Are you immoral, unFilipino and absurd?
David Giddings
condemned divorce as 'immoral, unFilipino and absurd'.
This is a good example of where you must not respect people's views. this is
a criminal irresponsible statement to make in a country that contains many
Muslims, protestants and freethinkers.
Am I right or wrong?
President Fox of Mexico has come out of the closet and civilly married his
long term 'mistress' 'concubine' having been unable to get his first
marriage/divorce accepted by the Holy Rota court (the Vatican 'divorce'
court).
The Bishop's spokesman said he must separate, not he must abstain from all
sexual activity (a hot-blooded Latin American! some hopes!) and that 'he has
broken the link between Christ and the Church' (whatever that means).
Another potty 'belief' that I strongly object to,a nd will not tolerate as a
freethinker. What right have these fatuous interferers have?
I'd like to hear from some of our 'immoral, absurd' people here. I know we
have a few (hush, hush...) divorcees living in lustful sinful unions with
another partner, perhaps even without ever being 'legally married in the
eyes of the churches, listening in...
I feel sorry for you poor wicked absurd people.
Debra Earle
| Quaintly named cardinal Sin (Top of the Pops of the 7 deadlies?) has
| condemned divorce as 'immoral, unFilipino and absurd'.
| This is a good example of where you must not respect people's views. this is
| a criminal irresponsible statement to make in a country that contains many
| Muslims, protestants and freethinkers.
| Am I right or wrong?
|
they cannot accept the Church's position on divorce. Nobody compels them
to buy into the Catholic point of view; there are other churches, other
alternatives.
There are many people who are against divorce for a wide variety of
reasons. They have a right to feel this way, as long as they don't
infringe on anyone else's right to act otherwise.
And leaders have a right to espouse opinions on which we disagree; if
their opinions are to unpopular or difficult to accept, they will lose
their credibility as leaders, and nobody will "listen" to them.
--
DE
David Giddings
Filipino must not be allowed the chance to divorce.
I am not against people refraining from divorcing for the benefit of their
children, for example. Many couple forgo this right out of a higher love for
their offspring instead of giving in to their self.interest. That is heroic.
But what if a young wife's husband has emigrated, is living with and having
children with another woman in a distant land, and not sending maintenance
money home, and is in prison for life for heinous crimes, or irremediably
insane? or has become a religious maniac and wants to practise celibacy for
the rest of his life?
Does his wife have to renounce a sexual life? leave her children unprotected
with no income, perhaps having to prostitute themselves to keep the family
going.
Because that is the reality in the Philippine s- thousands of women are
unwilling whores to keep going, to keep up their huge families because of no
birth control facilities (because the church says so), unable to get
abortions (illegal because the church says so) and now being unable to
legally divorce (because this preposterous cardinal says so).
The law doe snot make divorce compulsory! But it must be available. like
abortion. Like condoms. That's what freedom is all about, and which church
leaders will not permit.
hence beliefs and toleration all over again ... damn these interfering
people!
"Debra Earle" <newsg...@intranet-works.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15b1ce47d...@cnews.corel.com...
Dave James
> leaders will not permit.
> hence beliefs and toleration all over again ... damn these interfering
> people!
>
For someone who is trying to influence people's thinking I would say you do
a fair amount of shooting yourself in the foot with respect to your
reasoning.
You make extreme statements that not even you believe - at least you
demonstrate that you are inconsistent in the application of your ideology.
For example, it seems that although a self-proclaimed libertarian, you would
endorse legislation that protects you from the imposition of religionists'
ideas upon you - while welcoming legislation that would impose aspects of
your ideology upon religionists - thereby restricting the unfettered
practice of their beliefs.
The one-brush-stroke simplistic free-thinking libertarianism cannot be
practically or equitably be applied across the board without someone losing
their freedoms. The more realistic and rational approach is to examine these
things on a case-by-case basis and judge each on its own merits. If this
same Cardinal had said it is "un-Filipino" to take hostages and behead them,
then I don't think you would have reacted this way. The point being is that
you, too, support interference, but only that which is consistent with your
ideology. This being the case, while you seem to vehemently oppose
intolerance, you often tend to come across as far more intolerant than the
people or institutions that you condemn.
