BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café ^TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=159128
564 messages

BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults

28 Jan 16 - 10:17 AM (#3768784)
Subject: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

I haven't seen this angle mentioned. But given the likely global impact of the Zika virus:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35427493

there is an impending clash between women and the state in places like Nicaragua where an anti-abortionist cult controls the government. Tens of thousands of women will know they're doomed to spend their lives cleaning up after children with half a brain if they do what their local shaman says.

Any pointers in local media to how this will play out?

28 Jan 16 - 12:23 PM (#3768818)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Mrrzy

I heard something on NPR about this... apparently the virus is active in places where most pregnancies are unplanned and where women have no options to terminate (the program said interrupt, but no, it's terminate) an unwanted pregnancy.
Yikes.
Nothing I know of in local media because I am not local.

28 Jan 16 - 12:39 PM (#3768824)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Mrrzy

npr blicky

28 Jan 16 - 05:24 PM (#3768911)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Richard Bridge

Good point Jack

28 Jan 16 - 07:29 PM (#3768944)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

The pictures in the media of microcephalic babies make them look sorta cute and cuddly albeit weird. They may not stay that way, or end up like the entertaining pinheads in "Freaks", either. I had a summer job as a student looking after permanently institutionalized mental patients. We had two severe microcephalics, both totally mute and with no understanding of anything said or gestured to them. One of them spent most of his time trying to destroy the building with his teeth, in the course of which he'd managed to rip off a strip of solid wood windowsill as thick as a broomstick and a few feet long. The other had had his front teeth removed after he'd tried to bite a paraplegic kid's penis off and nearly succeeded.

Multiply that thousands of times from the combined effects of virus and religion and imagine how a mother with access to only Third World resources might deal with it.

People are going to put two and two together and realize that Jesus is the god of the zombie apocalypse.

28 Jan 16 - 08:08 PM (#3768949)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

No, Donald Trump is the god of the zombie apocalypse.

28 Jan 16 - 08:21 PM (#3768952)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well we heard last week that this disease is likely to spread rapidly to the US. The first thought in my cynical little mind was that that explains why we're getting wall-to-wall, panic-stricken mass coverage. I seem to recall that the devasting spread of HIV in Africa got drip-drip coverage at best. Still, if money gets ploughed into fighting this disease, I suppose that some good will come out of it. It's hard to know what can be done in those countries dominated by anti-abortion cults if the worst happens. There's an awful lot of Catholicity in the Americas, even in the more liberal countries. Can't see that being much help.

28 Jan 16 - 08:24 PM (#3768954)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"Devastating". My eyesight is deteriating. I'd better see the opticologist tomorrow.

29 Jan 16 - 02:15 AM (#3768988)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Thompson

"Catholicity" isn't the only opponent to abortion. Evangelical Protestants are equally foaming about it. You should read some of the comments in the nexus between Unionists in Northern Ireland and TeaPartyists in Middle America. Here's the new leader of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster.

29 Jan 16 - 02:16 AM (#3768989)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

...women will know they're doomed to spend their lives cleaning up after children with half a brain if they do what their local shaman says.

People are going to put two and two together and realize that Jesus is the god of the zombie apocalypse.

There's an awful lot of Catholicity in the Americas, even in the more liberal countries. Can't see that being much help.

You know, some people can discuss issues without putting labels on people and assuming all people with that label will act the same. It makes for far more fruitful discussion when people discuss issues, not labels.

Many Catholics and Christians and many who practice Shamanism, have thinking different from what the above statements would lead one to believe. And if one wishes to accomplish something among people of various cultures and belief systems, that is possible only if one acknowledges and respects those cultures and belief systems. Address issues, not stereotypes.

-Joe Offer-

29 Jan 16 - 02:44 AM (#3768991)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Joe Offer: "Address issues, not stereotypes."

They do that...and then accuse OTHERS of being bigots!!!
....without recognizing their own tactics!!

GfS

29 Jan 16 - 03:58 AM (#3769008)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Thompson

Keeping a count of how many posts on abortion are by known men and how many by known women ;)

29 Jan 16 - 05:46 AM (#3769020)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

All right, Joe. Let's be a little more explicit then. I somehow can't see all the Catholics (and many other Christians - OK, Thompson?) in the Americas suddenly campaigning for a reversal in all those illiberal anti-abortion laws in order to help what could be thousands of women carrying severely disabled babies. The campaigning will be done by someone else and there will be the dragging of feet and the invocation of God's will. Donald Trump will blame the Mexicans for bringing the virus to the US. Sorry about the cynicism. If I'm wrong, there will be mucho consuming of sombreros in my house.

29 Jan 16 - 07:07 AM (#3769035)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

This thread was started with the intention of attacking religion.
This new epidemic is dreadful, as is the attempt to use it to demonise people of faith.

The important thing is to find an antidote to the disease before it spreads across the globe.

As far as I understand it is not spread by any sort of behaviour, but by an insect, so a study of demographics is going to be of no use in halting it.

The question of whether or not to abort all babies with this condition is very complicated indeed and not to used as a battering ram to make political points.

29 Jan 16 - 07:13 AM (#3769040)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

So here's the problem, Joe. From Time:

In all of Central and South America, there are only three countries where abortion is broadly legal (those countries are Uraguay, Guyana, and French Guiana.) Everywhere else in the region, abortion is only allowed in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the mother is at risk, depending on the country. Only Mexico, Colombia, and Panama allow mothers to terminate pregnancies because of a fetal impairment...

...And some countries, like El Salvador, forbid abortion in all cases, even when the mother has been raped or her life is at stake. Despite the public health recommendations to avoid pregnancy, deputy health minister Eduardo Espinoza told Buzzfeed News that the government will have to uphold the anti-abortion laws, "whether we like it or not," but noted the public health crisis may trigger a debate that could revise the law. But experts seem skeptical that the anti-abortion laws, which have been repeatedly passed by mostly-male governments in Catholic countries, will be changed any time soon...

...Even for women who aren't already pregnant, contraception is hard to come by in these countries. According to the World Health Organization, 18% of births in Latin America are to teenage mothers, and Amnesty International estimates that more than 50% of the pregnancies in the region are unplanned. "They don't have access to information, they don't have access to contraception, and they don't have access to the option to terminate a pregnancy," Demant says, noting that contraceptive use among Latin American women is among the lowest in the world, and that emergency contraception is often expensive and difficult to access, if not illegal.

If this turns into the humanitarian disaster that we all dearly hope it won't, a very large finger will be pointing at the Catholic Church, which rules the roost in much of Central and South America and which preaches against both contraception and abortion and which discourages real sex education (the sort that leaves morals at the door and eschews ludicrous notions such as abstinence). Let's all hope it doesn't happen.

29 Jan 16 - 07:20 AM (#3769044)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well no-one here is attempting to demonise people of faith. As for attacking religion, well that is always justified and there isn't anywhere near enough of it. But I for one do not want to have the arrival into the world of thousands of deformed babies for a stick to beat religion with. Let's all hope it doesn't happen.

29 Jan 16 - 07:23 AM (#3769048)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

In the last discussion we had concerning abortion, most said that the decision should be left entirely up to the mother in all cases.

29 Jan 16 - 07:29 AM (#3769051)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

And that has exactly what to do with this discussion?

29 Jan 16 - 08:58 AM (#3769093)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Movement for change in Brazil:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35435684

but two months to submit a petition to the supreme court? There are doubtless reasons for that, but something has gone wrong if it takes that long.

29 Jan 16 - 11:47 AM (#3769124)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

Come on Steve....don't act stupid 2+2 =.........remember?

29 Jan 16 - 12:10 PM (#3769127)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

The Vatican's angle on the story:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/01/25/who_warns_of_risk_of_zika_virus_in_the_americas/1203543

The fact that they've made no comment either way about the implications for abortion policy is somewhat encouraging - and fairly consistent with the way Francis has tended to play contentious issues. If he can persuade the Latin American hierarchy to just STFU and leave social policy to the state, that would be the best possible outcome, though it may not be a very likely one.

29 Jan 16 - 12:14 PM (#3769130)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Can anybody tell me what akenaton is waffling on about? Preferably not akenaton?

29 Jan 16 - 01:53 PM (#3769156)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Mrrzy

They are mobilizing the army against standing water, I'm all in favor.

29 Jan 16 - 03:21 PM (#3769169)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Steve Shaw: "Well no-one here is attempting to demonise people of faith. As for attacking religion, well that is always justified and there isn't anywhere near enough of it."

It falls into the same category as attacking someone for their skin color!!
Try...just try, to stop being a bigot, and hiding behind your 'political persuasion' excuse to do it!!

That being said, some people CAN distinguish between spirituality and religion, just like some people can distinguish between liberals and 'so-called liberals'.

GfS

29 Jan 16 - 07:25 PM (#3769212)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well, Guffers, as ever you have this arse about face. On the whole, religion is a sort of elective thang, though I know the buggers make it damned hard for you to leave the club. On the other hand, unless you're Michael Jackson you're a bit stuck with your skin colour. If you know what I mean, which you almost certainly don't.

29 Jan 16 - 08:42 PM (#3769223)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

I've heard very rational discussions of both abortion and the Zika virus on National Public Radio in the U.S. over the last couple of weeks. I was pleased and surprised that there was no mention of religion in the discussion - it just presented the issues logically without referring to any groups doing this or that.

The problem with pointing fingers at groups, is that you then force all members of that group into the the "enemy" box. Even if they agree with you on the issue, members of that group will have a hard time forming an alliance with you, because you have attacked and excluded them.

If you really want to make progress on an issue, then attack the issue rationally. Don't attack your potential allies.

In today's NPR presentation on the Zika virus in Brazil, it was stated that a total of fewer than ten microcephalic babies have been born there, while there are 8,000 babies born in Brazil every day. The Zika virus is a serious concern, but so far it has done little damage.

-Joe Offer-

30 Jan 16 - 08:43 AM (#3769318)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

In today's NPR presentation on the Zika virus in Brazil, it was stated that a total of fewer than ten microcephalic babies have been born there,

The World Health Organization's estimate of additional microcephalic births is somewhere near 4,000. Whoever NPR gave their mike to was a bullshit artist.

There are recent suggestions that the figure has been slightly overstated by the diagnostic methods used, but also that the virus may be causing cases of brain damage which are not reflected in decreased cranium size, so the casualty count may well be even higher.

Factors that make this a social catastrophe:

1. the virus
2. the mosquito vectors
3. the anti-abortion cult
4. the class system.

1: we aren't going to get any medical technology that affects the virus for years.

2: some measures against the mosquitoes are feasible and desirable, but the more drastically effective they are the worse the consequential environmental damage.

3: there are no excuses for an organization abusing its power so as to waste women's lives dealing with miserable pieces of human wreckage that should never been born. The shits responsible for the oppressive anti-women legislation on the books in most of Latin America are never going to be allies of most of the human race, and attacking them is every bit as rational as killing mosquito wrigglers in the places where they pose most risk.

4: the class inequalities pervasive in Catholic countries invariably mean that "morality" is only for the poor. The elite will never suffer the consequences. Obliterating the system that imposes that distinction is going to take longer than dealing with the virus.

30 Jan 16 - 10:19 AM (#3769344)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Fingers are not quite being pointed as yet. The Church did not invent the virus or the mosquito. But the Church in the areas concerned does have massive influence. But by the Church's fruits in the coming months shall we know it. You're being watched, deservedly so. Let's hope the right thing is done.

30 Jan 16 - 10:30 AM (#3769348)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"The Church did not invent the virus or the mosquito."

But God did.

30 Jan 16 - 10:53 AM (#3769358)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Ah, but did he evolve them? :-)

30 Jan 16 - 11:30 AM (#3769374)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

This report seems to indicate that 35 cases of microcephaly were reported in Brazil in 2015, but it's unclear.

This NPR report speaks of thousands of cases in Brazil, but only a few were Zika-related.

And then there's the question whether the appropriate cure in every case is abortion. I'd still contend that open discussion of the entire issue is necessary, without finger-pointing.

-Joe-

30 Jan 16 - 05:00 PM (#3769449)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I keep trying to tell you, Joe, no-one is finger-pointing.

30 Jan 16 - 05:00 PM (#3769450)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link

If you know the bible at all you will know there was no death or suffering before the fall , so if it was there at the beginning it had a benign purpose. I know you don't believe that, but since you mentioned it........

30 Jan 16 - 05:18 PM (#3769455)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Yeah, Peter, but the existence of mosquitoes is a serious test of my faith....

Another test of my faith is when Steve claims he's not finger-pointing and the evidence says otherwise...

-Joe-

30 Jan 16 - 05:21 PM (#3769457)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

Now that is proper irony ......Jim!!!

30 Jan 16 - 06:30 PM (#3769470)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

What evidence, Joe? Let me assure you that a positive response from the Catholic Church to the issue of victims of the virus potentially urgently needing abortions will get a very positive reaction from me. Neurosis will get you nowhere. Stop being so bloody belligerent.

30 Jan 16 - 07:05 PM (#3769476)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Joe, I was replying to stu and Steve , but on the emotional level, suffering, whether via Mosquitos or otherwise, is a challenge to faith, even to creation believers , though believing the biblical account of its beginning.

30 Jan 16 - 07:22 PM (#3769478)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Well, to give them credit, at least in Brazil they do seem to be doing something positive, i.e. nothing. Whether this is a deliberate decision we don't know yet.

The possibility of cases of brain injury that are not detectable with a tape measure is the most worrying development. The only reliable test for viral exposure is by using PCR, which is way too expensive, and even that could only be a preliminary screening test to show the mother had had an an infection that might have damaged the foetus, not that the foetus definitely was damaged.

The Brazilian study Joe cited describes 35 cases that the researchers investigated in detail. Of course they didn't follow up every case in the country, and their summary says:

historical birth prevalence of microcephaly in Brazil, approximately 0.5 cases per 10,000 live births, calculated from birth certificates, was lower than expected estimates of 1–2 cases per 10,000 live births (9), which might indicate general underascertainment of microcephaly in Brazil. However, during the second half of 2015 alone, >3,000 suspected cases of microcephaly (approximately 20 cases per 10,000 live births) were reported to the MoH through the special notification protocol, suggesting a sharp increase in birth prevalence.

That is, Zika seems to have increased the prevalence of microcephaly by a factor of 10 to 20 (and that's just the damage detectable with a tape measure).

Here are the World Health Organization figures:

http://www.who.int/csr/don/8-january-2016-brazil-microcephaly/en/

31 Jan 16 - 03:33 AM (#3769530)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

With the demise of "Team Musket", the hate quotient has diminished.
Soon we will be able to discuss all subjects as adults.

There are only about three or four people left who like to act as the Mudcat Thought Police.......the strange thing is, that they all claim to be liberals?

When I started using "liberals", I was referring to the people like those mentioned by Joe above.

31 Jan 16 - 07:55 AM (#3769573)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"...but on the emotional level, suffering, whether via Mosquitos or otherwise, is a challenge to faith, even to creation believers.."

Well it certainly must be, though I'm sure you can concoct a tortuous explanation around it. :-)

31 Jan 16 - 08:52 AM (#3769594)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

The reolution of that challenge believed by most anti-abortion cultists is pretty simple and logical.

If you have enough money you afford to either buy an abortion regardless of what the law says, or you can pay a peon to spend her life taking the bites and punches and cleaning up the excreta from whatever you give birth to.

And having that much money means God loves you.

Whereas if you don't have enough wealth to ignore the law, God obviously hates you enough to insist that you follow it. You're probably damned anyway.

(Dunno what Catholics call that - it's the "prosperity gospel" in Protestantism. There's probably an Islamic name for it as adapted to the Saudi elite, too).

31 Jan 16 - 09:40 AM (#3769612)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Yes, those rich Saudis are notorious for the massive piss-ups in their palaces as well!

31 Jan 16 - 11:10 AM (#3769635)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

"........from whatever you give birth to.." I remember awhile ago ,Dawkins posted on social media devaluing the disabled and there was such a media storm he apologised..... of sorts. Of course , jim is small fry, so hardly anyone will notice his inhumanity to fellow man.

31 Jan 16 - 11:39 AM (#3769647)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

You volunteering to adopt a microcephalic baby, then?

This is only incidentally about Catholicism. The state religion in most of Latin America is moneyed hypocrisy, and the fact that its ceremonies involve a lot of incense and statues of the BVM is rather incidental. But it does at present use Christian doctrines as a tool of repression, so discrediting those doctrines can only help, at least in the short term until the wealthy come up with some other ideological tool for the job.

31 Jan 16 - 01:40 PM (#3769673)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Chapter and verse on that, please, pete. As it stands, it's an unsupported accusation, and we have to bear in mind your penchant for misrepresentation. Christians aren't supposed to do that.

31 Jan 16 - 06:37 PM (#3769717)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well, Jack, I've just heard a brief interview on the Beeb news channel with the auxiliary archbishop of Rio de Janeiro. There is absolutely no prospect of any move to ease the anti-abortion stance of the Catholic Church in Brazil, no matter what happens. The Church is putting up severe resistance to any discussion of a change in the law. In Brazil, it's already next to impossible to get an abortion.

Joe...?

01 Feb 16 - 05:50 PM (#3769961)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

Has anyone read whether or not the UN has declared this outbreak an international public health crisis? I understand there was a meeting about it today.

01 Feb 16 - 06:40 PM (#3769963)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Richard Bridge

Well, let me be the first. The principal reason why abortion is almost unobtainable in South America is the church, and in South America that is almost wholly the RC church. The repressive phallocratic reactionary laws are the fault of the church. The impending tidal wave of genetically human beings with no capacity for rational thought or action is therefore the fault of the church. Damn the church. It is a force for evil. If enough people suffer, perhaps the people will rise against their oppressors. May they do the same in Eire and Northern Ireland too.

01 Feb 16 - 08:36 PM (#3769981)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Has anyone read whether or not the UN has declared this outbreak an international public health crisis?

You are probably thinking of the World Health Organization, which has declared an emergency.

statement 1 Feb 2016

"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.

01 Feb 16 - 08:37 PM (#3769982)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

To stray slightly, we now have the good news that research will be able to be done on donated human embryos (from IVF recipients) which should increase the understanding of the early development of embryos and enable better investigation into infertility and miscarriage. Embryos may not be manipulated beyond 14 days, approximately the 250 cell stage, and may not be implanted. In spite of those tight safeguards we already have denizens of the Department of Pseudo-ethics from the University of Intolerant Mysogyny crawling out of the woodwork. We have scaremongering about designer babies, eugenics, GM babies and the threat to humanity in general. Here's a couple of them, from a Guardian article:

Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, said: "This is the first step in a well mapped-out process leading to GM babies, and a future of consumer eugenics." He claimed the government's scientific advisers had already decided they were comfortable with the prospect of so-called "designer babies".

Anne Scanlan, from the anti-abortion organisation Life, said: "The HFEA now has the reputation of being the first regulator in the world to approve this uncertain and dangerous technology. It has ignored the warnings of over 100 scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure that could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings."

Sheesh.

01 Feb 16 - 09:40 PM (#3769992)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

Thanks, Jack.

02 Feb 16 - 02:34 AM (#3770006)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Feb 16 - 06:44 AM (#3770045)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

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.

02 Feb 16 - 07:07 AM (#3770050)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"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.

02 Feb 16 - 06:48 PM (#3770207)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

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.

02 Feb 16 - 08:05 PM (#3770223)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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

02 Feb 16 - 08:34 PM (#3770227)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Feb 16 - 08:54 PM (#3770230)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

02 Feb 16 - 08:58 PM (#3770231)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

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.

02 Feb 16 - 09:25 PM (#3770236)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Feb 16 - 09:33 PM (#3770237)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Feb 16 - 09:36 PM (#3770238)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

02 Feb 16 - 11:28 PM (#3770246)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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.

03 Feb 16 - 04:21 AM (#3770283)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

What bigoted statement? Why are you so bitter?

03 Feb 16 - 07:46 AM (#3770312)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

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?

03 Feb 16 - 08:19 AM (#3770319)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"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.

03 Feb 16 - 02:14 PM (#3770372)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

03 Feb 16 - 02:29 PM (#3770377)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

03 Feb 16 - 03:05 PM (#3770383)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"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?

03 Feb 16 - 03:36 PM (#3770388)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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.

03 Feb 16 - 04:39 PM (#3770395)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"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.

03 Feb 16 - 04:57 PM (#3770399)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Richard Bridge

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.

03 Feb 16 - 05:22 PM (#3770403)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Bill D

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.

03 Feb 16 - 06:05 PM (#3770413)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

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

03 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM (#3770419)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Luke 6:42, pete.

03 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM (#3770420)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

03 Feb 16 - 06:36 PM (#3770425)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

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.

03 Feb 16 - 06:46 PM (#3770428)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Great post.

03 Feb 16 - 06:48 PM (#3770429)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

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

03 Feb 16 - 11:15 PM (#3770458)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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:

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-

04 Feb 16 - 02:31 AM (#3770469)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

04 Feb 16 - 03:52 AM (#3770487)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,HiLo

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

04 Feb 16 - 04:47 AM (#3770495)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

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).

04 Feb 16 - 05:08 AM (#3770501)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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...

04 Feb 16 - 05:45 AM (#3770509)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"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.

04 Feb 16 - 09:33 AM (#3770538)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

04 Feb 16 - 10:49 AM (#3770548)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Richard Bridge

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

04 Feb 16 - 04:06 PM (#3770606)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

04 Feb 16 - 05:35 PM (#3770624)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

04 Feb 16 - 05:58 PM (#3770631)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

04 Feb 16 - 06:05 PM (#3770632)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

04 Feb 16 - 07:11 PM (#3770640)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

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.

04 Feb 16 - 07:15 PM (#3770641)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

"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!

04 Feb 16 - 07:39 PM (#3770645)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

04 Feb 16 - 08:35 PM (#3770653)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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?

04 Feb 16 - 09:09 PM (#3770657)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

04 Feb 16 - 09:35 PM (#3770658)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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? :-)

05 Feb 16 - 01:56 AM (#3770673)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

05 Feb 16 - 03:45 AM (#3770682)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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.

05 Feb 16 - 03:52 AM (#3770684)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

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.

05 Feb 16 - 05:11 AM (#3770696)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

I don't agree that atheists encourage free thinking , Steve. It is largely through the efforts of crusading atheists like Dawkins that evolutionism is legislated to be taught as fact and any mention of the alternatives censured. This is not encouraging pupils to think for themselves , they are being brainwashed to believe unsubstantiated beliefs. Assuming , Greg , that your text ref was an accusation , and not signing off from a message you forgot to include , here's one for you....psalm 14v1.

05 Feb 16 - 05:50 AM (#3770704)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

Thanks for a thoughtful and considered response Joe.

"I think that's what seriously spiritual people seek - some ultimately good essence that underlies and unifies everything. But essences are elusive - and undefinable."

This is interesting. Does this essence have to be sentient or endowed with the powers supposedly attriubted to God? For my part, I wonder if there was a unifying essence in the universe it would probably be utterly indifferent rather than 'good' or 'evil', as nature itself is.

05 Feb 16 - 06:42 AM (#3770714)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Essences don't have to be "undefinable". That is defeatist. Science is a ever-ending quest for knowledge, and the only things about which we must throw our hands in the air are the illusory ones that have been deliberately put beyond science. That would be God and all other things supernatural. I won't belittle God by placing him alongside fairies, goblins, ghosts, ley lines and poltergeists, but I mention them only to give context to my remark "all things supernatural". A unifying essence underlying everything is an interesting idea. If there is any evidence for it, it could become a hypothesis. Investing it with characteristics such as "good" is an extrapolation too far. One step at a time, eh? As for me, I'd rather live out my spiritual side by searching for what's really true.

05 Feb 16 - 06:43 AM (#3770715)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

never-ending

05 Feb 16 - 06:59 AM (#3770716)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

Hate to say it, Joe, but this is exactly the heart of the matter. Yes it is confrontational. We will wait until kingdom come for the Church to significantly alter its stance on abortion. After you'd made your comment about extremist elements I was prompted to look up Catholic doctrine on abortion. Rock-solid. Gentle persuasion and diplomacy have failed. Perhaps the confrontation will come not from heretics like me, Jack and Musket but from some horrid plague affecting thousands of children and mothers, forcing the Church to back down. No-one wants that plague to happen, but pray that your religion isn't treading on too-thin ice by denying women their rights.

05 Feb 16 - 07:05 AM (#3770719)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Come to think of it, I suppose you could describe the high numbers of unsafe, illegal abortions as a plague largely forced by religion.

05 Feb 16 - 10:19 AM (#3770757)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"Essences don't have to be "undefinable". That is defeatist. "

The very term "undefinable essence" refers to something that is unknowable... at present. How we approach this unknowability is part of what I'm discussing with Joe; he and I don't approach it the same way. Science is very familiar with the unknowable, and strives to make it known, however there is still so much we don't know and don't have a clue about or even a frame of reference to discuss what might no know or suspect the existence of.

So what you call "defeatist", I call pragmatic. I am trying to find common ground in which to explore the differences in two philosophical systems. I can't speak for Joe about how he address the "undefinable essence", but as a scientist (and artist I would argue) my work is a tiny,tiny, tiny weeny part of the collective effort of all scientists in chipping away at the unknowable via the scientific method, supported the philosophy that underpins that method. This is how we, as scientists, attempt to confront the feeling of the existence of an "undefinable essence", and to try to reveal it's true nature.

Just to note, Joe used the phrase "unifying essence" which is a different matter entirely, and an interesting one for discussion. After all, unifying theories are the stuff of science...

05 Feb 16 - 01:48 PM (#3770816)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

There is a lot of unconstructive abstract grandstanding here. OF COURSE the Church is not going to shift its position without being forced into it by an utter catastrophe but's exactly what they're up against. (Most of the Evangelicals would probably not even shift their position confronted by the extinction of humanity, they need to be obliterated rather than argued with).

This is what Brazil's healthcare system is currently like:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/02/brazil-broken-healthcare-system-160204075525812.html

Imagine trying do any of these in a mess like that:

- Zika infection testing
- foetal malformation screening
- coping with an infant that will never develop the higher mental faculties of a rat.

So, is the church going to do a damn thing about it? Bloody unlikely that its upper management will, but there are millions of its rank and file who know perfectly well that people don't have to live that way.

05 Feb 16 - 02:19 PM (#3770826)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well, Jack, there are two strands going on in this thread, that's the trouble. It's what you get for mentioning religion in ANY context. ;-) 'Twas ever thus. It's Mudcat Bullshit Section, not the Oxford Union! As for the Catholic rank and file, the vast majority don't go to Mass or are notional Catholics only. Most of them use contraception and the more articulate can get abortions without too much fuss. They don't feel too hard done by, and they have their insurance, so there's not enough back pressure to cause a groundswell, I'm afraid. As a baptised Catholic myself, I'm doubtless still included in their proud statistics. Think of how the Tories get in by keeping the middle class happy. The Catholics who suffer most are the ones who are the poorest and least organised. It's a bit like expecting a boatload of shackled slaves to end slavery. The articulate Catholics are the Joes of this world who go along with diplomacy and collaboration. That will change nothing in a month of Sundays.

Stu, "unknowable" is defeatist. I think a better phrase would be "so-far unknown." That's pragmatic. Unknowable things can never be known, by the very definition of the word. Unknowable things are commonly things invented by rather fertile human imaginations which like to put things safely beyond scientific enquiry.

05 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM (#3770834)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Way up above, Bill D says: 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.

Steve Shaw, in his inimitable style, says that's "condescending crap," but I think Bill makes a lot of sense.

But to a great extent, I think what Bill seeks is already true. An article quoted above says, "Recent research suggests that 65% of Brazilians support the current restrictions on terminations." And Steve Shaw says, "Brazil has more than a MILLION illegal abortions every year."

