BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 09:40 PM

Thanks, Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 02:34 AM

I would submit that the Catholic Church and Catholic bishops are not as hard-line against abortion as the so-called "pro-life" movement. One bishop I know, has said privately that the anti-abortion people are the ones that give him the most grief. I have been known to say that the bishop has no balls, but be that as it may.

Still, it's unlikely that the Catholic Church will approve abortion. The best one can hope for, is that it will back off on pressuring government to criminalize abortion. I think that's possible.

I think there's value in having some groups that question the morality of abortion. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly, and somebody should voice the negative aspects of making such a decision.

And I'm not convinced that abortion is the only appropriate response to the Zika virus. I'm also not convinced that is it necessary to abort all children who have birth defects.

Of course, the best solution would be to find a way to prevent Zika virus infection, or to reverse the effects of such an infection on pregnant women.

There are many factors, and I think all of them should be considered. I don't think there are absolute answers at this time.

And again, if you disregard or ridicule the sentiments of those who oppose abortion, you will most certainly lose any chance of forming an alliance with them that could solve the problem. A solution to the problem that saves lives, is far more important than winning battles or demeaning opponents.

Opposition to abortion is a reality in many areas where the Zika virus is present. Those who wish to make progress, must find a way to accommodate that opposition instead of declaring an impasse and giving up in disgust.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 06:44 AM

Well said Joe.

From Jack....""Pregnant women who have been exposed to Zika virus should be counselled and followed for birth outcomes based on the best available information and national practice and policies."

Somebody's getting their arm twisted by the anti-abortion cultists. No way in hell is that what they really want to say."

You may be right Jack, but you have more or less the same situation with HIV and the health agencies.....they know what needs to be said but cant say it for fear of a "liberal" outcry.

Our health services are hog tied by rights legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 07:07 AM

"I think there's value in having some groups that question the morality of abortion. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly, and somebody should voice the negative aspects of making such a decision."

Unfortunately, many of those groups also oppose proper sex and relationships education, contraception and contraceptive advice, and that includes the Catholic Church. Those groups should be questioning their own very dubious morality before attacking women's freedom of choice. Voicing the negative aspects is one thing. Suggesting genuine ways of getting unwanted pregnancy numbers down is entirely another, and we simply don't hear enough of it from those groups, quite often instead just a bit of nonsense about rhythm methods or abstinence. Their policies could almost have been designed to keep abortion numbers high. There is an awful lot of hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness around this issue.

"And I'm not convinced that abortion is the only appropriate response to the Zika virus. I'm also not convinced that is it necessary to abort all children who have birth defects."

Unfortunately, you're far from being the best judge of that. For one thing, unlike your bishop, you have balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 06:48 PM

Case just reported in Texas. It was sexually transmitted to the partner of a guy who returned to the US from South America. And there have been six cases repoorted in California in the last three years.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:05 PM

Important at this stage to say that sexual transmission is a possibility, not yet confirmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:34 PM

Richard Bridge sez: Damn the church. It is a force for evil.

No, it is not. There are certain people within churches who may be "forces for evil," perhaps - but the same applies to every group of people. Almost universally, churches are organized to be forces for good. Almost all human endeavors fall short of their lofty goals.

When an organization or individual does not believe as the speaker believes, it is often described as evil. That's not the case - it's a differing opinion, a reality to be dealt with. Opposition to abortion or gay marriage or whatnot is not necessarily a "force for evil" - it is a differing opinion to be contended with. It's what some people think.

The most effective way to deal with differing opinions is to acknowledge and honor them, and find a way to accommodate a diversity of thinking. I realize that's impossible for absolutists - and I admit that there are many absolutists among church people.

