PDA

View Full Version : Nuns on a bus



John Smith
06-14-2012, 06:37 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/nuns-on-the-bus-take-on-paul-ryan/2012/06/11/gJQAS3RdUV_blog.html

This campaign is getting very interesting in some unexpected ways.

Nicholas Scheuer
06-14-2012, 12:13 PM
I agree completely with Campbell, especially her view that the Obama Administration's position is "elegant".

Sam F
06-14-2012, 12:48 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/nuns-on-the-bus-take-on-paul-ryan/2012/06/11/gJQAS3RdUV_blog.html

This campaign is getting very interesting in some unexpected ways.

Nah. It's entirely expected that Pravda on the Potomac would feature radical nuns. What else could they do?
The article states: "The more-than-capacity crowd of 200-plus at St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Charlotte gathered Saturday to hear Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, a Washington-based social-justice lobby."
200 + people showed up - no data on how many actually approved - but let's assume incorrectly that all of them did. Curiously, my wife and daughter attended a protest against the Obama administration's attack on religious liberty with many more people that that - all of whom oppose ObameCare - and the Post didn't mention it at all.
Humm...

Meanwhile, the "Big Three Networks", like the Post, have featured many stories on what is basically a religious fringe group.

ABC, CBS, and NBC stayed true to their liberal slant and ignored the 164 rallies across the United States on Friday against the federal government's abortifacient/birth control mandate under ObamaCare... the tens of thousands of pro-religious freedom activists who attended the rallies.

By contrast, CBS played up the supporters of a group of left-leaning Catholic nuns during four on-air segments between May 30 and June 1, 2012. Correspondent Wyatt Andrews hyped how "hundreds of Catholics have rallied behind the sisters," and that "protests in support of the nuns have been held in almost 50 cities."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/06/11/big-three-ignore-religious-freedom-rallies-cbs-played-dissenting-cath#ixzz1xn5PocXn


Yep, the whole thing is entirely predictable and expected.

wardd
06-14-2012, 01:36 PM
Nah. It's entirely expected that Pravda on the Potomac would feature radical nuns. What else could they do?
The article states: "The more-than-capacity crowd of 200-plus at St. Peter’s Catholic Church in Charlotte gathered Saturday to hear Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, a Washington-based social-justice lobby."
200 + people showed up - no data on how many actually approved - but let's assume incorrectly that all of them did. Curiously, my wife and daughter attended a protest against the Obama administration's attack on religious liberty with many more people that that - all of whom oppose ObameCare - and the Post didn't mention it at all.
Humm...

Meanwhile, the "Big Three Networks", like the Post, have featured many stories on what is basically a religious fringe group.


Yep, the whole thing is entirely predictable and expected.

i'm glad my thinking is way more rational than this

tigerregis
06-14-2012, 01:45 PM
SamF, "elegant answer on your part". Since Pravda means truth in Russian, I take it you have seen the light on the road to Democracy.

Sam F
06-14-2012, 03:51 PM
SamF, "elegant answer on your part". Since Pravda means truth in Russian, I take it you have seen the light on the road to Democracy.

No doubt you understand the Russian joke: "There is no Pravda in Izvestiya and there is no Izvestiya in Pravda",

BTW, I wouldn't look on being named "Pravda", one of the main propaganda organs of Russian communism, as a good thing. No one except an unthinking socialist would ever do such a thing. I of course have seen the light vis-a-vis democracy and it doesn't include propaganda for the almighty state.

John of Phoenix
06-14-2012, 04:04 PM
Sam just can't understand why no one wants to follow him back to the Dark Ages. Go figure.

Sam F
06-15-2012, 09:03 AM
Sam just can't understand why no one wants to follow him back to the Dark Ages. Go figure.

I can understand that - 'cause I'm not going "back to the dark ages" either.
That fact leaves you with a teeny problem, doesn't it? :D

Peerie Maa
06-15-2012, 09:18 AM
I can understand that - 'cause I'm not going "back to the dark ages" either.
That fact leaves you with a teeny problem, doesn't it? :D
With the exception of computers, mobile phones, etc, etc, Sam wants the absolute certainty of the dark ages.
No abortion (unless it is with some old woman up a back alley after dark), and so on.

Sam F
06-15-2012, 09:20 AM
And BTW, my observation of MSM (mainstream media) bias (i.e. propaganda) is merely factual.

Now it might be different for ya'll, but I prefer honesty over lying in the news.
F'rinstance, Pravda on the Potomac printed an article - a 718 word one - on how lousy the economy was doing up to 2010 and not once did the word "Obama" appear in it. No doubt that's just an oversight. ;)

Sam F
06-15-2012, 09:27 AM
Speaking of nuns, one wonders why Pravda on the Potomac chose to highlight dissenting nuns (in 2009 the average median age of nuns and sisters in LCWR is 74) but didn't mention the fastest growing convent in the US - the orthodox Dominican Sisters of Mary (average age 28). That's where the future is - and it's not in 1960's.

Gerarddm
06-15-2012, 09:42 AM
But the RCC Isn't in the 1960s,even. More like the 1460s.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-15-2012, 09:46 AM
Sam's taking no prisoners as usual. Gotta' be a daunting task being the Sword of the Lord. And on that highway of iniquity, the internet, no less.

Peerie Maa
06-15-2012, 09:49 AM
And BTW, my observation of MSM (mainstream media) bias (i.e. propaganda) is merely factual.

Now it might be different for ya'll, but I prefer honesty over lying in the news.
F'rinstance, Pravda on the Potomac printed an article - a 718 word one - on how lousy the economy was doing up to 2010 and not once did the word "Obama" appear in it. No doubt that's just an oversight. ;)
Probably because there is so much inertia and influences from outside your borders that it might take all of one or two terms to make any changes. Hell, even deregulating the finance markets takes ten years or more before they really screw up the economy.

John Smith
06-15-2012, 10:04 AM
Sam just can't understand why no one wants to follow him back to the Dark Ages. Go figure.

Actually, he seems to be part of a larger group than we'd like to think.

John Smith
06-15-2012, 10:06 AM
With the exception of computers, mobile phones, etc, etc, Sam wants the absolute certainty of the dark ages.
No abortion (unless it is with some old woman up a back alley after dark), and so on.

One of the things in life that puzzles me is how so many believe that making something illegal makes it go away. Maybe we should make drugs illegal, so they'd go away.

John Smith
06-15-2012, 10:07 AM
And BTW, my observation of MSM (mainstream media) bias (i.e. propaganda) is merely factual.

Now it might be different for ya'll, but I prefer honesty over lying in the news.
F'rinstance, Pravda on the Potomac printed an article - a 718 word one - on how lousy the economy was doing up to 2010 and not once did the word "Obama" appear in it. No doubt that's just an oversight. ;)

What, exactly, has Obama done that's made the economy worse than it would have been if he had not have done them?

Sam F
06-15-2012, 10:30 AM
One of the things in life that puzzles me is how so many believe that making something illegal makes it go away. Maybe we should make drugs illegal, so they'd go away.


What puzzles me is that anyone could believe that anyone else would believe that making something illegal makes it go away.

Sam F
06-15-2012, 10:34 AM
What, exactly, has Obama done that's made the economy worse than it would have been if he had not have done them?

Don't know - Pravda on the Potomac didn't inform me.
Curiously, the dismal science used to be called "Political Economy" and was called that for a good reason: politics and economics are inextricably bound together.
Even more curiously, why would someone (Pravda) believe that the President's policies would have absolutely no effect on the economy and thus merit no mention?
Such a notion is bizarrely blind to the facts of economics.

Sam F
06-15-2012, 10:36 AM
But then blindness to facts seems to be indicated with Leftest politics. For example:

Study Shows Homosexual Parenting Not Equal to Heterosexual Marriage
By Wendy Wright and Lisa Correnti
WASHINGTON, DC, June 15 (C-FAM) A groundbreaking study reveals that adult children of homosexual and lesbian parents experience far greater negative social, economic and emotional outcomes than children raised within intact biological families.

The quality of University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus’ study highlights the deficiencies of previous studies that homosexual advocates have relied on to grant same-sex couples a right to marry and adopt children.

"The empirical claim that no notable differences exist must go," said Regnerus in his study published in Social Science Research.

Regnerus’ comprehensive study examines nearly 3,000 adult children from eight different family structures and evaluates them within 40 social and emotional categories. The results reveal that children who remain with intact biological families were better educated, experienced greater mental and physical health, less drug experimentation, less criminal activity and reported overall higher levels of happiness.

The greatest negative outcomes were found among children of lesbian mothers. This contradicts defective studies popularized by the media claiming children fare as well, or better, with lesbian mothers. Regnerus’ study showed negative outcomes for these adult children in 25 of 40 categories including far higher rates of sexual assault (23% of children with lesbian mothers were touched sexually by a parent or adult, in contrast to 2% raised by married parents), poorer physical health, increased depression, increased marijuana use and higher unemployment (69% of children from lesbian households were on welfare, compared to 17% of those with married parents)...
http://www.c-fam.org/fridayfax/volume-15/study-shows-homosexual-parenting-not-equal-to-heterosexual-marriage.html

Shut your eyes! DON'T READ!!!!

stumpbumper
06-15-2012, 10:56 AM
Her group made the Vatican’s list for allegedly placing too much emphasis on issues of economic inequality and not enough on abortion and same-sex marriage

So economic inequality is no longer important to the Vatican, or apparently Sam F either. Nope, sorry all we are going to talk about is abortion and same- sex marriages.

stumpbumper
06-15-2012, 11:08 AM
She quoted Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical on ethics and the economy,
“Charity in Truth” – a reminder of the Catholic commitment to justice — and said that finding that common ground means reclaiming the full spectrum of life issues to include hunger, homelessness, racism, immigration, capital punishment, war and more. “I am pro-life, all of life.”

Nope, sorry Holy Father. These social justice issues just don't fit into our political agenda.

wardd
06-15-2012, 12:44 PM
And BTW, my observation of MSM (mainstream media) bias (i.e. propaganda) is merely factual.

Now it might be different for ya'll, but I prefer honesty over lying in the news.
F'rinstance, Pravda on the Potomac printed an article - a 718 word one - on how lousy the economy was doing up to 2010 and not once did the word "Obama" appear in it. No doubt that's just an oversight. ;)

did obama crash the economy?

wardd
06-15-2012, 12:46 PM
But then blindness to facts seems to be indicated with Leftest politics. For example:


Shut your eyes! DON'T READ!!!!

that study is in dispute but you don't want to know that

Sam F
06-15-2012, 05:47 PM
that study is in dispute but you don't want to know that

Of course its in dispute.
How could it not be disputed? And so what if it is? Like that's news?
And why did you think I wouldn't know it?
Really how silly can you get?

Sam F
06-15-2012, 05:49 PM
Her group made the Vatican’s list for allegedly placing too much emphasis on issues of economic inequality and not enough on abortion and same-sex marriage


So economic inequality is no longer important to the Vatican, or apparently Sam F either. Nope, sorry all we are going to talk about is abortion and same- sex marriages.

You ought to read your own quoted source more carefully. "too much" and "not enough" does not equal "no longer important".
Try again.

wardd
06-15-2012, 06:00 PM
Her group made the Vatican’s list for allegedly placing too much emphasis on issues of economic inequality and not enough on abortion and same-sex marriage



You ought to read your own quoted source more carefully. "too much" and "not enough" does not equal "no longer important".
Try again.

seems you can't be good cathloic unless you toe the vatican line

stumpbumper
06-15-2012, 06:36 PM
Her group made the Vatican’s list for allegedly placing too much emphasis on issues of economic inequality and not enough on abortion and same-sex marriage



You ought to read your own quoted source more carefully. "too much" and "not enough" does not equal "no longer important".
Try again.

So you definitely wouldn't want too much emphasis on economic equality? That says "no longer important" to me.

Sam F
06-15-2012, 07:13 PM
So you definitely wouldn't want too much emphasis on economic equality? That says "no longer important" to me.

I take it you're not a native English speaker.

As in... "I don't want you to spend too much money on gasoline."
Like getting to work is no longer important.
Of course it's not.
It merely means balance, not too much of one thing to the exclusion of something else important.

tigerregis
06-15-2012, 07:21 PM
OK boys, that's enough. SamF has acquired enough points to pass onto step two in the Opus Dei school of systematic theocracy.

Sam F
06-15-2012, 07:51 PM
seems you can't be good cathloic unless you toe the vatican line

I'm not a "cathloic".
But assuming you meant Catholic, yes it is important to agree with the Church's teaching. What the "vatican line" is, I have no idea.

Maybe I can help with your confusion. Suppose you call yourself a Democrat. And also suppose you never vote for Democrats, and instead always vote for Republicans. Would you then legitimately be able to call yourself a good Democrat?
Only when hypocrisy and/or delusional behavior become good things. ;)

Got it now?

Sam F
06-15-2012, 07:52 PM
OK boys, that's enough. SamF has acquired enough points to pass onto step two in the Opus Dei...

Sorry. Not a member.


...school of systematic theocracy.

No such school. Besides that, theocracy is a lousy form of government.

Sam F
06-15-2012, 07:53 PM
Come on lads! Haven't you got anything except fallacy, ignorance, and stereotyping?
Anything?

Sam F
06-15-2012, 08:02 PM
Ya'll know that you're either on the bus or you're off the bus - right?
Well, a prominent liberal nun just got off the bus:
Turns out that Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, who was a key ally in ObamaCare has changed her mind. Or at least her organization has changed it's collective mind...

In a letter to the federal Health and Human Services department, the hospital group said the compromise initially seemed to be “a good first step” but that examination of the details proved disappointing. The plan would be “unduly cumbersome” to carry out and “unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns” of all its members, the group said.
But wait, it gets worse...

The Definition of “Religious Employer” must be Broadened to Cover All Ministries of the Church. (“The most effective way to achieve the [gov't stated goal of protecting religious organizations] would be to actually exempt objecting religious organizations from the mandate by expanding the definition of religious employer to include them…”)

Geeze, where's your anti-religious tyranny going when one of the most liberal Catholics out there gives you the heave ho?
Maybe the lawsuits filed against the Obama administration in 12 jurisdictions by 43 Catholic entities (including Notre Dame University) might have something to do with it too. ;)

Naturally, I was never on the bus, but I think it's time for you to get off this one. Unless you just like losing.

wardd
06-15-2012, 09:19 PM
I'm not a "cathloic".
But assuming you meant Catholic, yes it is important to agree with the Church's teaching. What the "vatican line" is, I have no idea.

Maybe I can help with your confusion. Suppose you call yourself a Democrat. And also suppose you never vote for Democrats, and instead always vote for Republicans. Would you then legitimately be able to call yourself a good Democrat?
Only when hypocrisy and/or delusional behavior become good things. ;)

Got it now?

i'ma liberal but i don't always agree with other liberals

blind faith to me is as silly as it gets

wardd
06-15-2012, 09:23 PM
Ya'll know that you're either on the bus or you're off the bus - right?
Well, a prominent liberal nun just got off the bus:
Turns out that Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, who was a key ally in ObamaCare has changed her mind. Or at least her organization has changed it's collective mind...

But wait, it gets worse...


