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?
Dawkins is a twisted man.
His biggest problem with God is that he (Dawkins) isn’t in charge.
Well said. FWIW, my experience has been we all can get over heated on occasion and the vast majority of us regret it later.
He might long for the “good old days” when his head was still attached to his shoulders.
i’ve just watched some videos on U-tube. He was speaking at Berkeley. I would be embarrassed to offer such specious arguments to a group of bright youngsters.
I wonder. Of course we don’t get to see this. One I would ask is how he defines “religion.” It can mean the same thing as Weltumschauung, or world view. Doesn’t deciding that God does not exist determine one’s thoughts and actions as surely as deciding he does? Broadly speaking any ideology is as constricting as any theology.
Look at people like Phil Plait, James Randi, and others. They call themselves “skeptics” yet refuse to entertain any theory which isn’t already in the science books. To them all UFOs are idiots who don’t know what they are looking at, ghosts are nothing more than normal activity mistaken for the supernatural, all alternative medicine is quakery, say the flu vaccine is dangerous and they say you want children to die. etc. etc.
I can't get him to do a second one since now he knows how much I feel appreciated when he does.
Thanks for the ping!
Yes, the Pope himself lies about condoms and AIDS, claiming, with all his knowledge of human viruses, that it will INCREASE the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa.....that, very plainly, is a falsehood.
SOMEHOW, using even YOUR presented numbers, a decrease from 80% to 1% is an "increase."
Fact is, the Pope is more concerned with pushing "morality as the Church sees it", than with saving lives.
It states facts, condom use does not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS
That, very plainly is a bogus claim tailor made for those that wanna say "abstinenece is the only way" and then walk away from the people dying from the disease/virus. Yes, complete abstinence is the only way to prevent HIV infection through sexual contact. It is also a completely unreasonable expectation of ANY animal species.
"Oh well, we TOLD them to abstain from sex...they chose not to" is not going to save those lives.
Nothing will "prevent" HIV/AIDS from spreading or occurring in a population. Actions will only minimize the probability of infection of the individual.
Teaching abstinence will not "prevent" HIV/AIDs from infecting people any more than teachign "don't use IV drugs" does. People will still use IV drugs, will still have unprotected sex, will still have multiple partners, will still be homosexuals, will still be heterosexuals having anal sex with the opposite sex, will still........behave like people.
Ignoring that from behind a veil of superior religious morality will not save lives. The way to save MORE PEOPLE, which is my only task, is to attack the problem with every weapon available, not to choose one weapon and then sit back on a high moral pedestal while people die.
How about if you reply to what I asked instead of ranting.
Where is the quote from the Vatican stating that married couples cannot use condoms for self defense if one partner is HIV infected?
You’re saying that telling people to remain within marriage for sex will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, is not correct?
What planet are you on? Must be the planet “Liberal” where people must rut like rams and no one has self control.
Oh, oh yeah, I get it. Your quote of
“will still........behave like people.”
shows it all. People are not animals. Some of us have the intelligence to realize that.
No, it circles back to me being a public health type....one in the business of saving lives. If you wanna churn that into an artificial type of evolution, so be it.
Behind one door, we have certain survival. Behind this other door over here, we have not-so-certain survival.
Manufactured nonsense. That only works if the ideal is met......and the ideal IS NEVER GOING TO BE MET.
Catholic method:
Step 1: "Hey you people.....stop having sex!!"
Step 2: "Hey you people that are still having sex....stop having sex!!!!"
Step 3: "Hey you people that died from continued sex.....you should've listened the first 2 times!!!"
Even Catholics cannot live up to the no pre-marital sex ideal.
how interested are you in saving lives in the first place?
More interested than you are or ever will be. Go ahead and sit up there on your high moral pedestal and watch those that don't abide by your rules die.....I'll be saving the percentage that won't fit the ideal.
Your world of controlling the behaviors of the People through religious morality rules does not exist.
Could we have a source which shows conclusively that the Pope is (a) not telling the truth; and (b)doing so intentionally?
Fact is, the Pope is more concerned with pushing "morality as the Church sees it", than with saving lives.
That's not a fact, it's a conjecture. There are plausible indications that societal dysfunctions resulting finally in premature death may arise from the acceptance of Artificial Birth Control.
Further, I don't quite get the selective contempt for morality. The value of saving lives by whatever means at whatever future cost in premature death is a moral value. It's not a contest between morality and something else. It's not even a contest between preventing premature death at the expense of chastity and preventing unchastity at the cost of premature deaths. It's a contest between different ways of viewing the consequences of unchastity and the use of Artificial Birth Control
Did you read the Eberstadt article to which I linked?
That, very plainly is a bogus claim ...
If it's "very plainly" bogus could you show how it's bogus? It's not so plain to me.
"Oh well, we TOLD them to abstain from sex...they chose not to" is not going to save those lives.
But it might save other lives.
Ignoring that from behind a veil of superior religious morality will not save lives. The way to save MORE PEOPLE, which is my only task, is to attack the problem with every weapon available, not to choose one weapon and then sit back on a high moral pedestal while people die.
It would be amusing if it were not painful to see somebody proudly and boldly proclaim that his moral view is superior and at the same time mock people who think THEIR moral view is superior. OF COURSE you think your view is superior. You wouldn't advocate for it otherwise. And just as obviously, we think our view is superior.
This is EXACTLY how progressives argue: You are an EVIL person because you don't have my view. Well, maybe so, maybe not. But it certainly doesn't advance the argument to take a kind of time out for proclaiming the moral superiority that somehow arises from not claiming moral superiority.