Lately, I've been finding that there are just as many absolutists among people who like to think of themselves as enlightened humanists.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:54 PM

Well the point is that we absolutists (he means me, so I may as well wear the mantle with pride) see religion as a phenomenon that has led to mass delusion. The organisers of religion use its tenets as instruments of control, fear of reprisals in the afterlife being high on the list. Religion may well lead to gatherings of well-meaning people being sociable or doing good works. That's fine, but some of us do good works too, and some people of religion also do very bad things, often with a veneer of pious immunity that other bad guys may not enjoy. But my main beef with religion is its penchant for keeping people ignorant. By imposing a facile "explanation" of the universe and all therein, religion invites people to settle for egregious falsehood instead of encouraging them, through science, to seek what's really true. Germane to this thread, religion seeks to keep people ignorant about the joys of their own sexuality, treating most of its aspects as sinful, discouraging real education about sex and human relationships. The dishonesty of religion apropos of abortion is staggering. It promotes the very teachings that make abortions far more likely to be needed, yet seeks to ban abortion. That's just wickedness. To say that religion is a force for evil is strong language. It's certainly a force for some very bad impositions on billions of people. And it certainly doesn't deserve to be respected.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 08:58 PM

This is not a situation where there are differing opinions within a tolerant society and the contesting parties just have to learn to get along. The Catholic Church and the moneyed elite have a hegemonic stranglehold on almost all of Latin America. They will tolerate no dissent at all, and there have been tens of thousands of dissenters murdered over the last generation to make the point.

But - they are in no way opposed to abortion. They are only opposed to abortion for poor women. If you're rich enough the Church can always be bought off.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 09:25 PM

Ah, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Campin are so adept at making sweeping condemnations. No doubt, what they say applies some of the time to some of the people.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 09:33 PM

I have no doubt that Oscar Romero and many others like him were murdered by members of the "Catholic Church and the moneyed elite [that] have a hegemonic stranglehold on almost all of Latin America."

But where do Romero and all those others fit into your stereotype, Jack? The forces on both sides are Catholic.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 09:36 PM

Er, Joe, I don't know why I bother to be careful when you come out with bollocks like that. I was careful to say religion, not religious people. I've told you a million, twenty or eight times now (I forget how many) that I don't attack individuals merely for having faith. I do express the general opinion that faith equals delusion, but I can't avoid that. I attack people who attempt to spread it all around, which they should not do as they have no evidence for their beliefs and because indoctrination of vulnerable people is wicked. I try to make the distinction in the hope that, one day, you'll realise that I'm not an absolutist. In fact, if you see my carefully-considered post as sweeping, I think you're being a little, er, absolutist, if you don't mind my saying so.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Feb 16 - 11:28 PM

I suppose that's true, Steve. You're not an absolutist. You're far more manipulative circular than that. You make a bigoted statement, then you deny having said what you said, and then you say it again.

In the end, it's the same result. Bigotry and stereotypes.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 04:21 AM

What bigoted statement? Why are you so bitter?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 07:46 AM

I have no doubt that Oscar Romero and many others like him were murdered by members of the "Catholic Church and the moneyed elite [that] have a hegemonic stranglehold on almost all of Latin America."

So what? Does it make the institution any less murderous, that most of the people it murders are its own believers?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 08:19 AM

"Ah, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Campin are so adept at making sweeping condemnations."

To be fair, you can say that everyone who believes in any particular religion thinks everyone who doesn't is wrong. So the entire Catholic Church (for example) and everyone in it starts every discussion about religion or a subject that their religion exercises some moral/ethical/historical influence etc on from the standpoint that if a person doesn't believe in their god they are wrong/mistake/ignorant/need saving.

This is not a criticism, more a philosophical point and I guess we all do this to some degree but you are never going to convince a religious person they might be wrong about the existence of god because to do so would bring their entire belief system tumbling down like a deck of cards.

Counter that with science, a system of enquiry in which being wrong is part of finding the correct answer, whatever that is. There is no point to prove, no deity to confirm as existing everything is what it is, regardless.

