A "Brite" Who is Actually a "Know Nothing" (Dawkins: Catholic Church "greatest force for evil")

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?

That’s not fair. Co-redemdrix is upheld by a fringe group. I’ve posted over and over again the quote from B16 stating that this idea is against Scripture.

I wasn't aware of that.

It’s like the Catholics being offended by the ideas and actions of Fred Phelps and blaming it on all non-Catholic Christans, coming up with obscure quote and dismissing all proof that it’s not mainstream. It’s twisting facts.

Bingo! What a great example.

I apologize. I did not know that the term Protestant was offensive.

Don't. It's been a part of the lexicon for so long that most protestants don't realize that the original intent was a slur.

which part of “separated brethren” is offensive. The separated or the brethren?

Separated for a couple reasons. Because it conotates being put out and it lends to the idea that the RCC is "The Church Militant". From a Baptist perspective churches that held most of our Baptistic principals were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church. We did not emerge as a "Reformation" church.

You are quite right that we complain about bigotry more than any others. However, (and maybe this is because I was an ill-informed anti-Catholic myself for quite a while) I htink we just might be right.

As to "separated brethren," this is the first I've heard that it connotes being put out. Even when it was said of me and my former communion I understood it to mean jst that we weren't together. In fact I thought of it as a consciously neutral phrase - it didn't say the P\papists put anybody out, it didn't say anybody left. It just said we weren't together. (I'm just reporting what I thought/think it meant/means, not that I'm right.)

And as far as I'm concerned, and I don't think I'm heterdox here, if II do not say "ONLY if,") you're baptized with water, a trinitarian formula, and the intention that baptism happen, you are a member of the Church Militant.

Whichever band of fighters turns out to be in the clearest communication and logistical channel, we are in the same army, fighting for the same end. We just have this morale problem ....

(Again, this is a DEScriptive, not PREScriptive, comment.)

Nope. I think a case could be made when RC's first emigrated in large numbers, but not today. I think today it has become a tool to try and put off those that RC's disagree with and to illicit sympathy.

As to "separated brethren," this is the first I've heard that it connotes being put out.

Do you think this view may have been influenced by formerly being Anglican? As a Baptist we have never been a part of a state church which is a different view point.

I disagree. We don't view the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as sacraments. From our perspective the Church Militant is made up of Christians that believe The Gospel.

Whichever band of fighters turns out to be in the clearest communication and logistical channel, we are in the same army, fighting for the same end.

Yes and no.

See I can do the legal to step too!

As Christian churches we are co-belligerants on the social issues of our day, but really aren't allies in that we have very different interpretations of Scripture on soteriology. As an individual if you believe The Gospel you are a brother in Christ.

Even if we are at cross purposes if you are a believer of The Gospel we are still brothers.

I'd say the Baptized who haven't entered into a relationship with Jesus with their own wills are like the really lousy soldiers.

Boy we could get a great thread going about free will, or the lack there of! Baptists are decentralized so you'll find us on both sides.

As to RC's an bigotry, maybe I'm hyper-sensitive

Don't be. We get pretty heated on some of these threads (probably because we feel strongly about our views) but I don't see it in everyday life. I sure don't see it among my Christian friends.

It might be surprising, but I initially got interested in the religion forum because I knew so little about other churches. We never really discussed the RCC at Sunday School, or in our services.

I remember the involuntary lip-curl I once got from the wife of an Episcopalian priest when I said I was high church, and the ditto from the wife of a lay episcopalian once i was Catholic. AND the mennonite lady who also did a badly suppressed lip curl.

Church loyalty can bring out the worst in people.

The very same Dr Green, calls for the very same approach I am talking about. Hint: it's because I KNOW his approach because I have actually seen him in person lecture about his work because I actually attended that very school in the very same department as the Harvard AIDS Institute.

The very same Dr Green knows that there's a difference between the Pope's bogus claim that condoms "increase" HIV infection rates.....and the claim that condoms are not a good "primary intervention method."

Dr Green makes is abundantly clear that the problem he sees with condom use is that it is, in Africa......sporadic...not consistant. As in, sometimes people will use one, then not, then use one, then not.

Dr Green ALSO acknowledges that condom use HAS worked in Cambodia and Thailand.....and worked well, very simply because their HIV problem comes mainly from prostitution. If you've actually heard him lecture about it, you'd know what he's talking about.

....and you'd know that Dr. Greens approach is called the ABC approach(.pdf)....teach Abstinence (mainly to younger people before they're sexually active), teach them to Be faithful (mainly for those already sexually active), and use Condoms (with a stress on the CONSISTENT use of condoms).

Dr Green on Uganda: The first challenge to this formula came with emergence of evidence from Uganda, which suggested that mutual fidelity (or reduction in numbers of sexual partners) and delay of sexual debut, backed up by condom promotion (but not resting upon it) brought down national HIV prevalence by an unprecedented two-thirds.

Go ahead, quote Dr Green some more.