So, it seems to me that at least in Brazil, huge numbers of people are ignoring the wishes of Church authorities.

I think it's a mistake to ascribe too much power to the Catholic Church, or to any authority. For much of my life, my country has been controlled by powers and are unacceptable to me. I used to get all hot and bothered about that, and I threatened to move to Canada it Reagan were elected (I just might do that if Trump wins). But I began to realize that The Government and The Church have only limited power over me.
I spent three years studying the government of East Germany, a supposedly totalitarian government. I found that even there, people figured out how to do what they wanted to do. Even Party Potentates didn't follow the wishes of the Party all that closely.

For the most part, people get by pretty well by ignoring authority. Most Catholics have very little knowledge about church teaching. For them, it mostly boils down to family tradition. And most local pastors don't spend a lot of time teaching the Rules and Regulations. They spend their time ministering to people, dealing with births and deaths and marriages and illnesses.

I'm sure that the Catholic Church will not give its blessing to abortion in my lifetime. And I don't know that it ever will. But maybe it should continue to question the morality of abortion, and people should continue to make their own decisions. If only 65% of the people of Brazil approve of anti-abortion laws, it won't take much for the proponents of legalized abortion to get a majority. But the way to do is is not to do battle with the Church, because the Church is not going to change its opposition to abortion. The key is to ignore the Church, not do battle with it. If you seek to prove yourself right and somebody else wrong, you won't accomplish anything.

-Joe-

05 Feb 16 - 06:03 PM (#3770854)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"Steve Shaw, in his inimitable style, says that's "condescending crap," but I think Bill makes a lot of sense... And Steve Shaw says, "Brazil has more than a MILLION illegal abortions every year."

Steve Shaw said no such things. These comments were made by Jack. I suppose that, if Jack said them in a style so close to mine as to confuse Joe as to who the author was, then my style can't be quite as inimitable as Joe makes out. No need to apologise though, Joe. I'm no Keith to your Jim. :-)

05 Feb 16 - 07:00 PM (#3770866)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"I'm sure that the Catholic Church will not give its blessing to abortion in my lifetime. And I don't know that it ever will. But maybe it should continue to question the morality of abortion..."

Absolutely not. While the Church favours ignorance and a ban on contraception, and adopts a severe moralising stance on people's sexual relations, it has no right to question the morality of abortion. The Church's policies actually favour abortion by advocating policies that could only lead to more unwanted pregnancies. Al Capone didn't question the morality of the tax system. The Church could learn a lot from that.

05 Feb 16 - 07:00 PM (#3770867)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

So, it seems to me that at least in Brazil, huge numbers of people are ignoring the wishes of Church authorities

And risking their lives to back room abortions as they do so, Joe.

05 Feb 16 - 07:05 PM (#3770868)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Absolutely, Greg. I wonder whether Joe is happy with that, or whether he has bothered to do a rich-poor/legal-illegal abortion profiling of Brazilian women.

05 Feb 16 - 07:21 PM (#3770870)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Yes, Greg, and you are correct that "back room abortions" are a serious risk that must be eliminated by the legalization of abortion. No question there.

But my point was that there may well be a growing trend toward approval of legalized abortion, even in Catholic Brazil. In most places on this earth, Catholics obtain abortions at a rate higher than the rate of non-Catholics. So, it seems to me that Catholics DO ignore the authority of Rome in significant numbers.

Sorry for the misattribution, Steve. I was agreeing with at least part of what was said. I should have known it didn't come from you.

-Joe-

05 Feb 16 - 08:02 PM (#3770875)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

there may well be a growing trend toward approval of legalized abortion, even in Catholic Brazil.

A "growing trend", Joe, is going to condemn thousands to death.

If I may quote Phil Ochs:

"Some say they've passed their darkest hour
Those moderates are back in power.
Oh, they listen close with open ears
They'll help us out in a couple a hundred years.
But don't push 'em...whatever you do...
Else you'll get those extremists back in!"

05 Feb 16 - 08:57 PM (#3770880)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

The alternative, Greg, is to send an army of enlightened atheists from England and the U.S. to use military force against the government of Brazil and force them at gunpoint to change their laws.

I think the only reasonable solution is the political process. And yes, that will take time. It may be that fear of the Zika epidemic will speed the process. I hope so. Brazil has already legalized abortion as a remedy for one sort of birth defect. Why not another?

-Joe-

05 Feb 16 - 09:17 PM (#3770884)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

OK, that's Brazil, Joe. What about the other Central and South American countries under the thumb of Roman Catholic Orthodoxy?

05 Feb 16 - 09:23 PM (#3770885)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

an army of enlightened atheists

And no, Joe, its not down to atheists. There are plenty people of faith who oppose the ridiculous strictures of the Catholic Church regarding birth control and abortion.

Its way past time the Catholic Church was dragged - kicking and screaming, if need be - out of the fifteenth century into the 21st, instead of waiting another couple of centuries to come to its senses.

05 Feb 16 - 09:37 PM (#3770887)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Dragging kicking and screaming people rarely works, Greg. It merely creates martyrs. The anti-abortion extremists thrive on martyrdom. It's an excellent recruiting tool. Reason and persuasion and compromise work far better. And as I've said, most of the authorities in the Catholic Church are not extremists, and they can be open to reason - but not to attack.

-Joe-

06 Feb 16 - 10:05 AM (#3770957)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

And as I've said, most of the authorities in the Catholic Church are not extremists, and they can be open to reason

Well, Joe, in the U.S. the "authorities" have been presented with reason since 1973 & Roe v. Wade - they don't seem to have changed their position on birth control & abortion one whit in 43 years. How many more centuries of reason should we give 'em?
.

06 Feb 16 - 10:24 AM (#3770962)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

Link corrected:

Concern grows at Catholic church's silence over Zika virus crisis - Guardian article

06 Feb 16 - 01:15 PM (#3770989)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Says it all really.

Brazil, due to the malign influence of the catholic cult, drives abortion underground and largely unregulated and Joe tries to sell it as lack of influence by his church.

There you have it.

06 Feb 16 - 07:08 PM (#3771050)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

From Peter's link.

"Last year, the pope announced that for a duration of the current "year of mercy", women who had abortions could be absolved as long as they expressed contrition and sought forgiveness from a priest. "

You couldn't make it up, could you. This amazing Pope, Joe's current hero, a celibate man in a frock, coming out with this patronising guff. As long as they say they're sorry and seek forgiveness from a man in a frock who hasn't got a bloody clue about anything to do with real life, the Church will let you off. Well how nice of them.

07 Feb 16 - 06:39 PM (#3771258)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Not that a priest is needed for forgiveness.....but unless the woman wants forgiveness she is not going to seek it , or to be absolved of any guilt , so nothing so shocking in the statement.

07 Feb 16 - 07:19 PM (#3771266)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Yes, pete, but the point is that it isn't the woman who should be asking for forgiveness, is it. It's the Church, whose teachings encourage the ignorance and the restrictions which lead to unwanted pregnancies. The popes, the bishops, the evil sainted nuns, the right-wing hangers-on, they're the ones who should hang their heads in shame. The true champions of high abortion rates. They won't, of course. It will always be the woman who's the murderer, won't it, pete. Shame on you. You make me ashamed to be a man.

08 Feb 16 - 06:01 AM (#3771364)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"Stu, "unknowable" is defeatist."

No it's not. None of us have any absolute answers. As scientists, how can we be 100% certain everything is knowable?

08 Feb 16 - 06:20 AM (#3771366)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

As scientists, Stu, we revel in the knowledge that nothing can be 100% certain. But problems to solve are not single-dimensional. Things unknowable to Darwin, because the science of genes was not available to him, are knowable, in the sense of being ripe for exploration, to us today. To suggest that there are elements of the natural world that will be forever unknowable is to turn that scientific uncertainty on its head. We plough on in the expectation that we will always want to confront whatever's apparently unknowable, once we have the tools to do so. The only truly unknowable things that will be unknowable forever are those inventions of the over-ripe human imagination that are tendentiously put beyond science. God, for example. I would certainly agree with those members of the God Squad who say that he is unknowable. Too bloody right he is!

08 Feb 16 - 01:38 PM (#3771421)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

So you always have the disclaimer that "science" can never be 100% certain ....and yet the atheists here feel certain enough to mock the Christians here , and the more so if they are creationist. Yet they hold to a position they cannot demonstrate and is contrary to observable testable science. It is also contrary to the claim that everything is provisional and open to new truth so you can never know if you have arrived at "fact".

08 Feb 16 - 03:00 PM (#3771438)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Er.. pete.. It's the certainty of superstition that is mocked.

Women have nothing to seek forgiveness for as there is nothing to be forgiven. Each pregnancy has an individual human story attached. To ask a wicked kiddie fiddler for forgiveness for being raped? No wonder less than 1% of the country see semi literate old men as people to respect.

Unless and until churches, mosques, temples whatever stop defending and hiding criminals, nobody, I repeat nobody is answerable to them for any reason.

And if any of the bunch of control freaks ever do get their house in order, respect has to be earned from that minute on.

This the twenty first century for fucks sake. It's sad that impressionable people like pete had an education that failed him, but like that teacher who tweeted creationist fantasy last week, society shouldn't pander to personality disorder. It's abuse to perpetuate medieval brain washing.

08 Feb 16 - 06:33 PM (#3771467)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Yet they hold to a position they cannot demonstrate and is contrary to observable testable science.

Yes pete, the creationists do, indeed.

08 Feb 16 - 07:30 PM (#3771473)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stilly River Sage

Yet they hold to a position they cannot demonstrate and is contrary to observable testable science.

That "observable testable science" is ONLY important to you, Pete, when you dismiss science. You can't use the concept to dismiss the concept.

08 Feb 16 - 07:53 PM (#3771474)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

" ....and yet the atheists here feel certain enough to mock the Christians here , and the more so if they are creationist."

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. Creationists are all idiots and they deserve mockery just for being creationists. No religious belief deserves any respect at all. The best that honest-to-goodness believers should hope for is silence from critics as long as they themselves keep their beliefs strictly to themselves. That's a respectable stance, even though their beliefs are not respectable.

09 Feb 16 - 08:33 AM (#3771513)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"To suggest that there are elements of the natural world that will be forever unknowable is to turn that scientific uncertainty on its head."

I'm not sure I agree. It's possible there will be elements of the natural world that will be forever unknowable to us, and this could be for any number of reasons; some things may just be beyond our cognitive and intellectual ability to understand or even recognise for what they are. Or perhaps the human race might reach a point when we do understand everything in the known universe, but then... would this universe be the limit of our experience? Might we be unable to access other universes if they exist? They would be a natural part of the cosmos but could be inaccessible to us, perhaps physically, perhaps conceptually? Would we even recognise them as existing? How could they be knowable?

"So you always have the disclaimer that "science" can never be 100% certain"

Pete, we've been over this a thousand times. You're not interested in what we've got to say mate. If, perchance, you do actually want to know Google "scientific method" and read away. These regurgitated old tropes really add nothing to the discussion.

09 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM (#3771662)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

I do believe, stu, that I have googled scientific method before, and I,m pretty sure it has included in it ,observable, testable, repeatable experiment .....all of which is not available to origins investigation. Yes you can make calculations but they are worldview interpreted and not unassailable fact. So Steve , you think it fair game to mock creationists and label us all idiots. Hardly a scientific argument ! , but when you are not able to defend your own faith position , I guess argument by derision is all you have to work with. And acme, I would argue that creationists do not dismiss science, and in fact use what is known in science to dismiss evolutionism...or rather demonstrate how it don't stack up.

09 Feb 16 - 06:43 PM (#3771666)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

" So Steve , you think it fair game to mock creationists and label us all idiots. Hardly a scientific argument ! "

Au contraire, we have abundant evidence. You deny everything that is undeniable to the rational mind. No scientific evidence makes the merest dent in your blind certainties. You walk away from any discussion thinking that you've won, whereas the truth is that you haven't been in the discussion at all. You are all idiots and worse. Just as you deny science and turn your back on it, I deny any argument that you're not idiots and turn my back on it. I'm only doing what you're doing, after all.

09 Feb 16 - 09:40 PM (#3771696)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

We're getting into deeply philosophical terrain here, Stu! I think I'm saying that science can't admit to unknowability in the natural word (I keep having to add in that qualification so as to exclude the supernatural). The advances we've made in the last fifty or a hundred years have been staggering, completely unpredictable a century ago. If there's a philosophy behind science, a large part of it must be stating that the quest for finding out what's really true will never end as long as there are human beings with brains. That's the beauty of science, and, implicitly, it also defines the ugliness of religion, which possesses certainties that science never wants to possess and, worse, which stop people from searching for what is really true. So you may be right that there are unknowable things that will never be known. But I'm not certain, and I doubt whether humanity will let the notion hinder the search for truth.

09 Feb 16 - 10:48 PM (#3771712)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

I am also amazed by the accomplishmens of science - within the realm of science. But I also think that religious thinkers have come a long way, especially within the last 75 years. For one thing, they have learned that there is no reason why they need to contradict science. For the most part, science and religious thought should be in accord. I think that religous thinkers have learned that they have no need for certainty, that their task is simply to explore the questions and the alternatives.
This term *unknowable* - I think it applies to the mysteries of life, like love and peace and death, and life itself. These are things we can experience, but we will never fully understand them. These mysteries are the realm of religious thought. When religion grabs onto certainty and stops asking the questions, then it has failed.
-Joe-

10 Feb 16 - 03:25 AM (#3771733)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Joe. I fail to see how religion can start asking questions. The best it can do is reinterpret old scripture.

The equivalent would be to reinterpret and factor in Fred Hoyle's steady state universe.

The beauty of reality and scientific advancement is that it is unrestrained by theology or mumbo jumbo belief. There is no belief, just process. That alone begins to answer the questions theology poses but never adequately explains.

I think you are mixing up personal belief with stance of organised attempts to control others. Grabbing medieval "certainties" is the only way such structures can claim to be relevant to the gullible.

Let's start with Galileo and take it from there eh?

10 Feb 16 - 05:48 AM (#3771760)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

It's typical of religious thinking to see unknowability in love, peace, life and death. These are multifaceted phenomena and many of their facets yield to investigation. Yes there are spiritual angles, no doubt, but quite often we get into woolly, romanticated notions that amount to no more than just cloudy thinking. There is an unfortunate tendency for the religious to staple these phenomena opportunistically to God in any way they can, thereby releasing cod-unknowable sides. Well I'm neither up for that, neither am I up for stapling them to Mr Spock. Let's all revel in their delicious mysteries whilst keeping our brains fully functioning. That way we might learn more and leave the waffle behind.

And there is irreducible conflict between religion and science, which is foisted on us by religion's need to ignore evidence and propose (in many cases, impose) explanations that not only don't have evidence for them but which can't themselves be explained, a deliberate and dishonest ploy. The best we can hope for is that those scientists who also believe in God can build a stone wall between the two in their brains. There are no grounds for accord. The conflict is fundamental. Hitch your notions to some other wagon. There's no respectability to be gained by hitching them to science, except in the minds of the deluded.

10 Feb 16 - 12:55 PM (#3771868)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link

Steve keeps going on about the supposed abundant evidence for evolutionism , but as ever without ever saying what this abundant evidence is. Perhaps he needs to keep repeating the assertion to bolster his faith in what cannot be substantiated. Perhaps it is a " deliberate and dishonest ploy" on the part of the evolutionary faithful to assert their belief as fact since they cannot demonstrate it to be so!.

10 Feb 16 - 01:35 PM (#3771873)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

The modus operandi of all creationists is to have their story ready to reject all scientific evidence. It's on all their websites. In fact, creationism is just one end of the spectrum of religious belief. If you believe the first few verses of Genesis then you are anti-science. If you believe that you were created in God's image (rather odd as you don't know what he looks like), you could be a mainstream Catholic but you're still a creationist of sorts. If you believe that God started the Big Bang off then just let it all flow, or that he kick-started evolution and is the underlying driving force, you are just as anti-science as the worst creationist. You are believing in things that can't be true and for which there is no evidence, a complete perversion of scientific thinking. You can't think like that and still embrace science. You can't have your cake and eat it. It's very valiant of you to seek accommodation with science, but you're doing that because we are long past the time of Galileo when you could repress true progress and reality and still look good in the eyes of your flock. Science has no interest in you but is closing in on you all the same, so you need to try to make love to it. No dice! And pete, the evidence for evolution is easy to access. You want me to produce it. Really? So that you can turn your back on it with a wave and carry on your own sweet way? I really do have better things to do.

10 Feb 16 - 01:37 PM (#3771874)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Suppress might have been a better word. It's what I meant.

10 Feb 16 - 02:18 PM (#3771879)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

but as ever without ever saying what this abundant evidence is.

Look it up yourself, pete. Its easy to find.

10 Feb 16 - 02:31 PM (#3771881)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

And that my friends is the reason why you don't put a Morris dancing perspective to a debate concerning interior decorating. It just doesn't fit.

As pete ably demonstrates, neither does pseudo mumbo jumbo superstition when debating reality. Sadly, religion involves abusing people merely to control them so of course they will try to inject their wicked fairy tales into debate over morality. That morality is nothing to do with their immoral crusade is irrelevant to them. Pontificating on abortion, genial mutilation and injecting unnecessary guilt into your life is what they are about.

Fuck 'em.

10 Feb 16 - 02:35 PM (#3771883)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Bless you.

(May all your mutilation be genial.)

10 Feb 16 - 03:57 PM (#3771903)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Bluff and bluster , and I trust not too hard to see for anyone not already a convinced evolutionism believer. I could just as easily dismiss you with the instruction to look it up to see that evolutionism is impossible and special creation the only alternative, but as you know, I presented my case with arguments , not dismissals and mockery. Steve says we believe things ...that cannot be true... And why not ? We both have the same evidence to work with , and creation is in accord with the testable , observable data available to us. And then Steve tries to portray the )real or perceived) evils of religion as a reason that God and creation are false. I believe that is a logical fallacy. Another fallacy is called begging the question, which is what he does ...I believe. ..in claiming that creationist websites stand by to reject scientific evidence ...ie evolutionism..when it is that alleged evidence that is in question ! And it is scientific evidence that is presented to question the evolutionism claims. Ain't it funny that despite my being the only biblical creationist here , the atheists here ( ie ,the vocal ones) just can't get by without looking for an argument . I don't get upset about it, but I,m happy to discuss , or counter the critics.

10 Feb 16 - 05:17 PM (#3771914)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

You're not happy to discuss anything with anyone. That's the instruction you get from your creationist masters. Evidence means nothing. Turn your back.

10 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM (#3771925)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

There's no such thing as "evolutionism", pete.

10 Feb 16 - 06:36 PM (#3771930)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Yes there is Greg. It is an apt word for dedicated followers of a belief they cannot substantiate. At least with ...creationism...though, it is not contrary to observational science. More bluff and bluster from Steve , but not so wordy this time.

10 Feb 16 - 06:49 PM (#3771932)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

He's not worth it, Greg. File him along with Keith, akenaton and Teribus in the preferably-not-to-be-recycled bin.

10 Feb 16 - 09:26 PM (#3771945)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

creationism...is not contrary to observational science.

I dunno, Steve - hard to tell if he's delusional or just a moron, or both.

Any road, you're right; duly filed.

10 Feb 16 - 09:40 PM (#3771947)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Musket says he can't see how religion can ask questions. I think that's the essence of religious thought - pondering the mysteries of the universe, the things I call unknowable because they cannot be fully defined.
Yes there are authoritarian models that fit the stereotype musket & Mr. Shaw espouse; but other, more philosophical models of religion have existed for millennia.

11 Feb 16 - 03:38 AM (#3771970)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Genital /genial. iPhone autobloodycorrect strikes again.

Joe. No problem with religion asking the questions, it's the supply of answers that normal people find disturbing.

There was a time when said philosophers had God to fill in the gaps, which led to ascribing phenomenae to the god concept. This stifled and shackled discovery. (I said above, Galileo was an example.)

We have only begun to ponder and discover since we removed the absurd restraints of theological angles to topics. Even Einstein had problems with probability theory as it inferred the God he couldn't personally dismiss played dice. Newton wasted half his creative life assuming the ark of the covenant actually existed and went looking for it. Darwin hesitated till someone else made the link before publishing because it blew away the very foundations of superstition as a society institution.

I only have to go back as far as grandparents to find even my own family actually believing there is such a thing, real and independent of the fantasy of human brains called God. The explosion of discovery and the real benefits to society started taking off as intelligent people began to differentiate between traditional and absolute faith. To use a theological construct as a moral compass works for some people. The community bonding of a church, mosque, temple etc works for some too. Fair play to them.

But having a place in discovering "life, the universe and everything"? At long last we are not hampered by it.

Meanwhile, the Vatican has released a training manual for bishops saying they don't have to report child abuse to authorities. The pope stated that victims of rape should apologise to priests before the priest sanctions abortion. It'll be interesting when civilised countries start prosecuting then.

11 Feb 16 - 04:29 AM (#3771976)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"This term *unknowable* - I think it applies to the mysteries of life, like love and peace and death, and life itself. These are things we can experience, but we will never fully understand them. These mysteries are the realm of religious thought."

These subjects I would call knowable, and scientifically explicable too because natural selection and evolution probably play a major part in explaining them all. We are the way we are because characteristics have been selected as advantageous for our current environment, and our inability to avoid physical conflict and even death are explicable in the physical sense, and I'm not aware a jot of empirical evidence that suggests otherwise.

11 Feb 16 - 06:24 AM (#3771987)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Colombia: 3,177 Pregnant Women With Zika; No Microcephaly: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/06/world/americas/ap-zika-virus.html?_r=2

11 Feb 16 - 06:24 AM (#3771988)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"To use a theological construct as a moral compass works for some people. The community bonding of a church, mosque, temple etc works for some too. Fair play to them "

Well it does, but what we end up with from this is not necessarily benign. We hear of "Catholic children" and "Muslim children" for a start, one of the wickedest notions thrown up by religious belief. We even send them to schools that have those titles. Far better to develop your moral compass along secular lines. It's just as easy, the evidence being that there are some excellent atheists (Carl Sagan) and some terrible devout believers (Francisco Franco). A secular-based moral code is far less likely to contain illiberal attitudes to issues such as abortion, to return tenuously to the thread topic. As a little lad I was told that heaven had only Catholics in it, the implication being that not being a Catholic here on earth was A Very Bad Thing. The upshot of that kind of attitude taken to extremes is ISIS, for example. What looks benign from the outside can have an insidious side that shows only when the surface is scratched.

11 Feb 16 - 08:57 AM (#3772016)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"The upshot of that kind of attitude taken to extremes is ISIS, for example"

ISIS is the extreme end product of the sort of religious literalism demonstrated by some on this forum sometimes. As you know it's why we thunder to keep literalism and religion out of science classes.

"To use a theological construct as a moral compass works for some people"

I guess it's easier then using reason to figure out a moral code.

11 Feb 16 - 09:22 AM (#3772017)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

and what will be the end product of social "liberalism", the anything goes society? Well we can see can't we?

11 Feb 16 - 09:45 AM (#3772019)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin

The "no microcephaly in Colombia" story is simply a recycled statement from the country's Catholic-bigot president. There had already been cases reported last month, which the president had been told about.

11 Feb 16 - 12:17 PM (#3772042)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

There was a great story in the paper (which I now cannot find - grrr) about a marginocephalic girl in Brazil who had just graduated with a degree in journalism and was off to (or looking for, I forget which) work. This shows how complex this issue is, and how hard it can be to judge what is best for the mother and child.

11 Feb 16 - 12:26 PM (#3772043)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin

There are different grades of microcephaly. We don't yet know what the spectrum of severity of Zika-induced microcephaly is, but the most severe forms are easy to recognize in utero on a scan.

11 Feb 16 - 01:35 PM (#3772050)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven sides

North Korea etc is the "...extreme end product ..of evolutionism , which is why it should not be taught as religiously dogmatic doctrine in science classes.... Just as logical as your gross generalisation, stu ! And reason to figure out a moral code !? Whose reason ? The nazi,s defence at Nuremberg was to the effect of abiding by their own moral code. They were told there is a higher law And whence might a higher law come from do you think if you discard God and scripture?.

11 Feb 16 - 01:41 PM (#3772052)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

about a marginocephalic girl in Brazil who had just graduated with a degree in journalism

OK, that's one in the plus column compared to how many thousands in the minus column?

11 Feb 16 - 02:29 PM (#3772060)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Funny how I feel I have a decent moral code but I have never picked up a bible other than to use a Gideon bible once in a hotel to prop up a wobbly chair. I'm of liberal thought, social inclusion in my work and

What is this "higher authority?" I assume it to be either the a Supreme Court or The European Court of Human Rights? Mebbe The Hague court for the Bliars of this world.

There is no higher authority pete. What are you talking about?

11 Feb 16 - 03:55 PM (#3772072)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Was that really pete? "Seven sides"? Mods...?

11 Feb 16 - 07:49 PM (#3772108)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

It is simply not possible (why am I bothering...) To ascribe errant behaviour to evolution. This is the trouble with pete. He's OK, but unfortunately he understands nothing about anything. The thing is, bad behaviour by North Koreans/Iranians/Saudis/Israel is not heritable, therefore nothing to do with evolution, yet has everything to do with brainwashing and conditioning. Which is exactly what pete and his sorry ilk are up for. So Christ knows what he's complaining about.

12 Feb 16 - 02:09 AM (#3772151)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Musket, I'd agree with much of your post of 3:38 AM, although I'd tend to attribute it to the state of development of thinking of our culture.

Then you say: Meanwhile, the Vatican has released a training manual for bishops saying they don't have to report child abuse to authorities. The pope stated that victims of rape should apologise to priests before the priest sanctions abortion. It'll be interesting when civilised countries start prosecuting then.

I'd like to see documentation of this "training manual for bishops." And your statement about rape and abortion is certainly a little inaccurate. And who's going to be prosecuted by civilized countries?

A priest can't sanction abortion, except in rare circumstances where the life of the mother is at stake. If a woman has an abortion "in good conscience" (believing it to be the right thing to do), then there is no sin and no need to confess abortion as a sin - that's been official policy for a long, long time - at least since the Council of Trent in 1545.

And I don't understand the prosecution bit at all.

-Joe-

12 Feb 16 - 02:20 AM (#3772152)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Google it from news stories at BBC and Guardian this week for both subjects Joe.

An article regarding training for bishops saying they have no obligation to report such crimes where they have knowledge or suspicion. (A crime to withhold under UK law, as many have found, including an ex Archbishop of Canterbury funnily enough.)

The confession bit, see the link provided by Peter Laban up this thread (and the killer quote from it by Steve Shaw two posts down.)

12 Feb 16 - 02:57 AM (#3772155)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

The information about the manual for new bishops comes from John Allen, who has reported on Vatican matters for a long, long time. I've heard Allen speak several times. I find his tone a bit cynical, but what he says is very, very credible. Note that Allen explains that the Rome-based Gregorian University's Centre for Child Protection is giving different advice. John Allen knows his stuff.

Peter Laban linked to an article from The Guardian titled Concern grows at Catholic church's silence over Zika virus crisis. Articles from the Guardian have been mentioned throughout this thread. The oft-stated position of the Guardian is that abortion is the solution to the Zika virus epidemic, and that the Catholic Church is wrong because it fails to sanction abortion as a solution for birth defects. The Vatican has expressed concern about the Zika virus [click], but it does not propose abortion as a solution to the problem.

Is it a good thing to abort babies with birth defects? The Catholic Church says it isn't, and I think it has a right to express that opinion - despite what the Guardian says. Others say it is, and I think they, too, have a right to express their opinion.

These differing opinions serve to present both sides of the issue, and then it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide what to do.

-Joe-

P.S. And Musket, I still don't understand your reference to prosecution.