I can't believe I'm trying to help you in this - but let's just call it
"handicapping" to keep the game fair :-)
--
Dave James
WOL Hungary
David Giddings
Beheading is clearly a violation of human rights, and must be stopped.
Divorce or birth control (I will not raise abortion for the moment) is the
contrary: it is the upholding of a human right.
The Cardinal has no right to stop people having divorces or using the pill
if they wish to. He is trampling on human rights. I am defending them.
Surely you can see the difference (I know the cardinal can't, but then I can
hardly expect him to).
He has the monopoly of Filipino morals. What the heck!
"Dave James" <djame...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3b484347$1_3@cnews...
Dave James
and inconsistency in your logic - which you side-stepped BTW.
I obviously wasn't suggesting that there is a moral comparison between
beheading and birth control. However, my basic proposition still stands - it
is virtually impossible for ANYONE to consistently apply what you consider
defending human rights of one group without restricting the freedoms of
someone else.
For example, if I remember correctly, you have indicated in one thread your
(at least tentative) support for the death penalty. There are well-meaning,
sincere people on both sides of that issue that claim their position is
justified on the grounds of "human rights." No matter how much you believe
that you consistently defend human rights - there are many, using similar
arguments, who would say you are the one trampling on human rights. So, my
point is that although you contend that you are taking the higher ground on
all these issues, it comes down to your opinion only and sometimes against
the court of popular opinion or conventional wisdom. You have absolutely no
higher authority to which to appeal or moral basis from which to launch your
attack against those who disagree with you.
Without a higher authority, the concept of human rights has no absolute
meaning - it is purely subjective and relative. This is the fundamental flaw
in your system - and you are helpless to prove me wrong (again, I trust you
understand that this last statement was a philosophical point, not a
personal attack on you).
--
Dave James
WOL Hungary
David Giddings <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b4866b3_3@cnews...
Peter
is strictly an internal matter for the Philippine people. While I may not,
no make that do not, agree with that teaching, neither you not I have any
right to impose our respective beliefs there.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b482f19_1@cnews...
David Giddings
draft legislation by the elected parliament with a large body of democratic
support, so the cardinal's intervention is anti-democratic.
I agree it's an internal matter for the people to decide, in whatever
constitutional manner they have. But for his eminence to slate the people
who want the possibility to be free to divorce if necessary as absurd,
unpatriotic and immoral, he needs his arse kicking.
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b48abba$1_3@cnews...
Christine Forber
totally separate and not meddle in each other's affairs.
C.
Peter
his State, nor is it mine.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"Christine Forber" <m...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3B48D2A9...@isp.com...
Dave James
political authority to personally and legally affect this legislation in a
direct way - or is it his influence that we are talking about?
If he has no legal powers to affect the legislation it is impossible for his
"intervention" to be anti-democratic. If he is using his influence over
people who accept his spiritual authority and if on spiritual grounds he
declares that something is immoral and if people pass legislation in a
democratic way according to their conscience in view of his statements -
then that is democracy at work.
Leadership in a democracy that results in being elected or passing
legislation is the ability to influence and persuade people that either your
views actually coincide with theirs or that yours are right and theirs are
wrong so that they change - and either way they vote in your favor.
Thie cardinal has only the authority and influence over the people that they
allow him to have. You can say that he is wrong and dangersous. You can say
that they are stupid and gullible. But you can't really claim that it isn't
democracy at work.
This is why in any democracy you can technically separate church and state
at a legal level, but it is absolutely impossible to practically separate
them at a personal level. People either vote their conscience or in their
self-interest - but their choices will generally be informed by their
world-view and their moral and ethical standards. The only way to avoid this
is totalitarianism - which is the antithesis of libertarianism, isn't it?
--
Dave James
WOL Hungary
David Giddings <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b48c856_2@cnews...
