catholicism was first mentioned, but it was Steve who raised it. I wouldn't want anyone to feel I had misled them over that!"

Steve, among others, who along with Steve, who in their youth, were probably 'put-off' by the Catholic Church, cannot differentiate between 'Catholicism', 'religion', 'God' and/or science, that include metaphysics....To them they have found 'refuge' in clinging to a partial understanding of, what they WANT to BELIEVE, in science....even if they have to stop up their ears, to a deeper understand...that being said, I am not exactly 'faulting' Steve and the others for that..I'm sure the disillusionment ran deep and caused hurtful damage...
I think that if they opened their minds and hearts, to a deeper and wider understanding, they could become very effective warriors for truth...where science and spiritualism meet...and verify each other....but to realize that end, one needs to leave 'politics' and 'religion' out of it......as any dedicated, successful researcher would also tell you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 04:29 PM

Steve Shaw raised the subject of Roman Catholicism, not to be confused with Orthodox Catholicism

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 05:05 PM

Wottevah.

I'm constantly amused by these guys who think that my escaping from the grip of Catholicism must have been in any way hurtful. Not a bit of it, chaps. Compared to the iron grip of Islam, the velvet glove of Catholicism is benign. To stop being a Catholic, all you have to do is stop going to mass, stop going to confession and say very little. Hardly anyone notices for several years, then someone politely raises it. Why would I be bitter and hurt? So stop talking bollocks, please. Don't advertise this, but stopping being a Catholic is easy, once you get things straight in your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 05:35 PM

The topic of this thread is Zika in countries in which abortion is vehemently opposed. In the countries we're talking about, the overwhelming influence on abortion and contraception policy is the Catholic Church in hock with the various states. To discuss this topic in the context of Central and South America without raising the effect of Catholicism would be utterly risible. Your gripes are groundless and not a little ridiculous. Find some other way to defend your nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 05:43 PM

Who says (Roman) Catholicism should not be raised in the context of Zika? I have never objected to that. What I am pointing out that for approximately a fortnight Zika has been almost completely omitted from discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 05:58 PM

Good Soldier Schweik: "Steve Shaw raised the subject of Roman Catholicism, not to be confused with Orthodox Catholicism."

Explain the difference.

Steve Shaw: "I'm constantly amused by these guys who think that my escaping from the grip of Catholicism must have been in any way hurtful. Not a bit of it, chaps. Compared to the iron grip of Islam, the velvet glove of Catholicism is benign. To stop being a Catholic, all you have to do is stop going to mass, stop going to confession and say very little. Hardly anyone notices for several years, then someone politely raises it. Why would I be bitter and hurt?"

In Catholicism, it is taught, and adhered to, that the ONLY doctrines about Jesus, must be approved by a priest, who is subject to the dogmas set forth by the Vatican...and NOT to listen to anyone or anything else, for fear of it being a heresy...and that would be a 'sin'.
The problem with this, is though you, "...To stop being a Catholic, all you have to do is stop going to mass, stop going to confession and say very little...."...there is a reason to 'say very little'...PLUS, though you stop doing all those things, the stigma of being receptive of getting another viewpoint sticks with you...and severely. It has been imprinted in your brain, for years or even decades...and you KNOW that, as well as I.
True story.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:48 PM

Explain the difference.

Look it up, Goofus - do your own work.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:50 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 06:53 PM

Go crawl back under you bridge...
Don't you think that Good Soldier Schweik, has the ability, or knowledge to respond, without your projecting that he can't?
He obviously has a viewpoint, unlike yourself, who just jumps in to screw the threads up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 07:17 PM

Well, DMcG, you raised it in two posts, seeming to imply that I'd brought up Catholicism as a consequence of some obsession of mine. If that isn't what you meant, I withdraw my scathing remarks of 5.35. but it still leaves me wondering why you saw fit to bring it up at all.

Threads around here go their own way. Threads I've started always do that. I'm over the moon about anyone responding at all. I don't care which turns threads take. If a thread wanders, you always have the option of bringing your topIc back in line by starting a new one.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 09:22 PM

without your projecting that he can't?

Nothing to do with GSS, Goofus - I was saying that YOU can't, and won't, and you've confirmed same.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Mar 16 - 11:29 PM

Steve, dug your post!

Greg F. is just trying his usual to create animosity.
I'd ask him to contribute...but he RARELY has anything to say....he should try to get a job at Trump headquarters as a policy writer!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 01:25 AM

I think that if people are able to make sense of life, they also can make sense of their religion - one way or another. If they have distorted, fearful ideas about life, the same will hold true for their religion. I know a large number of American Catholics who were born in Central America, the Philippines, Africa, and Vietnam. While they do tend to be more conservative than the progressive American Catholics I feel most at home with, third world Catholics don't have the rigid, legalistic literalism of the ultra-right American Catholics I've known. They tend to oppose abortion; but it seems to me that their opposition to abortion is what they think, not what they're told to think.

For the most part, Catholics don't seem to know what the Pope says. Most information is conveyed to them by their home parishes. And as I've said, morality for third world Catholics is mostly about social and economic justice, not sexual conduct. Family and social life are also important topics for third world American Catholics. But the Usual Suspects won't believe that. I wonder how the Suspects are so sure their perception is accurate.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:21 AM

Well DMcG, herein lies the problem.

Zika has its index source, to the best of WHO knowledge, in South America. The anti abortion cult that is most popular in those parts is the Catholic Church. Yes, yes, Joe doesn't like the word cult, but part of the script is to spread the word so I for one am comfortable with the term, especially in enlightened places such as here where superstition is a minority hobby.