12 Feb 16 - 03:40 AM (#3772159)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

I'm not sure The Guardian has a "view" as such. It reports the risks of zika and notes how superstitious belief is, according to the WHO fettering the (normally) short life span of such conditions through perpetuating incidence which can become genetic through generational spread. Contraception and abortion are two factors that decrease the risk, both shunned by catholic leaders.

Prosecutions exist where people use their power and position to impede the course of justice. It happens in UK and indeed US and elsewhere. My point was to note that in both our countries, police are increasingly making sure all citizens live to the same laws, so withholding evidence is no longer the domain of priests or indeed doctors , social workers etc. When I trained, I was told that patient confidentiality was enshrined in common law. Now, I have a duty to ensure my confidentiality knowledge does not obstruct the course of justice. Priests are under the same obligation, although the Vatican advises otherwise.

Nobody is above the law. It is often an ass, to use a famous American spelling, but it can only protect when equally applied. My overall point was to highlight the problems dealing with such issues when one group of citizens think themselves answerable to a different structure than the rest of us.

12 Feb 16 - 04:08 AM (#3772161)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket, if you did not make up your claim about BBC and Guardian reports, why not quote and link to them like everyone else does?

12 Feb 16 - 04:38 AM (#3772164)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link

Dunno why I put ...sides...last time,! Anyway, it certainly is possible for evolutionism to lead to errant behaviour. For example , even Gould confessed that there had always been racism but that with Darwin thought it had increased by order of magnitude. There have been many examples. The nazis proclaimed that they had sinned against natural selection (meaning evolution in context) by allowing the unfit to live. And , to make it clear, I am not saying that atheists cannot be moral , but that they have no objective basis for morality. However , this also means that the goalposts can keep moving as has happened with the acceptance of abortion for just about any reason. And certainly many atheists on here are of the opinion that the woman's choice is the sole consideration.

12 Feb 16 - 04:41 AM (#3772165)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Musket, there have been numerous links above to various articles in the Guardian about this issue, and it's clear that the newspaper's view is that abortion is the appropriate solution to the possibility of birth defects. My personal opinion is that if the parents decide that they cannot raise a child with birth defects, abortion is appropriate in the first trimester and perhaps in the second. But maybe the parents should consider raising the child, even if the child has birth defects.
Third-trimester abortions make me very reluctant. Other people may have other opinions, and that does not make them horrible people. I would certainly hope that my opinion would not make me subject to prosecution, should I again set foot in the United Kingdom.
I also think that South American and African nations should make their own decisions on these issues, without interference from 'enlightened' Europeans and Americans.
-Joe-

12 Feb 16 - 06:14 AM (#3772179)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Joe Offer is misrepresenting the Guardian. A survey of leading articles (the only conceivable source of any claim that the paper has "taken a view") makes it clear that that it is NOT "the newspaper's view is that abortion is the appropriate solution to the possibility of birth defects." In fact, recent editorial comment has been detailed and nuanced on this matter, hard to boil down to a sentence, but the essence has always been in favour of women having a CHOICE. Other articles are the views of the authors, not the official line of the paper. We've been here before, haven't we. Simplistic misrepresentations are most unbecoming of you, frankly.

Natural selection has nothing to do with individuals. It involves the differential survival of heritable traits. The Nazis perverted Darwin's theory deliberately. Pete is doing it because he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. As for his having an objective basis for his moral code, well I don't think so, pete. If I haven't got an objective basis, then neither have you. A tawdry selection of incomplete ancient writings by a ragbag bunch of mostly anonymous authors, often controversially translated and interpreted, is not a sound basis for anything. And a lot of the biblical superheroes weren't very nice, by the way. Moses was a murderous bugger. Hope HE isn't your role model.

12 Feb 16 - 06:15 AM (#3772180)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987137/argentine_and_brazilian_doctors_suspect_mosquito_insecticide_as_cause_of_microcephaly.html

12 Feb 16 - 06:30 AM (#3772182)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

The word "is" should have been removed from that quote.

This is disingenuous in the extreme:

Is it a good thing to abort babies with birth defects? The Catholic Church says it isn't, and I think it has a right to express that opinion - despite what the Guardian says. Others say it is, and I think they, too, have a right to express their opinion.

These differing opinions serve to present both sides of the issue, and then it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide what to do.

Talk about a false veneer of neutrality. No mention of the lack of sex education, thanks to the Church. No mention of poverty. No mention of lack of contraception or contraceptive advice, thanks to the Church. Just express your opinion that you shouldn't be doing it. Don't forget to mention the stigmatisation if she does do it, let alone ostracism by the Church and the threat of eternal damnation. After all that, leave it up to the pregnant woman, who has already been beaten around the head with churchy morality, who is now carrying a baby with a severe defect and who probably hasn't got the resources to get an abortion anyway. Yes you have every right to express your opinion. Just don't forget that that isn't all you'll be doing. And that it's mostly men who'll be doing it.

12 Feb 16 - 06:50 AM (#3772184)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

A story which suggests we may be nearer to understanding why Zika causes microcephaly:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/researchers-find-new-zika-clues-to-birth-defect-in-fetus-study/

That also suggests the Zika-induced syndrome may be more severe than microcephaly caused by other factors (genetics, other viruses, toxoplasma) - the anatomical variation was extreme and the inflammatory calcifications are not a usual feature.

Of course it doesn't matter how detailed our understanding of the aetiology gets, the pig-ignorant anti-science bigots will still refuse to recognize it.

12 Feb 16 - 07:15 AM (#3772187)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"but that they have no objective basis for morality"

That is very wrong. Objective reality can be the basis for a very profound and considerably less ambiguous moral code than those of religious nature by dint of the fact that the facts underpinning are less open to personal interpretation.

The fact we are, at the most parsimonious explanation of our existence, an aggregation of atoms, molecules and electrical signals, built from the stuff of stars and supernovae, that have become conscious and can now contemplate our own nature as the universe made conscious is profound and beautiful. The sanctity of all life on our planet, the way we interact with each other is informed by the fact as far as we know earth is the only place in the entire universe where we know this incredible event has occurred... and is explicable by science. Compassion, the value of all life and our planet's environment, tolerance, equality and understanding are at the core of many of us who have no evidence for the supernatural.

It's a moral code based on the fact life is explicable, that explanaition is rooted in science and the philosophy of science and understands at the most fundamental level is beautiful and complex and precious beyond measure. That's why we don't understand why religious folk believe they have dominion over all life on earth, and why they still seek to kill each other after millennia of slaughter, and now seek to influence debates on abortion etc when far more nuance, tolerance and compassion is needed to be sure society does the best thing for those involved.

12 Feb 16 - 07:50 AM (#3772194)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Cheers, Stu. :-)

12 Feb 16 - 08:25 AM (#3772197)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"Natural selection has nothing to do with individuals." Very badly put by me, that was. An individual is a collection of thousands of traits (and a lot more than just that). It's the non-random survival of heritable traits that's at the heart of natural selection. Keeping the "unfit" alive is not subverting natural selection in any way. Deliberately propagating traits that would be selected against would be. We call it artificial selection. It has its uses. That is not what the Nazis were doing in the death camps.

12 Feb 16 - 11:10 AM (#3772223)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

this incredible event has occurred... and is explicable by science.

It is "explicable" by creationism too.
Science has yet to demonstrate how it happened.
Any day now I am sure, but not yet.

12 Feb 16 - 11:33 AM (#3772227)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

Northern Ireland has just kicked reforming the pregnancy termination laws into touch - AGAIN !!
DINOSAURS STILL DO WALK THE EARTH
Jim Carroll

12 Feb 16 - 11:43 AM (#3772232)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

How different is it where you live Jim?

12 Feb 16 - 12:28 PM (#3772245)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"How different is it where you live Jim?"
In 2013, Ireland passed a new law allowing abortion under certain circumstances. The law provided for a woman's right to an abortion if her life is at risk, including from suicide. Information on abortion services outside the state is also constitutionally protected, and is regulated by the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State For Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995.
The death-grip of the church remains a factor in our law-making here - as should be apparent from the appalling case of the death of Savita Halappanavar who was refused a termination on the grounds that that sort of thing didn't happen in Christian Ireland.
Sadly, it took the clerical rape of thousands of children to loosen that grip somewhat,
Whatever the situation here- it is an improvement on that the prehistoric conditions prevailing in that little corner of Ireland that would be forever Britain.
As we have an election coming up, we have the possibility of a referendum to change the constitution - not perfect by any means, but a step in the right direction.
Jim Carroll

12 Feb 16 - 12:39 PM (#3772249)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Jim, Abortion is not legal in Ireland in cases of rape, incest or foetal anomalies.
https://www.ifpa.ie/Pregnancy-Counselling/Abortion-Irish-Law

So Ireland is united on this, and your own neighbours are the dinosaurs by your definition.

12 Feb 16 - 12:57 PM (#3772251)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link

Most parsimonious explanation! I don't think so. Rather it is the preferred explanation for atheists , albeit many theists tend to enjoy cutting off the branch they are sitting on ! What is your evidence that we came fom star dust ? What is your explanation of how lifeless matter became life ? You call all that explicable ?!. The most explicable reason for us being here at all is a creator. And what is the atheist answer to this ....who made. God?.... And of course , when we answer that non question it is not accepted because atheists are committed to naturalistic explanation even though they don't have one that works.

12 Feb 16 - 01:27 PM (#3772256)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Why would Joe feel he could be arrested for having an opinion when he comes to The UK? How odd? I stated that here in The UK, anybody with knowledge of a crime, including child abuse (the crime most bishops get to hear about, judging by the number of priests in prisons) has an obligation not to withhold evidence. I could be wrong but most US states and federal investigations have a similar requirement? (Other than self incrimination under the amendment?)

Keith. This is a debating forum. If I felt links to articles explained things further, I would give a link. However, referring to what was printed in context to my point makes links unnecessary. Please learn how to debate. My good friend Musket has advised you to to do before if I recall. It isn't necessary to provide links, and if you are curious anyway you can easily find them. Although in this case, just reading what is in the thread gets you the links anyway.....

Ah well.

Always got pete's strange logic if I need cheering up. Hey Joe! Is pete's post above an example of this theological philosophy you mentioned? My granddaughter's finger painting is more deep and meaningful.

All together now!

We are stardust
We are golden

12 Feb 16 - 01:49 PM (#3772268)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"Jim, Abortion is not legal in Ireland in cases of rape, incest or foetal anomalies."
I am aware of that Keith - what's your point?
"So Ireland is united on this, "
I suggest you look at how far the Republic has come and compare it with how far little Britain across the border hasn't.
If by "Ireland" you mean the politicians and the establishment (as you usually do" - our lot has taken a few tottering steps and is still ahead of your lot.
I think in terms of the people of Ireland, not its politicians.
It is significant that what is being considered first is a referendum - can only ever remember participating in one of those before we left (on the Common Market) - we tend to have them on important issues.
There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in Ireland over the question of pregnancy termination - the state are happy to leave things as they are happy to turn their backs on the many thousands of girls who nip over to Britain to have the procedure carried out - a sort of penalty for "getting into trouble' now the Madeleine Laundries have shut their doors .
When push comes to shove, as with hanging, same-sex- marriage and homosexuality in general, this issue should transcend a vote to find the will of the people and is a basic human rights issue - you wouldn't accept a referendum on whether it was right to gas the Jews - it's a basic evil, yet it was widely accepted in Germany.
Hopefully within my lifetime, this will be looked back on as part of our barbaric past.
It's interesting to note that many of those who incorrectly describe themselves as 'Pro-Life couple the issue with homosexuality - both "evil" even though both are fully accepted in the modern world, and termination is described as "murder – which makes the British, amd the majority of the rest of the world "murderers" – I do hope you lock your doors securely each night as you seem to be surrounded by killers.
You're still not explaining your own position - another 'Devil's advocate moment, no doubt.
Jim Carroll

12 Feb 16 - 01:59 PM (#3772272)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket, you gave us your version of what they said without giving us the opportunity to see if they really did say that.
If you claim an article supports your case, of course you should link to it to show that it really does.
Everyone else does.
What have you got to hide?

12 Feb 16 - 02:03 PM (#3772277)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

I am aware of that Keith - what's your point?

My point is that you attacked and ridiculed Northern Ireland for having exactly the same ruling as Southern Ireland, where you choose to live.

If Northerners are "dinosaurs" still walking the Earth, then so are your compatriots, as you should have said.

12 Feb 16 - 02:39 PM (#3772287)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

So, Steve Shaw has often mentioned "lack of sex education" as an issue. I agree that a lack of sex education is a problem, but I'm wondering where this lack exists, and why. Steve seems to implicate that the Catholic Church is somehow responsible for this lack of sex education, but he gives no specifics.

I don't have data on the matter, either, but I do have experience. Here in California, Catholic schools have provided sex education for decades. I got sex education in a Catholic seminary in the 1960s, and my three kids got sex education in four different Catholic schools in the 1980s. I don't know of any objection to sex education in the Catholic Church, but I suppose it exists in some places.

I would suppose that children who leave school before reaching puberty, often don't get sex education.

-Joe-

12 Feb 16 - 07:21 PM (#3772343)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well, Joe, let me expand. When I say sex education, I don't just mean willies, fannies and how to not get the clap. Your country and mine are a bloody disgrace. One third of your schoolchildren are taught to abstain, nothing else. Out of the other two-thirds, a very large number are taught in Catholic schools, in which they will be told that contraception and abortion are severely frowned upon and that sex (unlike eating, shitting, pissing and farting) is sacred and must be indulged in parsimoniously, if at all, unless you've tied the knot. A number of sexual activities will be classified on a scale of lesser to greater sinfulness. Don't worry, you're not alone. It's just as bad here.

It stinks, Joe, and it is entirely responsible for the high rate of unwanted pregnancies and the high rate of abortion. Nothing else comes close. I could write a bloody book, but let me try to sum up in a paragraph or two. First, keep the priests and nuns away. Their interest in sex is prurient and uninformed. Second, sex can't be divorced from the rest of real life. It's normal, and there is no automatic big role for moral inputs, any more than there is with going to the lavatory. In case you haven't noticed, the people most eager to impose their morality on sex are those who are least qualified. Let's start with any pope you'd care to name, then let's move on to Mother Teresa and all those fundamentalist idiots your country is so good at spawning.

So what do we do. Well, parents. Unfortunately, parents come with all the foul baggage that they picked up from their religion and the shitty schools they went to. Good parents are the best bet, but we're nowhere near in the right place yet where that's concerned. So, school. Every teacher in every school has a responsibility to show children that the way forward in this world is to promote good relationships. By that, I mean relationships that involve self-respect, mutual respect, agreeing to differ, respecting and celebrating difference, and tolerance for each other's weaknesses and foibles. Sexism, bullying, misogyny, homophobia and racism have no place. We don't need lessons in all that, as hectoring and beating people around the head with strictures usually has the opposite effect to the one you desire, but we do need a good, healthy school ethos that isn't just a sentence in the school policy booklet to keep parents happy, but something that should take up the bulk of staff meetings and which should be expertly led. School is about a lot more than exams and subjects.

Of course, the nitty-gritty of sex is vital too. Children are very respectful of teachers who cut out the bullshit and give the facts. They are extremely suspicious of people who inject moralising into sex education. They want just the facts, and, in my experience (I did this for 25 years, by the way, usually fighting against religion all the way), they will reject any hint of a moral veneer. They want to know, and are entitled to know, all there is to know about how you do sex (they've heard all sorts of stuff, so why wouldn't they?), about contraception and abortion, any discussion of abortion always centering around the need to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If only popes, priests, nuns and screwy fundamentalists had the same priorities. Out of the mouths, etc. Both here and in the US we do our children a grave disservice by not making education for relationships the absolute top priority in schools. And please leave your personal morals at the classroom door.

12 Feb 16 - 08:08 PM (#3772348)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Heads up:

search "zika cancion" on the web. There are already several songs about it on YouTube. My Spanish and Portuguese aren't up to telling whether any of them are any good (though I think I can tell that one of them is garbage). Maybe somebody here can understand them better.

You will get a few false hits from the singer Bolado Zika, who may be thinking about changing his name.

12 Feb 16 - 08:25 PM (#3772353)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Gee, Steve, you sure are into stereotypes. I admit that there are some Catholic sex education programs I don't like, particularly the very popular "Theology of the Body" programs that were supposedly initiated by Pope John Paul II. I find them to be moralistic and unrealistic. But most of the Catholic religious orders who teach in schools, espouse far more realistic sex education programs.

-Joe-

12 Feb 16 - 09:12 PM (#3772361)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I spent a long time on that post. I try to be considered and measured. Then I get some Catholic bloke telling me, in less than three lines, that I indulge in stereotypes. After all he said about the Guardian too. Sheesh.

OK, I'm listening. I told you in detail (from experience, mind, though you don't have to believe me) what I think. So tell me in detail about these realistic sex education programmes taught by religious orders. I'm all ears, really I am.

13 Feb 16 - 04:11 AM (#3772374)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Monique

To answer Jack's 12 Feb 16 - 08:08 PM post:
This song says, (I haven't typed twice what lyrics are sung twice and there're a couple of words I couldn't get):
Zika is not mortal but it can affect us,
zika isn't going to kill us but it can affect us.
I had a friend and she died briefly,
she died from mortal dengue.
Zika is a national topic.
It was born in a wood in Uganda,
now don't let this plague spread.
Zika isn't mortal though it can affect us
with conjunctivitis and arthritis, fever and pain…
Zika is a national topic,
zika is a regional topic,
zika is a world-wide topic.
[let's] All [be] watchful,
[let's] all [be] careful,
zika isn't going to kill you
but it can affect the children.
Let's take care of the children,
they are our future,
zika must not affect them…
Zika isn't going to kill you,
zika must not affect other people,
let's take care of people,
people are the future,
let's take care of the children,
zika can affect them.
Let's get rid of the breeding places
of zancudos and mosquitoes*
and thus we'll avoid
what's happening in Uganda.
We don't want zika to spread.

*zancudo and mosquito are synonymous in some countries, but in others zancudo is the one that spreads malaria and the likes.

13 Feb 16 - 05:30 AM (#3772378)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

'But most of the Catholic religious orders who teach in schools, espouse far more realistic sex education programs.'

Having seen my son go through a catholic education (there is no other kind he could have realistically attended in the West of Ireland). I think Joe may be referring to his local situation and orders but he is certainly not speaking for the programs taught here.

13 Feb 16 - 07:15 AM (#3772385)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin

What it feels like living through the epidemic in Colombia:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35552340

The cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome that they describe are at the most severe end of the spectrum. Perhaps the Zika-induced form is worse. (Tony Benn got it from some unknown cause, but made a good recovery - too soon to know how many Zika victims will be as lucky).

Meanwhile, it's early days in Colombia and not enough affected babies have been born yet to know how many will be microcephalic.

Meanwhile I do not see the Brazilian situation the way Steve does:

These differing opinions serve to present both sides of the issue, and then it should be up to the pregnant woman to decide what to do.
Talk about a false veneer of neutrality. No mention of the lack of sex education, thanks to the Church. No mention of poverty. No mention of lack of contraception or contraceptive advice, thanks to the Church. Just express your opinion that you shouldn't be doing it. Don't forget to mention the stigmatisation if she does do it, let alone ostracism by the Church and the threat of eternal damnation. After all that, leave it up to the pregnant woman, who has already been beaten around the head with churchy morality, who is now carrying a baby with a severe defect and who probably hasn't got the resources to get an abortion anyway.

Brazilian women are not the passive victims of brainwashing that Steve is suggesting. About 90% use contraception despite the church absolutely forbidding it, and with a million abortions each year, the church's teaching on that is being systematically and deservedly pissed on as well. They know to make their own choices - the problem is that the theocratic state stops them from exercising those choices freely. In a more humane society, abortions would not just be tolerated but funded on request. No Catholic theocracy is anywhere near doing that.

13 Feb 16 - 08:37 AM (#3772394)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Keith just said that I should post links in order to verify what I said.

I said that I read an article that mentioned x. That's good enough. If Keith wishes to put links because of his track record of twisting things, then perhaps that's a good idea. But I stand in front of the wicket with a straight bat.

"Something to hide". 😹 Judging by your own standards again eh? Some of us deal with reality instead.

13 Feb 16 - 08:51 AM (#3772398)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"My point is that you attacked and ridiculed Northern Ireland for having exactly the same ruling as Southern Ireland, where you choose to live."
I did not - I attacked an archaic law that has just been confirmed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We have argued in the past for the reason why the South has the laws and constitution it has - heavy-handed Church influence (you in fact, on the Halappanavar case, claimed the Church didn't make the laws and could be in no way blamed for what happened).
I defend neither Governments for their stand on pregnancy termination (I don't defend politicians of any country - most are sharks) - but at least we in the Republic now stand a chance of shaking off the influence of the church and perhaps reversing the situation, while in the Brit-bit, things will continue as they always were.
The church got its fingers severely burnt over the same-sex-marriage issue; the Bishop of Dublin described it as "a wake-up call for the church".
Let's hope they have learned their lesson - though I ha'e ma doots!!
For the record - this is the situation in Northern Ireland as it has just been confirmed in British Ireland.
"But the law governing abortion in Northern Ireland is one of the most restrictive in Europe and carries the harshest criminal penalty of any European country – life imprisonment both for the woman who has an illegal abortion and for anyone who has assisted her.
The 1967 Abortion Act has never been extended to Northern Ireland and abortion is only carried out when the life or mental health of the mother is deemed to be in danger. This happens very rarely; official statistics indicate that only 23 lawful terminations took place in Northern Ireland in 2013-14.
The law means in practice that women who have money can get an abortion; those without cannot. Monday's judgment in Belfast's high court, ruling that aspects of the legislation contradict European human rights law, will do little to change that"
Jim Carroll

13 Feb 16 - 09:15 AM (#3772402)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"The most explicable reason for us being here at all is a creator."

Here endeth the lesson.

13 Feb 16 - 10:06 AM (#3772409)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket, if you claim that some article supports your case, you have to let us see it.
Maybe you misunderstood it.
Maybe you took one piece out of context.

Everyone else here does that.
I am very suspicious of anyone who refuses. There is no reason why an honest person would refuse.

Jim, you did attack and ridicule the Northern Assembly for making exactly the same ruling as they have where you live.

you in fact, on the Halappanavar case, claimed the Church didn't make the laws and could be in no way blamed for what happened

That is the case.
You live in a secular democratic state. Thie Irish are a free and fiercely independent people, who have shown throughout the 20Century that they will fight any imposition of rule that they do not want.

The death-grip of the church remains a factor in our law-making here
Nonsense.
The Church had just such a grip on both Italy and Ireland in the past.
Democratic Italy chose to reject laws based on religion.
Democratic Ireland chose to keep them.

Like you, I think they are wrong, but I would never seek to impose my outsider values on a proud and independent people, and I am surprised that your neighbours tolerate you doing it.

13 Feb 16 - 10:34 AM (#3772415)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"Nonsense."
Once again I agree - you are talking just that.
Comparisons with what happens elsewhere is as crass as it gets in the light of what ha happened in Ireland - even the Bishop of Dublin has stated that the church has to come to terms with the fact that it no longer can rely on the power it once had, but it still attempts to wield what it has left.
Church power was written into the Constitution when the State was formed - it is not just a matter of changing the law on these matters but altering the Constitution.
The power of the Church was finally broken when the revelations on clerical abuse hit the fan, your that same church still controls over 90% of primary education and many schools are rejecting pupils on the basis that they do not have a Confirmation certificate - explain that one away.
The Irish people have never been asked to vote on the power of the church - ever - the "democratic choice" that you claim is that of politicians - not that of the people - it would take a referendum to change that.
I am not going to do this with you again Keith - the effect that the church has had on Irish lawmaking speaks for itself - your denials no longer work.
No more Keith - unless you are going to show how the people have chosen - I'm tired to your permanent appeasement of tyrants and atrocities
Finished, before we **** up this discussion - I suggest you have the decency to do the same
Jim Carroll

13 Feb 16 - 11:11 AM (#3772423)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

The most explicable reason for us being here at all is a creator

Obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Care to "explicate" further, pete?

13 Feb 16 - 11:38 AM (#3772427)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Raggytash

The obvious question is then "where did a creator come from" to which the normal reply is a creator has always existed. Not really a satisfactory answer, if a creator can always exist then why not a universe.

The vast difference is that people accept there was a start to the universe and are working towards an understanding of the origins of the same.

Blindly chanting God did it doesn't satisfy a thinking or logical mind.

13 Feb 16 - 11:42 AM (#3772428)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin

Meanwhile, some signs of progress in Colombia:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/more-than-5000-pregnant-women-in-colombia-have-zika-virus-government/

13 Feb 16 - 12:51 PM (#3772432)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link

Well, of course raggy, it will not be a satisfactory answer for an atheist. We have to admit an element of faith . I am not claiming proof. However, it seems logical to me that the creator has to be greater than, and outside of what he creates. Of course people are working toward an understanding of origins ", but blindly chanting (evolution )does it does,nt satisfy a thinking or logical mind ". Of course the likes of Greg May prefer the FSM to the biblical God , but that would be a case of that creator being of the same substance as what he creates , or do pastafarians posit spiritual spaggheti ?!

13 Feb 16 - 01:40 PM (#3772438)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Jim, in UK bishops have an input in law making.
Is there any procedure for the Church to make laws in Ireland?
No.
It is a secular democracy just like Italy.
They just made different choices.

Your problem with democracy Jim, is that you think ordinary people too stupid to be given that responsibility.
You and Stalin.

13 Feb 16 - 03:41 PM (#3772470)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"Jim, in UK bishops have an input in law making."
Different situation here, and you should know it
The Jesuits put it perfectly
"Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man"
They don'y need the laws, they have had the minds of the people from birth - and they are fighting tooth and nail to retain that grip, despite everything that has happened.
Go away Keith - you are arguing with someone whose entire family grew up under the shadow of the Church - not your 'pretend' wishy-washy Christianity that allows you to support mass-murder and denigrate other religions, but the real thing.
Go away and stop spoiling this discussion - our dialogue is done.
Jim Carroll

13 Feb 16 - 04:39 PM (#3772476)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

I would suppose that the influence of the church does still have bearing in how the Irish think about morality, but i am sure the secularists are fighting tooth and nail to become the influential factor. We are all influenced by some philosophy or belief.

13 Feb 16 - 04:45 PM (#3772477)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Actually the bishops have a role in scrutinising law, not making it.

And that is an anachronism that requires review. The Lords is always being reviewed mind. And for that matter, a private members bill that admittedly stands no chance has proposed that as CofE have an opt out on equality legislation that their membership is suspended till they accept all people as equal.

Interesting and puts self righteous claptrap into perspective.

13 Feb 16 - 05:36 PM (#3772489)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Meanwhile, Tony Scalia just got spiked by the Almighty's own coathanger.

Even I would think that leaving an unwanted foetus to age 79 is a bit late.

13 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM (#3772496)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Scalia: one down, two to go......

13 Feb 16 - 08:42 PM (#3772523)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

With respect, Jack, I should like you to tell me where I suggested that Brazilian women are the victims of brainwashing.

13 Feb 16 - 10:41 PM (#3772543)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Jim Carroll says about Ireland: Church power was written into the Constitution when the State was formed

Please explain, Jim.

Thanks.