Geeze, where's your anti-religious tyranny going when one of the most liberal Catholics out there gives you the heave ho?
Maybe the lawsuits filed against the Obama administration in 12 jurisdictions by 43 Catholic entities (including Notre Dame University) might have something to do with it too. ;)

Naturally, I was never on the bus, but I think it's time for you to get off this one. Unless you just like losing.


i think being a nun is silly, so i'm not going to pay much attention to one

nuns have to be poor while priests can be rich

Sam F
06-16-2012, 07:47 AM
i'ma liberal but i don't always agree with other liberals

So?
Nobody said you had to agree with everything - just the essentials.
To that end what part(s) of Liberalism do you disagree with? Why?


blind faith to me is as silly as it gets

There you go again! Stop stereotyping - it not only looks stupid, it is stupid.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:29 AM
I think this cartoon from the Independent a week or so ago just sums it all up.

Well, not very well. That's the problem with cartoon-based "reasoning". After all, the Pope doesn't have nearly the baggage any government has - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, assassinations - just to name a few for the US. How much taxpayer-funded blood flowed from those little adventures? England has a few little sins of their own too - including Iraq & Afghanistan.


No matter what they do there are a few things that just keep following these guys around.

Naturally.


The whole rape and abuse scandal for one of course.

The Church has cleaned that up (largely by keeping homosexuals out of the priesthood - hey don't whine, it has worked) and no place is safer for children in the US. That doesn't excuse past abuses, but it is nevertheless a good thing. Past abuse is of course inexcusable and must never be forgiven - right? And of course no credit is given for eliminating the problem either.

In complete contrast, the US hasn't even tried to clean up its act:
"Sexual abuse in the U.S. military - In the United States, the military rapes of uniformed women is currently at 33%."

http://digitaljournal.com/article/321179#ixzz1xxbkrbxR

Then there is the male rape "problem"...


.... dismissing such brutality can produce more victims. Twenty-two years ago, Jamey Michael Harding, then a baby-faced 17-year-old enlistee, says he was raped repeatedly by a drill sergeant at basic training. He attempted to report his assault, but his complaint was ignored, he says. The sergeant stayed in the armed forces, ultimately retiring as a decorated officer. Almost two decades later, the man whom Harding says raped him was arrested for raping multiple underage cadets at a junior ROTC program. He pleaded guilty to lewd and lascivious acts on a child and is now in prison.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secret-shame.html


I could quote more... but I'd end up banned.

But hey, that's not a problem for any state-sponsored institutions, so let's blame the Church - right?


Th[e] abortion nightmare.

It sure is. Just ask these women... http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

My abortion happened 16 years ago. I was dating a guy that I loved very much. We were in an on again, off again relationship for 4 years. Just before my abortion, we had a fight and broke up – for good. A couple weeks later, I found out that I was pregnant. When I told him that I was pregnant, he said that he wanted me to have an abortion because he didn’t think I would be a good mother. Also, he said I was a big baby and challenged me to finally be a woman. I really never thought he would want me to go through with it. I found out that he was dealing drugs and I wanted him out of my life, so I chose to follow through with his plan. He paid for my abortion with his drug money...
the abortionist said, "It’s done". He put away his tools and left the room. From that moment on I have REGRETTED MY ABORTION!! I just wanted to run, to die…I was ANGRY! After the nurse left the room, I started to cry. A part of me died in that room. I knew what I did was wrong. The "IT" he was referring to was MY BABY!
Awfully generous for him to have paid for the abortion with his drug money. Classy, isn't it?



The stupidity about condoms in the Third world struggling with Aids.

Curiously your view (the view you accept on blind faith) is not fact-based.


Harvard Researcher agrees with Pope on condoms in Africa
Senior Harvard Research Scientist for AIDS Prevention, Dr. Edward Green, who is the author of five books, including “Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning from Successes in Developing Countries” discussed his support for Pope Benedict XVI’s comments with CNA.

According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.” ...
“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said...
the two countries that have the highest infection rate of AIDS in the world, Botswana and Swaziland, have recently launched campaigns to promote fidelity and monogamy, the Harvard researcher said. These countries “have learned the hard way” about the failure of condoms in preventing AIDS, he said, noting that “Botswana has probably had more condom promotion” than any other county on a per capita basis.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_ africa/

Oh well, let's not let the facts stand in the way. Blind faith works better doesn't it? Instead, keep up the fantasy that condoms work - and blame the Church. It's so convenient not to have to, you know, think.


And now their attempts to suppress the women of the Church in the US.

Pure unadulterated ignorance. Or maybe you can explain how the fastest growing convents in the US are orthodox (i.e. in agreement with the Church) while the dissenters are now dying out due to an inability to attract new members.
Maybe, just maybe, you'll let actual women decide for themselves and honor what they want for a change?


The sad thing is... ... pretty much everything in your post. Obviously.

wardd
06-16-2012, 08:34 AM
So?
Nobody said you had to agree with everything - just the essentials.
To that end what part(s) of Liberalism do you disagree with? Why?



There you go again! Stop stereotyping - it not only looks stupid, it is stupid.

but if the church demands blind faith, then my statement stands

wardd
06-16-2012, 08:36 AM
Well, not very well. That's the problem with cartoon-based "reasoning". After all, the Pope doesn't have nearly the baggage any government has - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, assassinations - just to name a few for the US. How much taxpayer-funded blood flowed from those little adventures? England has a few little sins of their own too - including Iraq & Afghanistan.



Naturally.



The Church has cleaned that up (largely by keeping homosexuals out of the priesthood - hey don't whine, it has worked) and no place is safer for children in the US. That doesn't excuse past abuses, but it is nevertheless a good thing. Past abuse is of course inexcusable and must never be forgiven - right? And of course no credit is given for eliminating the problem either.

In complete contrast, the US hasn't even tried to clean up its act:
"Sexual abuse in the U.S. military - In the United States, the military rapes of uniformed women is currently at 33%."

http://digitaljournal.com/article/321179#ixzz1xxbkrbxR

Then there is the male rape "problem"...



I could quote more... but I'd end up banned.

But hey, that's not a problem for any state-sponsored institutions, so let's blame the Church - right?



It sure is. Just ask these women... http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

Awfully generous for him to have paid for the abortion with his drug money. Classy, isn't it?




Curiously your view (the view you accept on blind faith) is not fact-based.


Oh well, let's not let the facts stand in the way. Blind faith works better doesn't it? Instead, keep up the fantasy that condoms work - and blame the Church. It's so convenient not to have to, you know, think.



Pure unadulterated ignorance. Or maybe you can explain how the fastest growing convents in the US are orthodox (i.e. in agreement with the Church) while the dissenters are now dying out due to an inability to attract new members.
Maybe, just maybe, you'll let actual women decide for themselves and honor what they want for a change?

... pretty much everything in your post. Obviously.

because some governments are bad the vatican doesn't have to reach a high standard?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:36 AM
but if the church demands blind faith, then my statement stands

But the Church does not demand blind faith.
Thus your statement still stands - as utter ignorance.

wardd
06-16-2012, 08:38 AM
But the Church does not demand blind faith.
Thus your statement still stands - as utter ignorance.

which part of the creed do you not accept?

ever think that sometimes god makes mistakes?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:39 AM
because some governments are bad the vatican doesn't have to reach a high standard?

Because some (some? ha ha) governments* are bad, means that it is the sheerest hypocrisy to whine about an institution one is not even a member of and turn a blind eye to the sins of an organization one is a member of.



*Show me a saintly government. :D

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:40 AM
which part of the creed do you not accept?

What has that to do with blind faith?


ever think that sometimes god makes mistakes?

Not possible, but in your case I might make an exception. :D

wardd
06-16-2012, 08:42 AM
What has that to do with blind faith?



Not possible, but in your case I might make an exception. :D

and how do you know what it is possible for god to do?

can he change his mind?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:43 AM
From the catechism:


CCC #156 Faith and Understanding
What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived".28 So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".

wardd
06-16-2012, 08:44 AM
Because some (some? ha ha) governments* are bad, means that it is the sheerest hypocrisy to whine about an institution one is not even a member of and turn a blind eye to the sins of an organization one is a member of.



*Show me a saintly government. :D

iran

i can only complain about an institution that enables child molestation if i'm a member?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:51 AM
Frankly that is a load of garbage as big as any that you have ever dumped here and you've used this place as an industrial size tip for your misogynist c*ap time and again.

Your opinion is not fact. Please try to do better than that.


The rape and abuse was not a problem because of gay clergy.

Sorry but the facts don't support your ideology.
Facts:
The vast majority of abuse was homosexual.
The priesthood has been purged of active homosexuals
That policy has been hugely successful. Remember? "Don't whine it worked." ?

Sorry, but you can't get around the facts. Or would you rather the Church has done nothing and let the predators continue their activities just to please your ideological prejudice?


The abuse was hidden and condoned on a huge level for centuries and
... and because it was hidden you needn't document a thing. I'm just to accept your word on blind faith, right?


the Church is still trying to dodge it's responsibilities...
And making Churches the safest place for children in the US is a "dodge", while eliminating a problem is not accepting responsibility.
Really? You have a mighty peculiar notion of what accepting responsibility entails.


with exactly the c*ap you just tried to peddle.

Nice try but that "c*ap" I posted was heavily documented. You are free to address the "c*ap" from such sources as the Daily Beast, if you please.
Otherwise, you're just barking at me. And I find it highly amusing.


Frankly you are quite the revolting creature!

My my, all I hear is "Woof Woof!!!!" :D :D

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:55 AM
BTW, since the catechism clearly insists that faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind", can we at least remove that bit of trash from your collective mind-set?

I'm patient, removing one error at a time is at least progress.
Or if ya'll won't accept that fact about blind faith being unacceptable, will you at least acknowledge your own blind faith and shut up about that particular fallacious stereotype?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 08:58 AM
i can only complain about an institution that enables child molestation if i'm a member?

Of course you are free to do so. You are also free to be as hypocritical as you wish & ignore the much worse abuses of any organization(s) you are a member of.
Just as I am free to point out your hypocrisy.

wardd
06-16-2012, 08:59 AM
BTW, since the catechism clearly insists that faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind", can we at least remove that bit of trash from your collective mind-set?

I'm patient, removing one error at a time is at least progress.
Or if ya'll won't accept that fact about blind faith being unacceptable, will you at least acknowledge your own blind faith and shut up about that particular fallacious stereotype?

did that apply to the nuns on the bus?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:01 AM
wardd - don't be stupid. It hurts your cause a lot.

wardd
06-16-2012, 09:04 AM
wardd - don't be stupid. It hurts your cause a lot.

weren't they exercising freedom of the mind?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:05 AM
Speaking of stupid...
Boys, isn't it time you tried addressing actual fact rather than barking?
Hey, I admit that lots and lots of barking can be rather diverting...
but it's still completely useless.

Let me help...
Why not go to http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/ read some of the hundreds of testimonials from women who regret their abortions. And then tell me how they have no idea of what they're talking about. Boys, obviously you know something those women don't know.
Explain that to us all.
That would be a nice start, wouldn't it?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:08 AM
If we fix your post by combining two of them...

did that apply to the nuns on the bus? ...weren't they exercising freedom of the mind?... it is at least intelligible - sort of.

You see your error works like this:
Vis-a-vis US policy (an analogy to dissent from Church doctrine), soldiers rapes other soldiers. "weren't they exercising freedom of the mind?"
Why of course they were!
And your point is?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:12 AM
Read what I wrote and take your apologist garbage and shove it where it belongs!

Woof Woof!!! Again? Really lad, can't you at least try to refute the facts I posted?
Make at least some effort?
Evidently not.
And I even tried to help you out too. I mean you do know better than the silent no more women, don't you?


You are seriously one of the more revolting apologists that I have come across and believe me I know about them and their filth!
I had years of it!!

Grrrrrr, BARK, BARK! HOWL !!!

And yes, I am laughing at you!

wardd
06-16-2012, 09:21 AM
If we fix your post by combining two of them...
... it is at least intelligible - sort of.

You see your error works like this:
Vis-a-vis US policy (an analogy to dissent from Church doctrine), soldiers rapes other soldiers. "weren't they exercising freedom of the mind?"
Why of course they were!
And your point is?

a free mind can commit crimes

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:24 AM
Well, since listening to barking, while it does have its features, is a total waste of time... I'll trundle off and do something more productive, like watching grass grow.
But, I'll try to check again later to see if anyone has accepted my challenge and say... demolished the women of silent no more by showing that their suffering was really bliss, or demonstrate that the Daily Beast is utterly wrong about rape in the US military, or maybe making a convincing case that by fixing the sexual abuse problem the Church did wrong and did not accept its responsibility.

OK - that's never going to happen, but what the heck!? :D :D

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:28 AM
You offensive idiot!

Well yeah.


If you don't have the brains to figure it out then I'll tell you.
Sorry, but I don't read minds.



I WAS RAPED FOR YEARS BY SEVERAL OF YOUR DAMNED PRIESTS AND THEY WEREN'T GAY, I'M A WOMAN YOU IDIOT!!!

I certainly don't blame you for hating the priests who did this to you. I certainly hope and pray that you can find healing for your entirely understandable bitterness.
BTW, I sincerely hope that you pursued appropriate legal action(s) and had the perpetrators punished. They most certainly deserve punishment - and will eventually get it in any event.

However, and I hate to sound harsh, but my criticisms of your post still stand.
Don't yell at me. Refute me with facts.
You'll get nowhere, and I mean that you personally will get nowhere, by hating - no matter how understandable that hate may be.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:30 AM
Now here are some facts:


... there are 40,271 priests in the U.S. The report says there were 23 credible accusations of the sexual abuse of a minor made against priests for incidences last year. Of that number, 9 were deemed credible by law enforcement. Which means that 99.98% of priests nationwide had no such accusation made against them last year....
almost all the offenses involve homosexuality. Indeed, 16% of the credible allegations made against priests who work in dioceses or eparchies, and 6% of religious order priests, involved pedophilia. In the former category, 82% of the alleged victims were male; in the latter, the figure is 94%. In other words, we are not talking about kids as victims, and we are not talking about females: we are talking about postpubescent males who were allegedly violated by adult males. That’s called homosexuality.

When did these alleged offenses take place? Overall, 68% took place between 1960 and 1984; 1975-1979 being the most common period (among religious order priests, 33% took place before 1960, and another 40% took place between 1960-1980). In 75% of all the cases, the accused priest is either dead or has been dismissed.
99.98% of priest are innocent.

Those numbers are considerably lower than the general population and much lower than those, for example, the US military.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:44 AM
One other small point before I go.
Since we are doing biography... I was abused (not sexual, just ordinary vicious abuse) by several teachers throughout my "educational career". This included collusion to make me flunk out and "get drafted and go to Vietnam, because that's what you deserve". In those days that was a life-threatening circumstance.
Complaining to higher authorities was worse than useless - indeed the school system's superintendent make personal threats at me for doing so. Some of those threats he managed to carry out.

As a result (apparently inexplicably to ya'll), I do not hate teachers, nor do I hate education.
What I don't understand is why any abuse by particular individuals or even collusion by multiple individuals, would in any way reflect upon an entire organization and its goals and make it, and/or any defender, an object of hate.
'Tis a peculiar circumstance...