Well it does advance it a little bit. When I encounter someone who thinks I am evil for thinking my view is better than his while at the same time he proclaims that his view is better than mine, I adopt the working hypothesis that he doesn't understand how to evaluate moral questions.
How about the VATICAN through the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life"150 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."
Shall I snip out the particular phrase?
it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life
Need it bold to see it?
it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life
Did the Church recently lift the ban on artificial contraception? A married couple wearing a condom are not having sex for procreation of human life.
You’re saying that telling people to remain within marriage for sex will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, is not correct?
I finally get it.......you are stuck in a personal relationship mentality and HIV/AIDS "in the individual"....whereas my training comes from looking at everything in a POPULATION. You might get a couple or individual to behave as you wish with whatever brainwashing you want or attempt....you will NEVER get a population to do so. Mayhaps a class in epidemiology is in order.
In addition, you also forget, if you ever knew, that viruses have the ability to mutate and adapt to survive. As in, African HIV is not the same as American HIV....African HIV variants happen to pass through heterosexual sex much easier than American variants. American variants tend to require a much higher infectious dose than is available from heterosexual sex.
Go ahead....call me a liberal again....might get you somewhere.....might save a life. Typical tactic of a loser over at the DU. RACIST!!! LIBERAL!!!! NAZI!!!! "You sound like a fill-in-the-blank-with-supposed-membership-in-the-opposition."
People are not animals.
People are animals, complete with animalistic behaviors. Mayhaps a class in behavioral psychology is in order.....yo know, to have to be educated before speaking.
Some of us have the intelligence to realize that.
Some of us can be willingly umneducated, meanwhile, people die because you cannot control their behaviors.
I GAVE you the exact quote from the Pope.
AND, told you that “artificial birth control” is not taken as such for the life of the mother.
So stop your smarmy cut and paste from the Catechism that have NOTHING to do with saving the live of a married person who’s spouse has AIDS.
Now, AGAIN unless you can give me the exact quote from the Pope that a married couple CANNOT use condoms to protect the life of the mother, you’re blowing out your butt to see your own quotes.
>>I finally get it.......you are stuck in a personal relationship mentality and HIV/AIDS “in the individual”....whereas my training comes from looking at everything in a POPULATION. You might get a couple or individual to behave as you wish with whatever brainwashing you want or attempt....you will NEVER get a population to do so. Mayhaps a class in epidemiology is in order.<<
Thank you for your opinion, Kathleen Sebelius. We’ve been seeing how you operate for a while.
You know, you have an extremely suspicious posting history.
I’ve now counted many a FReeper who thinks you are a lib troll.
Short of the Darwin/Creationism threads, every other thing you say seems to be pretty liberal.
I find it odd.
The Pope is making it up as he goes and is telling an untruth to people that must abide by his words. Condom use will not INCREASE HIV infection rates in a population and, to appeal to ridicule....it is patently LUDICROUS to think that condom use will increase HIV infection rates in a population.
But it might save other lives.
...but it might not. Bet Obama's got some jobs "saved or created in the future" to show you. Way I see it is that your way will save X-lives in 100. I'd rather try to save the same X-lives and then try to save the rest too, through other means. Very simply because I know that your way is an untenable ideal in a population.
There are plausible indications that societal dysfunctions resulting finally in premature death may arise from the acceptance of Artificial Birth Control.
Wow....because people use condoms, society gains a possible dysfunction making people die earlier? REALLY?
I don't quite get the selective contempt for morality.
I have contempt for ANY morality-set that is supposedly compassionate and "cares" about life so vehemently, but only that life that abides by their specific idealistic rules. The rest, F-'em...they made their choices.
The value of saving lives by whatever means at whatever future cost in premature death is a moral value.
Manufacturing future premature deaths as fact? If you want to call saving lives through multiple means a "moral value"....so be it, it's a moral value. Got cancer? We'll only try to get rid of it this one way and if that doesn't work....we tried, so screw!! I see that as nothing more than the "evolution is a religion" tactic to change the discussion. Go bicker in the corner about morals while us public health types save lives you won't bother with. You wanna call that a "moral issue" to twist into on-line comments of superiority/inferiority discussions...call it a hippopotamus for all I care. Meanshile, more people die every day because the ideal you set while trying to control behaviors WILL NEVER BE MET.
Go ahead, call me a liberal, a progressive....such a GREAT tactic...haven't seen that one before.
BWAAAAAAhahahahaha.....that’s because you don’t know me one bit. What “many” a FR YEC nut thinks of me is irrelevant and those Freepers that actually have the balls to leave the keyboard and meet in person at such liberal venues like the Rally for America....know me. Those that Freeped every liberal protest in the northeast for 6 years with me know me a little better than you do. The rest of you will believe what you want....and that is “because ES doesn’t believe the Earth is 6000 years old and Man walked with dinosaurs, he’s a liberal troll.”
Everything I post on Darwin/Creationism threads is because...OMG.....I’M A FREAKIN’ SCIENTIST....Darwin/Creationism is not a “liberal/conservative” issue.
No, I am not a RELIGIOUS conservative.....but there’s more to being a conservative than being a theist.....hint...all that meaningless “government” stuff conservatives supposedly espouse....or used to until “conservatives” like GWBush got in power and started acting domestically like liberals to the detriment of my wallet and family.
I’d LOVE to find a liberal post by me.....(snicker)
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.