-Joe-

14 Feb 16 - 12:50 AM (#3772558)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

Fifth Amendment of 1972

http://www.hallamor.org/today-in-irish-history-december-7/

14 Feb 16 - 03:58 AM (#3772573)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

Thanks Guest
With respect to all believers and non-believers here, none of these discussions should be about belief - what people personally believe or don't believe has nothing to do with today's 'Religious' problems.
Rather, it has everything to do with the way certain individuals and groups in countries which describe themselves as 'Christian' or 'Muslim' or 'Catholic'.... or whatever, use peoples' beliefs for their own, more of often than not, material or political ends.
They adopt a 'pick-'n-mix' attitude to their religions to suit their agendas - it is fine to kill your fellow man, despite your religion telling you it's a no-no, or to be acquisitive, and ignore the bit about camels passing through the eyes of needles... it's not even worth my mentioning the 'love thy neighbour' bit - long-gone.
Yet they rake up obscure claimed utterances of claimed divine eccentrics to justify inter-religious warfare, misogyny, contraception, pregnancy termination, who can go to bed with whom, procreation.... taken as a whole, the use made of religion makes it the greatest threat to humanity today - in subjects like these, that threat has spilled over into matters of health and even life and death on a mass scale.
I've spent most of my life among religious people who I have loved, respected and trusted utterly - forty years of recording Irish people who were devout in their beliefs yet who I have never had reason to disagree or fall out with.
These were the people who took their belief seriously and were happy to accept my non-belief.
I was not so long ago shown a letter from a dear late friend who we had recorded, mentioning my non- religion; it read something like; "he's not one of us but he is in practice a far better Christian than most churchgoers I know" - I treasure that.
It's a somewhat hackneyed truism, but nevertheless true, that if Christ had been alive in 1950s America he'd have found himself in front of the House Unamerican Activities Committee - wonder if he'd have grassed up his twelve buddies!!
Personal belief is fine by me as long as it is personal - it's when it is imposed on others or used to support wars and politics and injustices that we start punching each other.
Jim Caroll

14 Feb 16 - 05:31 AM (#3772590)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

"The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens."

So "Church power" was never "written into the constitution," and even its "special position" was written out over forty years ago!

They don'y need the laws, they have had the minds of the people from birth -

Same as Italy then.
It is just democratic will of the people.

14 Feb 16 - 05:34 AM (#3772591)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

It was implanted into the minds of the people from birth Keith - far mor effective than passing laws which can be broken when it suits - "what's bred in the bone..." and all that.
That is the true danger of the Church, which is now relaxing thanks to their overstepping the mark with children.
Jim Carroll

14 Feb 16 - 05:41 AM (#3772592)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Same as Italy then, but the people chose differently.
I think that the people should be allowed to choose their own path.
You and Stalin disagree.

14 Feb 16 - 06:20 AM (#3772595)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"Same as Italy then, "
Italy was a typical example of the church's pragmatism in coming to terms with its limitations - no comparison.
Italy had come through fascism - supported by the Church - "Hitler's Pope" who had turned his back on the Jews being herded into the extermination camps.
The Italian left were extremely powerful in the support they had from overwhelming practicing Catholics - in order that the Church retained their position in Italy they had to give ground - I doubt they would have survived a head-to-head battle there - so they compromised.
That was not the position in Ireland; respect for the church was written into the constitution - they had no need to compromise.
At the height of clerical abuse in Ireland children were being punished and humiliated for suggesting that their priests were sexually abusing them - this happened with the victims of Brendan Smythe, who is said to have sexually abused and assaulted over 143 children - you can't have more proof of the power of the church than that.
General question to all.
Does anybody here agree with this twot?
He's like a mosquito buzzing around and spreading his inanities.
If we're not careful we are all going to come down with a nasty dose of Zika
Go away Keith - and don't you dare accuse me of being a Stalinist
Jim Carroll

14 Feb 16 - 07:11 AM (#3772602)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

This is not about fascism or child abuse.
The Church had Italy, Steve, and all the other lapsed Catholics until they were seven.
Are the Irish inherently more stupid than everyone else?

14 Feb 16 - 08:00 AM (#3772607)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"This is not about fascism or child abuse."
No - it is about the influence of the church - fascism and child abuse is indelibly a part of the history of that church, as is its support for wartime fascism and its persistent support for right wing governments - Chile with its mass murders, post- Civil War Spain with its massacres of tens of thousands of Franco oppositionists (just reading Paul Preston's horrific The Spanish Holocaust').
No - the Irish are not stupid - it is you who have written them off as gullible and brainwashed in the past though - you specifically referred to Irish children as being "brainwashed" over their own history - can't have it both ways.
Your wisdom on the Irish Famine:
" 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM
"Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive.""
Jim Carroll

14 Feb 16 - 09:54 AM (#3772623)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Catholic leaders warning against contraception
Bishops oppose birth control, abortion as ways to handle illness

By Laurie Goodstein, New York Times
Published 9:04 pm, Saturday, February 13, 2016

As the Zika virus spreads in Latin America, Catholic leaders are warning women against using contraceptives or having abortions, even as health officials in some countries are advising women not to get pregnant because of the risk of birth defects.

"Contraceptives are not a solution," said Bishop Leonardo Ulrich Steiner, the secretary general of the National Council of Bishops of Brazil, and an auxiliary bishop of Brasília, in an interview. "There is not a single change in the church's position."

Article Here

14 Feb 16 - 10:22 AM (#3772626)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

If any irresponsible organisation other than sky pixie entrepreneurs said that, they would be held to account.

We deserve better than medieval interference in matters they clearly don't understand and by their despicable deeds, don't wish to understand either.

Presumably the god botherers on Mudcat will wish to preach at people of a higher intelligence and sense of morality again...

14 Feb 16 - 10:32 AM (#3772630)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Donuel

There are Countless unknowns about Zika and possible poisonous agents.
There will be even more unknowns to come over the next 2 years until a vaccine is perfected.

Abortion controversy is fairly well known.

Would you object if I place select links of all of your submissions into the Zika truth thread for ease of search ability on Zika breakthroughs as they develop?

For those who need to know the latest knowledge about Zika should consult WHO ( world health organization )

14 Feb 16 - 12:52 PM (#3772658)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Jim, the quote you posted was inspired by an historian you greatly approve of, Chrisine Kinealy.
She writes, "Within this model, 'blame' is generally attributed to key groupings, either within the British government or within the landlord class. To some extent, these beliefs were fostered by the state school system south of the border"

Hence "brainwashing."
http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/beyond-revisionism-reassessing-the-great-irish-famine/

14 Feb 16 - 12:54 PM (#3772659)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Once again, instead of discussing the issue, you dredge up stuff from years old threads!
Why do you do it Jim?

14 Feb 16 - 01:04 PM (#3772661)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Would you object if I place select links of all of your submissions into the Zika truth thread for ease of search ability on Zika breakthroughs as they develop?

I can't stop you but I'll never look there. The whole point of that thread was conspiracy theory denialist garbage, which is even worse than having a thread polluted by reactionary wankers and compulsive dorks who've got to get the last word.

14 Feb 16 - 01:08 PM (#3772662)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"Once again, instead of discussing the issue, you dredge up stuff from years old threads!
Why do you do it Jim?"
It has everything to do with this Keith - it is about the Church's interference with how we live.
Why is it that you always participate in these subjects and whenever you paint yourself into a corner you squeal "thread drift"
You disputed my reference to Ireland and was quite happy to continue until you landed yourself in the klarts with you stupidity and short memory.
Even if this weer not the case, it is none of your ***** business what aspects of this people choose to bring up - mind your own business.
Jim Carroll

14 Feb 16 - 01:12 PM (#3772665)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

And you are stil claiming that Irish children were brainwashed after accusing me of being a Stalinist for accusing me of saying the same thing
How ****** stupid can you get?
Stop digging
Jim Carroll

14 Feb 16 - 03:15 PM (#3772696)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

reactionary wankers and compulsive dorks

To some of us it is posters like you who are the reactionary wankers and compulsive dorks, it all depends on ones perspective, doesn't it? But do go on with your ad hominems, it only serves to strengthen our resolve.

14 Feb 16 - 03:43 PM (#3772705)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

Labs are rushing to make a vaccine for the Zika virus, but some Brazilian doctors are speculating that the deformity resulting was caused by a Monsanto insecticide that was meant to kill the mosquito larva. The next few weeks should tell the tale. I just know what I read in the papers.

14 Feb 16 - 05:15 PM (#3772742)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

the deformity resulting was caused by a Monsanto insecticide that was meant to kill the mosquito larva.

Even if that doesn't play out, the fact that they're spraying metric tons of god-knows-what toxic crap all over the place in a futile attempt to eradicate adult mosquitos should have some "interesting" results on both adults and fetuses.

14 Feb 16 - 06:05 PM (#3772756)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Onderdonk

The most dangerous person is the one who is always right
--Sliversprings Guru

14 Feb 16 - 06:20 PM (#3772760)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/05/zika-virus-the-conspiracy-theories-flow-fast-and-furious/

That's worth a read, Greg.

14 Feb 16 - 06:56 PM (#3772765)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

they're spraying metric tons of god-knows-what toxic crap

Source please.

14 Feb 16 - 08:10 PM (#3772775)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

they're spraying metric tons of god-knows-what toxic crap
Source please.

Name please.

14 Feb 16 - 09:12 PM (#3772783)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Source please

Guess you don't watch, listen to, or read the news, eh Ghost?

14 Feb 16 - 09:16 PM (#3772785)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Interesting article, Bruse, Thanks. As you've said: time will tell.

I note also that the article mentions Goofus' old buddy, Alex Jones.

14 Feb 16 - 09:34 PM (#3772789)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Guess you don't watch, listen to, or read the news

Nice attempt at a cop out but I suggest a fashionable tin foil hat as a useful addition to your wardrobe.

14 Feb 16 - 09:43 PM (#3772790)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/133548/20160214/monsanto-larvicide-not-zika-virus-true-cause-of-brazils-microcephaly-outbreak-doctors.htm

14 Feb 16 - 10:13 PM (#3772792)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Re the Tech Times article: "a group of Argentine physicians suggest" is not scientific evidence.

14 Feb 16 - 11:41 PM (#3772797)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

You are correct. That said, it's in Brazil where the first linking of Zika and microcephaly has been considered. A link between the two is circumstantial at this point. That is why earlier I said the next few weeks will tell the tale. Larva spraying did take place. There has been a Zika outbreak. I don't doubt epidemiologists are looking at areas of concentration and wondering why there seem to be more mothers from Brazil giving birth to microcephalic children than elsewhere (on a per capita basis). Same mosquito, same virus, different results in terms of new-borns being microcephalic. So is there something else happening there that isn't in other places?

I think the WHO has jumped on this quickly and I hope the speed with which they are banging the gong is not blinding them to all the possibilities. (I expect they are still chagrined over their ineptitude during the Ebola outbreak.)

We'll see what the epidemiologists come up with. I agree it's a good idea to develop a vaccine for the virus, but if there is a higher number of children born with microcephaly in Brazil than most other places that have the mosquito and the virus, then perhaps there is something else causing and/or contributing to that.

15 Feb 16 - 04:45 AM (#3772839)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

I agree it's a good idea to develop a vaccine for the virus, but if there is a higher number of children born with microcephaly in Brazil than most other places that have the mosquito and the virus, then perhaps there is something else causing and/or contributing to that.

Even if that turned out to be the case, the Brazilian church would still have the same problem of what do about it - microcephaly is an epidemic with catastrophic impact, and the only effective responses are contraception and abortion.

There have been enough linked cases in other parts of Latin America to suggest that national differences are mainly due to how far the epidemic has progressed and how effective the healthcare systems have been at finding affected babies.

15 Feb 16 - 03:03 PM (#3772946)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Seems like contraception is a non-issue in Brazil. Artificial contraceptives are legal and widely available in Brazil.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/brazil-abortion/

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, with a few exceptions, so that's still a major issue. I'm not sure I agree with Jack that abortion and contraception are the only effective responses to to possibility of microcephaly. I'm sure some women will choose to give birth to a handicapped child, and sometimes there will be no microcephaly, or it will be minor. Or maybe somebody will find a cure.

I think it's best to consider all possibilities and all realities. One reality is that the Catholic Church is highly unlikely to change its opposition to abortion, no matter how many people condemn the church for having that opinion. The only solution is what Catholics and children have done for millennia - ignore what the old men say when it doesn't make sense. Don't hate the old men. Listen to them when they're wise, and ignore them when they're not.

Another reality is the political process, both in church and in government. Like it or not, many political bodies (including churches) do not follow strict parliamentary procedures. But no matter how the process works, consensus always plays a major part in the way things work. Rulers can impose their will only so far. If there is a vast consensus in opposition, the rulers or the rules will fall - or will simply be ignored.

-Joe-

15 Feb 16 - 03:27 PM (#3772953)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Seems like contraception is a non-issue in Brazil.

You must have missed this, Joe:

Date: 14 Feb 16 - 09:54 AM

Catholic leaders warning against contraception
Bishops oppose birth control, abortion as ways to handle illness

By Laurie Goodstein, New York Times
Published 9:04 pm, Saturday, February 13, 2016

As the Zika virus spreads in Latin America, Catholic leaders are warning women against using contraceptives or having abortions, even as health officials in some countries are advising women not to get pregnant because of the risk of birth defects.

"Contraceptives are not a solution," said Bishop Leonardo Ulrich Steiner, the secretary general of the National Council of Bishops of Brazil, and an auxiliary bishop of Brasília, in an interview. "There is not a single change in the church's position."

15 Feb 16 - 03:42 PM (#3772956)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: The Sandman

but is it ENTIRELY due to a virus or is it anything to do with monanto and their pesticides escaping in to the water supplies?

15 Feb 16 - 03:48 PM (#3772959)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: The Sandman

You are all accepting that the only cause is a virus, you are not questioning the official line, it may be only a contributory factor and a smoke screen, think about it.

15 Feb 16 - 04:22 PM (#3772962)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

Article from the Telegraph (UK)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/zika/12157747/Zika-virus-Brazil-dismisses-link-between-larvicide-and-microcephaly.html

15 Feb 16 - 04:53 PM (#3772969)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

it may be only a contributory factor and a smoke screen

Then again, there's an equal chance that it may not be.

15 Feb 16 - 05:37 PM (#3772988)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

"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.

15 Feb 16 - 06:22 PM (#3772994)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Could a different devil be somewhere in the details?
http://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-170639.pdf

15 Feb 16 - 07:32 PM (#3773000)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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:

Today, in what remains the world's largest Roman Catholic country, 80 percent of women of childbearing age are on some form of artificial contraception, long forbidden by the Church. The total fertility rate, which was six children per woman in 1960, is now 1.9. The rate is 2.05 in the United States.

My point is (and was) that although we all know that the Catholic Church remains officially opposed to contraception, Brazilian Catholics do a very good job of ignoring that opposition - even better than U.S. Catholics do.
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-

15 Feb 16 - 08:06 PM (#3773010)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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.

15 Feb 16 - 08:24 PM (#3773015)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,#

To

GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 16 - 06:22 PM

Thanks for that link.

15 Feb 16 - 08:29 PM (#3773016)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

"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

15 Feb 16 - 09:41 PM (#3773027)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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.

16 Feb 16 - 12:28 AM (#3773033)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 04:52 AM (#3773057)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"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

16 Feb 16 - 04:52 AM (#3773058)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.

16 Feb 16 - 05:02 AM (#3773061)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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.

16 Feb 16 - 07:01 AM (#3773073)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"I just thought that was worth repeating."
It wasn't, but don't apologise - you don't usually
Jim Carroll

16 Feb 16 - 07:58 AM (#3773077)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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?

16 Feb 16 - 08:00 AM (#3773079)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

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.

16 Feb 16 - 08:22 AM (#3773085)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

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

16 Feb 16 - 09:06 AM (#3773089)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"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.

16 Feb 16 - 09:47 AM (#3773096)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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.

16 Feb 16 - 10:23 AM (#3773099)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

the reason is very much the same as why I am British

Fatuous, in the extreme.

16 Feb 16 - 10:49 AM (#3773105)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Raggytash

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.

16 Feb 16 - 11:21 AM (#3773111)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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.

16 Feb 16 - 11:35 AM (#3773116)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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.

16 Feb 16 - 12:51 PM (#3773137)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: The Sandman

Instead of arguing about abortion, why do you not question the official propoganda about the cause of the problem.

16 Feb 16 - 01:00 PM (#3773142)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 01:26 PM (#3773149)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

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

16 Feb 16 - 01:39 PM (#3773154)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

if teachers had behaved as they (priests) had done.

They have Jim, on an equivalent scale.
Despicable, but not a reason to abolish education.

16 Feb 16 - 02:18 PM (#3773167)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Raggytash

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.

16 Feb 16 - 02:30 PM (#3773172)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.

16 Feb 16 - 03:26 PM (#3773187)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Like it keith, good analogy.

16 Feb 16 - 03:38 PM (#3773189)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"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.

16 Feb 16 - 03:44 PM (#3773193)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 03:45 PM (#3773195)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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:

Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

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

16 Feb 16 - 03:56 PM (#3773200)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 04:34 PM (#3773211)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 04:57 PM (#3773215)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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?

16 Feb 16 - 05:10 PM (#3773221)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 05:43 PM (#3773229)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

16 Feb 16 - 06:23 PM (#3773238)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"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.

16 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM (#3773239)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

caused by

16 Feb 16 - 07:13 PM (#3773246)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 07:37 PM (#3773250)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Ha. In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies....

16 Feb 16 - 07:44 PM (#3773252)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 07:45 PM (#3773253)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"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

16 Feb 16 - 08:03 PM (#3773256)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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?

16 Feb 16 - 08:16 PM (#3773259)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

16 Feb 16 - 08:19 PM (#3773260)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Ah, Steve Shaw, you are so dramatic...

16 Feb 16 - 08:45 PM (#3773263)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

And you're so bland. About things that being bland about hurt people.

16 Feb 16 - 09:15 PM (#3773265)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Not my finest grammatical construction ever, but hey.

16 Feb 16 - 10:47 PM (#3773271)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

17 Feb 16 - 01:14 AM (#3773279)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Jim,
I certainly don't believe there are any examples of schools covering up cases of teachers having sex with pupils - do you?

Yes. Not recently in state schools but it used to happen. The teacher would get a good reference and get a job elsewhere.
There is a court case in the papers most weeks these days, many involving female teachers. Thirty years ago you never heard of it.

17 Feb 16 - 03:32 AM (#3773285)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

It has to be said.. Even I recall teachers we laughed about due to their over active interest in pupils, including one we called Sexy Saxby who insisted on showering with the boys after sport up to the fourth year but not afterwards, funnily enough. Girls had a sports teacher they called "tuppence licker" for that matter and warned younger girls of the perils of the changing room. Could be cruel slanderous shit by kids or who knows? Certainly the showering and showing us how to ensure our wedding tackle was clean seems suspect...

Joe is rightly saying that with millions of Catholics around, you can bring every wicked deed down to a small percentage of them. Correct. Although I would point out that in every case, they can back up their deeds with unfortunate interpretations of their duty as Catholics. The Protestant movement started through disgust at papal corruption spreading throughout the church. (Interesting documentary about Henry VIII last night, showing how mainland Europe was already split when he decided to take on the Pope.)

Regarding Jim's bits about Ireland, a good article in today's Guardian. I especially like the bit (or am saddened by it for that matter) where you need to have your child baptised in order to get into most schools. I recall some on here saying it's wrong to claim to be a God botherer in order to get your school of choice. As it's nonsense anyway, there's no harm. Except of course the deluded buggers think the statistics make them relevant.

17 Feb 16 - 04:43 AM (#3773290)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"When religion becomes "official," it gets itself in trouble."
In Catho;ic countries religion is "official" - in Ireland it was written into the constitution and has used that fact to abuse children, among other things.
The authority that that officialdom bestowed on them even played a part in severely damaging traditional music here.
There can be no argument that some Christians do good work -
I am a great admirer of the late Archbishop Romero and found the writings of Hewlett Johnson, the Dean of Canterbury fascinating. I'm proud to say I got very sore feet on several occasions when I marched with Canon Collins and his supporters from Aldermaston to London on the peace marches.
I knew and worked with clergymen who were involved in the anti-Apatheid movement and other humanitarian protests.
Church rebels of the past include John Ball, who preached to the peasants Revolt in 1381 and was executed for his activities.
Rebel priest, Jacques Roux, expounded the politics of equality during the French Revolution.
All beside the point - the church, as a body has had a malevolent influence on the lives of believers and non believers alike and the damage was done by their being availing themselves of the authority bestowed on them by various States.
But these "mifits" are not the church - in fact they were embarrassments to and often opponents of the establishment - it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Romero was murdered with the co-operation of the Church.
Removing the church, as a body, from politics has become an essential to progress - in the field of human rights, of womens' rights, contraception, pregnancy termination, homosexuality, single sex marriage....
The Church as a body has to be prevented from using its influence to decide political matters - all are free to express their opinions as laymen - that's how it should be - but not from behind the collar.
Keith
There are no examples of schools or the Education Department hiding sexual abuse of children in British schools
There are no cases of teachers being found doing so and allowed to go on teaching in British schools
There is no example of the Ministry for Education hiding evidence of abuse or refusing to release documents.
You have become mad in your ongoing defence of the indefencible
Jim Carroll

17 Feb 16 - 05:24 AM (#3773295)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Joe's latest ploy is to try to show that I see things only in black and white and that I over-dramatise. Ha! So let's go back to this for a minute:

"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."

Ignoring the unworthy and sexist jibe therein, no you haven't told the truth. The actual truth is that, according to your club's explicit rules, with very rare exceptions any woman who has an abortion is no longer a Catholic. No-one needs to put her before judge 'n' jury, she's automatically done it to herself. What sort of a club is is that lets these non-Catholics carry on as if they're still members! A desperate one, I should think...

The Catholic Church has always has a very unhealthy obsession with sex. The great thing about sex is that everyone wants to do it, so this is highly-fertile ground for dissecting it and introducing a plethora of controlling rules which cover every single aspect of it, from what goes on in the privacy of your thoughts, to what you do all by yourself, to everything you can do with a partner. The restrictions are so severe (have a google - try "Catholic attitudes to homosexuality/anal sex/masturbation/contraception/oral sex/withdrawal method/sex before marriage/anything else you like) that they amount to a manifesto for ignorance instead of education - you can't explain to young people what they really need to know because there are moralising interpolations at every turn. Crucially, the means of avoiding unwanted pregnancy (knowing exactly what you're doing and the use of contraception) are denied. Joe Offer crows about the fact that Catholic women have just as many abortions as anyone else. Well I think that's a bloody disgrace. I think he should hang his head in shame that his church's propagation of ignorance and anti-contraception teaching are the precise reasons why Catholic women need abortions in the first place. By the way, I wonder how many of those Catholic women who have abortions are really Catholics, you know, of the bums on Sunday pews variety...stats, Joe?

17 Feb 16 - 10:30 AM (#3773329)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Stim

Fresh out of the Ebola Panic, I wondered what evidence there actually was linking this virus which I'd never heard of with microcephaly(which I have heard of), particularly when I had heard that, while Zika has appeared in other places, the increase in incidence of microcephaly has not.

I found that there wasn't a lot of evidence out there--I did find this, though:

Doctors groups deny microcephaly zika connection, blame pesticide

"In a recent report by the Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns (PCST), the group revealed that the area in which most of the afflicted persons live had been sprayed with a larvicide known to cause birth defects.

The chemical, pyriproxyfen, was added to the state of Pernambuco's drinking-water reservoirs in 2014, by the Brazilian Ministry of Health, in an effort to stop the proliferation of the Zika-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquito.

The report by PCST revealed that the pesticide, sold under the commercial name SumiLarv, is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese subsidiary of Monsanto."

Our President (Mr. Obama) has asked Congress for $1.8 Billion to respond to this recent
possible crisis, and given that the immediate response, even in places that don't have the problem, seems to be to spray for mosquitos, I have a sinking feeling...

17 Feb 16 - 02:12 PM (#3773380)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Penny S.

Keith, I'm not sure you're right about teachers always being moved on with good references, since there was a a list, List 99, which had the names of teachers who were not to be appointed, and it wasn't short.

On the other hand, when I was at an all girls school, one of the few men on the staff was found with one of the Upper Sixth girls, off the premises, in dubious activities, and removed, but was later found at another school in the county, from which, for other reasons, he was sacked.

So probably both things went on.

17 Feb 16 - 02:23 PM (#3773383)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

In spite of all the media hype surrounding the mosquito-borne Zika virus and microcephaly, there has yet to be a scientific link proven between the two.

And ya know what, Stim?

In spite of all the media hype surrounding Pyriproxyfen and microcephaly, there has yet to be a scientific link proven between the two.

17 Feb 16 - 02:23 PM (#3773384)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"I'm not sure you're right about teachers always being moved on with good references, "
If what has happened in the church had happened in British schools we would have known about it.
Teachers liaisons with underage girls, though still illegal, are totally different anyway.
There was no question that the many children who suffered abuse in any way consented to that abuse - priests actually used their influence on children, sometimes younger than teenagers, to interfere, not just with one child but several - Brendan Smythe is said to have raped 143 underage children - a little different from your classroom affairs.
Jim Carroll

17 Feb 16 - 02:26 PM (#3773386)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Oh, and Stim- you DID read the disclaimer on the "Free Thought Project" website, eh? (emphasis mine)

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by TheFreeThoughtProject.com and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

17 Feb 16 - 02:30 PM (#3773388)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

@Stim
I'll repost this as you must have missed it.
Could a different devil be somewhere in the details?
http://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/16-17063

17 Feb 16 - 02:50 PM (#3773389)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: The Sandman

child baptised in order to get into most schools. "
not my experience, and in my village in ireland there is a protestant and catholic school, and neither insists on baptism., in order to get into schools.

17 Feb 16 - 03:09 PM (#3773391)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

not my experience, and in my village in ireland there is a protestant and catholic school, and neither insists on baptism"
Go read a newspaper - it's been a cause calebré throughout the country for months
Jim Carroll

17 Feb 16 - 04:26 PM (#3773406)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Steve Shaw says: Ignoring the unworthy and sexist jibe therein, no you haven't told the truth. The actual truth is that, according to your club's explicit rules, with very rare exceptions any woman who has an abortion is no longer a Catholic.

Well, Steve, maybe I haven't said it in this thread, but I've said before that abortion generates an automatic excommunication. There are procedures for having that excommunication lifted, but I think both the excommunication and the procedure for removal of the excommunication to be demeaning. And at least in the U.S., a great number of people who protest at abortion clinics are women in dresses who wear too much makeup. You won't see many in jeans and tie-dies.

As some of you may know, I am an associate member of the Sisters of Mercy, a Catholic religious order that operates a number of hospitals, including St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. According to this NPR story, a pregnant woman received an abortion at the hospital in November, 2010. Because the pregnancy posed a serious thread to the woman's life, the hospital administrator, a Mercy Sister, approved the abortion. When he learned about it, Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted excommunicated the nun, and removed St. Joseph's certification as a Catholic Hospital.
After a demeaning process, the nun's excommunication was lifted, but the hospital is no longer considered to be a Catholic institution (although the nuns still own the place). The chapel in the hospital was unconsecrated, or whatever they do to decommission a Catholic chapel.

A few years later, I attended Mass at the world headquarters of the Sisters in Mercy in Dublin. I was surprised to learn that the tabernacle in the Dublin chapel, was from St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix. After they were forced to decommission the Phoenix chapel, the Sisters moved the tabernacle to Dublin, as a sign of solidarity with all those who were affected by the bishop's actions in Phoenix.

I can list many injustices that Catholic bishops have done in the name of protecting their stand against abortion. I have participated in protests against a number of them.

-Joe-

17 Feb 16 - 04:36 PM (#3773411)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Jim Carroll, if I understand correctly about the situation in Ireland, preference is given to baptized children in the admission process for church-operated schools in Ireland. If there's a waiting list for admission, that makes a big difference. If there's no waiting list, then it doesn't matter.

The same thing goes in Catholic schools in the U.S. - families who are active in a parish are given admission preference and often a discount. Non-Catholics are at the bottom of the list for admission. The difference is that in the US, parents pay tuition for their children to attend Catholic schools. With few exceptions, tax money doesn't pay for Catholic education.