Sam F
06-16-2012, 09:47 AM
You claim to be intelligent but you are just an ignorant bigot!

Where have I ever said that? Indeed I accept the general judgment that I am an idiot.
No problem there.


I told you twice to read what I wrote.

I still can't read minds.
Let me remind you:


The rape and abuse was not a problem because of gay clergy.

Sorry but the facts don't support your ideology.
Facts:
The vast majority of abuse was homosexual.
The priesthood has been purged of active homosexuals
That policy has been hugely successful...

Facts they remain. While personal experience is of the highest importance to the individual, it has no bearing on the statistics whatsoever.


You don't bother to read you just keep rolling out your garbage.
have the decency to take your garbage elsewhere and don't you dare patronise me you pathetic excuse or pretend some sympathy which you clearly don't, it's as absent as your decency as a human being.!!

Still waiting for some actual facts and reasoning. While your contempt is obvious, it is (thus far) entirely without any basis other than emotion.
And let's face it, my emotion is as good as yours, or anybody else's... which really is neither here nor there.

George Jung
06-16-2012, 10:04 AM
I'm unsure why some, apparently extremely bothered by this place, waste their time coming here. Certainly not doing anyone here a favor. Gonna need counseling, if kept up. An impending 'banned' might free up the time for that, and could be a blessing - for all.

This snippet was intriguing; any other sources to verify? I imagine MMWR might give the significant/appropriate stats on these countries.


According to Dr. Green, science is finding that the media is actually on the wrong side of the issue. In fact, Green says that not only do condoms not work, but that they may be “exacerbating the problem” in Africa.

“Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.” ...
“[Risk compensation] is the idea that if somebody is using a certain technology to reduce risk, a phenomenon actually occurs where people are willing to take on greater risk.” The idea can be related to someone that puts on sun block and is willing to stay out in the sun longer because they have added protection. In this case, however, the greater risk is sexual. Because people are willing take on more risk, they may “disproportionally erase” the benefits of condom use, Green said...
the two countries that have the highest infection rate of AIDS in the world, Botswana and Swaziland, have recently launched campaigns to promote fidelity and monogamy, the Harvard researcher said. These countries “have learned the hard way” about the failure of condoms in preventing AIDS, he said, noting that “Botswana has probably had more condom promotion” than any other county on a per capita basis.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 10:26 AM
...
This snippet was intriguing; any other sources to verify? I imagine MMWR might give the significant/appropriate stats on these countries.

Dr. Green (a self-described Liberal) did an OpEd in the Washington Post in 2009 on the topic. Presumably it's somewhere out there on the Web.

Here's something from the Harvard Crimson...

The Politics of Condoms
When it comes to AIDS prevention, science stoops to narrow ideology
By Christopher B. Lacaria

“The Pope may be right,” suggested Dr. Edward C. Green to The Harvard Crimson, “The marketing and distribution of condoms won’t solve the problem. Partner fidelity has a much better chance.”

Dr. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, directed the Harvard AIDS Prevention Research Project and had worked and researched extensively on the HIV pandemic afflicting sub-Saharan Africa. And his conclusions, expressing agreement with Pope Benedict XVI—who, on his recent trip to the continent, had denied the panacean potential of prophylactics—provoked a miniature firestorm. ...While the Pope and other religious leaders would not sacrifice their moral tenets no matter what the scientific evidence says about AIDS prevention strategy, presumably objective and impartial scientists should have no qualms about adhering so strictly to the data...

The unfortunate irony of this episode—as Africans continue to suffer from the pandemic—is that those who would arraign the Pope for callous disregard for reality are in fact the ones moralizing in ignorance of the data. Except that they have abandoned a traditional regard for moral virtue and absolute truth in favor of a vain and vacuous worship of freedom.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/4/16/the-politics-of-condoms-the-pope/

Dr. Green has a bio here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Green
A recent book on the topic is for sale on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-AIDS-Prevention-Successes-Developing/dp/0865693161/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339860489&sr=1-1&keywords=Rethinking+AIDS+Prevention%3A+Learning+fr om+Successes+in+Developing+Countries

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-16-2012, 12:10 PM
Hello Sam,

I would like to record that:

1. The five star hotel in which I recently stayed, in Shanghai, thoughtfully provided a condom along with some needles and thread and a clothes brush in the bedside table. Out of interest, I swiped it. It is indeed smaller than the British item.

2. I offered a nun my place in the queue at Manila Airport last Sunday. Tempted as I was to offer her my views on the utterly misguided nature of her organisation's policies in the Philippine Republic, I did not do so.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 12:42 PM
Hello Sam,

I would like to record that:

1. The five star hotel in which I recently stayed, in Shanghai, thoughtfully provided a condom along with some needles and thread and a clothes brush in the bedside table. Out of interest, I swiped it. It is indeed smaller than the British item.

Since we're going "on record" it's worth noting that the above observation, as interesting as it no doubt is, is of no relevance.
Condoms are available at practically any gas station in the US - and in many schools they give them out like candy to the kids.
What relevance any of that has to the Pope's "stupidity about condoms in the Third world struggling with Aids"* is exactly zero.


2. I offered a nun my place in the queue at Manila Airport last Sunday. Tempted as I was to offer her my views on the utterly misguided nature of her organisation's policies in the Philippine Republic, I did not do so.

I can, with no effort whatsoever point out other equally dissenting nuns in the US such as...
Barbara Battista, a Catholic nun and president of the Indiana Academy of Physician Assistants who stated in an email:
“Please, let’s ask the Hoosiers, not our bishops, [!] what we want RecycleForce to do, I bet that condom bowl will be put back out! I am a health-care provider gratefully working in a public facility.We happily have free condoms in our exam rooms.”
Which means, what? It means I found another dissenter. So what?
In contrast, the only religious orders growing in the US are orthodox, not heterodox. That should tell you something about the the future of dissenting nuns.

I know this is tough for any Protestant to get his head wrapped around, but when you dissent from the Church's teaching you are essentially a Protestant (or perhaps something else).
Nothing wrong with that... some of my best friends are Protestants. The only difference is that they had the common decency to go off and start/join/stay members of other Churches. That's the honest way to handle dissenting opinions on core doctrines.


*Amazingly, since the Catholic Church is the largest NGO provider of medical services to AIDs victims in Africa, maybe, just maybe, the Pope actually knew what he was talking about.

wardd
06-16-2012, 12:51 PM
Now here are some facts:



Those numbers are considerably lower than the general population and much lower than those, for example, the US military.

but the church moved them around in an attempt to hide the issue

where else did that happen?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-16-2012, 01:55 PM
Since we're going "on record" it's worth noting that the above observation, as interesting as it no doubt is, is of no relevance.
Condoms are available at practically any gas station in the US - and in many schools they give them out like candy to the kids.
What relevance any of that has to the Pope's "stupidity about condoms in the Third world struggling with Aids"* is exactly zero.

There, I fancy, may be where we differ, old chap.

You see, it is precisely your Church's interference in the political process in the Philippines which makes condoms very hard to obtain for the average teenager or twentysomething. They are not sold in vending machines or on the counter in pharmacists except in a tiny handful of enlightened municipalities, notably Subic/Olongapo and the Cordlilleras. The result, in a population exposed to the full force of American culture, is a rate of births to young single mothers which is sufficient to keep the vice trade flourishing, since, in a traditional Catholic society, an unmarried mother, aka a fallen woman, has few options available to her.

So, by what I sincerely hope is the operation of the law of unintended consequences, your religious organisation is responsible for stocking the girlie bars of Asia with tens of thousands of Filipina hookers.

THAT is why I hold your organisation in contempt.



I can, with no effort whatsoever point out other equally dissenting nuns in the US such as...
Barbara Battista, a Catholic nun and president of the Indiana Academy of Physician Assistants who stated in an email:
“Please, let’s ask the Hoosiers, not our bishops, [!] what we want RecycleForce to do, I bet that condom bowl will be put back out! I am a health-care provider gratefully working in a public facility.We happily have free condoms in our exam rooms.”
Which means, what? It means I found another dissenter. So what?
In contrast, the only religious orders growing in the US are orthodox, not heterodox. That should tell you something about the the future of dissenting nuns.

Ido not follow you here. I did not say that the habitted lady was a dissenter of any sort. I have no reason to expect that she was anything other than entirely orthodox.





I know this is tough for any Protestant to get his head wrapped around, but when you dissent from the Church's teaching you are essentially a Protestant (or perhaps something else).
Nothing wrong with that... some of my best friends are Protestants. The only difference is that they had the common decency to go off and start/join/stay members of other Churches. That's the honest way to handle dissenting opinions on core doctrines.

And by the same token those priests of the Church of England whose delicate sensibilities are offended by the sight of a woman preaching or indeed presiding at the celebration of the Lord's Supper are more than welcome to take themselves off in the direction of the Chuch of Rome, where the current Mister Infallible has no trouble bending the rules to accomodate them, and their wives. I suppose they are marginally less likely to bugger the altar boys, which is all to the good.


*Amazingly, since the Catholic Church is the largest NGO provider of medical services to AIDs victims in Africa, maybe, just maybe, the Pope actually knew what he was talking about.

citation, please.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 01:56 PM
but the church moved them around in an attempt to hide the issue

where else did that happen?

Great question!

Here's one place where that happened:

SECRET SHAME OF OUR SCHOOLS: SEXUAL ABUSE OF STUDENTS RUNS RAMPANT

DOUGLAS MONTERO


At least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day in New York City schools, a Post investigation has found.

Equally as disturbing is that one-third of the employees accused of sex abuse are repeat offenders, who've already been cited for inappropriate behavior by school officials.

"It has reached critical mass," said Schools Special Investigator Edward Stancik. "I think it's very hard for anybody to deny that we have a real problem."

The Post has analyzed 117 cases of sexual abuse substantiated by Stancik's office over a 2 ½ year period - from January 1999 to June 2001 - to determine how offenders are picking off city kids.

Among the observations, The Post investigation has found that more than 60 percent of employees accused of sexual abuse - mostly tenured teachers - were transferred to desk jobs at district offices located inside schools. Forty percent of those transferred suspects were repeat offenders.

Problem teachers, who sometimes get away with a sexual offense, are surreptitiously transferred to other schools - a practice known as "passing the garbage."..

Out of the 117 cases, more than 212 children were victims because in 45 percent of the cases an offender attacked more than one student. Repeat offenders made up nearly half of the suspects who attacked more than one kid.

In nearly 16 percent of the cases, school officials delayed reporting the offense or tried to cover it up.

Paraprofessionals and school aides are among the top sex offenders - nearly 20 percent. Math teachers, some of who tutored and later tried to seduce students through the Internet, made up nearly 10 percent of the offenders. Special Ed teachers also made up 10 percent of the offenders.

The average victim is a 15-year-old female high school student in Brooklyn, where 36 percent of the abuse cases occurred. The average age of an offender is 39.

Seventy-five percent of the victims are girls.

Nearly 20 percent of the offenders are homosexuals and in most of these cases, the attack led to sexual relationship with the student.

When these numbers are added to another 347 substantiated sex abuse cases that have been probed by the Board of Education's Office of Special Investigation between January 2000 and July 20, 2001, the statistics become even more staggering.

When The Post added the OSI's 327 cases to Stancik's 117 substantiated cases of sexual abuse over two-and-a-half years, it was discovered that least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day... Teachers awaiting the resolution of sex abuse charges are placed in administrative slots at Martin Luther King HS in Manhattan, Edward R. Murrow HS in Brooklyn, and Theodore Rosevelt and Herbert Lehman high schools in The Bronx.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_IGmFG437dEYB9jg6CAY6TO#ixzz1xz0zrBQt


Then there is this little item also from New York State:

On March 13, the New York Times ran a lengthy front-page story, “At State-Run Homes, Abuse and Impunity,” that showed how common it is for state employees servicing the developmentally disabled to abuse residents. Because they are protected by the Civil Service Employees Association, it is almost impossible to fire them. Though it is against the law not to report cases of abuse to the police, “fewer than 5 percent were referred to law enforcement.” Moreover, “In 25 percent of the cases involving physical, sexual or psychological abuse, the state employees were transferred to other homes.” In many serious cases, the same employee was moved more than once.

Or I could mention the coach sex abuse scandals pretty much nationwide in public schools... heck we've had a few cases here in the little ol' Shenandoah Valley.

Now if you actually cared about sex abuse of minors, you'd have already known that the practice is very very common - and you'd be objecting to current problems - not those by now decades old cases from the Catholic Church.

But, given the evidence, you really don't care about the victims, do you?

wardd
06-16-2012, 02:02 PM
Great question!

Here's one place where that happened:


Then there is this little item also from New York State:


Or I could mention the coach sex abuse scandals pretty much nationwide in public schools... heck we've had a few cases here in the little ol' Shenandoah Valley.

Now if you actually cared about sex abuse of minors, you'd have already known that the practice is very very common - and you'd be objecting to current problems - not those by now decades old cases from the Catholic Church.

But, given the evidence, you really don't care about the victims, do you?

you forgot to include the catholic church

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-16-2012, 02:02 PM
If you wonder why the Cordlilleras are different, it is because they have a majority of Episcopalians.

If you wonder why that is, it is because during the three and a half centuries of Spanish rule in the Philippines, the Church of Rome could not be bothered to convert the "hill tribes", such as the Igorots, who remained heathen until Charles Brent, the first Episcopalian bishop to set foot in the Philippines, took on the job.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 02:05 PM
There, I fancy, may be where we differ, old chap.

You see, it is precisely your Church's interference in the political process in the Philippines which...
... is irrelevant. In a Democracy any group may vie to influence policy. Surprise! That's exactly what they do.
Prior to Griswold vs. Connecticut that was the situation in the US (no birth control) - due to Protestant influence.
You may not like it, but so what?


So, by what I sincerely hope is the operation of the law of unintended consequences, your religious organisation is responsible for stocking the girlie bars of Asia with tens of thousands of Filipina hookers.

Citation needed. Reasoning would help too. Beside that I responded to "The five star hotel... in Shanghai" which is quite irrelevant to the Philippines.

But that's the least of your problems, your math works like this: No condom availability = lots of hookers. And the "population exposed to the full force of American culture" is the Church's fault?
Really?


THAT is why I hold your organisation in contempt.

THAT (above "equation") is why I hold your reasoning to be highly suspect.


Ido not follow you here. I did not say that the habitted lady was a dissenter of any sort. I have no reason to expect that she was anything other than entirely orthodox.

OK, you don't know what her views are, 'cause you didn't ask?
So, why bring her up?

Edited: Oh I see, local color. Sorry! Got it.


citation, please.