Therein lies the rub.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 02:14 PM

Stu says: To be fair, you can say that everyone who believes in any particular religion thinks everyone who doesn't is wrong. So the entire Catholic Church (for example) and everyone in it starts every discussion about religion or a subject that their religion exercises some moral/ethical/historical influence etc on from the standpoint that if a person doesn't believe in their god they are wrong/mistake/ignorant/need saving.

Stu, what you say is true if you speak only of absolutists, those who see only one possible answer to each question. And we certainly do see absolutism all around us. And yes, it runs rampant in churches - but it is not universal. Until I got to Mudcat, I hadn't expected to see it among progressives, but absolutism is alive and well among people here at Mudcat who call themselves progressive.

And if absolutism is the rule, then conflict is inevitable.

But although that "my way or the highway" attitude is strong in Western society, I think there are many who are able to appreciate diversity in thought. If we are to be truly "progressive," I think we need to honor that diversity and seek to accommodate the values of all without compromising the values of anyone.

So, in this thread, we're talking about abortion and the Zika virus. Some see the issue as clear-cut. Zika virus causes microcephalic babies, so pregnant women exposed to the Zika virus should have abortions. And it appears they think that anybody who hesitates about that is evil.

But what if the Zirus does not cause birth defects in a particular pregnancy? Should we perform a prophylactic abortion, just in case? Or what if the mother wants to have the baby despite the birth defect? And does the baby have any rights before it is born?

I am appalled and disgusted by the rigid authoritarianism of many anti-abortion activists. Believe it or not, many Catholic bishops are also appalled and disgusted and embarrassed by those activists. It's rare to see bishops and priests and nuns participate in aggressive opposition to abortion. Most Catholics seem to accept Catholic teaching that life is sacred, and that it begins at conception. Neither of these teachings can be proved - or disproved. They are a matter of the heart. But if the majority of people in a nation hold these concepts, then it would seem to make sense for that nation to ban abortion.

The trouble is, laws against abortion violate the rights of individual pregnant women to make decisions for their own lives. And so a balance must be achieved.

I don't know where that balance is. But somehow, I don't think the balance in Latin America should be determined by absolutist atheists in the United Kingdom.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 02:29 PM

Joe: I have no doubt that Oscar Romero and many others like him were murdered by members of the "Catholic Church and the moneyed elite [that] have a hegemonic stranglehold on almost all of Latin America."

Jack: So what? Does it make the institution any less murderous, that most of the people it murders are its own believers?

But Romero was the head bishop in El Salvador, and he was murdered under orders from the government, whose leaders were also Catholic. So, is it the institution that murders, or is is members within the institution? And was this a religious murder or a political murder?

It's true that in the 1980s, the leaders of El Salvador and many other nations put a distasteful religious "spin" on their anti-Communism. And there certainly is now a religious "spin" to the anti-homosexual bigotry of many people. But does that warrant a broad condemnation of religion?

If there is misconduct (even widespread misconduct) by members of a group, does it logically follow that the group as a whole must be despised or condemned or abolished?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 03:05 PM

"So, in this thread, we're talking about abortion and the Zika virus. Some see the issue as clear-cut. Zika virus causes microcephalic babies, so pregnant women exposed to the Zika virus should have abortions. And it appears they think that anybody who hesitates about that is evil."

This is thoroughly unworthy of you. No-one is seeing it as clear-cut. No-one is saying that anyone "should have abortions" and no-one has said that anyone who frets about the whole thing, which is all of us, is evil. What SOME of us are saying is that all women should have the free choice, free that is of moralising by religion or by men or by pressure groups or by anybody else, to have an abortion. Or not. Got it yet, Joe?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 03:36 PM

So the "enlightened" on here can distinguish between common sense and what their shaman / priest / witch doctor / whatever says.

Congratulations.

Now, address the millions of others who can't access or feel guilty about accessing termination of pregnancy when zika has affected their pregnancy.

As WHO have just declared, this epidemic, presently morphing into a pandemic problem is at risk of exacerbation by religious and cultural objection to solutions.