And Jim, please note that while you are correct that favored status for the Catholic Church was written into the Irish constitution, that provision was removed by a constitutional amendment in 1972 (click). That was 44 years ago. Time to get over it, Jim.

-Joe-

17 Feb 16 - 07:15 PM (#3773436)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Pyripyroxyfen has been used for decades, with no reports of increased birth defects, said Ernesto Marques, associate professor of infectious diseases and microbiology at the University of Pittsburgh, who is working in Recife, Brazil to study microcephaly.

"It's ridiculous," said Marques, of the purported link between the chemical and microcephaly. "These guys come out of the blue, and people believe them, with no evidence at all. It really shows the lack of science education among the public."

USA Today

17 Feb 16 - 07:58 PM (#3773438)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I really don't want to hear from apologists for an organisation that promotes ignorance and that bans contraception, which then condemns women for getting abortions.

18 Feb 16 - 12:41 AM (#3773459)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Then, Steve, I suggest that you do as I do and pay no heed to what the Catholic Church says when it doesn't make sense. But Pope Francis is making a lot of sense in Mexico this week, and the Catholic Church has spoken eloquently and effectively and very rationally on economic justice and the rights of the poor and homeless, on the rights of immigrants, on mass incarceration and capital punishment, on peace, and on many other justice issues.

There's no question that the Catholic Church has a blind spot on matters related to sex - so be smart and don't go to them for sex education.

-Joe Offer-

18 Feb 16 - 03:21 AM (#3773466)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Steve Shaw says: I really don't want to hear from apologists for an organisation that promotes ignorance and that bans contraception, which then condemns women for getting abortions.

Gee, whizz, Steve, does that mean you don't want to hear from lil' ole ME?

Or what does it mean, Steve? What are the implications of the attacks from you and Jim Carroll and all you other born-again atheists? That the Catholic Church must be disbanded or restricted or suppressed?

Back in the 1960s, birth control pills were relatively new, and they were a hot topic of discussion in the Catholic Church. We were sure Pope Paul VI would change the rules, but in 1968 he came out with his Humanae Vitae encyclical that banned the pill. Many Catholics left the Catholic Church over that issue, and a few tried to practice rhythm or other abstinence methods, or they went ahead and had lots of children. But many of us who had paid attention in catechism class knew that an act can't be sinful if a person doesn't believe it's sinful, so we simply ignored the prohibition and learned the valuable lesson that the Pope can be wrong sometimes. Still others practiced birth control but felt guilty about it, and I feel really bad for them and have done my best to convince them there's nothing wrong about contraception. And gradually, the issue of contraception has more-or-less been forgotten If people don't make an issue of it, I think the Catholic Church will eventually deny that it ever officially prohibited birth control, and that will be that (like what happened to Limbo).

Abortion is a stickier matter, because the rational argument against abortion is a lot easier to defend. The biggest question in the debate is when life begins, and the easiest answer is that it begins at fertilization/conception. The next question is, at what point does it become wrong to cause that life to cease, and the easiest answer again is at fertilization/conception. To come up with any other answer to these two questions, you have to do a little dance into arbitraryland. And many people do that dance, ad infinitum.

But I think there's another question: are there factors that are more wrong than ending the life of a foetus? My answer to that question is yes. There are many times in life were there are no good choices; and we're forced to choose among bad choices, choosing the lesser of two evils. It's a balancing act, as most significant moral choices are - and I think that oftentimes the answers are (and must be) very subjective. And ultimately, I believe that the person best-suited to make the choice is the woman who is pregnant.

There are many, many absolutists in the Catholic Church who disagree with me and condemn me for my thinking on this, but I'm not ready to give up my church because other people think I should. The absolutists play hardball on this issue, and I and many others have suffered because of the atrocious things they have done to defend their position.

But every atrocious thing they do, makes them a little less credible. There's no question that this Zika virus issue undermines the anti-abortion movement worldwide. The excommunication of the nun in Phoenix was a remarkable victory for pro-choice people in the Catholic church, as was the excommunication of the parents of the 9-yr-old rape victim who got an abortion in South America. Bombings of abortion clinics are a real blow to the credibility of the anti-abortionists. The most significant thing I've done myself is to write my bishop and demand my contribution back when he withheld funds from an anti-poverty organization whose director had spoken favorably about Planned Parenthood.

There are many pro-choice people within the Catholic Church, working quietly and steadily and very rationally. Many are in leadership positions, so they do have to be cautious about what they say and do. For the most part, they avoid hysteria and condemnation and attacks like those that appear so often in this thread, because that just strengthens the resolve of the anti-abortion people. It seems to work best to let the anti-abortionists make themselves look stupid, and then all others have to do is quietly and rationally point it out.

Sooner or later, somebody will come up with a solution to all this. In the meantime, I'm not ready to surrender my church to the Dark Side.

-Joe-

18 Feb 16 - 03:39 AM (#3773472)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Born again atheists?

You presume all rational people were once superstitious Joe. It's a bit like Goofus assuming people reject or deny sky pixies where the real situation is never having considered it in the first place.

Atheism is by definition a stance that opposes theism. You seem to confuse such people with the vast majority of bemused rational folk who see no reason to consider such hobbies in the first place. I'm not an atheist at the same level that I'm not a theist, philatelist or member of the Cleckheaton and District Pigeon Fanciers Association.

The call by religions for this, that and the other in social justice is fine but basing such opinions on the same fairy stories as those that promote misogyny, homophobia and bigotry makes it very important to ignore anything and everything coming out from their pulpits, however seemingly benign. That they impress vulnerable people makes it double important to question their influence.

18 Feb 16 - 04:12 AM (#3773480)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

I've defined my "born again atheist" term quite often, Musket. I refer to those atheists who share the rigid-minded bigotry and militarism and absolutism of the born-again Christian fundamentalists, those who cannot accept the possibility of a wide diversity of valid perspectives.

You say that "Atheism is by definition a stance that opposes theism." I suppose you're correct according to the modern understanding of the word, but the modern understanding makes the term a misnomer. It it were to follow the pattern of formation of similar words, atheism would be simply not believing in a god - and I believe that is the original meaning of the word before the recent advent of anti-theistic atheism. I think that anti-theistic atheism came into vogue about the same time as fundamentalist Christianity.

I believe both of these extreme, antagonistic phenomena to be very unhealthy developments in our society, because both make discussion and tolerance and diversity impossible.

You accuse religions of "basing such [social justice] opinions on the same fairy stories as those that promote misogyny, homophobia and bigotry." But many who treasure sacred religious writings do not end up practicing "misogyny, homophobia and bigotry." I would suggest that you should address those who are responsible for the misogyny, homophobia, and bigotry, and not paint the rest of us with such a broad brush.

To do otherwise, is to practice the same bigotry that you yourself condemn.

-Joe Offer-

18 Feb 16 - 05:05 AM (#3773498)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

To take that a little further, Musket, there is no logical requirement that a person who does not believe in a god, must oppose or insult or attack or ridicule those who do.

Similarly, there is no logical requirement that those who espouse Catholicism, must oppose or insult or attack or ridicule Islam or Judaism or other religions.

We're not playing rugby here.

-Joe-

18 Feb 16 - 05:08 AM (#3773502)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Rejecting fairy stories as true isn't bigotry, it's enlightened thinking. To engage in religious ceremonies and faith based activity but to consider yourself above literal belief seems odd to me. You don't need to practice any of it whilst kneeling at a pew, it's outside of the building where claiming to live by a creed is held to scrutiny. I take it Joe Offer is one of the good guys in life. I thank Joe for that, not the pope, not his line manager.

Questioning the malign influence of organised religion in the lives of people isn't bigotry, it's questioning bigotry.

If social justice is a tenet of said religion, it's for those spouting it to deal with the misogyny, homophobia and bigotry, not rational onlookers.

You do have a habit of interchanging your personal creed with the organisation that dictates it, Joe.

Show me a photo of the old bloke with the white beard, show me evidence of just one, any will do, of the miracles they get excited about in The Vatican or even show me where he was hiding when I used to inspect childrens' hospices and I'll concede your phrase "valid perspectives."

18 Feb 16 - 05:22 AM (#3773504)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

" preference is given to baptized children in the admission process "
Children are being turned down for schools because they have not been baptised - call that preference if you life - I call it religious bigotry aimed at children on the most important aspect of their lives.
Primary school education is overwhelmingly in the hands of the catholic Church - a questionable fact anyway, considering the brainwashing implications - but if it is unable to provide sufficient schools it is bringing education to a standstill for those areas affected at one of the most important stages of a child's life.
To select pupils on the basis of their religion underlines for me the dangerous practice of allowing the church to control such an important aspect of our lives
I really do believe the Jesuits put it in a nutshell about what religion was about.
Jim Carroll

18 Feb 16 - 07:19 AM (#3773527)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

There is no valid perspective to be derived from any religion. You can't derive a valid perspective from something which is completely invalid in the first place. You are entitled to hold deluded beliefs without being ridiculed. Propagate those beliefs to other people and you deserve not just ridicule but also utter condemnation. You simply do not have the moral right to tell children or anyone else that there is an entity that made the world and that stands in judgement of you, or any other interpretation couched in foggy language you care to propose, without having a scrap of evidence that it exists. I don't know whether there's a God or not, but, unlike you, I'm not going to go around telling people that he's there and that he's made the moral code that I live by. There is another way and it's the right way. There is no truth in a pack of lies. As for your softly-softly language about the Church and how much people ignore it, that's just bollocks and you know it. The people who ignore the rules are the millions like me who haven't parked their arses on a pew for decades. The Catholic Church still has powerful dominion over hundreds of millions of people, mostly in third-world countries in which it is solidly backed up by conniving states in enforcing its extreme illiberalism. We're talking about some of them in this Zika thread, aren't we. Your Church is responsible for millions of abortions, legal and illegal, all over the world, yet refuses to accommodate the teachings and practices that would drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies. That's just wicked.

18 Feb 16 - 07:42 AM (#3773531)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

I'm not opposing or attacking anyone Joe. I'm attacking the assumption that dangerous make believe can be allowed to interfere with the health and well being of people. A different thing entirely.

I have a mate who is convinced the moon landings didn't happen. I have cousins who genuinely believe there is a concept called God and he did everything the bible says he did. (My aunty's husband became a Jehova Witness to avoid being called up in the war and forgot to leave afterwards, the rest being history..) A neighbour actually thinks Sheffield Utd are worth spending the price of a season ticket on.

I don't despise them. But I'll hold my mate in contempt if his grandchildren embarrass themselves by telling their class and teacher nobody went to the moon and their granddad can't be wrong.. Ditto other hypotheticals from above.

Actually, there is logic in opposing different fantasies, it's in the rule books of fantasies.

18 Feb 16 - 08:40 AM (#3773544)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

-Vatican says abortion is 'illegitimate response' to Zika virus -

18 Feb 16 - 12:01 PM (#3773583)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

From Peter's link.

Pregnant women exposed to the Zika virus and who may be carrying foetuses with serious brain defects should not be permitted to have abortions, the Vatican has said.

The Catholic church restated its opposition to abortion in all circumstances...

None of your meek and mild indulgent liberal stuff here, Joe Offer. "Should not be permitted." There you go, men in frocks from just one religion trying to impose their "moral" code on EVERYONE else. Unconscionable.

18 Feb 16 - 12:09 PM (#3773586)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

It speaks for itself and it's not the Graun spinning it either.

18 Feb 16 - 01:28 PM (#3773602)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

It does, but I was using it to try to point out to Joe that the Church isn't necessarily the soft, warm, cuddly, compromising beast he makes it out to be in several posts in this thread. The map is very instructive too.

18 Feb 16 - 02:07 PM (#3773610)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

I know Steve, I was fully agreeing with you.

18 Feb 16 - 02:10 PM (#3773611)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

And while I posted that, this came on-line:

-Pope suggests contraception can be condoned in Zika crisis -

18 Feb 16 - 02:16 PM (#3773613)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

If I were associated with wickedness I'd hand in my membership cards. Of course if Joe is comfortable conforming to this criminally reckless organised crime outfit, that's his affair.

19 Feb 16 - 12:32 PM (#3773785)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I see that this enlightened Pope of ours has conceded that contraception may be a "lesser evil" in Zika-affected areas. That isn't really much progress though, is it? It's still "evil" after all...

19 Feb 16 - 12:52 PM (#3773790)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Evil is as evil does.

Mind you, credit where it's due. Trumping Trump with suggesting bridges are better than walls wasn't bad. Snag is of course, as left footism is a Marmite cult in The US, it might increase Trump's popularity.

I was at a conference the other day and Zika was on the old agenda. It has to be said, the epidemiological findings reported to this public health observatory crowd don't seem to resonate with some of the crap contained in many of the links here. The WHO delegates aren't impressed by some of the stuff doing the rounds...

19 Feb 16 - 09:39 PM (#3773880)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Musket says: Rejecting fairy stories as true isn't bigotry, it's enlightened thinking. To engage in religious ceremonies and faith based activity but to consider yourself above literal belief seems odd to me.

When I visited the faerie glens on the Isle of Skye last summer, I was halfway tempted to believe in Faeries, and my wife and some other wonderful women had an even stronger inclination to believe. The stories of the Bible and the Koran seem downright pedestrian, compared to the faerie stories of Skye and the mystical experience of Orkney. What's that stuff all about? I don't know, but I'm certainly not ready to scoff it off. I think it's all part of a genuinely human attempt to reach beyond the self and the mundane to something higher, something beyond the imagination. I think it's a mistake to take such things literally. They're meant to expand and challenge the imagination to infinite possibility, to go beyond saying, "This is the reality and there cannot be anything more."

Mystics have always sought what is beyond literal belief; and there are mystics in all philosophical/religious persuasions. Mystics seek the ultimate: ultimate joy, ultimate love, ultimate peace, ultimate harmony. Mystics defy denomination, but yet are present among every denomination and also among those who profess no belief and no denomination.

-Joe-

20 Feb 16 - 03:57 AM (#3773917)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

Joe
"When I visited the faerie glens on the Isle of Skye last summer"
None of those stories are believed any more - a thing of the past and recognised as such.
Even when they were, they carried with them a dangerous element - did you ever here of the case of the burning of BRIDGET CLEARY , the misnamed Clonmel witch - the case was used as an argument not to give Ireland Home Rule around the end of the 19th century- not a great support for your argument, I'm afraid?
Mystics always have sought to explain things they didn't understand at the time - progress had provided us with if not %100 proof, certainly far more rational explanations to The Meaning of Life, The Universe and Everything.
The legends are interesting - we have spent half a lifetime recording them - but I wouldn't set my clock by them, let alone allow them to guide my life.
A cautionary tale.
We recorded a very fine singer here in Clare in the 1970s.
One year we turned up to find he had been ill - when we visited him, he welcomed us as usual, but he was having a lot of trouble with a sore eye.
Despite his acute pain, he insisted that he didn't need medical help and was visiting the local, 'St Brigid's Holy Well at Liscannor which offered a "cure for eye trouble"
When we returned the following year he was dead - of cancer of the eye - easily curable by a small operation.
Jim Carroll

20 Feb 16 - 09:10 AM (#3773943)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Zika Virus Rumors and Theories That You Should Doubt
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., February 19, 2016
New York Times

Although there is no absolute proof that the Zika virus is behind the surge in microcephaly in Brazil and outbreaks of Guillain-Barré syndrome in six countries, the world's leading health authorities are close to certain that it is.

"With each passing day, the evidence that it is the cause mounts," Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said recently.

Dr. Bruce Aylward, who is leading the World Health Organization's response, said on Friday: "At this time, the virus is considered guilty until proven innocent."....

Entomologists have dismissed as "ridiculous" the idea that the larvicide pyriproxyfen could have caused such a large wave of birth defects. It does not attack nerve cells; it is a chemical mimic of an insect hormone that signals larvae to stop growing, and insect hormones do not endanger humans.

Complete article Here

20 Feb 16 - 09:42 AM (#3773944)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Old legends, parables and fables are wonderful things, grist to the imagination. Some may even contain lessons for life. That's great. But if real live grown-ups start seeing deeper, mystical things in them, delusion has set in big-time. What's really true about nature, the world and the universe is wonderful enough in its ordinary-extraordinary way. No need for the supernatural add-ons supplied by over-fertile imaginations. Leave all that to the soothsayers, the mediums, the astrologers, Mystic Meg and all the other charlatans.

The NYT article isn't especially scholarly, though its conclusions are probably OK. Babies crawling around in the stuff is completely irrelevant, as they're already born and their die is cast. I'm not surprised, given the mode of action of the larvicide, that it came under suspicion, though a dig into the circumstantial evidence suggests that it has nothing to do with microcephaly. Good science urgently needed.

20 Feb 16 - 01:56 PM (#3773994)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

They serve a purpose Joe. American tourists generally...

Yeah, a fertile imagination is a great thing. The issue here is allowing it to dictate social policy and community control.

Remember this thread and what it is about? It's about people using their fertile imagination to control others, and in this case, fuck up the lives of people so as not to look weak. You may call it the Vatican, I call it a huge evil that needs to apologise and stop putting nonsense above public health.

20 Feb 16 - 04:23 PM (#3774022)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

OK, so Jim and Steve and Musket have all chimed in. Greg_F addressed a different subject (and I agree with Greg on this).

But Jim and Steve and Musket all seek to make their point based on the fact that faerie legends, like the Bible and Koran and other sacred stories, are not literally true. And I wholeheartedly agree that these legends and writings are NOT literally true.

Farther up, Musket says: Rejecting fairy stories as true isn't bigotry, it's enlightened thinking. To engage in religious ceremonies and faith based activity but to consider yourself above literal belief seems odd to me

I believe that Musket does not practice a religion himself, but yet he feels competent to insist that belief must be literal. I spent 8 years in a Catholic seminary and I've been a teacher and leader (and singer) in my Catholic congregations all my life, and yet I have never detected a mainstream trend in my Church toward a literal understanding of scripture and church traditions and teachings. And the same goes for most Christian denominations - literal understanding is a thing of the distant past.

For much of my life, I have generally stood back from born-again Christians and fundamentalist Catholics, believing my caricature of them as rigid, unthinking literalists who live only to condemn other people. But in recent years, I've been placed in situations where I've had to deal with fundamentalists. And yes, sometimes they still drive me crazy. But I've found that many of them are not the rigid literalists I thought them to be.

Which brings me back to what maybe I should call Joe's Axiom: Most people aren't as stupid as we think them to be.

And maybe I should propose another Axiom: Most people are far deeper than the ideology or belief system they profess.

Ideology is not the essence of life - it's just a broad outline, lived out in an infinite variety of realities. If we view a person only by his ideology, we see him only on the surface. We put him in a neat little box that just doesn't fit.

So, OK, I've been a Catholic all my life, and I enjoy being a Catholic for the most part. Some people might call me a liberal, heretical Catholic - but most of them haven't had eight years of Catholic seminary training, so what do they know? I respect the authority of the Catholic Church, for the most part, and I go along with most things the Catholic Church teaches unless I have good reason to disagree. I push a little bit on everything, hoping to help my church evolve into what I think it should be - but I make issues only on matters that I consider to be important. I don't really think that the virgin birth is literally true, but I don't argue about it because it's not really all that important to me. But I push pretty hard on the abortion issue, because I think it's something that affects a lot of people very seriously. Admittedly, I push only as hard as I think I can get away with, because I don't think I would be able to help effect a change if I were outside the Catholic Church.

I heard a sermon by a Seventh-Day Adventist minister at an interfaith service this week. I've known him through working on our homeless shelter, but I had never heard him preach before - and I was prepared to hear fundamentalist literalism from him. I was wrong. He confessed to being a liberal, and said he was addicted to the news programs on National Public Radio. He preached about the six spiritual disciplines he found to be important, and he made a lot of sense. One thing he said really stuck with me - he spoke of the need for daily meditation, and he called it "purposeful pondering."

And I suppose that's how I practice my faith - I "purposefully ponder" all of life that I encounter, through the perspective of my religious tradition. Now, people often refer to me as "different," and I take pride in that. When I do my purposeful pondering, I try to do it through a wide variety of perspectives. Sometimes, I'm an atheist, sometimes a Muslim, sometimes a Buddhist, and most of the time I'm a liberal Catholic. I try to keep myself open to all possibilities and all perspectives.

As for sacred legends and myths and writings, I respect the fact that large numbers of thoughtful people have treasured these communications as sacred, often for centuries. I don't simply dismiss them as "untrue," although I do think that they are largely fictional and intended to be fictional. But fiction is not untrue. Fiction is an imaginative and highly effective way of presenting truths that are often far deeper than that which can be explored and presented by the Scientific Method. Despite what Jim Carroll says above, the Scientific Method can only explore the process of life and death, not its meaning.

Author Harper Lee died this week at the age of 89. For most of her life, she was known only for her novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, published in 1960. A second novel, Go Set a Watchman, was written in the 1950s and not published until 2015. I doubt that second novel will have much of an impact, but Mockingbird told the truth about American racism to many generations of Americans, in a way that transformed many hearts and minds - including mine. Was Mockingbird untrue? Of course not, but people have to think to understand it. Is the Bible untrue? I don't think so - but people have to think to understand it, too. Since some people are likely to misunderstand Mockingbird and the Bible, should they be suppressed? I think not.

-Joe-

20 Feb 16 - 05:14 PM (#3774027)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

Yes Joe, the old Gaelic culture which I just remember, and which survives still within the highlands and islands of Scotland, was steeped in mythology.....most of it nature based.
There is a conical peak above my house which is known as the "Fairy Knowe" from the Gaelic.....the old folks said that fairies gathered there and lights could be seen sparkling in dark nights.
The fairies were not all beneficent and had to be appeased in numerous ways.....It is said that there are wise humans who can converse with fairies......we still call such people "fey"
There are "Kelpies"....water spirits and "Brownies" usually house dwelling fairies.
The Rowan was the fairy tree, and it is still considered very bad luck to cut one down...there are always many rowan trees dotted along the verges of the older roads in Argyll which have been passed by council woodmen

I would NEVER cut down a rowan.

20 Feb 16 - 05:21 PM (#3774029)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Right, Ake. I think those "nature-based" belief systems helped people to see and appreciate and respect and protect the mysterious beauty that surrounded them. And I think that made their lives much richer and more meaningful.
Poetry and song and family and cultural traditions serve no practical purpose, and probably should be abolished along with all those legends and such.

But I'm glad they're all still here. There's a lot of good in simply musing, pondering, wondering, savoring...

Most of that doesn't require the Scientific Method - but neither does it deny the Scientific Method.

-Joe-

20 Feb 16 - 05:36 PM (#3774032)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well here we go. I see we have people who not only operate their own lives around mythology but who also belong to organisations that not only base their whole philosophy around the same mythology but who also control the lives of billions of others with it. Unfortunately for Joe Offer's pleadings, hardly any of those people can operate quiet rebellions on the back of eight years in seminaries. I note the demonisation of the scientific method [sic] too. Strange, that, coming from a man who constantly pleads that science and religion need not confront each other. I also note the resurrection of those "deeper truths". Why bother with what's really true when you can appeal to deeper truths!

20 Feb 16 - 06:17 PM (#3774038)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

"Poetry and song and family and cultural traditions serve no practical purpose, and probably should be abolished along with all those legends and such."

Delicious irony Sir, congratulations!

20 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM (#3774043)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

May I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the meaning of "irony"? You clearly haven't a clue what it means.

20 Feb 16 - 07:42 PM (#3774050)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

As a matter of fact, I don't know a single scientist or atheist who decries poetry, song, family or cultural traditions. I am both those things and I love poetry, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Ravel, Gershwin, Bernstein, Manuel de Falla, flamenco, Vaughan Williams, opera, ballet, Elvis, the Beatles, Rhihanna and musicals. As we all know, jazz is crap, but hey. ;-) You can't keep me out of cathedrals and village churches and I never miss an opportunity to go to art galleries in the European cities I visit. I was bowled over by Pompeii, Herculaneum, Stabiae and the archaeological museum in Naples and have visited archaeological sites all over Cyprus, Sicily and Andalucia. This year I'm hoping to visit the ancient cities of Puglia, and I shall be visiting the Mezquita and other sites in and around Córdoba this summer. How odd then that I adhere strictly to the scientific process for evidence of what is really true. How odd that I can do that yet still allow my imagination its full wings in all those areas of art and culture. The thing is, I'm not going to blur the lines in my head between what is the culture that enhances humanity and what is damaging and controlling mythology. The aim of organised religion is to make sure that its flock can't tell the difference. It certainly seems to have worked on Joe Offer, going from his recent posts. They may have taught cynicism in that seminary of his, but they appear not to have taught scepticism and the need for evidence.

20 Feb 16 - 08:19 PM (#3774051)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,AElfwine

Joe Offer sez: Poetry and song and family and cultural traditions serve no practical purpose, and probably should be abolished along with all those legends and such.

This guy claims that's what the Rumhoth did to the Elves of Luthany

The Seven Invasions

20 Feb 16 - 08:49 PM (#3774052)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Just what I was trying to say, Steve Shaw - there is no inherent clash between the Scientific Method and poetry, song, family or cultural traditions - or religious thinking. Still, I see no need to use the Scientific Method to appreciate all these other wonderful, useless things.

-Joe-

20 Feb 16 - 09:42 PM (#3774053)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

No-one said you had to, least of all me. Unfortunately, you were the author of this misguided claim:

Fiction is an imaginative and highly effective way of presenting truths that are often far deeper than that which can be explored and presented by the Scientific Method. Despite what Jim Carroll says above, the Scientific Method can only explore the process of life and death, not its meaning.

There are no "deep truths" that can't, in theory, yield to scientific process. And, whatever limitations there are on science's exploring "the meaning of life", even worse limitations are imposed on religion or philosophical thought pursuing the same idea. Why? Because they try to do so by thinking about it instead of searching for evidence. The only matters that can't be explored by science are those that religion puts beyond science quite deliberately. That supernatural stuff that is put beyond the laws of nature. Fine, put them there, but be prepared to be scoffed at if you can't show good reason and good evidence for putting them there. Which, of course, you can't. Hence the cloudy, clutching-at-straws talk of deeper truths and sacred this and that, etc. Woolly talk is all you have, poor things.

20 Feb 16 - 09:56 PM (#3774054)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Darn, I thought we could reach some common ground here, Steve. Guess you can't allow that to happen. It just wouldn't be right to agree with me, would it?

-Joe-

20 Feb 16 - 10:15 PM (#3774056)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well you could try agreeing with me. The only argument I ever have boils down to interpreting the wonderful world we live in using evidence and reason, eschewing notions of fantastical beings for whom we have no evidence, no explanation and, most damning of all, no sightings. As I keep saying, the ball we keep our eye on is what is really true, not what is made up. I'd have thought that any rational being could espouse that without difficulty. Once we have that sorted out there'd be no stopping us when it came to suggesting a moral code bereft of fear of the almighty, punishment in the afterlife and priestly moralising. Wouldn't life be a dream!

21 Feb 16 - 12:16 AM (#3774061)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Greg F.: "That's right, Goofus - acuracy IS a big deal!"

So right you are....ahem..

You misspelled accuracy!

LMAO!!

GfS

21 Feb 16 - 03:31 AM (#3774067)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

So I think belief has to be literal? Not at all. I'm not a priest, and it's them who insist not me.

If you actually read what I put rather than interpretations of my words, you'll see that I defend boutique pick n choose faith. But by the same token, attempts to influence society based on a menu driven ideology hovers between hypocrisy and self serving mind control. In a way, there's more honesty in pete's simple mind.

Perhaps, looking at the thread subject, you might ask why your chief executive is saying that condoms to battle Zika are ok but condoms to battle HIV aren't.

Quite an opportunist, this confused old man from Argentina.