Sorry, I got that wrong too - The Church is not the biggest AID's care providing NGO in Africa it is... well, you'll see:


Institutions that are directly affiliated with the Catholic Church and supported by the Catholic Church are the largest care providers of HIV and AIDS in the world. The burden of AIDS has fallen most unfairly upon sub-Saharan Africa which is the poorest continent in the world. Throughout Africa there is a network of mission hospitals that is staffed by catholic nuns as care providers and supported by the Catholic Church. These mission hospitals are extraordinary and really exemplify faith in action. There institutions have stepped forward in a heroic fashion to respond to the AIDS crisis. Catholic Relief Services, which is based in the United States, has been an extraordinary conduit of direct HIV and AIDS support through the provision of medications that has been funded through the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This is no surprise because Catholic Relief Services is linked closely to many of these mission hospitals. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=750

wardd
06-16-2012, 02:08 PM
... is irrelevant. In a Democracy any group may vie to influence policy. Surprise! That's exactly what they do.
Prior to Griswold vs. Connecticut that was the situation in the US (no birth control) - due to Protestant influence.
You may not like it, but so what?



Citation needed. Reasoning would help too. Your math works like this: No condom availability = lots of hookers.
Really?



THAT (above "equation") is why I hold your reasoning to be highly suspect.



But she opposes the Church on condoms?
Sorry, orthodox in that context doesn't fit.



Sorry, got that wrong - The Church is not the biggest AID's care providing NGO in Africa it is... well, you'll see:

then you admit the church is a meddling parasite

Sam F
06-16-2012, 02:10 PM
you forgot to include the catholic church

You forgot to say how outraged you are about the sex abuse of minors going on right now in government created and funded institutions.
The problem having been solved in the Church - to the extent that such a problem can be solved - while the problem continues unabated and un-objected to by you, can only prove your hypocrisy once again.

I might manage to take you seriously if you ever did manage to object to abuse going on right now... but you'll do no such thing.
Because you don't care.

wardd
06-16-2012, 02:20 PM
You forgot to say how outraged you are about the sex abuse of minors going on right now in government created and funded institutions.
The problem having been solved in the Church - to the extent that such a problem can be solved - while the problem continues unabated and un-objected to by you, can only prove your hypocrisy once again.

I might manage to take you seriously if you ever did manage to object to abuse going on right now... but you'll do no such thing.
Because you don't care.

i'm not outraged, i'll let the law take it's course

but one big difference is people don't worship in gov institutions and then come online to tell others how holy the institution is

Sam F
06-16-2012, 02:23 PM
Got this one right...

i'm not outraged, i'll let the law take it's course...

Then shut up. Let it take it's course.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-16-2012, 02:24 PM
...

Citation needed. Reasoning would help too. Your math works like this: No condom availability = lots of hookers. And the "population exposed to the full force of American culture" is the Church's fault?
Really?THAT (above "equation") is why I hold your reasoning to be highly suspect.

I've just spelled it out for you. Boy meets girl, boy screws girl, they cannot obtain contraception because your organisation interferes actively in the democratic process (eg by threatening to excommunicate the President if he signs a measure that makes condoms more widely available - I am NOT making this up...)* girl gets pregnant, boy heads for the hills, girl now has to care for a baby without support and cannot work normal hours even if an employer would look at a "fallen woman", so she ends up on the game. Play your word games if you like, I am describing what actually happens, day in, day out.




But she opposes the Church on condoms?
Sorry, orthodox in that context doesn't fit.


Where did I say that she did? Are you by any chance crazed on bhang?

* http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100930-295226/Bishop-threatens-Aquino-with-excommunication-over-birth-control

Sam F
06-16-2012, 02:26 PM
I've just spelled it out for you.

So did I. That's how it works in democracies... I was describing what actually happens day in, day out.
If you know better, then by all means establish a dictatorship that is not susceptible to outside influence and will thus only do the "right" thing.
Let me know how that works out for you.


Where did I say that she did?

You didn't. You also didn't see my edited correction.


Are you by any chance crazed on bhang?

Now Andrew, if you'd just apply that sort of insult more comprehensively, I'd tend to respect you for it.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-16-2012, 02:34 PM
So did I. That's how it works in democracies... I was describing what actually happens day in, day out.
If you know better, then by all means establish a dictatorship that is not susceptible to outside influence and will thus only do the "right" thing.
Let me know how that works out for you.


My point is that your organisation's influence is both overweening and pernicious.

Your organisation could choose to involve itself with the relief of poverty, and indeed on a very small scale it does so, but it prefers to ensure that the supply of hookers and of street kids continues unabated, in the name, no doubt, of "family values".

I might use a stronger word. I might say "evil".

Keith Wilson
06-16-2012, 02:46 PM
From the article:

. . .
allegedly placing too much emphasis on issues of economic inequality and not enough on abortion and same-sex marriage.Whatever one's opinions of these particular nuns, Mr Ryan's proposed budget, and by extension the economic program of the Republican party, is no more compatible with Catholic doctrine than is abortion, and would cause tremendous suffering to millions of people. Yet the entire emphasis of the US RC Bishops lately has been on health insurance covering birth control, of all things. Why are they doing this?

Sam F
06-16-2012, 02:55 PM
From the article: Whatever one's opinions of these particular nuns, Mr Ryan's proposed budget, and by extension the economic program of the Republican party, is no more compatible with Catholic doctrine than...

I doubt that there has ever been a US budget compatible with Catholic doctrine - at least in my lifetime. Prior to that I paid very little attention. ;)

But Andrew would have it that the Church needs to shut up and die because she has no right to object. As a believer in the right of self-defense, I find that not only undemocratic but also unrealistic. That is until the revolution is complete and the Church is banned - to be replaced by the Patriotic Catholic Church of America.


Yet the entire emphasis of the US RC Bishops lately has been on health insurance covering birth control, of all things. Why are they doing this?[/LEFT]

Because now is the time. Previously, the water warmed slowly enough that the frogs didn't notice. Obama's administration made the serious mistake of turning up the heat too fast and the frogs noticed.

Of course, there was always a line (several really) the Church would be unable to cross. It just so happened that this is the one that got drawn now.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 03:01 PM
My point is that your organisation's influence is both overweening and pernicious.

Translation: I don't like it and I know better.

Sorry Andrew, but that won't wash.


Your organisation could choose to involve itself with the relief of poverty, and indeed on a very small scale it does so,

Translation: The Church doesn't have my priorities, therefore it is wrong.
We all know how deliriously happy we are in the US and Europe and how great the sexual revolution as turned out so we must export it to small nations with the "full force of US culture". If they don't like it and want to defend themselves - blame the Catholic Church. They're a handy whipping boy and provide a dandy substitute for thinking about such complicated matters.


but it prefers to ensure that the supply of hookers and of street kids continues unabated, in the name, no doubt, of "family values".

Translation: I couldn't support or explain my dubious reasoning, but I'll repeat it anyway.


I might use a stronger word. I might say "evil".
I'll use some stronger words: political tyranny - sorry I'm not going to worship Caesar. I sincerely hope you don't want to do that either.
Is so happens that I have some ways to avoid Caesar worship (from John C. Wright):

I should urge my atheist friends that it is prudent for the commonwealth for men to worship a jealous God, because even if god is a fiction, it will draw away the natural human tendency to worship Pharaohs and Caesars and Fuhrers into a fictional being, one capable of doing no harm.

Of course, this still leaves the danger (as far as my atheist friends are concerned) of persons claiming to speak in the name of the fictional god. To correct for this, the synthetic religion should contain repeated warnings against false prophets and false Christs.

And, unlike every pagan religion in history, should maintain a Magisterium or teaching authority to prevent the religion from being devolved or brought into line with the natural human tendency to hero-worship of charismatic leaders. The religion should be intolerant of personal interpretation or novel doctrines.

Indeed, at a most extreme wish fulfillment daydream of the atheist, this synthetic religion should be able to force emperors who commit enormities to perform public penance, such as to walk bareshod to Canossa, or to put aside his royal insignia, don a shroud, and publicly plead for God’s mercy. This would indeed prevent the rise of hero-worship of worldly leaders as nothing else in history has ever done or could do.

It would be most important, of course, for this synthetic religion to have an international rather than a national character, and not to be brought under the control of a single national ruler, such as Henry VIII.

Oddly enough, this make believe religion which would fulfill all the daydreams of an atheist devoted to preventing the adoration of charismatic Fuhrers has a real world parallel which in history fulfilled this role.

Almost as if it were designed that way….

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-16-2012, 03:04 PM
I am not able to measure the spiritual good done by your organisation, Sam, because I am in no position to count the spotless souls flying up to Heaven, or the slightly spotted ones off to roast in Purgatory.

What I can form a judgement of is the amount of actual human misery that I see you causing with my own eyes.

I conclude that whilst you do a great deal of good, this good is outweighed by the harm that you do, therefore, on simple utilitarian grounds, I would wind up your organisation. Humanity will benefit from its abolition.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 03:07 PM
Why are they doing this?

Ask them - it 's not exactly a state secret:


General Assembly Of Bishops Unanimously Adopts ‘United For Religious Freedom’ Statement

June 14, 2012

ATLANTA—The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) reaffirmed by a unanimous voice vote on June 13 a recent statement of the USCCB Administrative Committee regarding the HHS mandate.

At the end of their hour-long discussion of religious freedom in the United States, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB, asked the body of bishops if it would be willing to declare its approval of “United for Religious Freedom,” the unanimous statement of the Administrative Committee issued on March 14. Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, California seconded Cardinal Dolan's motion, which was put to the body by a voice vote and unanimously affirmed.

“United for Religious Freedom” describes the bishops as “strongly unified and intensely focused in ... opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day,” and explains that the HHS mandate “demands our immediate attention.” The document identifies three basic problems with the mandate: “an unwarranted government definition of religion,” “a mandate to act against our teachings,” and “a violation of personal civil rights.”

“United for Religious Freedom” is available on the USCCB website at:
www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/march-14-statement-on-religious-freedom-and-hhs-mandate.cfm

Sam F
06-16-2012, 03:14 PM
I am not able to measure the spiritual good done by your organisation, Sam, because I am in no position to count the spotless souls flying up to Heaven, or the slightly spotted ones off to roast in Purgatory.

Souls in Purgatory go to Heaven. Didn't you know that?


What I can form a judgement of is the amount of actual human misery that I see you causing with my own eyes.

Little ol' me? Why honey chil', I'm jus' that touched that you would give me SO much credit.



I conclude that whilst you do a great deal of good, this good is outweighed by the harm that you do, therefore, on simple utilitarian grounds, I would wind up your organisation. Humanity will benefit from its abolition.

Translation: "Utilitarian grounds" (i.e. Utilitarianism) - a philosophy associated with Jeremy Bentham & John Stewart Mill not one iota can be empirically enumerated or other wise verified because its base principle is entirely subjective. The proof of what is good and of its utility and of the greatest amount for the greatest number is absurd on its face - not being in any way verifiable or quantifiable.
OK! So your philosophy is better than Catholicism.
Care to prove it? Calculate happiness.
Or is that just your blind faith writing that check?

Keith Wilson
06-16-2012, 03:19 PM
The odd thing is not their objection, I understand that, although I don't agree. One would hardly expect them to approve. The surprising thing is their decision to focus on a fairly minor insurance rule about birth control, an area in which a majority of Catholics ignore the teachings of the church anyway, and the vast majority of society disagrees with them, rather than on the issue of economic inequality and the Republicans' economic plan, which is equally against church teaching, and will cause far greater suffering. I guess you have to prioritize, eh?

wardd
06-16-2012, 03:22 PM
I am not able to measure the spiritual good done by your organisation, Sam, because I am in no position to count the spotless souls flying up to Heaven, or the slightly spotted ones off to roast in Purgatory.

What I can form a judgement of is the amount of actual human misery that I see you causing with my own eyes.

I conclude that whilst you do a great deal of good, this good is outweighed by the harm that you do, therefore, on simple utilitarian grounds, I would wind up your organisation. Humanity will benefit from its abolition.

one mans misery is anthers soul cleansing

Keith Wilson
06-16-2012, 03:26 PM
http://lawrencerspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Soul_Cleanser.jpg

Canoeyawl
06-16-2012, 03:44 PM
After all, the Pope doesn't have nearly the baggage any government has - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,.

Even if we simply forget the "Crusades", and the complicity of the Catholic church in the persecution of jews and Muslims in WW2, you can find some fairly recent baggage Here

the Catholic "Church's" Role in Starting the Vietnam War
(http://www.reformation.org/vietnam.html)




How religious pamphlets and radio broadcasts convinced one million Catholics to leave North Vietnam and live under Catholic rule in the South, overwhelming the Buddhists.


How brutal persecution of Vietnamese Buddhists led to rioting and suicides by fire in the streets.


Why the reports of what was really happening, written by American military and civil advisers, failed to reach the U.S. President.


Why the project backfired, and as U.S. soldiers continued to die, the Vatican made a secret deal with Ho Chi Minh.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-16-2012, 03:59 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Sam Fhttp://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3444473#post3444473) After all, the Pope doesn't have nearly the baggage any government has - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,.

Oh, I rather think he does, Sam.

" Neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet!" - ring any bells with you?

The near extermination of the native populations of central and south America...

The Wars of Religion...

Sam F
06-16-2012, 05:11 PM
The odd thing is not their objection, I understand that, although I don't agree. One would hardly expect them to approve. The surprising thing is their decision to focus on a fairly minor insurance rule about birth control,...

It's not minor. The govt defines what is and is not a ministry. That is an unprecedented, un-American intrusion into religion.
From the document I posted for you:

An unwarranted government definition of religion. The mandate includes an extremely narrow definition of what HHS deems a "religious employer" deserving exemption—employers who, among other things, must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith. We are deeply concerned about this new definition of who we are as people of faith and what constitutes our ministry.
&
A mandate to act against our teachings. The exemption is not merely a government foray into internal Church governance, where government has no legal competence or authority—disturbing though that may be. This error in theory has grave consequences in principle and practice. Those deemed by HHS not to be "religious employers" will be forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions.
&
A violation of personal civil rights. The HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing "services" contrary to those values—whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves—without even the semblance of an exemption. This, too, is unprecedented in federal law, which has long been generous in protecting the rights of individuals not to act against their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Now for the time being you're "safe", until a representative of the Evil Stupid Party gets elected and tries to control your church.
Don't cry about it then - it'll be too late.


an area in which a majority of Catholics ignore the teachings of the church anyway,
The vast majority of Catholics need to go to confession - proving without a doubt that they ignored the teachings of the church anyway


and the vast majority of society disagrees with them,

The worse reasoning you could possibly use. But yeah, I know, it's the "We decide" morality. But it is also gonna bite you one of these days.


rather than on the issue of economic inequality and the Republicans' economic plan, which is equally against church teaching,
and the Stupid Evil Party's plan is not one bit better. Sorry that's a wash.


and will cause far greater suffering.

Just as soon as you and Andrew manage to quantify human happiness ya'll get back to me with some proof, OK?


I guess you have to prioritize, eh?

Well yes you do. And the takeover of one's faith by the government is kind of a priority.

Sam F
06-16-2012, 05:21 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Sam Fhttp://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3444473#post3444473) After all, the Pope doesn't have nearly the baggage any government has - Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,.

Oh, I rather think he does, Sam.

Sorry Andrew but may I ask (as Stalin did) how many divisions does the Pope have?

Try something else.
Not this:


" Neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet!" - ring any bells with you?

No it doesn't. Arnaud-Amaury was not the Pope and it's probably a myth that he ever said it.


