 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:22 PM Article from the Telegraph (UK) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/zika/12157747/Zika-virus-Brazil-dismisses-link-between-larvicide-and-microcephaly.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 15 Feb 16 - 04:53 PM it may be only a contributory factor and a smoke screen Then again, there's an equal chance that it may not be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Feb 16 - 05:37 PM "The report also pointed out that there had been no cases of microcephaly in other countries affected by Zika, such as Colombia, which has the highest incidence of the virus after Brazil." It does look like pyriproxyfen will have to be studied to see the affect it has on women who are bearing children with microcephaly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 16 - 06:22 PM Could a different devil be somewhere in the details? http://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-170639.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Feb 16 - 07:32 PM Greg F - I'll stick with my contention that contraception is a non-issue in Brazil. I linked above to an article at the PBS (US Public Broadcasting Service) Website (click). Here's an excerpt:
Most people are smart enough not to take sex advice from celibate old men. And although their advice on sex may be distorted, that doesn't mean that they are evil people or that they may not be credible voices on other subjects like poverty and immigration and abolishment of the death penalty. I think that many posters here are under the illusion that Catholic bishops exercise some sort of mind control, and that Catholics feel obliged to follow their every whim. That just isn't true - and never was. Catholics are no stupider than anybody else. And for that matter, I think most people aren't as stupid as we seem to think they are - even if they live in different countries or belong to different political parties or practice different religious traditions. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 15 Feb 16 - 08:06 PM Greg F - I'll stick with my contention that contraception is a non-issue in Brazil. Fine by ME Joe - only your contention doesn't seem to be supported by facts, but by wishful thinking. That's what makes horse races, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,# Date: 15 Feb 16 - 08:24 PM To GUEST Date: 15 Feb 16 - 06:22 PM Thanks for that link. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST Date: 15 Feb 16 - 08:29 PM "I'll stick with my contention that contraception is a non-issue in Brazil." "I'll stick with my contention that contraception is a non-issue in Brazil." Anybody who has any experience of the Catholic Church in full spate knows how difficult it is to overcome this sort of 'advice' ENLIGHTENED BRAZIL FURTHER ENLIGHTENMENT Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 15 Feb 16 - 09:41 PM No-one mocks Christians merely for being Christian. Christians who try out loud to claim merit for their beliefs, or who justify malpractice such as forcing religion on children, or who post on secular websites offering or asking for prayers, or who moralise at people, about abortion for example, in the name of God, are fair game for mockery, and, if mockery's all they get, they should consider that they've been let off lightly. In your many years of teaching sex education, Steve, you must have met pupils in relationships where one was atheist or agnostic and the other fervently evangelical. How did you address your laudable objectives of stressing mutual respect and agreement to differ? Encouraging one to mock the others beliefs doesn't sound very appropriate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:28 AM Gee, I guess you ideological types just don't get what I'm saying. Maybe that's why you get so nasty in the Forum, because you can't accept that it's not the end of the world when people have opinions that differ from your own, narrow ideology. Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. They simply see things differently. And that's why I've used the term "born-again atheists" - because it's the same kind of rigid, ideological mindset that the born-again fundamentalists espouse, that you're not "saved" unless you think the right thoughts. Yes, yes, yes, the Catholic Church has declared abortion and artificial contraception to be immoral. Please take note that these declarations were issued by elderly, celibate men (and the younger priests in the pipeline are even more conservative). Those in authority have painted themselves into a corner on abortion and contraception, and aren't likely to change even if they'd like to. Please also take note that Catholics use birth control and have abortions at the same or higher rate as other people in their cultures. I think this means that most Catholics are mature enough and intelligent enough not to take sex advice from elderly, celibate men who are not going to change their positions on these issues. But I think most Catholics see contraception as a non-issue because they have ignored church prohibitions for long. And life goes on. And Jim Carroll, you should be ashamed of yourself for using a link from the Daily Mail and a 2012 article about a 2009 incident from some unknown site called thinkprogress.org. Try using reputable sources, for a change. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:52 AM "But I think most Catholics see contraception as a non-issue because they have ignored church prohibition" But while these "elderly, celibate men" remain where they are their neanderthal views remain an issue - they are a life-or-death hurdle to be vaulted over, largely by third world people who are struggling to stay alive anyway. If your religion is going to survive (and I confess I don't care one way or the other) their power has to be neutralised and they have to be confined to spiritual matters only - and that on a totally voluntary basis only. Hopefully, I will live long enough to see their 90 percent plus control over childrens' minds in our education system disappear reduced to no percent - that's where the rot begins, as the Jesuits have so articulately pointed out. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:52 AM Gee, I guess you ideological types just don't get what I'm saying. Maybe that's why you get so nasty in the Forum, because you can't accept that it's not the end of the world when people have opinions that differ from your own, narrow ideology. Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. They simply see things differently. I just thought that was worth repeating. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Musket Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:02 AM It doesn't necessarily make them nice either. I have opinion x Fred has opinion y. So far so hoopy. No arguments over whose round it is next. My opinion has no detrimental effect on others. Fred's opinion needs losers to gain his winners. Whose round is it? My opinion is free of ideology. Fred can't unshackle his opinion from what he was brought up thinking. I'll buy the beers because poor old Fred is deluded. My opinion isn't perfect, has a few holes in it but I'm comfortable with it. Fred states that he could say the same about his. Fred's round. My opinion is based on weighing up the evidence and I say so. Fred resorts to lies and distortions to bring people round to his view. Time to glass the bastard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:01 AM "I just thought that was worth repeating." It wasn't, but don't apologise - you don't usually Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:58 AM Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. Absolutely, Joe! But they're still wrong. But I think most Catholics see contraception as a non-issue because they have ignored church prohibitions for long. In that event, Joe, having ignored & violated the fundamental tenets of their church, why do they consider themselves "Catholics" instead of, say, Unitarians? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:00 AM Gee, I guess you ideological types just don't get what I'm saying. Maybe that's why you get so nasty in the Forum, because you can't accept that it's not the end of the world when people have opinions that differ from your own, narrow ideology. Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. They simply see things differently. I just thought that was worth repeating. Me too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:22 AM Then how about giving your opinions on the discussion rather than defending your political stance That his been repeated on every discussion you pair have been involved in and it's still worth repeating This isn't about either Keith or Brucie Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Stu Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:06 AM "Those in authority have painted themselves into a corner on abortion and contraception, and aren't likely to change even if they'd like to." Blimey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:47 AM In that event, Joe, having ignored & violated the fundamental tenets of their church, why do they consider themselves "Catholics" instead of, say, Unitarians? Joe can give his take, but here's mine. Firstly, it is not a fundamental tenet in the way you suggest. But even if it were, the reason is very much the same as why I am British. There are things about Britain I really like, things I can leave alone and things I actively try to change. If Problems got bad enough in my view, I might decide to become, by way of example, Canadian. But if I did, not only would there still be things I really liked, could leave and actively try to change in my new country, I would not have a deep understanding of how culture, for example, worked there. So while it is not impossible I'd change, either to Canadian or Utilitarian, it would not be a decision taken lightly. For all ithe recognised flaws, being British/Catholic works for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:23 AM the reason is very much the same as why I am British Fatuous, in the extreme. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:49 AM DMcG, There is a huge and very fundamental difference. You were (presumably) born in Britain and that cannot change that unless you actively seek another nationality. Your faith, I suspect, was placed on you by others at a time when you had little choice but THEY did. Unless you came to your faith in adult life it was foisted upon you without your consent. On the other side of the discussion I have no argument with your choice to follow your faith. I do object that your faith impacts on others who do not follow it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 16 Feb 16 - 11:21 AM We will have to differ on whether it is fatuous, It is of course an analogy, rather than precisely the same, but I see very strong parallels. At the most superficial . I was born into both, I was "indoctrinated" into both as a child, both try to cultivate ways of behaving, declaring things that are 'done' or 'just not done' and I am able to leave both if I choose. I find it an appropriate analogy. If you don't, just ignore it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: DMcG Date: 16 Feb 16 - 11:35 AM I should add that my parents also chose for me to be born in Britian: it was something that I had little choice over but THEY had, to adopt Raggy's formulation. As one was from Eire, they had the choice to settle there instead of England, for example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: The Sandman Date: 16 Feb 16 - 12:51 PM Instead of arguing about abortion, why do you not question the official propoganda about the cause of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:00 PM Greg F sez: In that event, Joe, having ignored & violated the fundamental tenets of their church, why do they consider themselves "Catholics" instead of, say, Unitarians? Well, I do sometimes say that I'm part of the "Unitarian branch of the Catholic Church"... But no, contraception and abortion and opposition to gay marriage and men-only ordination and hierarchy are NOT "fundamental tenets" of the Catholic Church. The fundamental tenets are the Nicene Creed and the teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the law of Love of God and Neighbor, the Beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, and the Corporal Works of Mercy as defined in Matthew 25 (When I was hungry, you gave me to eat). These are what Catholics believe. The other things are practices, or are interpretations of moral principles. Talking about elderly, celibate leaders in the Catholic Church, Jim Carroll says: their power has to be neutralised and they have to be confined to spiritual matters only - and that on a totally voluntary basis only I don't think so, Jim. The old celibates may not know much about sex, but they have plenty to say that is of great value regarding immigrants, poverty and economic justice, the environment, mass incarceration and capital punishment, and other issues. If what they say makes sense, then they have a right to be heard. If not, then they're best ignored - but not silenced. My grandfather was a man of great wisdom - but I didn't ask him for sex advice, either. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:26 PM I'm not for one moment denigrating the good work done by individuals in the church - but that is no reason to leave our young people under their control If any other organisation had behaved as the church has they would be forbidden to have any contact with children - ever - just work out what would have happened if teachers had behaved as they had done. There is a conceit that appears to believe that you have to be a Christian to do good things. Surely you are not suggesting that if the Church was confined only to spiritual matters all the qualities you mention would cease? I sincerely hope not Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Feb 16 - 01:39 PM if teachers had behaved as they (priests) had done. They have Jim, on an equivalent scale. Despicable, but not a reason to abolish education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 16 Feb 16 - 02:18 PM I'm certain that Keith believes there is some sort of logic in that last post of his, but I'm damned if I can see it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Feb 16 - 02:30 PM I am sure you are not damned Rag, and I will explain the logic as simply as I can for you. Jim clearly would like to see the end of the Catholic Church, and the reason he most frequently gives is the recent revelations of child abuse. My post was in response to his statement "If any other organisation had behaved as the church has they would be forbidden to have any contact with children - ever - just work out what would have happened if teachers had behaved as they had done." In fact, huge numbers of teachers have done. If you are still baffled, I will pm you a "Janet and John" version. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:26 PM Like it keith, good analogy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:38 PM "Gee, I guess you ideological types just don't get what I'm saying. Maybe that's why you get so nasty in the Forum, because you can't accept that it's not the end of the world when people have opinions that differ from your own, narrow ideology. Even if they're wrong, that does not mean that they are evil people. They simply see things differently." I just thought that was worth repeating. Just so that I can demolish it. There is no-one more narrow-minded and ideological than someone who believes in God, accepts the authority of a bunch of supposedly celibate men in frocks (hmm - "supposedly" takes on a bit more significance now that we've heard about the lusty doings of "Saint" John-Paul :-)) and who inflicts this nonsense on his children. Why, I do believe that our accuser, Joe Offer, has followed precisely this path. Joe Offer, Keith and Guesticles, we are not the narrow-minded ones. We are the people who have shaken off the shackles, decided to think for ourselves and who want to know what's really true, not settling for your bogus "deeper truths" that are predicated on impossible superstition. You'll have an answer for that, of course you will, but call US narrow-minded at your peril. And, Joe Offer, we are not talking about what your Church "advises", are we. We are talking about edicts issued that put demurrers under pain of mortal sin and hellfire. Defend the indefensible all you like, but expect mockery and derision if you do so. You really should know better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:44 PM Jim Carroll says: Surely you are not suggesting that if the Church was confined only to spiritual matters all the qualities you mention would cease? Well, Jim, Donald Trump is getting all upset about the Pope's visit to the Mexican side of that country's border with the U.S., calling him "a very political person" and saying that "Mexico got him to do it because they're making a fortune and we're losing." I think his politics are very effective and very worthwhile. Could any other person visit the U.S.-Mexico border and have such an impact? As for people who molested children, I agree that they should never be allowed to have contact with children again. But as for members (and church leaders) who did NOT molest, why should they be restricted? Your oft-proposed restriction has no logic behind it. If the Catholic Church should be, as you suggest, "confined only to spiritual matters," shouldn't that restriction be imposed on every organization? We have a new homeless shelter in my community, promoted chiefly by my Catholic pastor and the pastor of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church - along with their congregations. Many people in our community are outraged, and insist that the priest and the minister should stick to spiritual matters and not go catering to those despicable homeless people who don't belong here in the community where they were born. Is that what you propose, Jim? Yes, I suppose the local atheists could have done the job - but they didn't, partly because they didn't have an organization to sustain their effort. To get things done, people need to organize. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:45 PM contraception and abortion and opposition to gay marriage and men-only ordination and hierarchy are NOT "fundamental tenets" of the Catholic Church. Hmmmmmm..... considering the Pope's and the sevaral Bishops' pronouncments about contraception & abortion, I wonder.....viz: Vatican II's Explanation Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . "). http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 03:56 PM Yes, Greg, you can quote right-wing Websites like catholic.com and their team of armchair "apologists" and get all sorts of right-wing perspectives on things. You'll find a muuch more balanced perspective on the Websites of the Vatican, or the Jesuits, or Dominicans, or other long-established religious orders. The teachings on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality were never defined ex cathedra as infallible doctrines. When Catholics stand and recite the Nicene Creed at Mass on Sunday, they do not profess opposition to abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. In fact, those matters are rarely mentioned from the pulpit. So, no, those sex matters are not fundamental tenets of the Catholic Church. They are official teachings, but not "fundamental tenets." The Catholic Church does put a lot of emphasis on abortion, far more than I would like - but it is still not a fundamental tenet. The fundamental tenets go back 1700 years or more. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:34 PM I don't (and can't, in good conscience) defend Catholic teachings on abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. I've worked a lifetime to see that these policies are changed, and we finally have a Pope who is at least de-emphasizing these subjects and putting them into proper proportion. He's moving carefully, but he continues to push in the right direction. I have been a catechist/religious education teacher continuously since 1966, and I have never taught anyone that contraception and homosexuality are bad. I have an "in the middle" attitude about abortion that I'm sure is not acceptable to extremists on either side of the spectrum, but it's what I believe - that abortion takes away a life, but sometimes that choice is the best of bad choices; and it is a choice that must be made by the woman who is pregnant. Have none of you ever belonged to an organization that had policies you didn't agree with? Have none of you ever found yourselves on the losing side of an election? When you found the organization did not precisely coincide with your philosophies, did you feel compelled to leave the organization? Or maybe did you continue to work to promote your point of view. I suppose those things don't occur to you absolutists, since you cannot accept anything that doesn't exactly fit your dream of perfection. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Greg F. Date: 16 Feb 16 - 04:57 PM They are official teachings, but not "fundamental tenets." Uh hunh. OK- I stand corrected on the semantics. However, it doesn't make any PRACTICAL real-world difference which you call 'em, does it Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:10 PM When I eat watermelon, Greg, I spit out the seeds. I repeat: At Mass on Sunday Morning (or at any other time), do Catholics stand and profess opposition to abortion, contraception, and homosexuality? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 05:43 PM From wiki. Catholics who procure a completed abortion are subject to a latae sententiae excommunication.[2] That means that the excommunication does not need to be imposed (as with a ferendae sententiae penalty); rather, being expressly established by law, it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed (a latae sententiae penalty).... ...According to a 2004 memorandum by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catholic politicians who consistently campaign and vote for permissive abortion laws should be informed by their priest of the Church's teaching and warned to refrain from receiving communion or risk being denied the Eucharist until they end that activity.[53] This position is based on Canon 915 and has also been supported, in a personal capacity, by Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church after the Pope himself.[54] Just tell us the truth, Joe, and be truthful to yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM "We have a new homeless shelter in my community, promoted chiefly by my Catholic pastor and the pastor of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church - along with their congregations. Many people in our community are outraged, and insist that the priest and the minister should stick to spiritual matters and not go catering to those despicable homeless people who don't belong here in the community where they were born. Is that what you propose, Jim? Yes, I suppose the local atheists could have done the job - but they didn't, partly because they didn't have an organization to sustain their effort. To get things done, people need to organize." All wonderful. Really it is. But if you really want to argue the virtues of your Church via its sporadic good deeds, do be prepared for ripostes to the tune of reminding you of death and disease caused buy illegal abortions, of the Magdalen Laundries, of systematic and institutionalised child abuse, covered up big time of course, of doing deals with Mussolini, of institutionalised antisemitism, of explicit support for Franco, of Jews being herded to death camps from under the nose of the Vatican, of ratlines for Nazi war criminals. I would never do such a thing, of course, but it's worth reminding you that you do have this potential problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM caused by |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:13 PM Yes, Steve, I know all those things about the Catholic Church's penalties for abortion - pain of mortal sin, excommunication, being subjected to the scorn of angry hordes of women who wear too much makeup. And I have always told the truth about those penalties. The bishops take abortion seriously - too seriously, to my mind. And yet, Catholic women get abortions at almost exactly the same rate as other women (usually more). That means that for the people it makes a difference for, the official Catholic prohibition is seen for the foolishness that it is. You can get all dramatic about it and say how terrible it is; but in the end, the Catholic prohibition of abortion is only words, only an opinion. As I have said countless times, I disagree with the Catholic Church opinion on abortion, birth control, and homosexuality. I agree wholeheartedly with the Catholic Church on most things, especially on social justice issues; but not on sexual matters. As for your laundry list of other offenses, I don't deny any of them. However, I think the bad things happened on a scale much smaller than you seem to imagine, and the good things on a much larger scale. The offenses you list, horrible though they may have been, are the exception to the rule. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:37 PM Ha. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:44 PM Your fallacy, Steve, is in blaming the entire church for the sins of a few of its members, committed over two millennia. That's life. People do bad stuff. Be careful not to blame the innocent when placing blame on those who deserve it. Institutions do no evil. Individual people within those institutions, are the ones responsible. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Feb 16 - 07:45 PM "They have Jim, on an equivalent scale." WHAT????? I have no doubt that there may have been a few who (technically) raped pupils. I know of no case of teachers covering for a teacher who did such a thing - do you? I certainly don't believe there are any examples of schools covering up cases of teachers having sex with pupils - do you? I have never heard of a case of a teacher being found to have habitually had sex with underage pupils being passed on to another school to continue his "little weakness" - have you? I have never heard of any case that the education Department, or even a Minister for Education covering up habitual rape of children -have you? Should the Education Department lock away and refuse access to the authorities of any information that this has gone on in schools, the whole education system would be brought crashing to the ground - are you really suggesting that this has happened? All of these examples have taken place withing the church - probably assist the victims can get some sort of closure. I don't know what sort of school you taugt in but thank Christ is wasn't one my relatives attended. This out-bizarres any claim you have ever made. I have at not time said I would like to see an and to the Catholic - or any church - too many friends, neighbours and relatives would be devastated wheer such thing to happen. My argument is that all Churches and clerics should be confined to the spiritual matter and only when that is accepted on a voluntary basis Why claim such a thing if not from sheer dishonest spite? The church has proved itself untrustworthy, particularly where children are concerned - it should never again occupy the elevated position is had and to a diminishing extent, still has. I have no doubt you will walk away from this one as you have from every other dishonest statement you have made - that seems to be the kind of person you are. "Donald Trump" The same church has, in the past, supported mass murderers and dictators in the past and used its influence to further their ends - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet - and a whole string of Fascist despots.... Because the present flavour of the month happens to be a progressive one doesn't wipe out any of those things. Religion and politics are a toxic mix - open any newspaper in the next few days if you don't believe that. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:03 PM You forgot to mention the automatic immunity that the Church gets by dint of its exalted Godly position, Jim. All I'd say to you, Joe, is that people should read your recent posts minimising the role of your Church in the evils we've pointed out. Very valiant, but you and your club are bang to rights. Your lot encourage sexual ignorance, your lot condemn the means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy and your lot vilify women who, quite possibly because of the ignorance your lot propagate, need abortions. Your lot almost brush off the massive child sex abuse committed by trusted people as if it's all a minor blip, and you fail to address properly the cover-up. You say in your posts that you oppose this, that and the other, yet you and your kind have failed abysmally to change anything in any significant way. You seem to claim to be fighting from within, but I don't see much sign of any fight. What I do see is denial and defence of the indefensible. Why don't you just leave what's rotten to the core? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:16 PM Jim Carroll says: Religion and politics are a toxic mix - open any newspaper in the next few days if you don't believe that. I'd agree with that, Jim. When religion becomes "official," it gets itself in trouble. Still, there are exceptions. Rev. Robert Drinan, a Jesuit priest, served admirably in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1973-1981. He and a Wisconsin priest, both Democrats, did not run for re-election to the House after Pope John Paul II unequivocally demanded that all priests withdraw from electoral politics in 1980. At about the same time, priests in Nicaragua and Haiti were ordered to withdraw from politics. Was that a good thing? I don't know. On the other hand, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has been conducting its silly annual Fortnight for Freedome campaign, to protest having to pay for birth control in employee health insurance plans. At the same time, there is the very effective and popular Nuns on the Bus campaign for social justice. So, I dunno. I think Jim's sweeping condemnations are as irrelevant as the rest of 'em. The fact of the matter is that there's some good and some bad in everything and every group. It's best not to condemn the good with the bad. -Joe- -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:19 PM Ah, Steve Shaw, you are so dramatic... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 08:45 PM And you're so bland. About things that being bland about hurt people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Steve Shaw Date: 16 Feb 16 - 09:15 PM Not my finest grammatical construction ever, but hey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 16 - 10:47 PM I appreciate your passion, Steve; but life just isn't as black/white, good/bad as you describe. I prefer looking into individual issues and finding solutions to them. Works much better than making broad, dramatic, negative generalizations. -Joe- |