21 Feb 16 - 04:32 AM (#3774078)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

THere is a world of difference between folk beliefs that have risen from trying to explain everyday life and experience and organised religion that has been formalised to create a power-bas to control the minds of the masses
One of the outstanding traits of the major religions is the practice of using the superstitions while ignoring the ethics - you can apparently pronounce that we "love our neighbour" in one breath while, at the same time, demand that we send them back to the war zones they came from because they are taking our jobs.
Killing is apparently ok if the State says it is.
Churches have been league leaders in assisting States that are based on amassing wealth for the few while the majority of the population do without.
You choose not to comment on the examples of horrific consequences of religion while at the same time admiring "faerie glens" which were largely based on Victorian paedophilic sexual fantasies - tiny children dressed in diaphanous clothing.
Folk myth proper is often brutal; seldom beautiful and it quite often expounds values totally rejected by today's 'great and good', supported by the church.
In Ireland, it is thought by many that the 'little people' were 'fallen angels' who were banished beneath the ground f or being arseholes.
They were allowed to replenish their race by stealing women to breed from, and if the results of that studding were unsatisfactory, they could be replaced by stolen children.
Threats of punishment for interference of 'Fairy Forts' included loss of land, hardship, maiming and even death - this in a country where land has always been an essential part of staying alive.
Some of this savagery has leaked into the Christian religion - such as the holy wells that have pride of place over medical science, or the mystics, or the 'cures', or the 'wise women'.
The more unpleasant practices include 'churching' - considering women who bear children '"unclean" until they have been cleansed by the Church and forbidden to prepare food.
One of the most inhuman beliefs is remembered by 'killeens' scattered all over the country - unconsecrated graveyards for children who were denied entry into heaven because they had died before the priest could bless them and forbidden burial next to the 'blessed'.
Folk superstitions are fascinating and entertaining, but they are part of a darker past.
We witnessed a somewhat impractical one not long after we moved here.
The authorities were building a new ring road around our market town when they found a 'fairy thorn' (a whitethorn bush) in their path.
A local semi-professional storyteller with an eye on publicity mounted a campaign to 'save the bush' - he succeeded, it is said at the cost of millions and the road was built round it (denied by the authorities, of course).
The thorn remains on a tatty, weed-filled, untended and uninteresting piece of land between two high-speed roads, virtually impossible to spot but still talked about.
Jim Carroll

21 Feb 16 - 05:57 AM (#3774085)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"Perhaps, looking at the thread subject, you might ask why your chief executive is saying that condoms to battle Zika are ok but condoms to battle HIV aren't."

Excellent point.

21 Feb 16 - 06:08 AM (#3774089)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Thanks for that, Jim. As a result of reading it I've just spent the last half-hour extirpating the fairies from the bottom of my garden. :-)

"Churches have been league leaders in assisting States that are based on amassing wealth for the few while the majority of the population do without."

Not only that, they openly celebrate it by making a saint of a woman who told the poor to stay poor and celebrate their poverty rather than fight it.

21 Feb 16 - 06:11 AM (#3774090)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

When I were a lad, many exam questions started with the phrase "Compare and contrast". Now, I happen to think use of condoms is one of the things my church has got wrong and they are equally applicable to stopping all kinds of diseases, not just those two.

But having said that, the "compare and contrast" will highlight differences as well as similarities with using them to prevent zika and HIV. The stance is not one I agree with, but is not inconsistent.

21 Feb 16 - 06:35 AM (#3774093)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Condoms prevent the transmission of HIV, a virus that has killed millions in Catholic countries via sexual transmission. The Pope's advice apropos of Zika, whilst making very limited and sourly-expressed concessions, is entirely inconsistent with the
Vaticans long-standing and implacable condemnation of barrier methods in the parts of the world where HIV is rife. How you can say that the two positions are not inconsistent is entirely beyond me.

21 Feb 16 - 06:36 AM (#3774094)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I sent that before I'd edited the damn thing.

21 Feb 16 - 07:08 AM (#3774098)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

That's all the "compare" side, Steve. To see why it is not inconsistent you need to be thinking about the "contrast". As I say, I don't agree with the stance but I see how they get to it.

21 Feb 16 - 07:46 AM (#3774102)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well come on, do it for me then.

21 Feb 16 - 07:53 AM (#3774105)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket

I'll get the popcorn.

21 Feb 16 - 09:01 AM (#3774120)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

No, no need for that game. For any policy by any organisation there's an exercise of deciding how two things are alike and how they are different, and then a judgement on whether the differences are significant enough to treat them differently. You are perfectly capable of doing that without my assistance, even if, like me, you come to the conclusion that the similarities dominate.

21 Feb 16 - 09:38 AM (#3774128)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I'm a very straightforward chap and I'm inviting you to expand on your comments, not play a game. In many regards, the Zika crisis is nowhere near as massive in terms of numbers of people affected as the HIV tragedy. That is not to minimise it in any way, and it's early days, and my view is that the Church should abandon its stance on condoms across the board. You appear to be saying that banning condoms for HIV but allowing them for Zika represents some kind of consistency of approach. I can't see it myself. Zika has been been flagged up for quite a short while only whereas HIV has been a terrible problem for decades, yet the Church acts quickly (though in a curmudgeonly way) with Zika but not with HIV. Still, don't engage if you don't want to. I don't set traps, honest.

21 Feb 16 - 11:54 AM (#3774146)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

I genuinely don't understand where DMcG is coming from?

The catholic cult is saying that condons for Zika is ok but condoms for HIV isn't.

Dangerous, irresponsible, tragic for the victims of stupidity and plain outrageous.

So.. What are you wanting to contrast?

21 Feb 16 - 01:08 PM (#3774156)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

It is really simple, Steve and Musket

A) make a list of significant differences between the illnesses as fairly as you can

B) Decide whether they add up to a reason to treat the illnesses differently

I have decided that my answer to B is that the differences are insufficient to treat the diseases differently: both should allow condom use. But I don't think the list from A is empty and I can see why someone might regard the differences as enough.

As for writing the list both Steve and Musket are intelligent enough to come up with their own versions

21 Feb 16 - 02:48 PM (#3774166)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

" both should allow condom use."
Surely the point is that self-appointed celibates should have no say whatever in the matter - or is there something I've missed?
Jim Carroll

21 Feb 16 - 03:02 PM (#3774169)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

How's about a list of whether we should treat cancer or coronary heart disease?

Both need whatever the most appropriate prevention advice is, and contraception is not only appropriate in Zika and HIV but also for similar reasons, to help stop a spreading condition in its tracks.

For that matter, I cannot think of a single reason why condoms wouldn't be an appropriate method of lowering the prevalence of HIV. Is there one? Has the Catholic cult come up with a single relevant reason not to promote condoms for HIV protection?

You see, their leader refuses to do so, and I'd like to know why. So would the millions of lives shattered by incoherent ramblings of old men.

Jim. Have you any proof they are celibate? 😎

21 Feb 16 - 03:17 PM (#3774174)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"Jim. Have you any proof they are celibate?"
They told us they were' didn't they
Mind you, that Bishop Casey....
Makes you think, dunnit
Jim Carroll

21 Feb 16 - 03:44 PM (#3774180)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

I prefer not to think about it 😳

21 Feb 16 - 03:46 PM (#3774182)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Maybe they should invent giant condoms that people can put on over their heads, and it should cover their whole bodies, so mosquitoes don't bite them!...and that way if the people have sex with someone else, their covered!!

GfS

21 Feb 16 - 04:12 PM (#3774185)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

...oh..and I left out the best part...Donald Trump can get the Vatican to pay for them...the memo was sent on Hillary's server for her private parts..or something like that....

GfS

21 Feb 16 - 04:18 PM (#3774186)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

Since they'd need some sort of protection in the way they breathe as well, Sanity, I think you are recommending wet suits and snorkelling equipment for everyone. Effective, I should think, but maybe a bit on the warm side.

21 Feb 16 - 04:26 PM (#3774187)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Damn!!...Well there goes my royalties for the invention!!

GfS

21 Feb 16 - 06:02 PM (#3774199)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I seem to recall Priscilla Presley and Leslie Nielsen bagging the copyright on full-body condoms. Bloody priceless.

22 Feb 16 - 01:02 AM (#3774227)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

You're right....oh no!!....well, it has to better than the wet-suit idea..wet-suits are made of neoprene, which is a petroleum product...and 'environmentally uncool'.
What are we going to do???...I mean, liberals would NEVER stand for THAT!!....I mean, like liberals a caring people, right??
Do you think liberals could do more than talk and post about it??
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, instead of forming opinions about it...while waiting to see IF somebody else is going to DO something about it, with liberal approval, do you think anyone might sell their computers, to get a plane ticket, and go down and volunteer to help those poor suckers????
...Naw....we're liberals....somebody else should do it!

GfS

22 Feb 16 - 01:06 AM (#3774228)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Musket says: Perhaps, looking at the thread subject, you might ask why your chief executive (Pope) is saying that condoms to battle Zika are ok but condoms to battle HIV aren't.

Because his predecessor already said that condoms to battle HIV are OK. Francis has not rescinded that approval.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/21/pope-benedict-condoms-hiv-infection

[sigh]

22 Feb 16 - 03:00 AM (#3774232)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Same source, coming at yeh..

(Sigh)

http://gu.com/p/4hv2z?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

22 Feb 16 - 03:37 AM (#3774242)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Just looking at the link there (from The Guardian's iPhone app) on the off chance it doesn't work, should anyone wish to read it, it's an article by Barbara Ellen from last week so should be easy to find. The paragraph of most interest to Joe's sighs would be;

"Why is "permission" being granted to safeguard against one virus, Zika, but not against HIV and Aids? While Zika is horrific, how many lives has Aids claimed and ruined, including babies who are born HIV-positive? A disgrace, then, that, in all these decades, the issue has been persistently dodged by the Vatican. In 2009, Francis's predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, said that the Aids tragedy could not be solved by the distribution of condoms "which even aggravates the problems". The following year, Benedict conceded that "male prostitutes" could use condoms."

Surely Joe isn't falling into the trap of assuming HIV is a gay problem? He does after all keep telling me our resident homophobe isn't homophobic...,,

22 Feb 16 - 06:48 AM (#3774263)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

He did not say that "condoms to battle HIV are OK", Joe Offer. He made a statement that was so vague and circumlocutory that it's caused furious controversy in the Church. There has never been a clear, definitive and honest statement to the effect that condom use is ever acceptable. The Church's official teaching has not changed. If you are running an organisation of hundreds of millions of people and wish to declare a change of policy, you express it in clear, simple and unambiguous terms, not in words that get even your finest theologians' knickers in a twist.

22 Feb 16 - 09:25 AM (#3774285)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

In the guardian, again, Emer O Toole gives her perspective:

What hope has Pope Francis offered to women exposed to Zika? None

22 Feb 16 - 03:10 PM (#3774337)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

No, Peter, there is no chance that the Catholic Church will change its stance on abortion to allow for the disposal of babies with birth defects. The only exception is when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. I think it likely that the Catholic Church will back away from its opposition to the legalization of abortion by governments, but I do not believe the Catholic Church will ever back away from its official declaration that abortion is immoral. And I doubt that it will allow Catholic hospitals or other Catholic institutions to perform abortions.

That being said, there is a whole body of Catholic moral teaching that allows for a woman to choose to have an abortion if the alternatives are a greater evil. I was first exposed to this aspect of Catholic moral teaching in about the third grade, when I was about nine years old. Basically, when you're faced with a number of bad choices, you do the one that does the least harm.

With regards to condoms, this is going to drive our absolutists crazy, but I cannot find any official Catholic condemnation of condoms. The documents specify "artificial methods of contraception," but not pills or condoms or IUDs or whatever. I do think there is specific mention of sterilization, however.

Pope Benedict did not change policy when he made his statement on condoms in 2010. He made an interpretation of existing policy, using this "lesser of two evils" thinking. He compared the prohibition against contraception with the evil created by the spread of disease, and he found contraception to be the lesser evil. Therefore, he said it could be morally permissible to use condoms to prevent the spread of disease, including HIV/AIDS. Francis confirmed Benedict's opinion by including Zika virus, but the principle applies to the spread of any serious disease.

As far as I can see, that's all you're gonna get. Even if he wanted to call a synod and abolish the prohibition against condoms, he couldn't do it - because as far as I can see, there is no prohibition against condoms. He could have called a synod to discuss changes in the policy against artificial contraception, but that would open a whole can of worms and have no immediate effect. Francis has held two synods that included discussion of the matter, and they ended at an impasse. Changing doctrine requires a consensus with very little dissent, and Francis was not able to achieve that consensus. He hasn't finished dealing with the results of the synods yet. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.

So, what we have is a considered interpretation of existing policy by two popes, both of whom come out on the side of approving the use of condoms to prevent the spread of disease, but not for birth control. And as always, the final moral determination must be made by the individual's conscience. I learned that in third grade, too. Nonetheless, if two popes come up with the same considered interpretation, then I think you can take that to the bank.

You can link to hundreds of columns that will tell you the Pope does or does not permit the use of condoms, but I double that many of the columnists have taken classes in Moral Theology from a seminary chartered by the Vatican. I did pretty well in my Moral Theology classes. If you don't believe what I have to say, then I guess you don't believe what I have to say. I've tried to present this as clearly and rationally as I can.

-Joe Offer-

22 Feb 16 - 03:36 PM (#3774342)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

There are plenty of references all over the web to condoms being specifically condemned by name by the Catholic Church. Even if you avoid the ones that refer to condoms specifically, and there are plenty of those for the average googler to find, condoms are an artificial method of contraception, and they clearly don't need to be mentioned by name. You almost seem to be denying that condoms are just that. I mean, what planet are you on? You see, Joe, you spent a long time just there trying to wriggle the Church out of this one, but the plain fact is that there is a thoroughly simple way of clarifying this. "The Catholic Church now accepts the use of condoms." Priests, bishops, cardinals and theologians are squabbling over what the grudging and woolly remarks of those two popes actually meant. The average Catholic hasn't got a chance. Good job most of them don't give a damn. Unfortunately, some do give a damn, and they live in countries where the Church has a good firm grip, condoms are almost impossible to get and where HIV is rife and the Zika mozzies bite like mad. You just carry on theologising while people continue to die or have dangerous abortions. Millions every year. It must be so agonising for you.

22 Feb 16 - 06:34 PM (#3774383)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

You could always be more discriminant, and less promiscuous, and promote the wonderfulness of actually loving the person you're having sex with....Naw....nobody would want to hear THAT!!

GfS

22 Feb 16 - 06:45 PM (#3774387)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

think it likely that the Catholic Church will back away from its opposition to the legalization of abortion by governments

In how many more centuries, Joe? I don't mean this as a dig - Seriously, how long should we rationally give 'em?

22 Feb 16 - 06:47 PM (#3774389)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Joe Offer, at the women's center

If you can't be bothered with theological language and processes, Steve, don't theologize - but don't second-guess the theologians unless you've done your homework.
I suppose that when they see you coming, car mechanics run away screaming....

-Joe Offer-

22 Feb 16 - 07:03 PM (#3774391)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Only the car mechanics who work on cars made of Lego bricks. Doesn't "theological processes and language" sound so grand? What I know about theology is that it is predicated on a supposed entity for which there has never been evidence, and I know that the application of reason to that is a waste of your time and a tragedy for the advance of human intellect. Why don't you just search for what's really true instead?

22 Feb 16 - 07:07 PM (#3774392)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"theological language and processes." That way round, if it matters.

22 Feb 16 - 09:13 PM (#3774413)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"it likely that the Catholic Church will back away from its opposition to the legalization of abortion by governments"
It really is time you got your head round the fact that unless the church gets its act together it will have no role to play in modern life.
Enormous damage was done to the Church by the abuse revelations: the way those revelations were handled gave it a further sever kicking.
The smack in the face it got in once "holy Ireland", when the results of the 'same sex marriage' referendum were announced really should have got the message across - Archbishop Martin got it - 'bout time the rest of you did before you're playing to totally empty houses
Jim Carroll

22 Feb 16 - 09:36 PM (#3774423)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Zika virus and conspiracy theories

When I first heard about the tragic cases of microcephaly in Brazil and how suspicion fell on the cause being the Zika virus, I facetiously remarked to a colleague that somehow someone would link it to GMOs. After all, Brazil is the world's second largest producer of genetically modified crops behind the United States with more than half of the agricultural acreage in Brazil devoted to growing such crops. Well, so far GMOs have not been implicated, but Monsanto has. That company of course has become a lightning rod for all sorts of crackpot theories, in this case one forged by a South American group calling itself "Physicians in Crop Sprayed Towns." This is an activist group opposed to the use of pesticides with the belief that these "poisons" are being foisted on the public by the World Health Organization and South American governments because they have been financially seduced by the evil chemical industry.

The alleged link to Monsanto is through pyriproxifen, a larvicide that is sprayed on wet areas where mosquities breed. This may well be the real link to the birth defects rather than the Zika virus according to Physicians in Crop Sprayed Towns. The fact is that Monsanto has absolutely nothing to do with producing or selling this chemical which is supplied by the Sumimoto Chemical Company. Sumimoto has partnered with Monsanto in the sale of herbicides but that has nothing to do with pyriproxifen, the chemical being targeted by this activist group. The Monsanto connection to pyriproxifen is non-existent, the name just being thrown in to get attention and stir the pot.

The supposed Monsanto connection is a non-issue in any case because the pyriproxifen link to microencephaly exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists who claim that the cases of this type of birth deformity correlate with the introduction of pyriproxifen as a replacement for temephos, a larvicide to which mosquitoes have developed a resistance. The physicians who promote this notion must have skipped the class in medical school that discussed the difference between an association and a cause and effect relationship. They should be reminded that the use of facial tissue does not cause colds, even though colds and the use of such tissues are closely associated.

Of course associations can turn out to be cause and effect, but the one between microcephaly and pyriproxifen is almost certainly not one. The fact is that one would actually expect a correlation with larvicides if the disease is caused by a mosquito transmitted virus because it is exactly where mosquitoes thrive that larvicides are applied. Furthermore, there are areas where many cases of microencephaly have been noted where pyriproxifen has never been used. There is also extensive scientific literature on this chemical and no connection to any sort of birth defect has ever been noted.

Pyriproxifen has been widely used in tick and flea collars for pets for years without any problem. Finally, this particular larvicide's mode of action is interference with the functioning of a hormone that is found only in insects and there is no plausible mechanism by which it can interfere with mammalian physiology in a way that would cause microcephaly. What we have here is an activist group with a fixed agenda trying to fit whatever square peg they can find into a round hole they have drilled.

Dr. Joe Schwarcz
McGill Office for Science and Society

22 Feb 16 - 09:50 PM (#3774425)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"There is also extensive scientific literature on this chemical and no connection to any sort of birth defect has ever been noted."

Weasel words, unfortunately, unbecoming of a scientist.

"Pyriproxifen has been widely used in tick and flea collars for pets for years without any problem. Finally, this particular larvicide's mode of action is interference with the functioning of a hormone that is found only in insects and there is no plausible mechanism by which it can interfere with mammalian physiology in a way that would cause microcephaly."

The world of pharmaceutical research is replete with examples of drugs causing unexpected effects, sometimes even after years of ostensibly trouble-free use. Process dictates that you find problems usually when you are looking for problems. Saying you haven't found a plausible mechanism when you haven't needed to look for a plausible mechanism isn't really good enough. Don't get me wrong - I'm confident that yer man is right. His pronouncements, though, are tendentious-sounding and don't inspire confidence.

23 Feb 16 - 12:43 AM (#3774434)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Monsanto, if anyone remembers, had a rider attached to the Democrat budget, signed by Obama, which sheltered them from any financial liability, brought by those affected by GMO's. (I posted here about it a couple of years ago). Now Monsanto, has been saying, for quite some time, that one of the reasons, for the development of the GMO's, was to protect the plants from the chemicals in 'Round-Up'....However, if you've been watching your 'news' often there is commercials by several law firms, getting people to call them in regards to a class action lawsuit, because 'Round-Up' has chemicals, now found to cause cancer.....AND
Dr. Joe Schwarcz...check THIS out!!! .

Just thought I'd resolve Steve's diplomacy....and help him with his suspicions...

GfS

23 Feb 16 - 02:53 AM (#3774442)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

The sad truth is, firing silver bullets might slay the beast and might piss it off. At this stage, we have still to decide the calibre, type of gun, purity of silver, shape of bullet... Complacency isn't an option but neither is friendly fire.

Regarding the left foot aspect, which is key given the sway the Vatican has in South America, it is clear to me that if the church gives a clear unequivocal message that helps prevention, people are generally intelligent enough to put two and two together and see the benefits of safe sex viz a viz many of the other issues facing humanity.

You know Goofus, loving people isn't enough, it's fucking that does the deed.

I'm not sure what Joe means by "absolutists." I thought it meant people with superstitious conviction but there you go. You don't need a piece of paper to theologise (or theologize as you say in foreign parts) you just need to provide commentary on old books. Having never read them I am at a disadvantage but I can add this much. There isn't a single bit of supporting evidence for banning contraception in any ancient book of fairy tales. I am reliably informed however that there is encouragement to shag a prostitute rather than have a wank.

Not the best advice....

23 Feb 16 - 03:54 AM (#3774457)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Jim Carroll says: It really is time you got your head round the fact that unless the church gets its act together it will have no role to play in modern life.

Hi, Jim - I think the Catholic Church will be a far better institution when/if it is no longer in the majority in any nation. When it's the majority, it gets into bed with government, and that's poison for both church and government.

It's a good thing for churches to hold out the ideal. But the ideal is not always practical. If a church is the majority and tries to enforce the ideal by legislation, strange things happen.

It's fine for the church to propose an ideal of no abortion and no contraception, as long as individuals can take those ideals and adapt them to their real lives in a way that works.

It's nice for churches to preserve ideals, but that has to be tempered by pragmatism. That seems to settle out quite nicely in nations where no religious denomination is in the majority. But if there's a church in the majority, all hell is likely to break loose.

Consider Texas. Or Ireland.

-Joe-

23 Feb 16 - 04:57 AM (#3774471)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"Hi, Jim - I think the Catholic Church will be a far better institution when/if it is no longer in the majority in any nation.
The "church" is not a "majority" anywhere - in fact it is a miniscule minority - hardly a blip on the scale
Catholics, on the other hand are a different matter
It is not the religion that is the problem, but those who manipulate it to control the way people live - the Catholic church is locked in eternal permanent copulation with the most reactionary establishments and governments while a few of its officers occasionally leap over the wall and fight for humanity and often pay dearly for having done so - back to Romero.
When in control, the church never "proposes" anything - it demands obedience on the pain of eternal damnation.
Following the Savita Halappanavar, there was talk of changing the law on pregnancy termination - the Church responded with a threat to excommunicate all politicians who voted for the change - not a proposal - a threat.
The ridiculousness of a situation where a handful of elderly, celibate (allegedly), self appointed pressure group should have any say on contraception, pregnancy, sexual practices, sizes of families... doesn't seem to have sunk in - bizarre, to say the least.
This self-appointed group of dinosaurs should not be allowed to interfere in things like how to respond to the Zika virus, or whether to use condoms to protect from sexually transmitted diseases, or control family sizes, or who to sleep with and when - none of these things...... and much, much more.
THe sins of the Church are being laid on Catholics as a whole, who are, in fact, the victims - not fair.
Can you explain why the Church should have any influence in these matters? - so far, your team seems to take it for granted that it is a god-given right, or even one to be negotiated.
JIm Carroll

23 Feb 16 - 05:19 AM (#3774477)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Hi, Jim - Can I explain why the Church should have any influence in matters such as the Zika virus, condoms and the spread of disease, etc. Well, yes, I think that every organized group should have a voice, a chance to present its position rationally.

You say, "there was talk of changing the law on pregnancy termination - the Church responded with a threat to excommunicate all politicians who voted for the change - not a proposal - a threat."

My response is that the politicians had an extraordinary chance at that moment, and they should have risked excommunication. I certainly would have.

-Joe-

23 Feb 16 - 07:04 AM (#3774497)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"I think that every organized group should have a voice, "
A little different from threatening those who disagree with hellfire and damnation.
What exactly are their qualifications for issuing such edicts?
"and they should have risked excommunication."
Why should they have had to make such a choice - eternal damnation or voting with your conscience?
Doo you really believe a lifetime of being conditioned is that easy to walk away from?
Jim Carroll

23 Feb 16 - 08:21 AM (#3774514)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

GfS, you should really check the source before posting the drivel that you copy/pasted. You would have seen that this conspiracy theorist is so out there that he makes other conspiracists, like Alex Jones, look like Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. I have known Joe Schwarcz for many years and it is no secret that he is targeted by these wackos who promote their outlandish theories and count on the scientifically illiterate for their support. But then again maybe you and Constantine are right and the rest of us have been brainwashed and are under the mind control of the CIA and the US government.

23 Feb 16 - 10:34 AM (#3774541)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Ah, yes, always suspect the purveyors of popular science. Promoting public understanding of science is delicate and fraught. Sometimes it's more the scientists affirming their expert credentials and increasing their authority. The sort of thing Joe does with his theological credentials. Gotta keep a close eye on these buggers. But doesn't Dr Schwarcz's piece read so well! In fact, I suspect he's correct in the general thrust, but I didn't get to that opinion via his mix of reasoning with didacticism. I want to hear the good science, not that.

23 Feb 16 - 10:57 AM (#3774546)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

GfS, you should really check the source before posting the drivel that you copy/paste

There's always a first time, I suppose. And Goofus IS Alex Jones.

23 Feb 16 - 02:02 PM (#3774581)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin

What it's going to be like for the parents of microcephalic children:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/brazil-health-service-cracking-under-strain-of-microcephaly/

23 Feb 16 - 04:16 PM (#3774597)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Jim Carroll responds to my statement: "I think that every organized group should have a voice": A little different from threatening those who disagree with hellfire and damnation.

I'm glad you brought up hellfire, Jim. It's talked about so seldom in Catholic circles nowadays, that I had almost forgotten it. Back in the 1950s, Catholic parishes used to have weeklong "parish missions," usually preached by Passionist or Redemptorist priests who were renowned for their preaching ability. There was one week of evening meetings for the men, and one week for the women. Friday night was always the most popular night, because that's when the mission preachers gave their colorful sermons on hellfire and damnation. It was kinda scary, but always interesting. I didn't know very many people who took those sermons seriously, and I haven't heard preaching about hellfire since the early 1960s. I suppose you can find hellfire sermons in Catholic churches nowadays if you look hard enough, but those are the exception to the rule.

Jim asks: What exactly are their qualifications for issuing such edicts?
Again, Jim, I haven't seen the Catholic Church issue edicts in years - not in my lifetime, at least. The Catholic Church issues carefully worded and reasoned statements on issues it considers important, relying on reason rather than authority to promote its case. Vatican statements are invariably well-researched, even though you might not agree with them. I haven't seen hellfire attached to any such pronouncement, although I'm sure there are some right-wingers who will give you hellfire if you want it.

Jesus saved the penalty of hellfire only for those who failed to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and such things (Matthew 25).

So, Jim, their qualifications are that their statements either make sense, or don't make sense - along with their power to persuade. During a the summers since the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. Catholic bishops have conducted a "Fortnight for Freedom" campaign to protest their being required to include birth control services in employee health plans. The campaign is silly, and has been largely ignored. At the same time, U.S. nuns have had their "Nuns on the Bus" campaign for social justice, a campaign which has been very popular and well-received. The nuns have credibility (and imagination), the bishops don't. Pope Francis has a lot of credibility, because what he says usually makes sense.

I said that Irish legislators "should have risked excommunication" and voted to change Irish anti-abortion laws.

Jim says: Why should they have had to make such a choice - eternal damnation or voting with your conscience?
Do you really believe a lifetime of being conditioned is that easy to walk away from?