The near extermination of the native populations of central and south America...

That would be your people Andrew - like Lord Jeffrey Amherst. Or answer this... How many "natives" do you see in Mexico City vs, how many "natives" you see in Washington DC.
That answers it rather nicely.


The Wars of Religion...

Nah, those are few and far between. The notion that "religion causes war" is an enlightenment myth.
"The Encyclopedia of Wars lists a total of 123 wars which were fought for religious reasons. (Phillips, Charles and Alan Axelrod. Encyclopedia of Wars. New York: Facts on File, 2005.) Yet the list of wars fought totals 1,763. This means that only 6% of all wars have been fought for religious reasons. The other interesting thing to note is that over 1/2 of these "religious" wars were waged by Islamic nations. So by removing that single religion from the equation we have only 3 percent of the wars waged by all other religions combined!"

The US typically doesn't fight religious wars - but the ones it has fought for secular reasons have been bloody enough to satisfy even an Englishman

Sam F
06-16-2012, 05:26 PM
Tootles!

Keith Wilson
06-16-2012, 10:31 PM
And the takeover of one's faith by the government . . . My, how hyperbolic. Churches are exempt. Secular institutions (hospitals, universities) run by the RCC now will have ther employees' birth control paid for by their health insurance companies, with the insurance companies' own money. If this is "the takeover of one's faith by the government", I'm the Pope.

George Jung
06-16-2012, 10:54 PM
Not a particularly enjoyable turn for this thread, at least for me. I'm unsure why ACB decided to engage as he did, obviously he holds very strong feelings on this. Unfortunately we've also been subjected to some pretty severe biases and prejudices, never useful in selling ones perspectives. Depending on our own prejudices, would of course color who we thought the offenders might be.

Ah well. Not a single soul has had their mind changed, I'd wager. Not much redemption, when it's all sorted out.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 06:59 AM
My, how hyperbolic. Churches are exempt. Secular institutions (hospitals, universities) run by the RCC now will have ther employees' birth control paid for by their health insurance companies,

Many, if not most, Catholic institutions are self insured. Yeah that works! ;) The Church gets to directly fund things she find morally objectionable. Not a problem!
And thank you for confirming the Church's position that ObamaCare is... An unwarranted government definition of religion, a mandate to act against our teachings, & it's a violation of personal civil rights.
When the Evil Stupid Party gets elected and forces Unitarians to, for instance, fund a program that reenforced gender inequality, don't whine. The principle has already been established that the government has the right to do so.
Don't blame them - you already insisted upon it.


...with the insurance companies' own money.

I know we have deep philosophical differences, but I'd never figured you for a chump. Get this - Insurance companies (or any other corporation) don't pay nuthin' "with their own money". Unless, that is, you believe the legal fiction that corporations are persons.



If this is "the takeover of one's faith by the government", I'm the Pope.

Nah, you're not the Pope, but given your belief in the almighty State, you are the King - Good morning Your Majesty!

Sam F
06-17-2012, 07:05 AM
...Ah well. Not a single soul has had their mind changed, I'd wager. Not much redemption, when it's all sorted out.

Changing minds? Never. Many here brag about how closed their minds are. Kinda ironic given the self-congratulatory Liberal belief in their own open mindedness.
However, you may allow that there is a certain, ah... delightful quality, in seeing one's opponent tie himself up in contradiction and watch him/her/whatever build an utterly unsupportable argument based upon irrationality and woefully lacking in a shred of actual evidence.
That is, to say the least, highly amusing.

Mrleft8
06-17-2012, 07:09 AM
I can understand that - 'cause I'm not going "back to the dark ages" either.
That fact leaves you with a teeny problem, doesn't it? :D

No..... Indeed Sam, and his masters seem to be focused on forming an entirely new, and more restrictive dark age...

Sam F
06-17-2012, 07:25 AM
No..... Indeed Sam, and his masters seem to be focused on forming an entirely new, and more restrictive dark age...

Awe, cut it out. This "dark age" stereotype is simply cr*p. Yeah, I know how to spell it,but it's fun to add in the *.
Why not try, at least try, to address something I actually said rather than engage in fallacy?
Oh wait! Sorry, I forgot... it's 'cause you can't.

Keith Wilson
06-17-2012, 07:36 AM
Sam, secular institutions run by the church have to obey labor laws like everyone else. Churches are exempt. Unless you think Catholic universities and hospitals should be except from all laws they don't agree with, this is silly. It's a minor intrusion, if at all.

But once again, the bishops have decided to focus their energies on this, rather than on issues of economic inequality, equally against RCC doctrine, and with a far, far, greater effect on peole's lives. Where are the the thundering episcopal pronouncements denouncing Paul Ryan, the Catholic follower of Ayn Rand (why that doesn't make his head explode, I have no idea) and his plan to bring back Social Darwinism?

Sam F
06-17-2012, 08:31 AM
Sam, secular institutions run by the church have to obey labor laws like everyone else. Churches are exempt.

And the government gets to decide what is Church and what is not Church. Jesus of course has no say in the matter.


Unless you think Catholic universities and hospitals should be except from all laws they don't agree with,...

We are not obligated to obey tyrannical laws, such as those where the government decides what a ministry is. Again, if the Evil Stupid Party gets elected and forces the Unitarians to fund gender inequality, homosexual cures, and violate your own consciences, then don't whine about it. You insisted on it.


It's a minor intrusion, if at all.

Sorry, you don't get to determine if it's minor or not. At least you've admitted its an intrusion. So it is and that's progress.


But once again, the bishops have decided to focus their energies on this,...

Because it is an intrusion by the government insisting that said government has the right to determine what is and is not a Church ministry and in the process forces Catholics to violate their own consciences.
Who knew you were a totalitarian?
I do.



rather than on issues of economic inequality, equally against RCC doctrine, and with a far, far, greater effect on peole's lives.
I'm still waiting on your quantification of this Utilitarian philosophy.
And I'll be waiting until the end of time - because you can't do it.
So kindly keep your philosophy off my religion.


Where are the the thundering episcopal pronouncements denouncing Paul Ryan, the Catholic follower of Ayn Rand (why that doesn't make his head explode, I have no idea) and his plan to bring back Social Darwinism?

Believe it or not, the Church is abundantly on record about such things - one need only read the documents. They haven't gone away.
ObamaCare is another matter entirely - it strikes at the very heart of the faith's right to determine its own policy, usurps that right by transferring it to the government and forces Catholics to violate their consciences.
This is an existential threat which must be fought.

Now, if you actually like the idea of The State dictating what you do with your conscience, then say so.
Otherwise you have no case at all.



Paul Ryan, the Catholic follower of Ayn Rand (why that doesn't make his head explode, I have no idea)

It's easy. He simply doesn't follow Church teachings... proving without a doubt that he ignored the teachings of the church.
But didn't you argue that such a situation was in fact a valid reason for ignoring Church teachings?
Yes you did.
Make up your mind Keith. Which is it?

George Jung
06-17-2012, 08:41 AM
Reading this thread, and following the arguments presented, it struck me - what do Catholic institutions in other countries do, say those countries with Single payor/NHC?
Their coverage has been established quite some time. Was this an issue then? Is it an issue now?

George Jung
06-17-2012, 08:42 AM
Don't be so dismissive of 'Camels nose', Yer Honor. I've been on the receiving end of that one - it was neither pleasant nor pretty.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 08:42 AM
Come on Keith, if the Evil Stupid Party gets elected and forces the Unitarians to fund gender inequality, homosexual cures, and violate your own consciences what are you going to do about it?
You certainly can't complain of the grounds that it is wrong in principle. What are you going to do?

Sam F
06-17-2012, 08:42 AM
Ahh, the old "camel's nose under the tent" technique. Minor intrusion is also precedent than blazes the trail of continued intrusion. Minor intrusion into the free practice of religion is no more Constitutional than is major intrusion.

Sooner or later, the one inevitably leads to the other.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 08:43 AM
Don't be so dismissive of 'Camels nose', Yer Honor. I've been on the receiving end of that one - it was neither pleasant nor pretty.

I think you're agreeing with the Judge George.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 08:47 AM
Reading this thread, and following the arguments presented, it struck me - what do Catholic institutions in other countries do, say those countries with Single payor/NHC?
Their coverage has been established quite some time. Was this an issue then? Is it an issue now?

A better example would be the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association*. That's where we're heading. In fact if ObamaCare is upheld, that's exactly where we are.

The Church has a long long history of dealing with tyrannical governments - everything from Caesar to French revolutionary, to Communism... and given that the Pope has mighty few legions, the Church does what she can - which is precious little.


*"In 1957, the Chinese government established the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which rejects the authority of the Vatican and appoints its own bishops..." Wikipedia

Bishops Who Died in Prison

Bishop GAO Kexian 高可賢, Yantai 煙台, Shandong 山東
Arrested in October, 1999. Died in jail January 24, 2005. (See news report.) Cause of death unknown.

Bishop HAN Dingxiang 韓鼎祥, Yong Nian 永年, Hebei 河北
Arrested on or about December 1, 1999. (See our press release January 23, 2000) Died in jail September 9, 2007 at the age of 71. (See press release.) Cause of death unknown.

Bishops In Prison

Bishop SHI Enxiang 師恩祥, Yixian 易縣, Hebei 河北
Arrested April 13, 2001. (See our press release April 22, 2001) His whereabouts are unknown.

Bishop SU Zhimin 蘇志民, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Re-arrested October 8, 1997 after 17 months in hiding. (See our press release October 11, 1997) He has disappeared. His whereabouts are unknown.

Note: Notwithstanding the above lists, almost all underground bishops are either in jail, under house arrest, hiding with or without arrest warrants, in labor-camps, or under severe surveillance.

Priests In Prison

Father HUO Junlong 霍俊龍 , Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested August 6, 2004. (See our press release August 16, 2004)

Father JIANG Yanli 姜彥利, Qing Yuan County 清苑縣, Hebei 河北

Father LIU Hong Geng 劉紅更, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested 2003.

Father LU Genjun 鹿根君, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested February 17, 2006. (See our press release February 23, 2006)

Father MA Wuyong 馬武勇, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested August 6, 2004. Detained in Qing Yuan County 清苑縣 detention center.
(See our press release August 16, 2004)

Father PANG Guangzhao 龐光照, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested July 1, 2003.

Father WANG Quanjun 王全軍, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested 2005.

Father WANG Xiongwei 王雄偉, Qing Yuan County 清苑縣, Hebei 河北

http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/prisoners/index.htm

Sam F
06-17-2012, 08:52 AM
Reflecting on the current trends a Cardinal said: "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square". Francis George

John Smith
06-17-2012, 09:04 AM
but if the church demands blind faith, then my statement stands

Partisanship also requires blind faith. From my posts people likely think I'm a flaming liberal. I have no problem, howeveer, with blaming Cinton for signing the bill that ended Glass/Steagul. Or Johnson for lying about the Gulf of Tonkin.

The old "pendulam" swings. Why are so few Republicans able to admit that Saddam was no threat and invading Iraq was not only done behind lies (Collin Powell says he was assured there were four good, reliable sources for what he told the UN; in fact, it was only Curveball)?

Elsewhere on this board I was asked what tax rates I'd put in place. I repeated that I'd go back to the tax rates in place when we put men on the moon. They seemed to work well for the nation. I don't recall geteting a response from the one who asked the question.


I've known many republcians over the years. They all believed, near as I could tell, that the government doesn't belong between a doctor and his patient. Those Republicans should be totally outraged by the present laws regarding abortion and contraception being proposed, and sometimes passed, by the states. They should have been outraged at the Terri Schaivo situation.

Why can they not admit that things Bush and 6 hears of Republcan control of the congrerss passed two tax cuts that we could not afford? The Bush started two wars that serve no purpose? All on borrowed money?

Do they really expect a new president to take office after Bush and, sans support from Republicans, fix all this. Even with total support from Congress, does anyone think this can be fixed in one presidential term, or two terms?

I we, regardless of politcial or religious beliefs can't be honest with ourselves, there is no hope. That means we need to admit when our party is wrong. It means we have to admit that all those jobs didn't magically and suddenly disappare, but have been being outsourced by the private sector for 50 years. What did people think back then when several times a week the news reported another factory was moving out of the country?

If we have trouble creating jobs for the people we have, imagine having more people?

I'd love to see every American start thinking as an American, not as a Christian or as a party member, but as an American and support those things we know have worked before. Ask yourself if we could have put men on the moon with today's tax rates? Could we have built the interstates? Is there ANY evidence that lowering tax rates for the wealthy creates jobs?

When we used the 90% tax rate of the wealthy to build the interstates, that put a lot of private contractors to work. After our WWII debt was paid and the interstates were built and the GI Bill had been funded, tax rates came down. Our greatest post WWII years, IMO, were when our upper tax rate was 70%.

We need, as a nation, to stop worrying about what other people do in their private lives, whether they get abortions or use contraception, who they marry, etc. and get this nation back on sound economic footing.

I would remind you as how things actually happened. The car got invented. This led to roads, which led to more cars being bought, which led to more roads. All of this led to more gas stations, eateries, motels, and more roads and more cars.

Anyone who is truly honest with himself will realize that private industry benefits from government provided infrastructure. Since everyone believe our infrastructure is in need of repair and few think this will cost less to do if we put it off, why can't we get a bill through congress to do this? If there is an answer to this question other than the Republicans don't want Obama to get a victory, I'd love to know what it is.

John Smith
06-17-2012, 09:24 AM
My, how hyperbolic. Churches are exempt. Secular institutions (hospitals, universities) run by the RCC now will have ther employees' birth control paid for by their health insurance companies, with the insurance companies' own money. If this is "the takeover of one's faith by the government", I'm the Pope.

I think it would be good if people put their religion and the party aside and, for a few months thought simply as Americans. I'm like thought of as a blooming liberal, but I admit Clinton is to blame for signing the bill that eliminated Glass/Steagul, and the Johsnons lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.

I know a lot of died in the wool republicans. They should have been outraged at the Terri Schiavo fiasco. They should be outraged at the idea of the government putting itself between a doctor and his patient, but they aren't.

They seem unable/unwilling to lay upon Bush the responsibility of the tax cuts and the wars, and are, IMO, insane to think that any president can solve all these problems in one term, especially with zero help from the opposing party in Congress.

Everyone believe we need to fix our infrastructure. No one thinks this will cost less money if we put it off.

Those who are able to look honestly at history will realize that the automobile brought the need for roads. Roads brought more cars, which brought more roads. The government provided the roads via contracts with private companies. As the roads grew and the number of cars grew, we got gas stations, eateries, motels, etc. This is the way our country works. Why, other than for partisan reasons, aren't we rebuidling our infrastructure now?

I was asked a while back as to the tax rates I would use. I said I'd use the tax rates that were in place when we put the man on the moon. I don't recall getting a response.

We have ample evidence that cutting taxes on the "job creators" doesn't create jobs. We have ample evidence that raising their taxes doesn't destroy jobs. We are dishonest, apparently for partisan reasons, when we ignore/forget that all those jobs have been being outsourced for 50 years. What did people think was going to happen? Why is that the president's (any president's) fault? It's the "job creators" whove been moving those jobs.