David Giddings
David Giddings
in a priest-ridden country, with the 'power of the keys' and the
confessional and all the trappings of totalitarianism, things are rather
different from what they are in the rest of world (except perhaps Russia now
that Putin has apparently bought off the Orthodox Church, with his sudden
flush of religious fervour after a lifetime of heading the murder
organisation, KGB).
I defy the cardinal's right to use his paramount `position - or anyone else
for that matter - to say that divorce is 'wrong, immoral, unpatriotic and
absurd.
His is a clown , and as I said need someone to kick his arse for him. He
must shut up. he's (presumably?) celibate, and knows nothing about the
horrors of living in a dead marriage. Is he prepared to take the
consequences of his words? If not he must be made to keep quiet. It is the
world's business that people be allowed to sign whatever contracts they lie
and to terminate them when they like. Marriage is apiece of paper, no more
no less. And when the legal relationship created by it no longer has any
meaning or purpose, the contract should able to be rescinded by mutual
consent, or if one party is behaving illicitly, unilaterally by the
aggrieved party.
Like any other contract.
there's noting 'sacred' about marriage. It's just a live-in arrangement, to
provide mutual protection and a safe environment to perpetuate our species.
If he doesn't subscribe to that he can speak for his flock, and there are
fortunately ever-fewer of them, as the liberal protestants make headway -
and the atheists of course - so he may soon - hopefully - be out of a job,
as well.
Dave James
but I'm getting used to that :-)
David Giddings <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b48e848_2@cnews...
> I defy the cardinal's right to use his paramount `position - or anyone
else
> for that matter - to say that divorce is 'wrong, immoral, unpatriotic and
> absurd.
On what grounds and with what authority? You have neither the power nor the
authority to do anything whatsoever. You use the language of someone who has
the ability to forcefully impose his will upon. You talk tough like the
playground bully who is mostly bluff - and the truth is it sounds kind of
silly and childish.
> His is a clown , and as I said need someone to kick his arse for him.
Literally or figuratively? Are you saying that you would be willing to
inflict physical harm personally or by proxy? Isn't that a human rights
violation?
> If not he must be made to keep quiet.
What means would you suggest? Has he no rights? I'm not saying I agree with
him - but you seem to be violating the very principles you claim to espouse.
> Like any other contract.
> there's noting 'sacred' about marriage. It's just a live-in arrangement,
to
> provide mutual protection and a safe environment to perpetuate our
species.
I disagree. So do a lot of others - millions and millions of others. Does
someone need to do us physical harm? Should we be silenced somehow?
Sounds like you are suggesting tactics that really are more in keeping with
totalitarianism than true libertarianism. This tends to reinforce my
observation over the years that those who most loudly accuse others of
intolerance are the most intolerant of all.
If you are determined to influence people that your way is right I suspect
you are doing yourself any favors with this approach.
Well, it's late (early) here - as it is in Italy. I wish you a "Good night."
Joell Haugan
to suggest and comment on gov't affairs as they see fit...
just like all segments of society.
Joell
Christine Forber wrote:
> I agree with David in that I believe that state and church should be
> totally separate and not meddle in each other's affairs.
>
> C.
>
--
"Invent a wise saying and live forever!" (Anonymous)
Presentations FAQ, Tips & Church Music Resources
http://www2.yellowhead16.net/~jhaugan/Presentations/presentations.htm
Steven
right to move to a different country. Now how about others' rights? The
unborn child has the right to life. The born child has a right to have a
mother and a father. I'm gonna guess that the Cardinal has also said that
prostitution is immoral...
Steven
Richard D. Greenwood
must be made to keep quiet." I do not profess to be an expert on
politics or religion in the Philippines, but I fail to see how a
Cardinal speaking out on an issue of public importance endangers
anyone's human rights. Your apparent solution would be to silence the
speaker because you disagree with his opinion. Unlike the government,
the modern Church only has power over those who consent to the wielding
of the power. The US Constitution was not ratified until it was amended
to include, among other things, a guarantee of free speech. Would you
amend it again to allow free speech only to those who do not profess a
religion? How about those who oppose legalization of marijuana and
other illicit recreational drugs?
