Posted on 10/27/2009 6:46:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
In America we are a century and a half away from the "Know-Nothing Party", a secret political society that fulminated against the Catholic Church and Irish immigrants. (Asked about its composition, members would say, "I know nothing;" hence, the moniker.) Formed in public as The American Party, the party's hateful, nativist politics took a long time to expunge from our shores. But we now have an Englishman, Richard Dawkins--one of society's "Brites" according to his fellow-Darwinist, Daniel Dennett--in a screed against the Catholic Church that proclaims the same frothing bigotry exemplified by the Know-Nothings. This and Dawkins' various other attacks should remind us that the hoary religious hatreds of old (including those of the angry atheist) were a European legacy. Catholics and other Christians need to realize that Dawkins and Company aim to revive them.
Rome is possibly "the greatest force for evil in the world," Dawkins announces, "a disgusting institution" that is "dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp." That kind of language is like a blast of stale air from the 1850s.
You cannot expect his fellow Darwinists to repudiate Dawkins for the simple reason that a number (e.g., P.Z. Myers) share his prejudices and his paranoia. Darwinism never was mainly about science; it is about metaphysics. It is a worldview that has no space for the sacred, no regard for the exceptionality of human life. Darwinists, who operate few if any hospitals or homeless shelters, cannot recognize the humanity of those who do.
Dawkins is not an oddity. He is the world's leading Darwinian spokesman. He is hailed at universities, museums and foundations. Publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times--that simply will not run an article by scientists presenting the evidence against Darwinism--can't showcase him enough.
Other than such Know Nothings, what other modern bigots are regarded as so fashionable?
If you want less people to die, teach abstinence. The numbers don't lie. If you want more people to die, teach condoms. How many Russian Roulette arenas would you encourage people (e.g., your children) to enter, with a one percent chance there's a bullet in the chamber?
I thought none of this mattered because HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?
Ironically, this whole argument circles back to Darwin, doesn't it? I mean, in the end, it's just survival of the fittest. Behind one door, we have certain survival. Behind this other door over here, we have not-so-certain survival. If "not-so-certain" survival is acceptable to you, then, really, how interested are you in saving lives in the first place?
There is no disputing that AIDS is a behavioral based epidemic. The question is really about whether we modify the behavior and/or mitigate the consequences of the behavior. An abstinence only policy, by definition should be the first choice, but it will not be 100% effective only because in practice it will not be 100% followed. A condoms only policy will not be 100% effective because condoms and condom usage practices are not 100% error free. It should be advocated when abstinence is not observed.
>>I AM saying that purposely lying about condoms is an atrocious behavior on the part of the Church<<
The Catholic Church does not lie about condom use.
It states facts, condom use does not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The facts are clear.
Hellsbells, they can’t guarantee to prevent pregnancy! And the lib attitude of “throw condoms at the problem” has solved NOTHING.
So why don’t you give us a reference to where the Vatican says that a condom cannot be used by a married couple in self defense if one or another is HIV positive. It is left to pastoral care. My uterus would blow out if I got pregnant again. I was allowed to “do what needed to be done”.
And I mean, from the Vatican. Not the AP or Reuters giving a summary. Here is the actual quote from the Pope. See that there is nothing about married couples there
The question’s premise was “The Catholic Church’s position on the way to fight against AIDS is often considered unrealistic and ineffective,” and the pope responded:
“I would say the opposite. I think that the reality that is most effective, the most present and the strongest in the fight against AIDS, is precisely that of the Catholic Church, with its programs and its diversity. I think of the Sant’Egidio Community, which does so much visibly and invisibly in the fight against AIDS … and of all the sisters at the service of the sick.
“I would say that one cannot overcome this problem of AIDS only with money — which is important, but if there is no soul, no people who know how to use it, (money) doesn’t help. One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem. The solution can only be a double one: first, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual human renewal that brings with it a new way of behaving with one another; second, a true friendship even and especially with those who suffer, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices and to be with the suffering. And these are factors that help and that result in real and visible progress.
“Therefore I would say this is our double strength — to renew the human being from the inside, to give him spiritual human strength for proper behavior regarding one’s own body and toward the other person, and the capacity to suffer with the suffering. … I think this is the proper response and the church is doing this, and so it offers a great and important contribution. I thank all those who are doing this.”
Excellent. Thank you.
They're not even considered a really good way to keep from getting pregnant?
Why would people be stupid enough to think that they're do much to prevent AIDS?
Ditto. I don't know anybody in real life who feels about Catholics the way the malcontents portray them.
I know far too many Protestants who have either converted from Catholicism or have Catholics as relatives.
That said, disagreeing with some aspects of Catholic doctrine, does not qualify one as being a *rabid anti-Catholic* or a *Catholic hater*.
It simply means that one disagrees with some aspects of Catholic doctrine.
Of course not. There are hundreds of millions of people (billions) who disagree with aspects of Catholic doctrine without hating Catholics or the Catholic Church.
I know far too many Protestants who have either converted from Catholicism or have Catholics as relatives.
That said, disagreeing with some aspects of Catholic doctrine, does not qualify one as being a *rabid anti-Catholic* or a *Catholic hater*.
I'm inclined to agree with both of you; HOWEVER, it also needs to be pointed out that just about every anti-Catholic bigot on FR claims to either be a former Catholic or at least married to a former Catholic and they ALL claim to have many close personal friends who are Catholics. (Then again, I have started to suspect that in the case of many of them, they are simply following a script of talking points).
Agreed.
Ah, the old *I don’t hate _____. Some of my best friends......*
Not buying today.....
Sometimes slander and insult are an honor.
Well, mark me down as one former Catholic who disagrees with some Catholic doctrine, but has a great deal of respect for many of the Catholics I know and for the bold and outspoken stand that Catholic Church has taken on many doctrinal and moral issues, especially, abortion and marriage.
Thank you, metmom!
I think Eberstadt's article here is a good place to begin in understanding the full costs
You are quite righteous, Ma’am!
Dawkins is an imbecile who’s time has passed. Outside of England he’s not a leader in anything. He’s a joke.
But Mr.Chapman shows why Reagan had so much trouble making progress shrinking the size of the Federal government if this is an example of the average policy wonks in his administration.
This article is unbelievably ignorant and devoid of facts, except for the part about Dawkins’ frothing bigotry.
Dawkins has lost all his Protestantism except his hatred for Rome. Meanwhile the Muslims are gaining strength and if they become a majority will reduce him—or his kind— to silence, or maybe slavery.
He chooses his words carefully when talking about Islam. he knows they conceal daggers underneath their burkas. (I mean, how do you distinguished a man from a woman if the person is wearing one of those things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.