Saying that life begins at conception just plays into the hands of the ignorant old men who frankly don't give a shit about women or their offspring. I am led to believe that the bible advises it's better to fuck a whore than to have a wank. I assume this is where the subjective statement originates? When I was a young teenager, I must have destroyed millions of lives every time I got into bed, when I woke up...

Jack started this thread to discuss the risks and threats to dealing with this outbreak. Religion and culture are top of every health professional's list. Some of the ignorant crap on here, sadly not confined to Dumbfuckistan, is rather sad. Joe makes points about how many in his church are frustrated by anti abortionists. Well do something about it instead of just carping. I hear there was a man two thousand years ago who challenged the status quo. I know it was only a fairy story but you should read about him and what he allegedly stood up and did.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 04:39 PM

"Joe makes points about how many in his church are frustrated by anti abortionists. Well do something about it instead of just carping."

Quite. There nothing quite like middle-class Christians taking "a measured view", is there, when most of the victims of Catholicism live in countries with draconian anti-sex, anti-contraception, anti-education, pro-ignorance and anti-abortion laws, unlike them.   Talk is fine. Sorrowfully measured balanced views butter no parsnips, though, do they. Do something is bloody good advice. I don't see much fighting from within, frankly. Men of marble and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 04:57 PM

Dear Stupids. If a woman apprehends that the parasite growing within her will by reason of its feared abnormality and inability to grow learn or reason blight her life, the decision to remove it is hers and hers alone. If any organised religion, or religious bigots, gainsay that they are indeed evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 05:22 PM

The opening post... and commentary following... notwithstanding, nothing about the basic issues has changed due to this new virus.
It is only one more tick on the list of reasons that those 'basic issues' need to be debated. People are still people, and pregnancy is still a risk for many reasons..... the church(s) are still churches and only change their deeper beliefs very slowly- and they have very good reasons for not changing: mostly because it is always awkward to back down from a major point of theology.

   The easiest way to accomplish change is to give people good reasons for challenging some of the religious rules that can't seem to keep up with good science. Joe has noted many times that there are many Catholics in '1st World' countries that ignore... or modify personally... various official church rules. Somehow, we need to make it clear to all peoples that it is important to think for themselves and not blindly allow churches OR governments control their opinions. When government and church are tightly interrelated, that becomes the issue.... if church laws are enforced by the govt., choices are difficult---- but what is important is that people learn that personal opinion & choice are possible.
   None of this sniping over details is going to make any difference, and has become just a way to belittle the opinions of 'others', as on several other topics.
   I'd love to see some positive suggestions for getting at the basic issue of educating people about how to THINK, when so many would rather they didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 06:05 PM

It is not just the church that is (sometimes) guilty of expecting people to believe without thinking , but atheists here too.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM

Luke 6:42, pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM

Well pete, we pagans/heathens/atheists/humanists/absolutists/bastards, believe it or not, and only if we can be arsed, actually encourage people to think more. We would politely suggest that the thought process would include the consideration that evidence is the only way to discover what is really true, and that defining "evidence" is the sine qua non of the whole enquiry. Contrary to what you vacuously contend, we want people to think like mad before they believe anything, but, at the end of the day, we believe that what they believe in private is their business.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 06:36 PM

Joe has noted many times that there are many Catholics in '1st World' countries that ignore... or modify personally... various official church rules.

As do the wealthy in Third World countries.


Somehow, we need to make it clear to all peoples that it is important to think for themselves and not blindly allow churches OR governments control their opinions. When government and church are tightly interrelated, that becomes the issue.... if church laws are enforced by the govt., choices are difficult---- but what is important is that people learn that personal opinion & choice are possible.

That's condescending crap. They already know that personal opinion is possible, but the state and the church are making choice as difficult as they can. Brazil has more than a MILLION illegal abortions every year, carried out at appalling expense and risk. The women who go through that ARE thinking for themselves.

It isn't the poor who need to learn, it's the power elite. Starting with the hierarchy of the church.