Then, Jim, the Irish electorate should elect legislators who have the courage to stand up to the Church - if that is the will of the electorate. I don't believe that "eternal damnation" is a penalty that is automatically included with excommunication, although some people may mistakenly believe it is. They must not have paid attention in their third-grade catechism class, back when they were nine years old. Way back then, I was taught that a person can't go to hell for doing something they sincerely believe to be the right thing to do. That was in my Baltimore Catechism book, which was based on the 16th-century Catechism of Trent.

-Joe-

23 Feb 16 - 04:58 PM (#3774609)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Hey Joe, there's something I've been wondering about for a while now and if anybody would know the answer, it would be you. Does it still hold in the RC church that if you attend mass and take communion for nine first Fridays in a row you get a free pass to heaven when your ticket is punched?

23 Feb 16 - 05:49 PM (#3774617)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Well, Guest, I'm pretty sure that "Nine First Fridays" indulgence is still on the books, for people who think in that mode. It, and many other indulgences, are in a book called the Raccolta. I guess there has to be something left for the legalists. It gives them peace of mind. That sort of legalism is from another time, but why rattle the people who see value in it?

Current thinking is that all but the most truly horrible people are going to end up in heaven, anyhow. Pol Pot and Hitler and Idi Amin may have hell to themselves.

-Joe-

23 Feb 16 - 06:17 PM (#3774620)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Thanks Joe, I hope I have a ticket on that bus.

23 Feb 16 - 08:23 PM (#3774634)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Joe Offer doesn't actually seem to believe any Catholic doctrine at all. He's illustrated get-outs for using contraception and for having an abortion, on the grounds that if you don't think it's wrong it's not wrong. I've just checked, and hell and hellfire are still definitely enshrined in the Catechism. But Joe says we don't have to bother with all that, and priests who burble on about it are just having a laugh or something. Well I think it's rather odd that Catholics often claim that their moral compass is determined by their religious belief and churchly guidance, when it seems they don't have to actually believe Jack shit if they don't want to.

As for: "Pol Pot and Hitler and Idi Amin may have hell to themselves."

Well now, who are you to judge? In the words of The Lord....

Yet another teaching that you can ignore if you don't like it? Have we told those millions of Catholics in Africa and south and central America, not to speak of their regimes, that this welcome anarchic situation prevails?

I once tried to tell a speed cop in Wiltshire that I'd thought the speed limit signs were advisory. He didn't agree. You may find one day that you're having the same difficulty with St Peter.

23 Feb 16 - 11:28 PM (#3774646)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Primrose Path to Holiness

24 Feb 16 - 02:45 AM (#3774651)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

The thing is, when I refer to boutique religion or pick n mix, I'm shouted at, yet when hypocrisy suits, there it is, for all to see.

Am I saying every superstitious person should be literal and fundamental? No. But by the same token, such institutions should keep it to those who are members and unlike the Catholic Church, stop advising general populations based on snippets that serve purely the purpose of keeping the money rolling into the Vatican.

Perhaps someone should send the pope a book about a novel character called Jesus. If they took his views on board, just think what good they could do by selling off the billions worth of treasures and helping the poor and destitute with it.

I'd add the Church of England to that but their fiscal management is poor to begin with.

Meanwhile, churches pontificate on public health matters whilst their so called flock suffer the consequences. Their apologists aren't much better, however sugar coated their messages.

24 Feb 16 - 03:48 AM (#3774658)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

"I'm glad you brought up hellfire, "
May not be as strong a feature with the younger generation, but very much alive and kicking with the older one - it seems perverse in the extreme to defend a Church that has thrived on fear by suggesting that it can now be ignored - sort of like malaria, which has supposedly been conquored, but is still doing the rounds - particularly in the poorer countries, where the divine right of the church reigns supreme alongside of the Zika virus.
Even here, the Church believes itself influential enough on issues such as education, same-sex marriage and pregnancy termination to issue threats and affect political decisions.
It remains to be seen what will happen when and if a future Government gets round to altering the constitution on religious influence - hope I'm around to buy tickets for that one.
It shouldn't be a case of "ignoring" a constant threat in your midst - it has to be permanently removed as a threat or it remains what it is - couldn't help noticing the "largely ignored" bit - ok to let the others go on and have children they can't afford and don't necessarily want
If that happens in the 'enlightened' U.S., explain away what is happening in the poorer countries, where these issues are killing people in their many thousands - a bit smug to claim "largely ignored" - sort of 'ding-ding, we're on the bus'
The church, in these matters has become a lethal threat and if it continues, some bright spark is going to recognise it as a human rights issue - that's when 'pro life' will move from being a spiritual propaganda campaign to doing what it says on the tin.
I confess, I didn't know about your laudable 'Nuns on the Bus' campaign so I looked it up.
"Led by Sister Simone Campbell, they place emphasis on the church's long-standing commitment to social justice"
I wish them every success, but if your church only had a "long-standing commitment to social justice" instead of it's inbuilt support for repression, injustice and inequality, there really wouldn't be a need for such acts of rebellion.
COULDN'T HELP NOTICING THE REACTION
Jim Carroll

24 Feb 16 - 04:45 AM (#3774669)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Joe doesn't seem to have read that, Jim. He'd better watch his arse I reckon - the Vatican will be coming to rein him in any day now! :-:

24 Feb 16 - 01:06 PM (#3774755)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

I gotta say, Jim, that you're really good at linking to old newspaper articles. The two Vatican investigations of U.S. nuns were ended in April 2015, but began winding down even before Benedict resigned. They were a political move by right-wingers, and the right-wingers lost.

As I've often said, it's a mistake to view the Catholic Church as monolithic. I don't like what the right-wingers do in the Catholic Church, any more than Messrs. Shaw, Carroll, and Musket do. I can't figure out why Messrs Shaw, et al, hold me responsible for the actions of Catholic right-wingers that I've opposed all my days.

Mr. Musket, my opposition to the right-wingers isn't "boutique" Catholicism, and it's not the failure to believe Catholic doctrine that Mr. Shaw claims it to be. I hold true to what I believe the Catholic Church ought to be - and so do a lot of other Catholics, including Pope Francis. We're very happy to have a Pope who's on our side, for a change.

There was an interesting article in USA Today on Tuesday, talking about how the National Catholic Reporter newspaper published articles on sexual abuse by priests in 1985, 17 years before the Boston Globe covered the story. NCR, a lay-run Catholic publication not owned or controlled by the Catholic Church, has continued to publish articles on the sex scandal to the present time. I've supported NCR since it began publishing in 1964. The publishers of NCR also hold true to what they believe the Catholic Church ought to be.

-Joe-

24 Feb 16 - 02:57 PM (#3774773)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

It isn't being held to anything that is the beef here. It's washing your hands of the Catholic Church and its actions. Either the Catholic Church is doing it or some renegade criminals are using your advertising in which case the Vatican should stop them.

You begin to see the point. You may not like the word boutique but if you are a catholic you either hold with what your popes say or you don't. If you pick and choose, which lets face it is the position of all religions with regard to their sacredish texts, then boutique is both descriptive and not exactly insulting.

24 Feb 16 - 04:53 PM (#3774793)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I ask myself whether it's good enough to just "oppose the right-wingers all my life". Said right-wingers have held dominion all your life and there's no prospect of that changing. You might claim that millions of Catholics are ignoring the Church and using contraception and getting abortions, and a good thing too. The obstinate fact that you are refusing to confront is that four million women per annum in Central and South America, overwhelmingly in Catholic countries, are having unsafe abortions. They are having unsafe abortions because, in those Catholic countries, sex education is discouraged, contraception is both frowned upon and difficult or impossible to obtain, and abortion is illegal. The teaching and the edicts of the Catholic Church have played a huge part in bringing this awful situation about. And that isn't even to begin to address the baleful role of the Church in failing to stem HIV in Africa. You are the arch-apologist for Catholicism, Joe Offer. Your fight from the inside has failed abysmally. The upshot is a good deal of death and misery.

24 Feb 16 - 05:11 PM (#3774795)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

You miss the point Joe, these people do not really care what YOU think, they are dedicated to the "liberal" ideology and the Church is the biggest impediment to the furtherance of that ideology.

It matters not a whit that you yourself are a liberal by nature, you stand on the wrong side of the wall to these people....you are guilty by association.
You are conversing with Fascists, forget it and do good with your life, retain your faith and look a little more kindly on your brethren who recognise the danger.

24 Feb 16 - 05:58 PM (#3774809)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

So we're fascists now. This from the fellow who claims that he doesn't call people names. If I were into name-calling myself, I'd call you a hypocrite. As I'm not, I won't.

24 Feb 16 - 06:04 PM (#3774811)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

So we're fascists now.

No, not just now.

24 Feb 16 - 06:22 PM (#3774816)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Hi, Brucie!

24 Feb 16 - 06:37 PM (#3774819)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

Steve, I am not calling you personally a Fascist, I was referring to a group, an ideology. If you do not subscribe to that ideology wich proscribes freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, then you are certainly not a Fascist.

24 Feb 16 - 06:57 PM (#3774827)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

How kind of you.

Hey mods, have you noticed how the man that prefers to remain anonymous so that we can address the issue, not the man, is calling us fascists from behind his wall of anonymity? Still don't think we should have everyone with a unique moniker and logged in? How much longer are you going to let him call us fascists and Jew-haters before you get the boss to do something about it? Does he ever read this shite? Do you ever put this to him? I doubt it...

24 Feb 16 - 07:02 PM (#3774829)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

Since Catholicism is the cause of all this death and misery and every abomination thinkable for so many it may be worthwhile to consider converting to the religion of peace, Islam. Islam is the true religion, is it not, and there is no other G-d but Allah, Laa Ilaaha illaa Allah! The Prophet (PBUH) reported that Allah said, "I created my servants in the right religion but devils made them go astray". The Prophet (PBUH) also said, "Each child is born in a state of "Fitrah", then his parents make him a Jew, Christian or a Zoroastrian, the way an animal gives birth to a normal offspring. Have you noticed any that were born mutilated?"

24 Feb 16 - 07:10 PM (#3774830)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

I have never called anyone a "Jew hater" Steve.
I don't think you people are particularly discriminatory of different religions......just religion in general.

and basic freedoms of course.

24 Feb 16 - 07:14 PM (#3774831)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I was not referring to you. I was referring to our Guest-coward. Greg calls him brucie, though that's uncertain, so I prefer to dub him Guesticles.

24 Feb 16 - 07:19 PM (#3774832)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

is calling us fascists

Whaa whaa, mommy, he's calling us names. Boo hoo!

Yes dear but you call people Islamophobes and war mongers and denigrate other peoples' religious beliefs.

That's different though because I know that they are wrong and I am right. I am only trying to make them see the truth.

24 Feb 16 - 07:29 PM (#3774834)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Donuel

Be brave, honest, wise men for a change and stop bickering like children.

We are talking about a challenging disease which will create a need to make a decision unlike any other in history.

I know you do not know what I mean yet.

It is best you show some wisdom in the months to come because we are about to employ a science never before unleashed.

24 Feb 16 - 07:35 PM (#3774835)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well, Donuel, I could agree, but don't overegg the pudding. After all, we do have malaria.

Guesticles is getting frustrated. Do keep cool, anonymous name-caller. You shit in your own bed, as ever. Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie.

24 Feb 16 - 08:32 PM (#3774845)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Meanwhile theocracy marches on in Louisiana:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/u-s-court-allows-louisiana-abortion-restrictions-to-go-into-effect/

25 Feb 16 - 02:48 AM (#3774885)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

As ever,

1. There is a pollution of this thread now so not much point in carrying it on.

2. Pointing out the pollution gets posts of normal people deleted.

3. The pollution comes out with something outrageously wrong which denigrates people so the shit kickers close the thread in order that pollution has the last word.

With regard to the thread, it is very disturbing the influence of superstition on important subjects that affect real lives in a physical way, not just the mental balance of the poor fuckers caught up in it. It's probably a good thing that the god concept is just the result of fertile imaginations because if it did exist, it would be having a good laugh, considering that if you want a plague of disease that exhibits itself in pregnancy, do it in poor countries trapped in the menacing hold of a population controlling religion.

25 Feb 16 - 08:11 AM (#3774926)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

The thread was well polluted before I got here.

Dogs don't smell their own shit.

25 Feb 16 - 09:50 AM (#3774941)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Who the fuck are you? Got a high opinion of yourself.

I was referring to the worm, who incidentally hasn't the intelligence to know how to post anonymously once his computer has logged him in.

25 Feb 16 - 10:07 AM (#3774946)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

He's that bloke who says he posts anonymously so that we can address the issue, not the man. Bwahahahaha!

25 Feb 16 - 11:46 AM (#3774962)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Mea culpa or whatever it is. Mind you, he or she does indeed seem to have issues.

I hope they get their sense of smell back....

26 Feb 16 - 03:51 PM (#3775214)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

And theocracy marches on in Florida:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/court-orders-abortion-waiting-period-to-be-enforced-in-florida/

At a guess, Louisiana and Florida are the two US states with the largest proportional Catholic populations?

26 Feb 16 - 06:24 PM (#3775237)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

The law passed by the Republican-controlled legislature last spring required women seeking abortions in Florida to make two visits to a clinic, with a mandatory 24-hour waiting period in between. Many states have adopted such laws as conservatives seek to chip away at the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion.

"Chip away." You know, what I find to be the most disgusting thing about the anti-abortion lobby, apart from their calling themselves, revoltingly, "pro-life", is the way they seek to chip away. To make life more difficult for women. To place as many obstacles as possible in the way whilst simultaneously getting the time limit reduced. They claim the moral high ground, they use raw emotion to make their case instead of making rational points. It's all about tactics and it's all so bloody immoral. If you think abortion's wrong, say so, campaign for its outright abolition, no exceptions, and do the honest thing. I would hate their guts for doing that but at least I could respect their straightforwardness. But tactics? Chipping away? That's just disreputable and dishonest. Campaigning for twenty weeks, or two doctors, or mandatory delays, is campaigning for things they don't believe in. These are incredibly nasty people, make no mistake.

27 Feb 16 - 07:49 AM (#3775308)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Jack Campin

The first cases of Zika in pregnant women in the US don't look good:

http://newsdaily.com/2016/02/u-s-study-of-nine-pregnant-women-who-traveled-shows-zika-virus-in-some/

Lousiana and Florida are two of the most likely states in the US to suffer a Zika epidemic, given their geography. And their priest-ridden governments are the most likely to handle it with brutal, oppressive stupidity.

27 Feb 16 - 10:13 AM (#3775320)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

At a guess, Louisiana and Florida are the two US states with the largest proportional Catholic populations?

Not quite Jack. While Catholics are certainly part of the problem, a much greater problem are the Fundagelical "Christians"[sic]:

Religious composition of adults in Florida
Christian 70%
Evangelical Protestant 24%
Mainline Protestant 14%
Historically Black Protestant 8%
Catholic 21%

Religious composition of adults in Louisiana
Christian 84%
Evangelical Protestant 27%
Mainline Protestant 8%
Historically Black Protestant 22%
Catholic 26%

(Pew Research Center)

27 Feb 16 - 11:03 AM (#3775332)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Greg F.: "GfS, you should really check the source before posting the drivel that you copy/paste

There's always a first time, I suppose. And Goofus IS Alex Jones

Guest: "GfS, you should really check the source before posting the drivel that you copy/pasted. You would have seen that this conspiracy theorist is so out there that he makes other conspiracists, like Alex Jones, look like Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. I have known Joe Schwarcz for many years and it is no secret that he is targeted by these wackos who promote their outlandish theories and count on the scientifically illiterate for their support. But then again maybe you and Constantine are right and the rest of us have been brainwashed and are under the mind control of the CIA and the US government."

If you two moronic ideologues would ever READ and understand a post, and instead of wanting to jump on a chance to purposely 'expound' on your own spins, either because you can't, or won't see what is actually being said, then maybe...just maybe, you wouldn't make such idiots of yourselves.

The first part of my post, I clearly pointed out that cancer had been linked to 'Round-Up', a product of Monsanto...and backed it with a link from the New York Times.

The second link, I posted to indicate that Steve, in his post sounded, a bit 'unsure' but was willing to give Dr. Joe Schwarcz the benefit of the doubt..... That being said, I thought he was being 'polite', (unlike your ideological selves)....and I provided him a link, that shared his suspicions, and posted the link and comment as such:

"(Link)Dr. Joe Schwarcz...check THIS out!!! .

Just thought I'd resolve Steve's diplomacy....and help him with his suspicions..."

Then you morons begin your chanted mantra of Alex Jones, and 'conspiracy theories'......

Just thought I's point that out, and back it up.

GfS

P.S. I swear, some political ideologues, as well as some 'religions' become a form of self imposed mental illness, complete with cognizant disabilities ...not to mention being generally 'rude' to go with it!!

27 Feb 16 - 06:02 PM (#3775398)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Rude? Rather indulgent if you ask me.

Tsk. Keep banging the rocks together.

27 Feb 16 - 06:06 PM (#3775399)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

"GfS, you should really check the source before posting the drivel that you copy/paste

Ditto, Alex.

28 Feb 16 - 12:49 AM (#3775434)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

What is this, a re-make of telling a lie enough...till people start to believe it???...none the less, it's bullshit!...keep shovelin'.
Do you get paid for this??

GfS

28 Feb 16 - 03:48 AM (#3775449)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Joe at Dizzyland

I can't make links on this tablet (no html brackets), but this Gallup poll report shows US religious denominations by state as of about ten years ago:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/12091/tracking-religious-affiliation-state-state
The only state with a majority Catholic population was Rhode Island, 52% Catholic. I've seen other polls that show there is no consistency in the "Catholic vote" in the US. I was brought up to think that a good Catholic could only vote Democratic, while other Catholics were brought up to think that good Catholics vote Republican.

I'm at the religious education congress put on every year by the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles - 40,000 people are here. I went to a workshop this afternoon where two transgender Catholics told their stories. The meeting room was packed to overflowing, and the audience was enthusiastically supportive of these young people. I'm sure this sort of support wouldn't fit the stereotype many of you have of Catholics. Yes, we have an angry, vocal minority who are obsessed with homosexuals and abortion, but they're not the whole story.

-Joe-

28 Feb 16 - 03:57 AM (#3775452)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

They may not be the whole story but they appear to be the official stance, even if you do convince yourself that a theocratic leadership cult can somehow be a democracy.

When your Pope allows you to express your views with a binding vote, come back to us eh? Meanwhile, ask him who is right, you or the dangerous nutters pushing delusion inspired blocks to public health measures. I'll give you a clue. He gives them dog collars but not you apparently.

You mean well Joe, but you come over as an apologist for wrongs we can actually see and suffer the effects of.

28 Feb 16 - 04:05 AM (#3775455)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

I think, Musket, that you and Jack and Steve and others see only a stereotype of the Catholic Church. You do not seem to be able to comprehend its diversity. Monolithic authoritarianism has been dead in the Catholic Church for a long, long time. Yes, you can find Catholic voices that match your stereotype, but they are the exception to the rule nowadays.

28 Feb 16 - 09:42 AM (#3775523)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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. State laws on sexuality, birth control and abortion often follow Catholic doctrine closely. You may well be seeing a soft-centred version of Catholicism among your articulate, middle-class neighbours, but that is most decidedly not how it is elsewhere. Take off those blinkers.

28 Feb 16 - 04:30 PM (#3775596)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Fair dos. With the other lot, I know a vicar who reckons the job isn't so much believing as giving others the chance to use belief to help them with their lives.

I reckon that even the CofE lot, he would be very much in the minority. 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.

Sorry to hear about Father Jack by the way. He made me laugh.

29 Feb 16 - 03:08 PM (#3775794)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Steve Shaw: "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. State laws on sexuality, birth control and abortion often follow Catholic doctrine closely. You may well be seeing a soft-centred version of Catholicism among your articulate, middle-class neighbours, but that is most decidedly not how it is elsewhere. Take off those blinkers."

So who is FORCING them to be Catholics??
...as opposed to those who want to FORCE people to be 'socialists'??

It's THEIR business, not yours, or mine.

GfS

29 Feb 16 - 03:14 PM (#3775798)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Possibly the same people who tell them they are Catholics and this is how Catholics do as they are told.

I'll say one thing for Goofus. His input encourages people to use less syllables in their posts.

29 Feb 16 - 03:32 PM (#3775803)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

Yeah, not unlike ideologues, eh??

GfS

29 Feb 16 - 07:31 PM (#3775846)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

To find out how people are controlled by iron fists and kept away from "undesirable" free-thinking influence, you could do worse than follow the Rob 'n' Helen saga in The Archers!

29 Feb 16 - 08:17 PM (#3775860)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I note that the number of states in the US with no abortion clinics has gone up to six. The vast majority of counties in the US have no clinic.

29 Feb 16 - 09:12 PM (#3775869)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

You can mostly credit the Republicraps and the "Christian"[sic] fundagelicals for that, Steve.

01 Mar 16 - 01:49 AM (#3775892)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

01 Mar 16 - 02:08 AM (#3775893)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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...

01 Mar 16 - 02:25 AM (#3775899)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

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

01 Mar 16 - 10:04 AM (#3776036)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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.

01 Mar 16 - 11:45 AM (#3776062)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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

01 Mar 16 - 12:38 PM (#3776076)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

01 Mar 16 - 09:19 PM (#3776158)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

01 Mar 16 - 09:32 PM (#3776159)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Or should that be clinics...

01 Mar 16 - 10:39 PM (#3776169)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stilly River Sage

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.

02 Mar 16 - 01:01 AM (#3776181)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Mar 16 - 02:05 AM (#3776190)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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.

02 Mar 16 - 03:01 AM (#3776198)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Mar 16 - 03:21 AM (#3776201)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Mar 16 - 03:23 AM (#3776203)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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...,.

02 Mar 16 - 03:31 AM (#3776208)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Mar 16 - 06:34 AM (#3776224)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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?

02 Mar 16 - 07:29 AM (#3776232)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jim Carroll

" 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

02 Mar 16 - 09:01 AM (#3776244)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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.

02 Mar 16 - 11:19 AM (#3776266)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

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.

02 Mar 16 - 11:25 AM (#3776268)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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.

02 Mar 16 - 01:04 PM (#3776289)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"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.

02 Mar 16 - 01:24 PM (#3776292)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

02 Mar 16 - 01:34 PM (#3776296)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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?

02 Mar 16 - 01:48 PM (#3776300)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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?

02 Mar 16 - 02:05 PM (#3776304)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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

02 Mar 16 - 02:07 PM (#3776305)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Ever since the little baby Jesus decided to wade in

02 Mar 16 - 02:17 PM (#3776307)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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...

02 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM (#3776308)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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

02 Mar 16 - 02:20 PM (#3776309)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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.

02 Mar 16 - 03:01 PM (#3776317)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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!

02 Mar 16 - 04:09 PM (#3776325)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

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

02 Mar 16 - 04:29 PM (#3776328)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: The Sandman

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

02 Mar 16 - 05:05 PM (#3776329)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

02 Mar 16 - 05:35 PM (#3776334)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

02 Mar 16 - 05:43 PM (#3776335)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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.

02 Mar 16 - 05:58 PM (#3776336)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

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

02 Mar 16 - 06:48 PM (#3776341)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Explain the difference.

Look it up, Goofus - do your own work.

02 Mar 16 - 06:50 PM (#3776343)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

02 Mar 16 - 06:53 PM (#3776345)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

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

02 Mar 16 - 07:17 PM (#3776352)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

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.

02 Mar 16 - 09:22 PM (#3776361)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

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.

02 Mar 16 - 11:29 PM (#3776370)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

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

03 Mar 16 - 01:25 AM (#3776385)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

03 Mar 16 - 02:21 AM (#3776389)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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.

03 Mar 16 - 02:24 AM (#3776390)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

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.

03 Mar 16 - 03:02 AM (#3776394)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

03 Mar 16 - 03:56 AM (#3776408)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

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.

03 Mar 16 - 05:00 AM (#3776418)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

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-

03 Mar 16 - 05:16 AM (#3776423)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

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

03 Mar 16 - 09:52 AM (#3776476)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"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.

03 Mar 16 - 10:35 AM (#3776488)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Meanwhile on an adjacent thread, Keith is telling us just about every Christian knows "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean that at all.

That is because it is true Musket.
Just about every Christian knows that the commandment refers to murder not killing, and now you know it too.
Anything else I can educate you about, just ask.

03 Mar 16 - 10:40 AM (#3776489)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

So a commandment that says Thou Shalt Not Kill doesn't refer to killing. That is what you've just said. Clear as mud then.

03 Mar 16 - 11:11 AM (#3776500)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

The commandment does not and never did say that Steve.
Any clearer?

03 Mar 16 - 11:27 AM (#3776502)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

They told me about the ten commandments at Sunday school. No one ever mentioned killing not meaning killing.

We never asked mind. Much more fun asking other questions.

03 Mar 16 - 11:30 AM (#3776503)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Just about every Christian knows

That's right, Professor, just like "LL historians" agree with you.

03 Mar 16 - 11:35 AM (#3776505)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

"LL historians"

Any relation to LL Bean?

03 Mar 16 - 11:36 AM (#3776506)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

There is a very good chance that it might apply to abortion though .....

03 Mar 16 - 11:46 AM (#3776510)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST

What about spiders?

03 Mar 16 - 11:51 AM (#3776514)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Stim

Well, Keith, I feel quite the fool. I have avoided killing for years because "Thou Shalt Not Kill" seemed, on the face of it, to be such a good idea, and now you tell me that's not what it means at all. Sad, really.

03 Mar 16 - 11:58 AM (#3776518)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

It's alright pete. Apparently, you can make the commandments mean whatever suits your purpose. Killing is allowed, it seems. There you go.

Here, you are a real Christian. Does it say "thou shalt not kill" or not?

By the way, it can't apply to abortion because safeguards are passed by elected governments in most countries, in the interest of the patient and circumstances, not the interest of the religious terrorists murdering staff and intimidating people.

As the catholic lot are deeply involved in South America, I have a question. When I was involved in regulating healthcare, we did a series of unannounced inspections of all termination of pregnancy premises registered in England over a week. The logistics meant most inspectors were busy, but we gave those who did not wish to be involved the opportunity to stand down. Three refused to take part citing their catholic creed states that life begins at conception. Of the three, I pointed out to two of them their obligations as registered nurses, (the third wasn't a healthcare professional.)

So... If, as Joe says, some Catholics are cool about termination of pregnancy, has the stance of life from conception been altered? When does Catholic life begin nowadays? Has Jesus ratified it?

🎼Every sperm is sacred

03 Mar 16 - 01:28 PM (#3776528)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Musket says: So... If, as Joe says, some Catholics are cool about termination of pregnancy, has the stance of life from conception been altered? When does Catholic life begin nowadays? Has Jesus ratified it?

You're still arguing from absolutes, Musket. Haven't you ever heard of the "lesser of two evils" concept? It goes back a long, long way in Catholic moral theology. If confronted with two bad choices, one takes the choice that does the least harm.

Catholic teaching is very clear that life begins at conception, and that the taking of a life is an objective evil. But when faced with an impossible situation, sometimes the "objective evil" is the correct moral choice.

-Joe Offer-

03 Mar 16 - 03:15 PM (#3776554)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" seemed, on the face of it, to be such a good idea, and now you tell me that's not what it means at all.

Think of it as liberating, Stim - get on out there and kill all them there abortion doctors and burn/bomb all them Planned Parentood womens' health clinics like the rest of the fundagelicals - if ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Now, dontcha feel better?

03 Mar 16 - 06:26 PM (#3776573)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

"Catholic teaching is very clear that life begins at conception, and that the taking of a life is an objective evil. But when faced with an impossible situation, sometimes the "objective evil" is the correct moral choice."