You can't discuss Zika without exploring the malign influence of ill informed priests on these communities and the stance of the Catholic Church and as Goofus funnily enough states, you get your moral code from your priest and if thst doesn't describe a cult, what does? Enlightened clever people who can pick and choose which bits to believe or follow may get something out of belonging but to try to describe Catholicism based on their dismissal of the bits they find intellectually insulting? Well.. The left footer social club where I grew up did serve the second cheapest beer in town, after the Ukrainian Club.

Everything has its uses.

But moralising on public health matters based on ancient superstition ain't one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 02:24 AM

Well, DMcG, you raised it in two posts, seeming to imply that I'd brought up Catholicism as a consequence of some obsession of mine. If that isn't what you meant, I withdraw my scathing remarks of 5.35. but it still leaves me wondering why you saw fit to bring it up at all.

Feel free to review the actual relevant posts, but in précis the conversation went:

I said: We haven't said anything about Zika for an age
Musket said: Not since baby Jesus joined the conversation
I said: Hardly. Catholicism was raised at post 7 and we have discussed Zika a lot since then.


See? Perfectly legitimate. True, I did not need to mention it was by you, but you know, you do like to insist on evidence and factual accuracy, and having made one reference (fourth+you) and remembering the tedious ding-dong about whether something happened twenty posts ago on another thread, I corrected my error (seventh+you).

The implication that I was saying you were obsessed is entirely in your imagination, and I think an apology rather than 'withdrawing the remarks' would be my response if the situation were reversed.


Yes, threads go their own way. However it seems to me that the actual topic of the thread has hardly been touched. Catholicism is important, certainly, but having spent around seven weeks in various parts of South America and talked to a lot of locals, the assumption that they are simply doing what the Pope says is patronising. Ok, my evidence is all anecdotal I accept that, but I was told time and again that, for example, a statue of Mary will represent both Christ's mother and a local goddess and the two beliefs are so intertwined it is almost impossible to determine when they are following Christianity and when a local religion, as many use the outward Christian symbols to reflect the local beliefs. And, like here, what they write on census forms is a very poor guide to what they actually think.

Or take another region where I am becoming more aware than I was: Abortion is illegal in Thailand. Thailand is not Christian and quite frankly what the Pope says is of no relevance to them at all. Cases of Zika have also been found in every province (There's even a chance my daughter had it). Thompson raised in a very early thread that Evangelical Christians - many of whom hate the Pope with a vengeance - are in many cases strongly anti-abortion. All ignored in favour if a generalised attack on the Catholic Churches view on abortion that has been done to death many times before. It remains relevant, of course, but so are lots of other things.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 03:02 AM

And of course, the elephant in the room is the obvious fact that abortion won't cure the Zika virus. What we know now is that in some cases (not all), the Zika virus may cause a birth defect known as microcephaly - and I would think that the birth defect has varying levels of seriousness. So, then the question is whether it is appropriate to dispose of a fetus by abortion because it might be born with birth defects, or would it be better to allow the child to be born and to live with deformities which may or may not be serious.

I'm not so sure that abortion is the only answer to the Zika virus, although I wouldn't rule it out as one possible response. I'd much rather see a cure, or a vaccine - and not all this drama and derision.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 03:56 AM

Nobody said abortion was a cure Joe. Your lot said it wasn't an option to begin with. The Zika virus has been an opportunity for anti abortion extremists to get the oxygen of publicity and the Vatican's hands are dirty. As are other cults for that matter.

To say that people born and raised in a cult aren't influenced by the teaching of it when expressing a view on abortion isn't exactly your finest hour Joe, if I'm being honest.

No matter. We could be in Russia where someone dismissed superstition on a blog recently and is facing a prison term for upsetting the Orthodox Church, in a law brought out after the Pussy Cats riots. Perhaps the omnipotent is actually impotent if he has to get Putin to do his dirty work for him.

Meanwhile on an adjacent thread, Keith is telling us just about every Christian knows "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean that at all. I would say you couldn't make it up, but sadly it all is made up. Which makes the bigotry and irresponsible reaction to health scares all the more unpalatable.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 05:00 AM

Musket says To say that people born and raised in a cult aren't influenced by the teaching of it when expressing a view on abortion isn't exactly your finest hour Joe, if I'm being honest.


Of course, members of an organization are influenced when its leadership states a position. I should hope that the members of an organization would consider what its leaders have to say, and then make up their own minds. What's wrong with being influenced? Are labor union leaders wrong to state a position on issues?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 05:16 AM

From: Acme
Date: 01 Mar 16 - 10:39 PM

"'Joe, (and I'm not going to harass you about this)..but how do you reconcile your stance on abortions, and your Catholic faith? It seems to be conflicted.'"


It's called free will."

Free will???....and everybody has it, right??

Did we have a choice?????

Something to think about!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 16 - 09:52 AM

"So, then the question is whether it is appropriate to dispose of a fetus by abortion because it might be born with birth defects, or would it be better to allow the child to be born and to live with deformities which may or may not be serious."

Well let me answer it for you. Imagine you are confronted with a pregnant woman who has had Zika. Would you dare to put the question to her in the way you stated it here? How do you think she would see it, put the way in which you put it, coming from a Roman Catholic male? Or would you conceal that from her? Have another look at your wording. "Appropriate." "Dispose of." "Deformities which may or may not be serious." Wow.

What is appropriate is for her to have the facility to have an abortion freely available, without tendentious "advice" from people with different interests to her and without moralising from the religious. She needs factual and full information, honestly and neutrally presented, and she needs friends. Gosh, it sounds so hard. The reason it's so hard is because the default for most women in our so-civilised nations commonly approaches precisely the opposite of what I've just suggested. You're living in a country which is making it harder and harder all the time for women to make the free and informed choice whether to have an abortion or not. Your question is part of the problem.