When we built the interstates, paid off WWII debts, and funded the GI bill, upper income tax rates were 90%. Then they worked their way down to 70% I believe that's what they were when we put men on the moon.

At some point, under Reagan, they dropped to 35%. History shows us that didn't work very well. Ask yourself if we could build the interstates or put a man on the moon with today's tax rates? Ask yourself how you feel about having to buy a ticket from the Russians to get one of our guys to the space station?

We need to put our religious beliefs in check and stop worrying about what pills other people take or what medical procedures other people have. We need to put our partisan beliefs aside and, for a while, think simply as Americans. If we can't find jobs for the people here, why worry about more people to find jobs for?


I know a number of republcans. They believed Saddam had WMD's. Powell says he was advised they had "four reliable sources" for the information he gave the UN. Turns out they only had "Curveball." Why can't the republcians admit that there was no valid reason to invade Iraq, especially on borrowed money? Why do my local schools have to cut programs for our children because we spent all that money rebuilding schools in Iraq we destroyed?

None of these things happen is a bubble or a vacuum. That are all links in a big chain, and each link has an impact on the entire chain.

John Smith
06-17-2012, 09:30 AM
A better example would be the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association*. That's where we're heading. In fact if ObamaCare is upheld, that's exactly where we are.

The Church has a long long history of dealing with tyrannical governments - everything from Caesar to French revolutionary, to Communism... and given that the Pope has mighty few legions, the Church does what she can - which is precious little.


*"In 1957, the Chinese government established the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which rejects the authority of the Vatican and appoints its own bishops..." Wikipedia

Bishops Who Died in Prison

Bishop GAO Kexian 高可賢, Yantai 煙台, Shandong 山東
Arrested in October, 1999. Died in jail January 24, 2005. (See news report.) Cause of death unknown.

Bishop HAN Dingxiang 韓鼎祥, Yong Nian 永年, Hebei 河北
Arrested on or about December 1, 1999. (See our press release January 23, 2000) Died in jail September 9, 2007 at the age of 71. (See press release.) Cause of death unknown.

Bishops In Prison

Bishop SHI Enxiang 師恩祥, Yixian 易縣, Hebei 河北
Arrested April 13, 2001. (See our press release April 22, 2001) His whereabouts are unknown.

Bishop SU Zhimin 蘇志民, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Re-arrested October 8, 1997 after 17 months in hiding. (See our press release October 11, 1997) He has disappeared. His whereabouts are unknown.

Note: Notwithstanding the above lists, almost all underground bishops are either in jail, under house arrest, hiding with or without arrest warrants, in labor-camps, or under severe surveillance.

Priests In Prison

Father HUO Junlong 霍俊龍 , Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested August 6, 2004. (See our press release August 16, 2004)

Father JIANG Yanli 姜彥利, Qing Yuan County 清苑縣, Hebei 河北

Father LIU Hong Geng 劉紅更, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested 2003.

Father LU Genjun 鹿根君, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested February 17, 2006. (See our press release February 23, 2006)

Father MA Wuyong 馬武勇, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested August 6, 2004. Detained in Qing Yuan County 清苑縣 detention center.
(See our press release August 16, 2004)

Father PANG Guangzhao 龐光照, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested July 1, 2003.

Father WANG Quanjun 王全軍, Baoding 保定, Hebei 河北
Arrested 2005.

Father WANG Xiongwei 王雄偉, Qing Yuan County 清苑縣, Hebei 河北

http://www.cardinalkungfoundation.org/prisoners/index.htm

I kind of miss the point. Seems to me the nuns are simply trying to stand up for those things the church claims to believe in. Helping the poor among us. Where does a Church get the right for itself to "demand" any behavior? It can provide guidance and suggestions based upon its beliefs, but even its own teachings don't seem to let it go past that.

Preaching that contraception is a sin is one thing. Passing laws to make it unavailable, or opposing laws that make it available is something else. At some point they are denying you the free choice their God gives you.

Tom Montgomery
06-17-2012, 10:07 AM
I see that Sam essentially dodged your question, George.

I am curious as well. How has this issue been handled by the RCC institutions in countries with single-payer health systems/NHC? Such as Italy or the British Commonwealth?

Tom Montgomery
06-17-2012, 10:13 AM
Reflecting on the current trends a Cardinal said: "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square". Francis George

That is an astoundingly cynical view of the consequences of the operation of the American democratic-republic by a natural born American.

Some despise living in a pluralistic society.

Keith Wilson
06-17-2012, 10:31 AM
Minor intrusion into the free practice of religion . . . This is not an issue of religious freedom. Catholics are free to practice their religion as they wish. No one is required to use birth control. Churches are exempt. Secular institutions run by churches must follow the law like everyone else. Jesus has no say in the matter; he's long dead, and the government of the US is run by the citizens of the US.

What if Catholic hospitals objected to occupational safety laws on religious grounds? Physician licensing laws? Should they be exempt?

Sam, you didn't answer the question about Catholics in European countries where birth control is covered by the heath care system. You avoided it completely by bringing up China, where there isn't much religious freedom.

And again, the bishops have been notably quiet on economic issues. Yes, the documents are probably there in a dusty drawer somewhere, but where are the press conferences, the impassioned public pronouncements, the demonstrations, the American Equality League, the "economic justice month" observed in all the churches, the threatened excommunication of Mr. Ryan? Nothing. But Georgetown University's insurance has to cover birth control pills, and you'd think the Visigoths were at the gates of Rome. You can tell what they think is important.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 10:45 AM
This is not an issue of religious freedom.

Sorry you don't get to decide that.


Catholics are free to practice their religion as they wish.

That is obviously untrue. Catholics are being forced to violate their consciences and pay for something they find immoral.
And again, what you gonna do when they come for you, bad boy?
Why won't you answer that?



Sam you didn't answer the question about Catholics in European countries where birth control is covered by the heath care system. You avoided it completely by bringing up China, where there isn't much religious freedom.

China. Europe, Amerika, what's the difference in this context?
Now, I don't now the details of Europe's various healthcare systems, so I can't speak to them. However, if you could demonstrate that the Church officially approves of being forced to pay for immoral acts... well then, you'd have a point. But you can do no such thing.


And again, the bishops have been notably quiet on economic issues...
Funny you should mention that!
I called Paul Ryan - he's on my speed dial ;) - and asked him that same question.

You know what he said? "A majority of Catholics ignore the teachings of the church anyway, so I'm free to legislate as I please."

Having been soundly defeated by you on that very issue, I had to agree that he is quite correct.
Don't you love it when you win? :D :D :D

Sam F
06-17-2012, 10:56 AM
I kind of miss the point.

Yes you have.


Seems to me the nuns are simply trying to stand up for those things the church claims to believe in. Helping the poor among us.

And that's one of the things the Catholic health care system does. But since Catholics don't discriminate against non-Catholics, the government claims jurisdiction over those hospitals and everything else the Church does that doesn't discriminate... which pretty much leaves Communion and nothing else. That's not exactly rational of our government - but nobody with more than a passing acquaintance of the government ever said it was rational.


Where does a Church get the right for itself to "demand" any behavior? It can provide guidance and suggestions based upon its beliefs, but even its own teachings don't seem to let it go past that.

Well I gotta admit it you're right on that score. Next time a priest tells me not to steal, lie, commit adultery, and murder, I'll tell him he's wrong. Thanks!


Preaching that contraception is a sin is one thing. Passing laws to make it unavailable, or opposing laws that make it available is something else.
Yes, that would be something else.
Too bad for your argument that neither the Church nor anybody else is doing that.


At some point they are denying you the free choice their God gives you.

Absolutely! I'll keep that in mind next time I see some unattended property that I fancy.

George Jung
06-17-2012, 11:15 AM
I think you're agreeing with the Judge George.

Ooopsie! Guess that speed-reading class was money wasted, eh?

AFA my previous question - after more thought, my suspicion is that it's a non-issue in Europe - because the RCC isn't 'buying' healthcare coverage; it's provided by the state, correct?

Canoeyawl
06-17-2012, 11:25 AM
Reflecting on the current trends a Cardinal said: "I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square". Francis George
He also said;

"you don’t want the Gay Liberation Movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan."

Nice guy...

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-17-2012, 11:27 AM
I was not aware that Sam's organisation had any views on the National Health Service in Britain, so I Googled the question, and found this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/14/catholic-leader-attacks-nhs

George Jung
06-17-2012, 11:35 AM
I suspect you will disagree, but reading that piece, the RCC position sounds consistent/the concerns raised important. The biggest difference - it's a criticism and not a policy.
Also, says nothing about OCC or their use.

Tom Montgomery
06-17-2012, 12:07 PM
AMERIKA? :mad:

Show a little respect.

Some despise living in a pluralistic society. :mad:

ccmanuals
06-17-2012, 12:08 PM
The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions: $71,000,000,000

June 16, 2012 By Hemant Mehta (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/author/hemant-mehta/) 76 Comments (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/#comments)
We know churches get tax exemptions, but how much money does that actually come out to?
University of Tampa professor Ryan T. Cragun along with students Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega ran some calculations and figured out a number (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=cragun_32_4):
While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion — to the tune of about $71 billion every year.

So… chump change.
Their article (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=cragun_32_4) (with a defense of how they calculated the amount) appears in the June/July 2012 issue of Free Inquiry.
“The issue of religious tax preferment is especially relevant now because the number of Americans living outside any religious tradition continues to grow,” said Tom Flynn, Free Inquiry’s editor. “That underscores the unfairness of taxing all Americans to subsidize religious institutions that only some Americans utilize.”

The researchers already know what they’ll get criticized for:
… before we get into our calculations, we think it best to address a criticism that is likely to be raised about this article. By suggesting that these groups should pay taxes, we are likely to be criticized by those who think that religions are largely charitable institutions engaged in beneficial service or charitable work and should therefore be exempt from taxes.

Cue reporter Kimberly Winston‘s article (http://www.religionnews.com/politics/law-and-court/atheists-raise-doubts-about-religious-tax-exemption) in which she interviews a critic of this finding:
… Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said that Americans have made a democratic decision that religious institutions are good for our communities — believers and atheists alike.
“Whether it is the Quakers opposing slavery, Reverend King arguing for equality, or a Catholic soup kitchen feeding and sheltering all in need,” Rienzi said, “our history is full of examples confirming the great public benefit of our religious diversity.”

Right… because church leaders never use the pulpit to oppose civil rights for gay Americans, or speak out against affordable/accessible health-care for women, or use the extra money to buy themselves a larger house because Jesus wants them to be prosperous…
The researchers also ran a few other calculations:
States bypass an estimated $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes.

Capital gains tax exemptions for religious institutions may be as much as $41 million a year.

U.S. clergy may claim as much as $1.2 billion in tax exemptions annually via the parsonage allowance.

Given the current political scene, none of this is going to change anytime soon. Religious groups have far too much power in Washington and they’re not about to ask the government to remove their special privileges. But we can keep the pressure on.
Even if these calculations are proven to be off, the principle isn’t going to change: Religion is a business, churches get tax breaks they don’t really deserve, and we’d all be better off if they paid their fair share.

Keith Wilson
06-17-2012, 12:31 PM
Mr Ryan is indeed free to legislate as he pleases, and to ignore the teachings of his church if he wishes. No church in the US has the power to compel obedience. Mr Ryan's ideas are not my point. My point is about the actions of the US RCC hierarchy. Compare the amount of effort they've put into opposing Mr Ryan's Social Darwinism compared to that spent opposing a having to pay for insurance covering birth control. Why are they doing this? Why do they act like birth control is more important than concentration of wealth and power?

wardd
06-17-2012, 01:13 PM
Sorry you don't get to decide that.



That is obviously untrue. Catholics are being forced to violate their consciences and pay for something they find immoral.
And again, what you gonna do when they come for you, bad boy?
Why won't you answer that?




China. Europe, Amerika, what's the difference in this context?
Now, I don't now the details of Europe's various healthcare systems, so I can't speak to them. However, if you could demonstrate that the Church officially approves of being forced to pay for immoral acts... well then, you'd have a point. But you can do no such thing.


Funny you should mention that!
I called Paul Ryan - he's on my speed dial ;) - and asked him that same question.

You know what he said? "A majority of Catholics ignore the teachings of the church anyway, so I'm free to legislate as I please."

Having been soundly defeated by you on that very issue, I had to agree that he is quite correct.
Don't you love it when you win? :D :D :D

it's been decided, you just don't like the decision

i find war immoral, can i deduct that portion from my taxes?

Tom Montgomery
06-17-2012, 01:17 PM
Mr Ryan's ideas are not my point. My point is about the actions of the US RCC hierarchy. Compare the amount of effort they've put into opposing Mr Ryan's Social Darwinism compared to that spent opposing a having to pay for insurance covering birth control. Why are they doing this? Why do they act like birth control is more important than concentration of wealth and power?

Because they think it is more important?

The RCC has its priorities. The rest of the world has theirs.

MattL
06-17-2012, 01:21 PM
OK, just got here, it looked like a nice light read, opened it up and quickly saw the diatribe started by Sam F. Why does anyone answer him. I'm out of here.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 02:16 PM
I was not aware that Sam's organisation had any views on the National Health Service in Britain, so I Googled the question, and found this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/14/catholic-leader-attacks-nhs

There you go...

Society is being debased by an institutionalised "hidden violence" towards those most in need of care and protection, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales said yesterday. He also criticised the NHS for treating some patients with a lack of humanity.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols used a special service at Westminster Cathedral to make a highly personal speech, striking out against what he described as a widespread lack of compassion towards the sick and the dying. "There is a hidden violence in so many of our systems, even those of care," he told the congregation at the annual mass for the sick, at which the ill are anointed with oil and prayers are said for their recovery.

Too often, he said, the NHS reduces those most in need of comfort and compassion to nothing more than "a bundle of genes and actions".

To be fair though - the dehumanization Nichols observes is not all that far from the wallet biopsy all too often performed in US hospitals.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 02:18 PM
i find war immoral, can i deduct that portion from my taxes?
No but you can be a contentious objector.
Well, you used to be able to do that.
You see by the HHS "logic", since war doesn't necessarily involve people of just your religion, you really have no conscience rights to oppose it.
So long as you keep the war strictly within your church, you should be OK.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 02:22 PM
Mr Ryan is indeed free to legislate as he pleases, and to ignore the teachings of his church if he wishes.

That's your position. So quit complaining that the Bishops don't oppose economics enough to suit you. You really can't commend one group and condemn another for each being unfaithful. It isn't done you know.


Why are they doing this? Why do they act like birth control is more important than concentration of wealth and power?

I already gave you the documentation. Read it.
It's not about birth control - that's just liberal propaganda - it's about the State compelling Catholics to violate their consciences.

Sam F
06-17-2012, 02:23 PM
Well I must say I'm disappointed. While I was a way I cleaned up my shop. Hand planed a thick oak board and turned it into a new base for my jig saw, mounted and tested said saw, rebuilt a Ryobi 4-stroke string trimmer carb, ran and tested that machine, and did two loads of laundry and hung the out to dry... and that is all y'all managed to come up with?
Golly!