One quite likely outcome is that a vast number of completely normal foetuses will be aborted bacause the women carrying them have no access to adequate testing and will assume that their embryos are affected by the virus when they actually aren't. That will be absolutely fine with the church, because it doesn't have any real interest in reducing the number of abortions so long as it gets to condemn and criminalize the women who have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 06:46 PM

Great post.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 06:48 PM

And some information on how abortion works under the Brazilian theocracy at present:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/01/abortion-in-brazil-a-matter-of-life-and-death

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Feb 16 - 11:15 PM

The article about Brazil that Jack linked to is very good, although I think Jack put unnecessary "spin" on the article by calling Brazil a "theocracy" (a word not used in the article). Here's a quote:

Recent research suggests that 65% of Brazilians support the current restrictions on terminations. In the world's biggest Catholic country, it is small wonder. But Brazil's relationship with religion and abortion is more nuanced. In the 2010 abortion survey, faith appeared to play little part: most women who had abortions said they were also Catholic. Yet religious conservatism meant that despite two high-profile cases, abortion was hardly discussed during last year's presidential election.
"Brazil is a country formed under the sign of the cross. Everything good and not so good that happened had the strong presence of the Catholic church," says Eduardo Jorge, the Green Party presidential candidate who supports the legalisation of abortion. He says there is no explicit condemnation of abortion in the Bible. "We need more liberal and enlightened political leaders to talk to the people about their reasons. Only with dialogue and debate will it be possible to change the current law, which is retrograde and sexist, causing death and suffering to women and their families." When I ask how long it might take to change the current legal situation, Jorge replies: "God only knows."

I repeat: Brazil's relationship with religion and abortion is more nuanced.

And those nuances are being ignored in this discussion. Note that abortion is allowed in Brazil for at least one type of birth defect. And please note that it is wrong to view the Catholic Church as a monolithic dictatorship. It is a huge and highly political organization, and there are voices on both sides of almost every issue. There's proof of this in the strong opposition that Pope Francis has encountered in his attempts to reform the Catholic Church. Many of the elite in Latin American society are allied with the right-wing Opus Dei organization, organized in Spain in 1928. In 1982, Pope John Paul II (no friend of mine) made it into a "personal prelature" with its own bishop who is not subject to the local bishops where Opus Dei operates. Members of Opus Dei practice a very severe form of Catholicism, often tied to right-wing politics. On the other hand, many of the strongest advocates for the poor in Latin America, are priests and nuns - and they are regularly subjected to imprisonment, torture, and sometimes murder.

And Opus Dei may not be totally ruthless, either. José Horacio Gómez was an Opus Dei priest until he was ordained a bishop in 2001. He became the Archbishop of Los Angeles, in 2010, and he has proved himself to be a pretty good leader, a man of compassion and common sense.

But yes, there are many elements within the Catholic Church that can be considered a "force for evil." I think there are many more factors that are a "force for good." But I guess that's a matter of opinion.

Whatever the case, if you view the Catholic Church as a monolithic dictatorship, you don't understand the Catholic Church.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 02:31 AM

Musket says and Shaw repeats: Joe makes points about how many in his church are frustrated by anti abortionists. Well do something about it instead of just carping.

I think I've done my best to be an active member of the "loyal opposition" in the Catholic Church since I was in college, and I've encountered a lot of difficulty and lost a job because of it. Who are you to judge me for "just carping"?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,HiLo
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 03:52 AM

Musket is jealous of God Joe .probably sees him as the competition in the infallible , judgemental and pompous departments.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 04:47 AM

it is wrong to view the Catholic Church as a monolithic dictatorship. It is a huge and highly political organization, and there are voices on both sides of almost every issue.

Yeah, but only one of those sides has the power.

BTW alternatives to the Catholic Church may be even worse. Look at what this article says about the Evangelicals:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/dec/11/brazil-abortion-law-women-desperate-measures

(We have Ratzinger to thank for that - his brutally repressive control-freakery in Latin America while acting as John Paul Ringo's enforcer made him responsible for more conversions to Protestantism than Luther managed in his lifetime).

