IOW, “because reasons”.
Look, bad Muslims/Christians are doing bad things, and if you are a good person that adheres to that basic ideology, and you oppose that Bad Stuff, I just want to know why you arent speaking up against it. Louder, please.
People, Czar’s point is like, totes obvs. Just think of it this way
If you feel that either enough is being done, or that they have no obligation to do more, then Czar believes that it is your right to have that opinion. If, on the other hand, you think that he is blaming “good” Muslims for the opinions and actions of the “bad” Muslims, then he thinks you are mistaken. What I suggest that he thinks he is doing is questioning the opinions and actions of the “good” Muslims by examining what they have actually said and/or done.
Which is exactly the sort of opinion shared by the likes of Sean Hannity and Roy Moore who agree with Czar that all members of a religous group (be they Christians or Muslims) are evil and bad because they’re not doing enough to speak out against the “bad” ones.
See? Totally simple.
Or overly simplistic.
I fail to see the difference.
I understand that you were confused by the words I used Perhaps this will make things clearer.
According to this very recent article, three U.S. Imams have called for the extermination of Jews in a four day period (Dec 6-Dec 10th).
Another disturbing statistic is that, if you go back to July, the number nearly doubles. Now, people may claim that these Clerics don’t represent “true” Muslims, and/or that their own particular religious institution affirms the Jew’s right to exist to a great degree. This is fine and dandy…but is it enough? Take another look at the quotes from established religious leaders-is the fact that your own hands are clean supposed to be reassuring?
I’m thinking maybe not.
Contraception per se isn’t banned; neither is unproductive sex when it’s naturally unproductive (that is, married couples aren’t expected to stop having sex if one or both of them is sterile due to age or something else). And even methods of contraception which would normally be considered banned are permitted in exceptional cases (to be consulted with spiritual advisor etc etc*). But a lot of people, both in and outside the RCC, think that both are much more radical bans than they are.
Some of the RCC’s teachings could use a complete redo; many others make much more sense in their complete version than in the simplified ones people often know. We’re working on improving both the first half and the information on the second; just ten years ago it would have been unthinkable for the Pope to receive a transexual in private audience, link in Spanish, or for that man’s book to be sponsored by a priest who’s a well-known media star.
Link about the audience in English.
- There are people who’d claim that the ban on sterilization applies no matter what, but they’re the kind of people who’ll say “it’s selfish to not have biological children” during the baptism of a child who’s adopted because his mother would die if she got pregnant. Most people realize that a pregnancy which kills mother and child doesn’t quite follow the “go forth and multiply” command.
Should we not also make certain we take a good look at the context surrounding those quotes?
I’m not saying it’s not troubling that some religious leaders are saying such things. It is. But it’s not like they’re doing so without opposition from within their own ranks.
Are those Muslims that claim to have greater numbers doing enough with the numbers they have when it comes to Jewish rights?
Sounds like a good question for another thread, doesn’t it?
I think you are missing the point here.
The point of this thread has been explained more than once, and your comment leads me to believe that repeating myself would be a waste of time.
Good.
Nava wrote, “Contraception per se isn’t banned.”
The Catholic Church has always denied the liciety of the use of chemicals and equipment to prevent the conception of a child. On the other hand, the couple who wish to space the births of their children may refer to the naturally-occurring cycles of fertility and infertility; to do so has never been forbidden by the Church. There are ministers of the Church who dissent from the authentic teaching, and who misdirect the Catholic faithful about contraception, and so many Catholics may not be familiar with these teachings.
:shrug:
Wouldn’t shock me. The conversation is entirely all over the map.
You’re right, I did.
(Missed the edit window.)
You know, I’d like a cite for this. I have never heard that the church permits any type of birth control other than NFP. Quite the opposite. :dubious:
You’ve given yourself an example of a generally-allowed method. Congratulations.
And as for the individual cases, that’s both general policy and “my sister in law is my cite”. Both of them actually: the one with the adopted kid and the one who’s a complete jerk.
There are methods of spacing the births of children that are inbuilt to the nature of the human person; to undertake their use cannot in any way be understood as an attempt to usurp the sovereign authority of God with regard to life, sexuality, fertility, conception and birth. Instead, all of these are most holy and sacred gifts, and their lawful enjoyment, also holy and sacred. These methods are not defined by the Church as contraception qua contraception, and to refer to them as such is erroneous.
To resort to the introduction of appliances and chemicals to prevent conception, is what the Church means by contraception. It is not inbuilt; it is artificial. It does not cooperate with the God-given and holy nature of sexuality; it usurps God’s authority over our sexuality.
May be a difference in language, in Spanish we differentiate between métodos contraceptivos artificiales (banned) and métodos contraceptivos naturales (allowed).