Tom Montgomery
06-17-2012, 02:24 PM
There you go...

To be fair though - the dehumanization Nichols observes is not all that far from the wallet biopsy all too often performed in US hospitals.

Cool.

So is the RCC pursuing lawsuits in the UK to overturn the law?

Sam F
06-17-2012, 02:30 PM
He also said;
"you don’t want the Gay Liberation Movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan."
Nice guy...

Too late for that

“Gays” Call for Violence Against Christian Supporters of Prop 8
In a stunning reaction to the passage of state constitutional marriage protection amendments in California, Arizona and Florida, several self identified homosexuals on a number of homosexual blogs are advocating violence against Christians and other supporters of traditional marriage. Additionally, some homosexuals are calling for church burnings in response to yesterday’s three state referenda in defense of natural marriage.

or perhaps you prefer actual violence to just incitement...


A Carlsbad man was arrested after allegedly assaulting an elderly couple over their pro-Prop. 8 sign:

...accused of punching an elderly couple because they had Yes On Prop 8 signs in their yard says he’s innocent.

Thursday, Lawrence Pizzicara pleaded not guilty to attacking his neighbors on Monday allegedly during an argument over Prop 8 signs.

The couple suffered numerous injuries.

Pizzicara is being held on $200,000 bail.

Tom Montgomery
06-17-2012, 02:36 PM
It's not about birth control - that's just liberal propaganda - it's about the State compelling Catholics to violate their consciences.

Oh....

Well, the State compels Rastafarians to refrain from smoking ganja. The State also prohibits the Church of Satan from sacrificing virgins. The State also prohibits Mormons from engaging in polygamy.

And who is the State in the U.S.A.? The people as represented by their elected officials.

Some despise living in a pluralistic society.

wardd
06-17-2012, 11:27 PM
the bilge is turning into samf daycare

he needs to learn to play nice with others

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-18-2012, 03:53 AM
I don't understand why Sam F acts as he does. He does not convert anyone to his way of thinking; he just seems concerned to prove himself right by his lights.

As for his freedom to act as his conscience dictates, his system of belief is perverse, it is not evidence based, and some of its consequences cause suffering, on a wide scale. I do not see why he should be indulged in a claimed "right" to inflict suffering on others.

skuthorp
06-18-2012, 04:44 AM
Sammy F is a fanatic. If as his byline states he is a convert then that is not so surprising. He's made a big personal commitment and the very sniff of doubt is not to be entertained. I can understand that he can regard any intrusion into religions territory is not acceptable, where the problem lies as it did in the past is that he/they regard all aspects of life as religious territory. For the same reason Islam, which does not discriminate between religious and civil power, has problems with democratic institutions as we know them. There was no such thing as democracy and a civil society when Islam, Judaism and Christianity were invented, only kings and Christianity wen't down hill from there.
Comments like: "the Evil Stupid Party" are a measure of his frustration and mindset, but I doubt he's trying to convert anyone except himself.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-18-2012, 05:28 AM
How can anyone respect people who say, "I believe "x" - you must grant me freedom of conscience."?

Sam's beliefs are perverse and harmful, but of course what he really wants and craves is the chance to believe himself to be some form of "martyr" for his beliefs. He does not deserve it.

skuthorp
06-18-2012, 05:34 AM
Well he wont be much of a martyr here but I hadn't thought of it that way ACB, the whole business of religion being completely academic to me.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-18-2012, 05:36 AM
Martrydom is not available virtually. All we can offer here is ridicule.

skuthorp
06-18-2012, 05:42 AM
Which is a shame, but he's become even more extreme over recent times which to me indicates some doubts. However I may be ascribing reasoned behaviour where it does not apply.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-18-2012, 05:49 AM
The same thought struck me.

This lies at the back of a lot of Islamist extremism, of course.

An interesting example of "extremism to reinforce faith in the face of doubt" in the secular world was the Hong Kong property bubble of 1996-7; everyone was worried about the handover to China on the 1st July 1997 but they chose to suppress their doubts by investing in the property market, which would of course have been wrecked by a bad outcome to the handover.

The handover passed off perfectly well... the Asian financial crisis broke three weeks later and the property market crashed.

Sam F
06-18-2012, 08:35 AM
I don't understand why Sam F acts as he does.

OK there's fallacious thinking again. It's not about me Andrew.
If you can't deal with the facts and ideas, keep your hands off the keyboard and leave me out of it.


He does not convert anyone to his way of thinking;...

You've made no progress in converting me either. So what?


he just seems concerned to prove himself right by his lights.

You and anybody else has the chance, many chances actually, to prove me wrong. Do it and I'll change my mind. All you need to do is do it.


As for his freedom to act as his conscience dictates, his system of belief is perverse, it is not evidence based, and some of its consequences cause suffering, on a wide scale....

But Andrew, as a Christian, you're merely calling the kettle black. As I already noted your own Anglican people initiated genocidal biological warfare against native Americans. Ignore if if you will, but the fact remains.
I have to say though that your Protestant predicament is highly ironic - undermine the Catholic Church and you end up undermining yourself.


I do not see why he should be indulged in a claimed "right" to inflict suffering on others.

This is politically naive at best and disingenuous at worse. All sorts of policies, whether religious or state, cause suffering of one sort or another to somebody.
Parent's inflict suffering when they deny ice cream to an obese child. A city does it when it won't let obese people eat what they like, the state does it when it bombs the hell out of some innocent villager. And to use your own favored example, the awful suffering caused by having sex without condoms - having condoms of course relieves all suffering. Whether anyone has that right or not is besides the point - you do it, everybody does it.

When you manage to work out your Utilitarian math and demonstrate that you actually have produced the greatest good for the most people, you still will have caused somebody to suffer.
BTW, I'm still waiting for your math on that one. Lost your calculator or something?

Sam F
06-18-2012, 08:45 AM
Martrydom is not available virtually. All we can offer here is ridicule.

Have at it.
You will not of course, be upset when you yourself are ridiculed, right?
Really, this talk about "martyrdom" is itself utterly ridiculous. Wouldn't actually responding with evidence, fact and the use of reasoning be more effective?

However, as a Christian, do you object to this?


119Psalm 119:51-61

51 The insolent ridicule me without mercy, but I don't budge from your revelation. 52 I watch for your ancient landmark words, and know I'm on the right track. 53 But when I see the wicked ignore your directions, I'm beside myself with anger. 54 I set your instructions to music and sing them as I walk this pilgrim way. 55 I meditate on your name all night, God, treasuring your revelation, O God. 56 Still, I walk through a rain of derision because I live by your Word and counsel. 57 Because you have satisfied me, God, I promise to do everything you say. 58 I beg you from the bottom of my heart: smile, be gracious to me just as you promised. 59 When I took a long, careful look at your ways, I got my feet back on the trail you blazed. 60 I was up at once, didn't drag my feet, was quick to follow your orders. 61 The wicked hemmed me in - there was no way out - but not for a minute did I forget your plan for me.

Yeah, the King James version says "derision" rather than ridicule, but this works well enough.

So, do you still want to engage in ridicule rather than reason and evidence?
The choice is yours to make.

Sam F
06-18-2012, 08:54 AM
Which is a shame, but he's become even more extreme over recent times which to me indicates some doubts.

Ah, doubts? If I ever had any doubts they have been greatly relieved by the utterly inadequate responses combined with the hopelessly ineffective personal attacks (i.e. ad hominem fallacy) which inevitably characterize these discussions.

You folk don't appreciate what a risk I take - someone might actually convince me via reasoning and evidence in a honest debate...

Oh, never mind! Here there is absolutely NO RISK of that happening. :D :D :D

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-18-2012, 09:23 AM
I do understand your organisation's concern about the formation of souls, and why it leads to your organisation trying to interfere in politics by threatening to excommunicate a President for offering state subsidy for contraception.

It's rather like the Communist Party's adherence to the labour theory of value.

Both are dangerous twaddle, the result of arguing from misconceved first principles.

TomF
06-18-2012, 09:49 AM
In a recent Catholic Register (http://www.catholicregister.org/news/international/item/13868-us-contraception-debate-unlikely-in-canada)story, Catholic Health Alliance of Canada executive director James Roche said that he would find it unlikely that something like the Catholic/Obamacare ruckus would be on the table here in Canada.

Abortion is legal, though Catholic operated hospitals can (and have) enter into formal agreements in which they decline to perform them - and the Provincial/Territorial governments which operate Medicare do their planning to ensure access is available to citizens through other venues. Contraception is typically not free under Medicare, but is a feature of virtually all group benefits packages. Contraception - via condoms, pills etc. - is typically free through a variety of community clinics too, and many physicians distribute contraceptive pills as samples.

The Catholic church is a strong supporter of Canada's Medicare system, despite this - and has frequently gone on record when one or another government initiative appears to restrict or roll-back universal access to this or that service.

wardd
06-18-2012, 10:09 AM
OK there's fallacious thinking again. It's not about me Andrew.
If you can't deal with the facts and ideas, keep your hands off the keyboard and leave me out of it.



You've made no progress in converting me either. So what?



You and anybody else has the chance, many chances actually, to prove me wrong. Do it and I'll change my mind. All you need to do is do it.



But Andrew, as a Christian, you're merely calling the kettle black. As I already noted your own Anglican people initiated genocidal biological warfare against native Americans. Ignore if if you will, but the fact remains.
I have to say though that your Protestant predicament is highly ironic - undermine the Catholic Church and you end up undermining yourself.



This is politically naive at best and disingenuous at worse. All sorts of policies, whether religious or state, cause suffering of one sort or another to somebody.
Parent's inflict suffering when they deny ice cream to an obese child. A city does it when it won't let obese people eat what they like, the state does it when it bombs the hell out of some innocent villager. And to use your own favored example, the awful suffering caused by having sex without condoms - having condoms of course relieves all suffering. Whether anyone has that right or not is besides the point - you do it, everybody does it.

When you manage to work out your Utilitarian math and demonstrate that you actually have produced the greatest good for the most people, you still will have caused somebody to suffer.
BTW, I'm still waiting for your math on that one. Lost your calculator or something?


it is about you, you have made yourself the spokesman for the rcc here

watching you i thank god i'm an atheist

Sam F
06-18-2012, 10:18 AM
I do understand your organisation's concern about the formation of souls,...

Which the Anglicans don't share? Really Andrew?
I mean if you want to repudiate your faith that's no business of mine... but you at least ought to do so explicitly before you criticize others for believing the very same thing.


It's rather like the Communist Party's adherence to the labour theory of value.

Both are dangerous twaddle, the result of arguing from misconceved first principles.

Speaking of principles... I'm still waiting for the math you use to determine the greatest good for the greatest number.

Lacking that, you're just blowing smoke.

Sam F
06-18-2012, 10:20 AM
it is about you,

Then you have committed yourself to a lifetime of fallacious thinking.
Hey, it's not like I didn't know that already! :D



watching you i thank god i'm an atheist

Aside from the metaphysical absurdity... there mere fact that you can't even manage a coherent argument speaks highly against Atheism.
But then, it is improper to judge any faith by its worst adherents. ;)

wardd
06-18-2012, 10:23 AM
Then you have committed yourself to a lifetime of fallacious thinking.
Hey, it's not like I didn't know that already! :D






Aside from the metaphysical absurdity... there mere fact that you can't even manage a coherent argument speaks highly against Atheism.
But then, it is improper to judge any faith by its worst adherents. ;)


extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, where is yours?

Sam F
06-18-2012, 10:24 AM
In a recent Catholic Register (http://www.catholicregister.org/news/international/item/13868-us-contraception-debate-unlikely-in-canada)story, Catholic Health Alliance of Canada executive director James Roche said that he would find it unlikely that something like the Catholic/Obamacare ruckus would be on the table here in Canada. ..

I guess you don't live in Canada?


CONSCIENCE DILEMMA FOR CANADIAN HEALTH CARE WORKERS ADDRESSED IN SERIES OF ARTICLES
VANCOUVER, B.C, October 17, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The B.C. Catholic newspaper has published an excellent series of articles on the conscience dilemmas faced by Canadian Health Care workers.

The four part series by Greg J. Edwards relates the history of discrimination against morally principled health care workers and some of the attempts to defend their right to refuse to participate in procedures that violate deeply held moral or religious beliefs. These conflicts experienced by principled doctors, nurses and now pharmacists are exposed in the Respect for Life Medicine series which can be viewed at: http://bcc.rcav.org/special/index.htm

Sam F
06-18-2012, 10:26 AM
extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, where is yours?

Nothing extraordinary about it. I claim that you use fallacious thinking.
Here's the proof:


it is about you,

Cause finita est.

wardd
06-18-2012, 10:28 AM
Nothing extraordinary about it. I claim that you use fallacious thinking.
Here's the proof:



Cause finita est.


still making it about you

TomF
06-18-2012, 10:42 AM
Sam,

I note that the series of 4 articles from a BC Catholic newspaper was from 2002. Even a decade old, I'd like to read them - unfortunately, the link you provided isn't working for me.

Please note that the comments I'd referred to by James Roche, Executive Director of the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada were made in a Catholic Register (http://www.catholicregister.org/news/international/item/13868-us-contraception-debate-unlikely-in-canada)story from last February. I suspect that Mr. Roche's position would make him aware of lawsuits by Catholic organizations against Canadian provinces/territories respecting health care.

I do not dispute that many Catholics (and many others) face a variety of ethical dilemmas respecting health care decisions. It is, after all, part of the crucial stock-in-trade of any responsible pastoral care and medical ethics work. But there aren't wholesale Catholic lawsuits against Canadian universal health care - in fact, while noting various ethical dilemmas, Catholic organizations are often in the forefront of advocacy and lobby groups seeking to extend and improve Canada's Medicare system.

Horace
06-18-2012, 12:45 PM
I note that the series of 4 articles from a BC Catholic newspaper was from 2002. Even a decade old, I'd like to read them - unfortunately, the link you provided isn't working for me.
.................................................. ....

I do not dispute that many Catholics (and many others) face a variety of ethical dilemmas respecting health care decisions. It is, after all, part of the crucial stock-in-trade of any responsible pastoral care and medical ethics work. But there aren't wholesale Catholic lawsuits against Canadian universal health care - in fact, while noting various ethical dilemmas, Catholic organizations are often in the forefront of advocacy and lobby groups seeking to extend and improve Canada's Medicare system. Neither is the US Roman Catholic Church engaging in “wholesale Catholic lawsuits” against 0bamacare: their issue is quite narrowly defined. Why are you implying otherwise? Or do you have some other context or agenda?

Re the dead link in Sam F's post (#153): I used an occult technology (telephone) to determine that the articles are indeed no longer available at The B. C. Catholic's website. However, a little googling turned up the four links below; I can't guarantee that they are the same articles referenced in Sam's post, but the internal references indicate that they are. I present them without comment.

General practice docs and obstetrics (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion21.html)
Accommodating conscience (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion22.html)
Medical Students for Choice (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion23.html)
Pharmacy colleges (http://www.consciencelaws.org/repression/repression-021.html) quash conscientious objection (http://www.consciencelaws.org/repression/repression-021.html)

TomF
06-18-2012, 01:04 PM
Neither is the US Roman Catholic Church engaging in “wholesale Catholic lawsuits” against 0bamacare: their issue is quite narrowly defined. Why are you implying otherwise? Or do you have some other context or agenda?