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 05:08 AM

Offer Christ's sake, do call me Steve. Or Stephen if you like, though only my mother (most of the time) and my missus (when I'm in trouble) call me that. I've had a thing about being called Shaw ever since those Catholic priest twats called me it all the time at school even when they'd known me for seven years. Cloistered idiots. Anyway, JOE, your uncertain yet clearly-expressed stance on abortion doesn't suggest that you're a leading warrior crusading for enlightenment within the Church. Glad to hear that I'm wrong.

Incidentally, have I told you that I'm so anti-abortion that I have some great ideas as to how we can reduce drastically the numbers of unwanted pregnancies whilst still wanting all women to have easy and free access to abortion if they want it? Unfortunately, my methods don't include abstinence, the rhythm method or tying a knot in it, so I have a feeling that the Church won't be listening...

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 05:45 AM

"Stu, what you say is true if you speak only of absolutists, those who see only one possible answer to each question."

I agree with you about absolutists and the lack of nuance in many arguments on Mudcat is but I'm not sure I understand you fully on the subject of believing in God: are you saying you could be a Catholic and not actually believe in the existence of God? I'm not talking about the various ways in which people within the church perceive God personally, but the actual, fundamental existence of God.


" but atheists here too"

Except you don't know who is an atheist here and who isn't, as some of us don't discuss our spiritual lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 09:33 AM

I'm an atheist but I don't know whether there's a God or not. The Pope doesn't know whether there's a God or not and neither does Richard Dawkins. But only two out of the three of us have been honest enough to say so. The Pope must be certain that there's a God, otherwise he wouldn't get us to say all those prayers which are so full of certainties, the Lord's Prayer being the most egregious example of all. Let's face it, the Pope is an absolutist.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 10:49 AM

Joe, if your church does that to you, do you not see that there is something badly wrong with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 04:06 PM

Richard Bridge says: Joe, if your church does that to you, do you not see that there is something badly wrong with it?

Well, Richard, yes. But in any organization subject to political forces, people lose their jobs and get smeared by opponents and get accused of things they haven't done. I suppose I could have given up, but this is MY church.

---

Stu says: I'm not sure I understand you fully on the subject of believing in God: are you saying you could be a Catholic and not actually believe in the existence of God? I'm not talking about the various ways in which people within the church perceive God personally, but the actual, fundamental existence of God.

You ask good questions, Stu. No, I suppose a person couldn't be a Catholic with having some kind of belief in some kind of God. Believing in God is part of the definition of the term "Catholic" - but my belief is my choice, not something imposed on me by some authority. Baptism is the only sign of membership on the Catholic Church, once it is conferred, it cannot be taken away - and Baptism can be conferred by anyone, even by a non-believer. I have no particular respect for authority, and view myself as my own authority - I do not think that obedience to authority is an essential part of the definition of being Catholic, although many authoritarians would disagree with me on that. And on some days, I suppose I have no particular belief in God, or maybe I do. I guess I always have some sort of concept of "the divine," but it changes constantly. Rigid, authoritarian, judgmental views of God are not part of my thinking at all. I think Pope Francis and Pope Benedict would agree with me, but not John Paul II.

I guess if I would define God, it would be something like "the underlying and unifying essence of all that is." But that definition is subject to change at any moment. I think that's what seriously spiritual people seek - some ultimately good essence that underlies and unifies everything. But essences are elusive - and undefinable.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 05:35 PM

Hmm. Maybe spacetime, or dark energy, or Higgs bosons, could be some kind of unifying essence. It's never occurred to me to get down on my knees and pray to them though.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 05:58 PM

Steve Shaw, Master of Derision.

Get a thrill out it, Steve?