To claim that condom use increases an infection rate in a population versus the same population not using condoms at all is as patently ludicrous as attacking a problem with one weapon when there are multiple weapons available.

...end result while people outside the affected area bicker over the issue...people will continue to die needlessly.

It's the same as the malaria debate. One side wants "skeeter nets only", the other wants "DDT-only".......and while they are arguing over it, 5 million people die instead of 50,000.....when those that actually know WTF they're talking about and don't care about the bickering know damned well that the best approach is skeeter-nets AND properly used DDT.

I despise the misuse of such words as obviously and patently. The obvious and patent rarely need pointing out, and never need perseverative repetition. It also gets my attention that once I mention Green's modification of the cult of the condom, suddenly he gets a place at the discussion, while before him, we were just unmitigated evil.

It seems to me that to people not ignorant of basic ethics and not infatuated with their own conclusions, the, ahem, obvious observation is that, gee, after all these years the miraculous condom has not worked as advertised, as promised by the scientists. There's a phenomenon! People don't do what the soi-disant scientists say they should. But the scientists don't seem to look at this as data to consider but as stuff to blame on Catholics. (Okay, I'm exaggerating a little.)

There's a kind of contradiction: On the one hand people are viewed as such non-moral actors that advocating chastity is looked upon as ludicrous. And the so-called scientific view is that the one way to consider this is that it's mere data: Whatever the rules, whatever their OWN (professed) values are, people have multiple sex partners, especially people of the guy persuasion. So we should just deal, live with it, get a clue.

Okay an observation is made: people are unchaste. Fine. (We call it the fallen nature of man, but that's just us.)

Now the scientists have a new suggestion: when you have sex, use a barrier device, preferable a condom (portable, inexpensive, easily deployed, works a lot of the time.)

The OBSERVATION is people don't use 'em. And what is the response of the scientists? While mocking and despising the Church's teaching and repeated advocacy of chastity as clearly futile, they — well, looky here! — persist in teaching and repeated advocacy, but add abuse of those who disagree. WE are ludicrous and worse for advocating one thing, THEY are brilliant and good for ... teaching and advocacy. Advocating chastity as well as many of us would like (some think the very notion to be sick at best) doesn't work so we are stupid. Advocating condoms doesn't work as advertized so the people are wrong and we just have to advocate more.

Have you read Mary Eberstadts article yet? It's short, Catholic (so it's stupid, shouldn't be a problem for a smart scientist), and entertainingly written. I observe that the hypothesis that there might be social consequences, ultimately lethal consequences, to reliance on Artificial Birth Control (which we, coincidentally call 'ABC') is not something to be considered but something to mock, by the scientists who profess a bias free approach to data. What a surprise! The bias is evidently so strong that an articulate presentation of anecdotal observations supporting the conjecture is not even read. (A friend wouldn't read it because it came from the Hoover Institute &8212; they're conservative so they couldn't possibly have anything worth saying.)

(In the US we have readily available condoms. How's the STD rate here? How about pregnancy outside of marriage? How about the divorce rate? And yet the scientific promotion of condoms including prophecies that all these would decline.)

Okay. I actually do see that your approach is more nuanced. Of course, when making a nuanced presentation, I find it best not to give it a vanguard, flank, and read guard of eager abuse, but again,that's just me. But I'm beginning to wonder if presenting a clear and persuasive argument in such a way that it might actually be entertained is really the goal here:

The very same Dr Green knows that there's a difference between the Pope's bogus claim that condoms "increase" HIV infection rates.....and the claim that condoms are not a good "primary intervention method."

If you KNOW this, then I suppose you can give me a citation, a recent quote in which he says this? Say, a quote after the quote which supported the Pope?

I am aware that for more than 20 years groups like The Hunger Project have approached churches and, with the goal of eliminating hunger, have presented an argument that where the birthrate is low, hunger is also low; and therefore we should promote condom use. Now the stakes are higher. I see that. But I also see that ALL the promises made by those who support Artificial Birth Control have come up bankrupt. Since Griswold v. Connecticut all the things which contraception was going to reduce have increased. Those there are data, but somehow those data don't get a seat at the table.

And yet WE are called immoral and stupid, while the so-called scientific view is presented with increasing vituperation. We've gone FROM arguing the facts THROUGH arguing the law TO pounding on the table.

Basta.

Of COURSE condoms are not a miracle cure-all. Never said as such, Dr Green never said as such. That’s why my approach is not “toss condoms at the problem.”

.....but they will save lives that abstinence-only tosses aside.

That’s why the “best” approach.....the approach that has worked in Africa and will continue to work is a multi-pronged approach.

Teach abstinence, teach monogamy.....teach the consistent use of condoms. THAT is what worked in Uganda because it addresses the specific problem IN Uganda.

It wouldn’t work in SE Asia because their problem is different....is created by prostitution, not simple polygamy or promiscuous sexual relations. THERE, condom use BY PROSTITUTES, has worked well in lowering infection rates. Teaching guys that use prostitutes’ services that they shouldn’t be having sex outside of marriage or at all....is not going to work very well.

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.