Re the dead link in Sam F's post (#153): I used an occult technology (telephone) to determine that the articles are indeed no longer available at The B. C. Catholic's website. However, a little googling turned up the four links below; I can't guarantee that they are the same articles referenced in Sam's post, but the internal references indicate that they are. I present them without comment.

General practice docs and obstetrics (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion21.html)
Accommodating conscience (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion22.html)
Medical Students for Choice (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion23.html)
Pharmacy colleges (http://www.consciencelaws.org/repression/repression-021.html) quash conscientious objection (http://www.consciencelaws.org/repression/repression-021.html)Let me be clear - I am not implying that there's a great breadth of issues in the current American lawsuits; the "wholesale" word was intended to imply the breadth of participation among Catholic groups within them. And in that, I'm relying on the impression generated by SamF's postings, that more American Catholic organizations support the lawsuits than appear to support Obamacare. These "radical" nuns notwithstanding. I fully recognize that it may be an error to accept the characterization of wholesale Catholic support implied by Sam's posts.

Were there similar lawsuits launched on this issue by a broad coalition of Catholic organizations in Canada against this or that element of the Canadian Medicare system, the Executive Director of the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada would doubtless have worded his recent remarks to the Catholic Register differently. He essentially said that what you're experiencing is not really a legal issue in Canada.

Does that clear it up for you any?

Thanks for the links to those historical articles - I'll give them a look.

Tom Montgomery
06-18-2012, 01:29 PM
.
What a fascinating thread!



Pravda on the Potomac

radical nuns

I take it you're not a native English speaker.

Haven't you got anything except fallacy, ignorance, and stereotyping?

Naturally, I was never on the bus, but I think it's time for you to get off this one. Unless you just like losing.

Don't be stupid.

You see your error works like this:
Vis-a-vis US policy soldiers rapes other soldiers. "weren't they exercising freedom of the mind?"
Why of course they were!

Woof Woof!!! Again? Really lad, can't you at least try to refute the facts I posted?
Make at least some effort?
Evidently not.
Grrrrrr, BARK, BARK! HOWL !!! And yes, I am laughing at you!

Well, since listening to barking, while it does have its features, is a total waste of time... I'll trundle off and do something more productive, like watching grass grow.

Indeed I accept the general judgement that I am an idiot.

the Evil Stupid Party

I know we have deep philosophical differences, but I'd never figured you for a chump.

Amerika

If you can't deal with the facts and ideas, keep your hands off the keyboard and leave me out of it.

Then you have committed yourself to a lifetime of fallacious thinking.

TomF
06-18-2012, 01:34 PM
Radical Nuns, Pravda and ESP, and howling at the moon all in the same thread.

You can't get stuff like this on NetFlicks. :D

Kaa
06-18-2012, 02:34 PM
You people have been approaching all this from the entirely wrong direction:

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2012061256749/National-news/the-power-of-faith-and-medicine.html

:-D

Kaa

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
06-18-2012, 02:55 PM
.....

You can't get stuff like this on NetFlicks. :D

Economics 101 - supply and demand?

John Smith
06-19-2012, 06:41 AM
Which the Anglicans don't share? Really Andrew?
I mean if you want to repudiate your faith that's no business of mine... but you at least ought to do so explicitly before you criticize others for believing the very same thing.



Speaking of principles... I'm still waiting for the math you use to determine the greatest good for the greatest number.

Lacking that, you're just blowing smoke.

As far as I'm concerned you are entitled to any form of faith you wish. It's when you use the government to impose your beliefs on others that I have a problem. Your freedom to practice your faith is just like my freedom to practice mine.

Sam F
06-19-2012, 08:57 AM
Neither is the US Roman Catholic Church engaging in “wholesale Catholic lawsuits” against 0bamacare: their issue is quite narrowly defined. Why are you implying otherwise? Or do you have some other context or agenda?

Re the dead link in Sam F's post (#153): I used an occult technology (telephone) to determine that the articles are indeed no longer available at The B. C. Catholic's website. However, a little googling turned up the four links below; I can't guarantee that they are the same articles referenced in Sam's post, but the internal references indicate that they are. I present them without comment.

General practice docs and obstetrics (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion21.html)
Accommodating conscience (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion22.html)
Medical Students for Choice (http://www.consciencelaws.org/issues-background/abortion/abortion23.html)
Pharmacy colleges (http://www.consciencelaws.org/repression/repression-021.html) quash conscientious objection (http://www.consciencelaws.org/repression/repression-021.html)

Thanks Horace!
I didn't realize the links were dead... but that happens all too often on the Internet.
BTW, one point was to note that Canada isn't exactly the uniform Secular Paradise that some Canadians seem to believe.
Yeah, if all you listen to was As It Happens... well even then, you'd at least here of some contrary views even if they were given much air time.

Sam F
06-19-2012, 09:00 AM
As far as I'm concerned you are entitled to any form of faith you wish.
Great!

It's when you use the government to impose your beliefs on others that I have a problem.
I agree! Except that's exactly what government does - all the time. That's what laws are for.
It's just that in the US we have, or are supposed to have, a Constitution that limits government's power to interfere in one's religion (wherein you impose your beliefs on others) and the current administration is doing just that. Given that our President was allegedly a Constitutional Law professor the state of affairs calls into question either his educational bona fides, or his veracity, or competence.


Your freedom to practice your faith is just like my freedom to practice mine.
You betcha.

TomF
06-19-2012, 09:14 AM
Thanks Horace!
I didn't realize the links were dead... but that happens all too often on the Internet.
BTW, my point was only to note that Canada isn't exactly the uniform Secular Paradise that some Canadians seem to believe.
Yeah, if all you listen to was As It Happens... well even then, you'd at least here of some contrary views even if they were given much air time.Sam, I was trying to not make this about me and how I get my information, but about public sources of information. You seem to have forgotten ... I work in Health Policy.

I'd be aware if there were significant lawsuits in my jurisdiction on this issue - there aren't just now. And were there lawsuits of great significance happening in other jurisdictions across Canada, they'd have been raised as information agenda items in calls I have with my colleagues weekly - and they haven't been.

The remarks by the Executive Director of the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada align with that.

Sam F
06-19-2012, 09:55 AM
Sam, I was trying to not make this about me and how I get my information, but about public sources of information. You seem to have forgotten ... I work in Health Policy.

I'd be aware if there were significant lawsuits in my jurisdiction on this issue - there aren't just now...

Tom, nobody is denying the strength of the Canadian government to impose its views. Nor am I saying the the Canadian system and the US systems are in any way clones of each other - they aren't. IRRC, I asked somewhere if they are funded the same way (I doubt that they are), which spoke to your question of why the Canadian Catholics aren't suing the government as they are in the US. If I am correct, that Canadian health care is funded through payroll taxes and not through a Church's self-insurance program, then that is the essential difference.
Taxes are one thing - forcing an organization to directly purchase a product or service that violates its core teachings is quite another. In the US that is exactly what ObamaCare does.

My other point is, as usual, that not all Canadians are quite as happy with abortion as you are. You seem to be quite unaware that these folk exist and that they have legal difficulties.
For example, Canada's pro-life prisoner of conscience Linda Gibbons (& great-grandmother) is back in jail. She and her supporters obviously aren't going to agree with you on Canada's version of open-mindedness and freedom.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-by-prisoner-of-conscience-linda-gibbons

Horace
06-19-2012, 10:06 AM
Let me be clear - I am not implying that there's a great breadth of issues in the current American lawsuits; the "wholesale" word was intended to imply the breadth of participation among Catholic groups within them.

But what you said was: “But there aren't wholesale Catholic lawsuits against Canadian universal health care”. The usual literary presumption of parallel comparison of concepts would clearly indicate that you meant the implication I questioned.


And in that, I'm relying on the impression generated by SamF's postings, that more American Catholic organizations support the lawsuits than appear to support Obamacare. These "radical" nuns notwithstanding. I fully recognize that it may be an error to accept the characterization of wholesale Catholic support implied by Sam's posts.Again, the term for the whole used to misrepresent the specific. Has Sam actually implied this, i. e., in regard to “Obamacare” as a whole, rather than specifically to where its coerced application conflicts with matters of religious conscience, and therefore freedom of religion under the First Amendment?


Were there similar lawsuits launched on this issue by a broad coalition of Catholic organizations in Canada against this or that element of the Canadian Medicare system, the Executive Director of the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada would doubtless have worded his recent remarks to the Catholic Register differently. He essentially said that what you're experiencing is not really a legal issue in Canada.

Of course there isn't—but an additional layer of requirement has been added in the US: that the Church pay for the services, even within the context of their non-profit ministries. ( My understanding of the Canadian model is that these services are paid by funds collected from sources other than the direct taxation of, or forced payment by, the churches. If my understanding is incorrect, please feel free to refine the preceding as needed.)


Does that clear it up for you any?

Thanks for the links to those historical articles - I'll give them a look. Do I detect a little condescension and preemptive disparagement? Well, never mind. You're welcome, though; it was a pleasure to retrieve them, and I hope they are of interest.

And while the articles are indeed a decade old, if the issues have never been addressed to the satisfaction of all involved parties, they would still be of relevance today. So then—are you prepared to demonstrate that they represent only antique, out-dated concerns? And if so, how were the issues resolved?

Sam F
06-19-2012, 10:15 AM
"...to those historical articles"

...Do I detect a little condescension and preemptive disparagement? Well, never mind. You're welcome, though; it was a pleasure to retrieve them, and I hope they are of interest.

And while the articles are indeed a decade old, if the issues have never been addressed to the satisfaction of all involved parties, they would still be of relevance today. ...

Well yes a decade is ages ago. (like all my cars are older than that) Still to hear Tom, you'd think that a decade ago they still wrote in hieroglyphics! :D

Vince Brennan
06-19-2012, 10:48 AM
Radical Nuns, Pravda and ESP, and howling at the moon all in the same thread.

You can't get stuff like this on NetFlicks. :D
However, like Netflix, if the show is sufficiently disgusting or lacking in intellectual content, one can turn it off. Tom, your "Gorge Factor" is MUCH higher than mine. I no longer find this incredible troll amusing. Actually, I don't think I ever did.

John Smith
06-19-2012, 01:52 PM
Great!

I agree! Except that's exactly what government does - all the time. That's what laws are for.
It's just that in the US we have, or are supposed to have, a Constitution that limits government's power to interfere in one's religion (wherein you impose your beliefs on others) and the current administration is doing just that. Given that our President was allegedly a Constitutional Law professor the state of affairs calls into question either his educational bona fides, or his veracity, or competence.
The government is not supposed to be forcing laws upon that are based in religion. Neither is the freedom of religion expressed in our Constitution for organizations; only individuals have those inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

You betcha.

The reason for the constitution is, in part, to promote the general welfare. That includes, IMO, protecting the people from the organizations. As we learn things, like asbestos is dangerous stuff, it is the government who passes laws to protect workers.

There is no reason, ever, for the government to put itself between a doctor and a patient. The very thought of doing so violates the much regaled principle of doctor/patient privilege.

When the religous folk pass laws that prohibit store owners from opening on Sunday, that's using the law as an arm of their religion. The Church, in general, has entirely too many sexual hangups. To pass those on to all of us through laws is simply opposite of what they preach.

They preach that God gives us free will to make choices. They use the law to take those choices from us so we cannot exercise that free will to choose.

It's just wrong from all aspects. I think Beck and Limbaugh are idiots, but I'd not support taking them off the air.

John Smith
06-19-2012, 01:59 PM
Tom, nobody is denying the strength of the Canadian government to impose its views. Nor am I saying the the Canadian system and the US systems are in any way clones of each other - they aren't. IRRC, I asked somewhere if they are funded the same way (I doubt that they are), which spoke to your question of why the Canadian Catholics aren't suing the government as they are in the US. If I am correct, that Canadian health care is funded through payroll taxes and not through a Church's self-insurance program, then that is the essential difference.
Taxes are one thing - forcing an organization to directly purchase a product or service that violates its core teachings is quite another. In the US that is exactly what ObamaCare does.

My other point is, as usual, that not all Canadians are quite as happy with abortion as you are. You seem to be quite unaware that these folk exist and that they have legal difficulties.
For example, Canada's pro-life prisoner of conscience Linda Gibbons (& great-grandmother) is back in jail. She and her supporters obviously aren't going to agree with you on Canada's version of open-mindedness and freedom.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-dismisses-appeal-by-prisoner-of-conscience-linda-gibbons

I'm not sure what is driving the lawsuits over Obamacare, past political motivation. The simple fact is the government forces us to buy from private business all the time. All that safety equipment you're required to have on your boat is a sparkling example.

There seems to be a split within the religious organizations over contraception and abortion. Some thing preventing these is more important than feeding the hungry. Others think feeding the hungry is more important and preventing abortions and birth control will only create more hungry to feed.

Why is the party who preaches personal responsibility so unwilling to let women do so?

TomF
06-19-2012, 02:11 PM
Tom, nobody is denying the strength of the Canadian government to impose its views. Cough! Sputter! I take it you're unfamiliar with Canadian governments? :D
...My other point is, as usual, that not all Canadians are quite as happy with abortion as you are. You seem to be quite unaware that these folk exist and that they have legal difficulties.I walk among anti-abortion protesters and clinic security guards every Tuesday morning, as my path to work takes me alongside a sexual health clinic which performs abortions one morning/week.

Regardless though, my point stands - the Exec Director of the Catholic Health Alliance of Canada and I agree that lawsuits like what you are now seeing in the US are simply not on the horizon. And yes, that's because Medicare is a universal service funded through tax revenue - paid both by employers and employees. That is, a portion of the taxes which end up in either Federal or Provincial "general revenue" (e.g. as opposed to Employment Insurance or Canada Pension Plan payroll deductions) go to fund Medicare services .... including abortions.

But I suspect that you're correct to say that the Catholic charities can choose, in their private benefits packages, to cover contraception or not. I don't know what their choices have been - though Flying Orca (who works in HR for one) probably has an idea.

bobbys
06-20-2012, 03:01 PM
As far as I'm concerned you are entitled to any form of faith you wish. It's when you use the government to impose your beliefs on others that I have a problem. Your freedom to practice your faith is just like my freedom to practice mine..

Except you find these nuns Useful..

Then its no "problem" to hide behind the Habit.

Would any liberal post a thread about Nuns campaigning for Romney..

Strange the only time Catholics are useful is when libs find some against the Pope or pro Democratic..

The rest of the time we are subjected to anti Catholic threads.

Talk about Hypocrisy.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-20-2012, 04:23 PM
.

Except you find these nuns Useful..

Then its no "problem" to hide behind the Habit.

Would any liberal post a thread about Nuns campaigning for Romney..

Strange the only time Catholics are useful is when libs find some against the Pope or pro Democratic..

The rest of the time we are subjected to anti Catholic threads.

Talk about Hypocrisy.

I'm pretty sure that the only Catholic President you've had to date was a Democrat.