**OK, then it should be very easy for you to support this hypothesis with some facts. Please demonstrate that the RCC teachings produce the effect you describe in the magnitude you describe. And if you can’t, then we can safely conclude that you’re ranting to vent unsupported anti-RCC hatred.
Then prove it. It’s your contention. Provide evidence that this effect occurs and that it is evil and that it “more than offsets” all the good the RRC accomplishes, or it will be crystal clear what your agenda is. And it seems to have nothing to do with eradicating ignorance, chief.
And I will not be responding to any additional, “The RCC is evil, 'cause I say so” bullshit.
Wow! I went to the fights and a Great Debate broke out!! Well, almost…
If I could interrupt the festivities for a sec and refer back to the OP…
Not quite.
Rather, the editorial (at least the portion of it that you quoted) is aligned with the common liberal philosophy that morality itself – the absolutist kind, like the Ten Commandments – is confused and inconsistent, and should therefore be discarded. The editorial attempts to justify this position by demonstrating that morality gets in the way of the practical and important business of politics by adding unwanted confusion and impractical constraints on behaviors and beliefs.
The Catholic church just happened to be handy for use as an example, but the writer could have picked on just about any established religion as a representative to make the point.
This is assuming that advocating against the use of birth control and abortion is a destructive thing. I suggest you actually peruse some of the threads presently active in Great Debates. You will find that the Teeming Millions haven’t exactly resolved this one yet. The rest of the world is hotly divided as well.
I would like to thank Evil Captor for decisively showing the rest of the world that I am scum. Truly, your intelligence shineth like a beacon to the rest of us poor saps. However did we live without your genius?
Lessee, Catholics try to control whether or not women have the right to use birth control (BIRTH CONTROL, not just abortion) to control their fertility. Lots of children are born to poor families who can’t support them, and to people who really don’t want them, as a result. Nah, sounds rational enough to me.
Let me know if you come up with an actual argument.
**IMHO, the amount of good the Catholic Church has done in this world over the last 1600 years is more than enough to outweigh any supposedly negative consequences. **
Well, hey, I’m glad those monks preserved those manuscripts during the Dark Ages, too. But it’s kind of ancient history. I mean, I don’t see a lot of racists voting for the Democrats because they USED to be the party of racism, nah, they’re all voting Republican now.
So the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck” standard doesn’t hold here, eh? I would say that it’s fair to make such observations, and also fair to hash out the evidence, or lack of it, they’re based on.
I’ll grant you, the way I phrased it constituted a stylistic excess.
Bob, Bob, Bob. You’re asking me to do an awful lot of work to demonstrate something to the readers of a thread who uniformly are partisans opposed to my POV and hence unlikely to buy my position even if I bring enough evidence to convict a Republican mayor of murder.
My contention is that Catholic positions on birth control and sex generally lead to tuns of unwanted children, especially in third World countries. So the logical thing to do is look at the number of kids in Catholic orphanages vs. the number of kids running loose on the streets or dying or otherwise suffering evidence of parental neglect in countries with strong Catholic influence (such as most Latin American countries). Then compare that to the number of kids in countries mostly free of Catholic influence who are yadda yadda.
A tough grind statistically, but there are probably some pro-choice orgs that might have taken a swat at it. Most political orgs aren’t willing to take on Catholicism directly, though, so it might still be hard.
I’ll prolly look into it and give you some cites if I find them. But I won’t spend a lot of time on it because I don’t think you would respect my position even if I found some great cites, for reasons already stated.
** And if you can’t, then we can safely conclude that you’re ranting to vent unsupported anti-RCC hatred.**
Sez you. I think you’ve already reached that conclusion and wouldn’t be affected by any conceivable amount of evidence.
**
Well it may very well be a rational argument in the hands of some, but you seem to be disturbed by the prohibition of birth control on a personal level which is influencing the way you’re reacting to the Catholic Church, and coloring your remarks thereupon.
Wow, an anti-Republican non sequitur. I never would have expected that from you :rolleyes:
In many of my posts I’ve used the phrases “Catholic hierarcy” “Catholic leaders” and “Catholics leadership” and in some of them I’ve used the term “Catholics.” However, I’ve pretty consistently said that my problem is with Catholic policies re: birth control (though the Catholic history on sexual issues generally and treatment of women and censorship all demonstrably suck big time). If you want to assume that I meant whenever I said “Catholic” that “each and every Catholic person, esp. beagledave’s mom, is responsible for setting these policies” you are at liberty to do so. I can’t prevent you. It’s not my understanding of how things work in Catholicism, but hey, knock yourself out.
:wally
I understand that there are plenty of folks in the Catholic Church who oppose the official position on birth control, abortion, ordination of women, etc. I understand that many Catholics are fine human beings whom I am sure it would be a pleasure to know.
That doesn’t change the fact the official positions of the Catholic Church on these issues, and very evidently, the opinions of many Catholics, are as I have stated.
Sure. But I think the Catholic stand on birth control is so grossly irresponsible that it far overshadows these other things. It’s like, the Catholic hierarchy has built a pile of manure 40 feet high and it’s stinkin’ up the whole town. But there’s some nice flowers growing around its edges.
The opposition of the Church to ordination of women is not a gender issue in the sense of opression/patriarchy/etc., it’s not really political at all. It has a theological basis, which was recently discussed here in GD, based on different gender roles of people in relation to god. You’re responding with what seems like hatred bubbling under the surface to what you obviously perceive as political issues, practices you’re opposed to with great personal hostility. To them, it’s just a matter of theology, and your political objections are irrelevant. You’re welcome to hold whatever beliefs you choose to hold about these issues, but you should know that you may be misunderstanding what these issues are really about, and assigning dastardly intent to what are conceived as apolitical religious doctrines.
And your implication that a Catholic would have to oppose the ban on birth control, abortion, and women priests in order to be a “fine human being” is pretty judgmental. If you can’t consider someone worth knowing unless they hold particular beliefs, you’re really limiting yourself and selling those people short. Maybe you wouldn’t want to marry those people, but I assure you that persons can hold many beliefs we find ridiculous and absurd but yet be fine drinking buddies, sports watching buddies, and overall quality acquaintances. Holding a belief does not make one responsible for the actions of others who happen to hold the same belief.
There is no debate taking place here. Walk away. Don’t indulge this silliness. Do you understand you’re making him happy by paying him the attention he is demanding with his nonsense?
This is a person who, when asked to actually provide evidence for his inflammatory position, responded that it would be too much work and nobody would believe him anyway. There is a name for posters like this.