I think perhaps you just don't know how to deal with serious thought, living as you do with all those slogans and stereotypes.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 06:05 PM

I could have said Joe Offer, Master of Delusion, but I won't stoop to trading insults if you don't mind. I'm trying to make it not my style.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 07:11 PM

It isn't very helpful to drag theological generalities into this. The issue is simply how to introduce some basic morality into a politico-legal system dominated by a theocratic oligarchy.

Historically, taboos on abortion in Catholicism are pretty recent (there is no trace of them in Aquinas, for example). The church has done without having an opinion on the matter for most of its existence.

So, the appropriate strategy is to drag the Church back into the Middle Ages when they didn't have anti-abortion fetishism. Retrenchment from irrelevancies has been done with other matters, as when they purge fake saints from the canon or when they decided there is no such thing as Limbo.

A maximalist position that insists there can be no progress without universal conversion to atheism is also maximizing the chances of total failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 07:15 PM

"I could have said Joe Offer, Master of Delusion, but I won't stoop to trading insults if you don't mind. I'm trying to make it not my style."

Without much success, if I may say so!

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 07:39 PM

That makes sense, Jack. I think you and I agree that it really shouldn't be impossible to legalize abortion in most nations. There is an extremist element in the Catholic Church that is as vehemently against abortion as the NRA is in support of guns in the U.S. And both groups use vicious tactics to press their will on the rest of us.

I think those strongholds can be broken, but not by direct confrontation - and certainly not by inflating the issue by making the majority into an enemy. If the majority population of a nation is Catholic, you're not going to legalize abortion by insulting or making an enemy of Catholicism.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 08:35 PM

It is not an extremist element. It is mainstream Catholic dogma. You say that confrontation is not the answer. I disagree. Nothing else will make the church alter its position in any significant way. You are advocating sitting on hands, nothing more. I don't see any significant groundswell in the Church that is going to change anything much at all. In fact, there are quite a few strong factions working in the opposite direction. In the meantime, the championing of ignorance and the condemnation of birth control and legal abortion is condemning thousands of women every year to stigma, infection, sterility or death. Doesn't make moving slowly and gradually sound very reasonable, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 09:09 PM

Also, Jack, I think that issues such as fake saints (probably nearly all of them, but hey) and Limbo (which only affected non-members in any case) matter very little as they don't impinge directly on Catholics' lives and carry little potential for control. They can be shed with no loss of face. Whilst there are thousand of saints (I imagine), I doubt whether the average Catholic could name ten giving reasons for why they're saints. The Church will hang on far more tenaciously to its sex 'n' morals rules, which not only differentiate the Church from other, more liberal Christian factions but also afford the Church its main instruments of control.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Feb 16 - 09:35 PM

Actually, I've just checked, and it seems that there is still a bit of hanging on to Limbo by a thread. Lots of talk of trusting that God will see his way clear to doing the right thing by unbaptised infants. Let's hope so, eh? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 01:56 AM

For the record, I rarely delete messages, especially in threads where I'm participating in the discussion. I don't think that would be fair. Since I have been participating in this discussion, I won't close this thread, but I think it should be closed. It's just nasty, and that makes it very hard to have a serious, non-combative discussion.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 03:45 AM

I did distinguish between you and bigots Joe, although defending them can be construed in a negative light.

If this thread is 'nasty' the common theme of nastiness is that of religion promoting abuse and perpetuation of medieval bullshit in the face of the clinical and moral needs of populations they have control of.

And just because many are in countries other than "enlightened" west doesn't mean "western" interpretations of religion should feel offended too.

I've had it with niceties where these subjects crop up, fed up with my posts being deleted when the offensive posts I refer to stay for people to see and to be frank, fed up of subjective editing by moderators with no sense of proportion.

Mudcat has a BS section. Live with it, understand what that means and either stop editing anything at all or accept debate as a reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 16 - 03:52 AM

Stalking is not allowed here and is an offence. If that stalking is pursued by a group rather than a single person, then they must also accept the rules. The moderators views are final.

I would suggest that people desist from using shared usernames before pleading innocence.