Well stop calling it an objective evil then. You call it an objective evil, the stance of an absolutist if ever I saw one, then guess what: you qualify it. No wonder Catholicism is so confused. Is abortion OK or not? Is contraception OK or not? What about sex before marriage, gay marriage, homosexuality, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation? The average Catholic can google any of those and find that the Church has an unbending authoritarian stance about all those things. You blokes who have spent eight years in seminaries may well have nuanced these matters, but the average Catholic is kept dangling. And that is exactly what your Church wants, that is exactly how your Church exerts power, by acquiescing in doubt and confusion. Finally, let's just analyse your stance on "life begins at conception." Now what you're doing here is taking your obstinate anti-abortion stance and extrapolating back in order to arrive at a definition of life that precisely fits your standpoint. Not honest, not real, not Christian. And kindly leave your morals out of it. We can all do morals, you know.

03 Mar 16 - 08:59 PM (#3776584)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Catholic teaching is very clear that life begins at conception

Only very recently - historically, that was not Catholic teaching at all.

04 Mar 16 - 02:27 AM (#3776594)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Makes you wonder how people contemplated the navel before we invented Jesus...

04 Mar 16 - 02:35 AM (#3776595)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Steve, you continue to insist moral principles must be dumbed down and stated in absolutes. I have a suspicion that you want them that way so you can refute them. The "objective evil" definition is a fairly clear and simple way of stating the Catholic opposition to abortion, whether or not you like that way of stating the principle. The "lesser of two evils" process is also quite simple and clear, as is the principle of primacy of conscience. When I was in school, we understood these things quite well in third grade, at the age of nine. It doesn't take a seminary education to understand. It's just basic decision making. The rule is more-or-less absolute, but the application depends on a wide variety of variables. That's how it is in real life.
And not that final principle - the individual's conscience is the final decider. So, if a woman firmly believes that abortion is the best thing she can do considering the circumstances, that getting an abortion is a morally correct decision for her.

But to make a correct moral decision, a person must be brutally honest in self-examination. You can't rationalize or play legalistic games.

You may not like this systematic method of making a moral decision, but nobody's forcing it on you. You can take it or leave it. It works for me - it's a simple, rational process that forces me to examine my reasons for doing things. And the final arbiter is not the Church, not the law, but the individual who is making the decision.

And it has been official Catholic teaching for a long, long time.

-Joe Offer-

04 Mar 16 - 02:57 AM (#3776598)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Joe sez: Catholic teaching is very clear that life begins at conception

Greg_F sez: Only very recently - historically, that was not Catholic teaching at all.

I suppose that may be true, Greg, but I'd like to see your documentation. Humans haven't understood the biological process of conception for very long, so it follows that the "life begins at conception" principle may not have been around all that long, either.

My opinion is, that life begins whenever people think it begins. It's an arbitrary thing. Certainly, there is the "stuff of life" in sperm cells and ova, but is that life? Is a zygote life - depends on one's perspective. Same thing for a fetus. There's little disagreement that a breathing, crying baby is life, but is it the beginning of life?

But is "when does life begin" the central question in determining the morality of abortion? Whether a zygote is life or a potential life, it is still something I consider to be of infinite value. But if there is no chance of this child having a humane life situation, is it moral to bring the child into the world?

I think it's a difficult question and that there are no easy answers - and I believe that is how it should be. The anti-abortionists and the pro-abortionists take an approach that is far too simplistic. I think people need to think long and hard about their decision to bring a child into the world - or not to. Responsible family planning is essential.

-Joe-

04 Mar 16 - 03:54 AM (#3776605)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

I am sorry that the commandment does not say what some of you think it says, but the original Hebrew is quite unequivocal.
The King James Bible mistranslated it, but few who are interested in their religion would be unaware of that fact.

04 Mar 16 - 03:55 AM (#3776606)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

OK, so I've answered Greg and Steve and I hope we find a cure for the Zika virus.

Now I want to talk about what I've been thinking about the last couple of days, stemming from this discussion.

A while back, SPB-Cooperator started a thread titled Trump, and this was the main part of the first post:

In light of one of your presidential candidates calling for increased and more intensive use of torture, why do you think as a country you have any right to participation on the world stage, and do you think you should be subjected to worldwide sanctions?

Get this: since one obnoxious person is a candidate for political office, the entire nation should be disqualified from participation on the world stage.

I think I'm in a similar predicament in this and so many others of the religion threads: I get shamed for being a Catholic, because other Catholics have done things that I agree are wrong.

I'll be the first to admit that Catholicism is a fucked-up religion. I've been saying that since the 1960s. A nun I know told a class of prospective converts that she didn't know why anybody would want to become a Catholic, because the Catholic Church is such a mess. And so it is.

It may be a mess, but it's my mess. I was born into it, and most of my family was Catholic going back for centuries. My dad and I are the only Catholics left in the family, but so be it. A lot of people shop around until they find a religion or whatnot that fits their expectations, and then they join it. If that works for them, that's fine. My wife was raised Catholic, but she doesn't find room for women in a male-dominated church - and I can't disagree with her on that. So, she participates in women's spirituality groups that practice a mixture of Native American, Celtic, and earth-based spiritualities. It works for her, so I respect her for that - and I find that her spirituality and mine are very compatible.

But for me, the Catholic Church is where I'm from. It's my home, where I feel most able to be who I am. To me, it's authentic (partially because it's such a mess), and authenticity is important to me. I suppose if somebody were coming into the Catholic Church new from the outside, they would be unlikely to question Catholic rules and teachings. If they didn't like the rules and teachings, why did they become Catholic? I admit I get annoyed at evangelicals who join the Catholic Church because they like our sacraments, but then keep acting and talking like evangelicals otherwise. But as for me, I've been asking questions and breaking the rules since I was a teenager - I was born into the Catholic Church, so it's my birthright. Members of a family should ask challenging questions about what goes on in the family - but it's generally impolite for outsiders to be asking those questions. For the most part, they should be questioning their own families. Condemning others rarely accomplishes anything good - it just causes animosity and gives the blamer a false sense of superiority.

So, I guess I'll just keep on belonging to my "cult," if that's what you think it is. And I'll keep asking questions and disobeying the rules, because that's my birthright. And while I agree that the Catholic Church is seriously fucked up, I won't apologize. It's my home, my family, and I like it there. It may not work for other people, but it works for me.

Musket may call my style of being Catholic, "boutique Catholicism," but I disagree. I think the boutique people are the ones who shop around for something that suits them. I'd rather take what I have and try to fix it. But to each his own.

-Joe-

04 Mar 16 - 05:33 AM (#3776616)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

So a particular action can be an objective evil (whatever that weird phrase means), but you can do it if it's not as bad as another evil - you decide - and you can follow your conscience. Well I remember all that classroom talk of conscience too, Joe Offer, and as I recall there are several types of conscience, and unless you have the correct type it isn't OK to circumvent your "objective evils." And making sure you have the correct conscience type is no piece of cake, I seem to remember. A priest might help you...

So the ordinary Catholic has all that to tussle with. On top of that, the ordinary Catholic pregnant woman has to face a large number of physical obstacles (no clinics nearby, expense, time delays, two doctors, compulsory scans or "counselling" - pick 'n' mix) as well as emotional obstacles (blinkered family members, priests, bigots outside clinics, not least her own dilemma). But your Church decides what she is contemplating to be an objective evil. That's as far as it goes. And you're pretending that it's a simple, rational choice with the Church allowing her to be the final arbiter. Well after all that emotional wrangling, let's hope she doesn't google the bit that I did that says you are excommunicated for having an abortion. An honest Church that officially opposes abortion but which allows the woman to be the final arbiter would work its socks off to oppose and remove those obstacles. But it doesn't. It connives in them. And you've just made a saint of a woman who told women having abortions that they were murderers and the greatest threat to world peace. If that's your idea of answering Steve, my idea is that you have a long way to go.

04 Mar 16 - 05:47 AM (#3776619)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I was born into the Catholic Church too, and I've never officially left. I'm a Catholic atheist. I'm counted in that billion of yours. There are probably more of us than there are true-blue, bums-on-pews Catholics. I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude "I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me." Something slightly unquestioning and incurious there. Most people of any religion are of that religion because they were born into it. Accident of birth is a wonderful thing.

04 Mar 16 - 01:29 PM (#3776635)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude "I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me."

Lots of people emigrate, Steve. I'd be interested in how seriously you considered doing so, or whether you had a slightly pathetic attitude *smile*

My father-in-law was born into "Chapel", became a Methodist, then an atheist for around a decade before finally becoming a Catholic. I assume you will applaud that. Or do you only applaud it if we exclude the last step?

04 Mar 16 - 02:02 PM (#3776639)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Jack Campin

Zika observed in the process of destroying developing brain cells:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35725744

Joe sez: Catholic teaching is very clear that life begins at conception
Greg_F sez: Only very recently - historically, that was not Catholic teaching at all.
I suppose that may be true, Greg, but I'd like to see your documentation.

Aquinas thought the soul entered the foetus at 40 days gestation for boys and 80 days for girls. He got the idea from Aristotle. It's somewhere in the Summa Theologiæ but not in the volumes I have.

That period is not relevant to the present issue, but it does show that Catholic doctrine on abortion can change.

04 Mar 16 - 02:52 PM (#3776649)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

Well I'd have had to wait 'til I was grown up to emigrate. In the meantime, life can't be put in hold. I have to mix with other kids, go to school and be looked after by my family. I have no alternative for at least the first sixteen or eighteen years to be dependent on people who make the decisions for me. If they emigrate, so do I. If they don't, neither do I. My ancestors were mostly immigrants. Many members of my family have emigrated, including my only brother. I wasn't one of them. There's an inertia about the place you live in that has something of a neutrality about it. I didn't stay here for ideological reasons. I stayed here because I gradually got tied up here in relationships, with children at school and in order to be close to my elderly parents. That's the unavoidability of the vicissitudes of life.

On the other hand, you are not born a "Catholic child". There is no such thing as a Catholic child, a Hindu child or a Muslim child. Those are disgusting concepts. Rational, fair-minded parents would not bring up children in a "faith" that the child can't understand. That is child abuse. The right thing to do would be, in the fullness of time, to explain religions and atheism to children and tell them that they have a free choice. I'd suggest the late teens at the earliest. That can't be the case if the child is baptised into a religion scarcely after the cord is cut. There are penalties for apostasy in some religions. You'll survive them if you're a demurring Catholic, but there's still that hellfire and those family pressures. It could be a lot worse for other religions.

04 Mar 16 - 03:27 PM (#3776655)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

I say that Catholicism is fucked up and Joe goes for my throat. Joe says it is fucked up and I want to pour him a glass of zin.

Funny old world.

I still see overtones and, with all due respect to Feargal Sharkey, undertones of criticising superstition is a sign of an alternative superstition. As I said, I'm positive in my mind that dumbing down rational thought to the level of sky pixies is a sign of intellectual embarrassment.

Then you get the likes of Keith who reckons that engaging in tradition is hypocrisy if you don't think there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. Mind you, considering it takes lack of thinking to believe such tosh, his assertion that nearly every Christian in the world knows that the King James Version got the commandments wrong is possibly the funniest thing I've read since the last edition of Viz.

Also rather telling that he picks on the commandment that criticises his fascination with toy soldiers....

04 Mar 16 - 06:23 PM (#3776687)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

Get this: since one obnoxious person is a candidate for political office...

Not quite, Joe - you're forgetting the millions of obnoxious and worse people that enthusiastically SUPPORT Trump and his bullshit.

Were it only Trump, there would not be a problem.

05 Mar 16 - 02:21 AM (#3776720)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

Thanks for the full response, Steve. I didn't expect it, though, because it was an answer to the direct question, and misses the point of the *smile*. So I will explain what was going through my mind when I did that.

If someone says ""I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me." you can have literally no idea whether they have never thought about it at all or whether they have been thinking about it hard their whole lives. A person who has never emigrated (like me) may never have seriously thought about it, or, again like me, they may have got as far as accepting a job in another a country and handed in their notice, only to be 'bribed' to stay by a promotion and big pay rise. You simply cannot know. Equally, you cannot know whether a person has never thought about leaving Catholicism (or any other religion) or has had seriously thought about it a long time but finds the alternatives worse. Such as my father in law, which is why he turned up in that post.

And that's why I find hearing "I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude..." tells me much more about the speaker than those they are speaking about.

05 Mar 16 - 03:23 AM (#3776730)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

Many congratulations to Jack Campin, by the way, for a valiant but clearly doomed attempt to get people posting about Zika.

05 Mar 16 - 04:08 AM (#3776746)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Steve Shaw sez: I actually find something slightly pathetic in the attitude "I was born into a thing, there are many other things I could have been born into, but this thing's the best for me." Something slightly unquestioning and incurious there. Most people of any religion are of that religion because they were born into it. Accident of birth is a wonderful thing.

I assume, Steve, that you were referring to my remark that I was born into the Catholic Church.

Except that you misquoted my conclusion. I said that since I was born into the Catholic Church, it was my birthright to challenge and question the church when I thought it was wrong. Indeed, I feel it is my obligation to challenge and question the Catholic Church, and I do so often. So, your distortion of what I said attempted to twist my words to the absolute opposite of what I actually said.

I find that pathetic.

-Joe Offer-

05 Mar 16 - 04:25 AM (#3776749)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

assertion that nearly every Christian in the world knows that the King James Version got the commandments wrong is possibly the funniest thing I've read since the last edition of Viz.

Also rather telling that he picks on the commandment that criticises his fascination with toy soldiers..

Most Christians are fully aware that killing can be justifiable and that the commandment only refers to murder.

I did not "pick" the commandment. That is the one that is mistranslated in KJ.
Sorry but it is, and that is an indisputable fact Musket.

05 Mar 16 - 04:53 AM (#3776753)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"it was my birthright"

It's everybody's birthright to question and challenge anything they want to. None of us get special privileges for being born into any creed; in fact we're not born into them, they are imposed upon us as children.

05 Mar 16 - 05:05 AM (#3776754)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

The Ten Commandments are stated in Exodus 20, and again in Deuteronomy 5. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) has "You shall not kill," and the New Revised Standard Version has "You shall not murder," with "kill" as an alternate text. When I was studying biblical Greek, I found that the RSV was usually very close to the original Greek text, and I would suspect it would also be close to the Hebrew.

I think most people don't make a big distinction between "murder" and "kill"; and to argue whether the translation should be one word or another, is splitting hairs.

Nowadays, churches are tending toward taking "thou shalt not kill" literally. The Catholic Church has mostly abandoned the "just war" theory, and is moving closer and closer toward total pacifism.

-Joe-

05 Mar 16 - 05:15 AM (#3776755)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

Stu, if you're an outsider, challenging and questioning have little impact. If you're born into a group, challenging and questioning can be very effective.
In addition, your view that creeds are imposed on children is but one perspective. It's valid if religion is solely an ideology - and I suppose that's the case for some people and some religions. But that perspective doesn't tell the whole story. I would submit that for most religious groups, what people believe is secondary to the concept of belonging to a community. I do not believe that an ideological perspective is primary for people other than Internet wonks.

-Joe-

05 Mar 16 - 05:40 AM (#3776758)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

It is evil to kill, unless only that it is to prevent a greater evil.

05 Mar 16 - 05:42 AM (#3776759)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Wot Joe said.

Or at least, the bit blowing out of the water any suggestion that the Ten Commandments say you can kill. Hard luck Keith. Nobody seems to agree with your "all Christians" nonsense. Seems that playing with toy soldiers pisses off St Peter after all.

On other matters, Joe may think it's his birthright to criticise but rational people are also allowed to criticise when it affects more than just those who conciously believe in it of their own free will. ie. The bloody supermarkets closing early on the one day many people can get out and shop. (He says, glossing over influencing governments to sustain bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, abuse etc)

05 Mar 16 - 05:53 AM (#3776764)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

"There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for "murder" and "killing." One means "to put to death," and the other means "to murder." The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact, ratsakh has a broader definition than the English word "murder." Ratsakh also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing killing during wartime. That is why most modern translations render the sixth commandment "You shall not murder" rather than "You shall not kill." However, a very large issue can arise depending on which translation one studies. The ever-popular King James Version renders the verse as "Thou shalt not kill," therefore opening the door to misinterpreting the verse altogether. If the intended meaning of "Thou shalt not kill" was just that—no killing—it would render all of the God-endorsed bloodletting done by the nation of Israel a violation of God's own commandment (Deuteronomy 20). But God does not break His own commandments, so, clearly, the verse does not call for a complete moratorium on the taking of another human life."
http://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html

05 Mar 16 - 06:56 AM (#3776773)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

Joe, I don't agree that an outsider challenging has little impact. If all questioning of dogma was left to those with a vested interest there is always a danger of bias. By challenging from without attention can be focussed on subjects that might otherwise be ignored.

I don't disagree with people wanting to belong to a community (it's why we're all here to a degree), but when we're born we free of prejudices and opinions, a blank canvas which family, society and culture all have a chance to colour and mark. We are constructs in this sense, and how we react to being formed by these factors is what makes each of us who we are.

Also, the decisions of many religious people affect the lives of all of us in secular society too, and that means everyone should have a say, and be listened to.

05 Mar 16 - 10:50 AM (#3776800)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Err... So Israel's bloodletting is OK is it?

This gets better

So which do you prefer then Keith? The bible that shaped our culture for a few hundred years that frowns upon killing or the older one that reckons you can kill with gay abandon, especially in the name of Israel?

05 Mar 16 - 10:57 AM (#3776801)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Oh, and God ENDORSED killing in the name of a nation???

Are you sure you want to spend tomorrow morning praying to the evil bastard? Or is your source talking bollocks? He doesn't break his own commandments either? So who knows this? Did they take cameras when they interviewed him?

If you are going to give form to a fantasy to interpret a moral code, you seem to be rather desperate to my mind.

Although your funniest bit is in saying nearly all Christians know the bible is wrong. Kind of defeats the object doesn't it? Real Christians look up from the KJV and say "this is the word of the Lord."

Starting your own religion Keith?

05 Mar 16 - 11:18 AM (#3776806)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

or the older one that reckons you can kill with gay abandon,

It does not. That would be murder. It forbids any murder.

Although your funniest bit is in saying nearly all Christians know the bible is wrong.

That mistranslation is well known and recognised. I stand by the statement.

Real Christians look up from the KJV and say "this is the word of the Lord."

They say that whichever version is used.
(Only after a Gospel reading actually)

05 Mar 16 - 11:30 AM (#3776810)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

I correct my last statement.
CofE

"At the end the reader may say

This is the word of the Lord."

05 Mar 16 - 01:16 PM (#3776832)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Greg F.

God ENDORSED killing in the name of a nation???

Absolutely! Have you forgotten that God GAVE them the land, full stop?

05 Mar 16 - 03:44 PM (#3776859)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

You might well have a problem with God commanding the thrusting out or destruction of the Canaanites , but keith was clearly using that as an example that the commandment in the Decalogue did not include legitimate warfare deaths. Btw that was for a time and purpose , which would be known to any serious bible student, and is not a permission for the current stae of Israel to commit any (alleged) atrocities against Palestinians. The bible teaches that the Canaanites were so depraved and that God gave them time , that eventually destruction of them was vital , just as cutting off a cancerous growth might be. It is still an ugly business , but for Christians we believe in a God of justice as well as being a God of love. Not nice, but neither is sin and depravity , but I don't expect anti theists to entertain that concept.

06 Mar 16 - 02:01 AM (#3776917)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Err.. Why are you defensively using the term "anti theists" to describe those of us who are merely asking questions and putting forward a given fact that the bible in my local church will say, if I were to check, thou shalt not kill.

To question is not to oppose. I oppose being preached at by hypocrites if it helps. But with pete now picking and choosing rather than supporting scripture, I have run out of real Christians to debate with.

Conclusion? Seems I'm right, which is disturbing in a funny way. It's self serving bollocks, so stop using it as a tool for suppressing others. (The thread subject eh?)

Oh and Joe, tell your lot to stop trying to steal treasures from the people of Naples. You have enough gilded effigies in The Vatican as it is.

06 Mar 16 - 02:17 AM (#3776919)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

(The thread subject eh?

Yep.

06 Mar 16 - 03:06 AM (#3776929)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Joe Offer

It doesn't have anything to do with Zikas and mosquitoes, but Musket piqued my curiosity with this: Oh and Joe, tell your lot to stop trying to steal treasures from the people of Naples. You have enough gilded effigies in The Vatican as it is.

Didn't hear the story about Naples, Musket. Do tell.
A link would be helpful, too.
But gee, we kinda thought we were doing the world a service by preserving and displaying that art for all to see, instead of selling it off to private collectors who would hide it away.

-Joe-

06 Mar 16 - 03:57 AM (#3776935)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

I know it is off thread, but I've been looking at the Naples treasures reports. They all seem minor rehashes of the same report. It is interesting that, for example, the heading of the Guardian versions says the Catholic church IS trying to take them and then the subheading immediately backtracks and says the story really is locals fear it MIGHT try. And it is all triggered by the actions of 'a decree' by the (secular) minister of the interior, but is what is this decree? I can't find it. Is it about who has rights to challenge ownership of artworks in general and about neither the Catholic Church nor this treasure specifically? I can't find out. And the strongest evidence that the church is involved at all? They have tried to take possession a few times in the last couple of centuries.

It is always worth reading past headlines.

06 Mar 16 - 06:00 AM (#3776952)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Yeah, reading between and beyond the headlines.

The Vatican finances being at the level of prosecuting whistleblowers, they probably need the collateral.

Tell you what DMcG, here's my fiver that says they take control of it before the end of the year.

Joe. Yes, it is pretty to look at. But rather than stare at it, think what they could do for the less fortunate if they stopped hoarding and started using the value of it for the good of people. A bit like the Jesus character tells you to.

Ireland and Malta. Two places I have noticed how ragged arsed the children are in villages with magnificent gilded madonnas and collecting plates.

06 Mar 16 - 06:13 AM (#3776954)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: DMcG

I'll set an alarm clock reminder!

06 Mar 16 - 07:51 AM (#3776962)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

Don't be so touchy musket. I don't know if you are so much as an anti theist as a complete wind up . I suspect more the latter , since a committed anti theist would not be likely to see the value of hospital chaplains.

06 Mar 16 - 08:22 AM (#3776968)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"but for Christians we believe in a God of justice as well as being a God of love"

He's a card, that's for sure.

06 Mar 16 - 10:40 AM (#3776990)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

An anti theist would not marry and seek to remarry in church, and have all his children baptised into the church, would he?

07 Mar 16 - 04:33 AM (#3777088)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link

You seem to have missed the point of my comment , musket , but as you seem to a wind up merchant , I won't bother trying to explain.

07 Mar 16 - 09:42 AM (#3777128)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Most people I have met who have been committed tend to be committed under a certain act of Parliament in 1983.

No, you said that anyone who supports the concept of chaplaincy in hospitals cannot be "anti theist." What did I miss when I answered such a stupid notion?

07 Mar 16 - 10:24 AM (#3777144)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

CofE Christening

        The candidates may be presented to the congregation. Where appropriate, they may be presented by their godparents or sponsors.

                 The president asks those candidates for baptism who are able to answer for themselves

                 Do you wish to be baptized?
                 I do.

                 Testimony by the candidate(s) may follow.

                 The president addresses the whole congregation

                 Faith is the gift of God to his people.
                 In baptism the Lord is adding to our number
                     those whom he is calling.
                 People of God, will you welcome these children/candidates
                     and uphold them in their new life in Christ?
All
        With the help of God, we will.

                 At the baptism of children, the president then says to the parents and godparents

                 Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
                 Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
                 Will you pray for them,
                 draw them by your example into the community of faith
                 and walk with them in the way of Christ?
                 With the help of God, we will.

                 In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
                 You speak for them today.
                 Will you care for them,
                 and help them to take their place
                 within the life and worship of Christ's Church?
                 With the help of God, we will.

                 The Decision

                 A large candle may be lit. The president addresses the candidates directly, or through their parents, godparents and sponsors

                 In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
                 To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him.
                 Therefore I ask:

                 Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
                 I reject them.

                 Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
                 I renounce them.

                 Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
                 I repent of them.

                 Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
                 I turn to Christ.

                 Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
                 I submit to Christ.

                 Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
                 I come to Christ.

                 Where there are strong pastoral reasons, the alternative form of the Decision may be used.

                 Signing with the Cross

                 The president or another minister makes the sign of the cross on the forehead of each candidate, saying

                 Christ claims you for his own.
                 Receive the sign of his cross.

                 The president may invite parents, godparents and sponsors to sign the candidates with the cross. When all the candidates have been signed, the president says

                 Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.
All
        Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ
                 against sin, the world and the devil,
                 and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.

                 May almighty God deliver you from the powers of darkness,
                 restore in you the image of his glory,
                 and lead you in the light and obedience of Christ.
All
        Amen.

07 Mar 16 - 10:36 AM (#3777149)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

Yeah, and when you throw salt over your shoulder it brings you good luck.

What's your point Keith?

Are you seriously saying people actually listen to and take the words seriously? It isn't just the few hundred thousand who go to church who get their kids christened you know. Granted, these days few do. My granddaughter isn't whilst my brother in law, who believes in all that (for professional reasons as well) has the insight to not have us as god parents for his kids as he does take it seriously, so wants real god parents as per the script.

I like the bit in your post saying "do not be ashamed to confess the faith etc". Seems a bit guarded and presumptuous eh?

Anyway, thanks for giving the detail to the mumbo jumbo I referred to. It describes it beautifully.

Do you "fight valiantly against the world"? Is it something to do with lining up toy soldiers? No wonder you can't accept the Christian commandment "thou shalt not kill." I bet real Christians don't mealy mouthed claim it doesn't say that.

07 Mar 16 - 11:58 AM (#3777164)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Stu

"against sin, the world and the devil,"

The world? What does this mean?

07 Mar 16 - 01:19 PM (#3777183)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: akenaton

"Worldly" as opposed to "spiritual" I presume.

As an Atheist, I think there is too much "worldliness" and too little "spirituality" in modern society.

Instant personal gratification abounds.

07 Mar 16 - 08:45 PM (#3777266)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

I'll swear it was the devil, the world and the flesh when I were a little lad. Rule that lot out and there's not much left.

08 Mar 16 - 05:14 AM (#3777323)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Keith A of Hertford

Musket,
I didn't have my children baptised into the church.

" At the baptism of children, the president then says to the parents and godparents
Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy."

"In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
                You speak for them today.
                Will you care for them,
                and help them to take their place
                within the life and worship of Christ's Church?

                With the help of God, we will."

08 Mar 16 - 07:45 AM (#3777358)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: Steve Shaw

In the immortal words of Beethoven, oh man, help yourself.

08 Mar 16 - 01:43 PM (#3777424)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link

Seems that the defence of musket as regards parents mouthing promises they have no intention of keeping , is that most parents have no intention of meaning it. Therefore it is not hypocritical !. I suppose in fairness there are vicars that know that some parents have no intention ,and so share the blame. But there seems little doubt that the promises made by parents are supposed to be taken seriously.

09 Mar 16 - 12:59 AM (#3777542)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity

"In the immortal words of Beethoven, oh man, help yourself."

Was he listening to a harmonica player??.....maybe an accordion??...

GfS

09 Mar 16 - 03:58 AM (#3777565)
Subject: RE: BS: Zika vs anti-abortion cults
From: GUEST,Musket

To take them seriously implies believing in invisible friends and medieval superstition. Most people are too worldly wise, intelligent and rational for that, so churches should perhaps accept the income and accept their role is no different to Morris dancing in terms of what it actually means?

We have 24/7 TV and Internet so we don't need the distraction of church. We have fertilisers and cow shit so we don't need fertility dancing.

Yet both are part of the tapestry of our country and its heritage. Neither are relevant to society in real terms but some people live for their hobbies. Good luck to them but please don't assume I will be attaching bells to my legs any time soon.