Steven
from the church - be it whatever 'church' [ie, religion] a person belongs to. In
the case put forth earlier: death. Murder we can probably all agree is wrong.
But that didn't come specifically from the state - the church and the state
formed it together. To get one without the other would just be gross...
Steven
David Giddings
The law is not imposing anything. The cardinal is imposing a ban on a
fundamental right of choice that democratically elected people are
demanding - to bring the country into line with the more advanced
jurisdictions in the world.
He does not have the right to stop the democratic process. That is why I say
he must be stopped. I am not imposing my will - what will? Forced abortions?
Forced divorces? Forced birth control'
I am advocating stopping those who responsible for forced pregnancies,
forced household violence, forced marital rape, forced physical and sexual
abuse, forced poverty, ...
Is that enough or shall I go on?
"Dave James" <djame...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3b48ee1e_1@cnews...
David Giddings
must not even think of using condoms, must not look lustfully at any other
person or animal or property, or ...'
No problem with that. But to call a Protestant 'immoral, unpatriotic and
lacking in civic sense and absurd' for wishing to get out of an impossible
marriage, is irresponsible, arrogant and typical of catholic church leaders.
That is why the campaign for free thought must continue.
What are their credentials for using such strong language? How dare they!
"Joell Haugan" <joell...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3B4908F2...@yahoo.ca...
David Giddings
treating you wife as a whore! That's an old one. I thought that it was no
longer part of the Catholic repertoire.
"Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
news:3B491AF6...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
David Giddings
or Bush, or Kofi Annan or Carlo Del Ponte have different repercussions. And
there are many divorcees and condom-users that I know who are not 'absurd',
'unpatriotic' or 'immoral'.
Do you think they are then' Do you agree in making simple minds even simpler
and more burdened down with guilt than the church already makes them,
because they want to get out of grinding poverty or a sham 'marriage'?
Perhaps you do, from what you say. If so, I will fight you tooth and nail to
protect people against your evil and illiberal views.
"Richard D. Greenwood" <rgree...@greenwoodlaw.com> wrote in message
news:3B491B3A...@greenwoodlaw.com...
David Giddings
Unless you are the Pope or Cardinal Sin - they say they are .To 'good'
(i.e. blind unthinking) Catholics they are both going to condemn you to
eternal flames in hell.
That is what this silly cardinal is on about. And I defy his right to harm
people in this way.
"Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
news:3B491F20...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
Dave James
but I'm getting used to that :-)
(Just so no one misunderstands, in my post below I have made a few
stronger-than-normal statements for the sake of emphasizing a point.)
David Giddings <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b48e848_2@cnews...
> I defy the cardinal's right to use his paramount `position - or anyone
else
> for that matter - to say that divorce is 'wrong, immoral, unpatriotic and
> absurd.
On what grounds and with what authority? You have neither the power nor the
authority to do anything whatsoever. You use the language of someone who has
the ability to forcefully impose his will upon others - but you don't. You
talk like
you wish you could impose conformity to what you believe is correct. You
talk
tough like the playground bully who is mostly bluff - and the truth is, it
sounds kind of
silly and childish.
> His is a clown , and as I said need someone to kick his arse for him.
Literally or figuratively? Are you saying that you would be willing to
inflict physical harm personally or by proxy for him voicing his opinion?
Aren't you suggesting and endorsing a human rights violation?
> If not he must be made to keep quiet.
What means would you suggest? Has he no rights? You seem to be violating
the very principles you claim to espouse.
> Like any other contract.
> there's noting 'sacred' about marriage. It's just a live-in arrangement,
to
> provide mutual protection and a safe environment to perpetuate our
species.
I disagree. So do a lot of others - millions and millions of others. Should
we be
threatened or subjected to physical harm? Should we be silenced somehow?
Sounds like you are suggesting tactics that really are more in keeping with
totalitarianism than libertarianism. This tends to reinforce my
observation over the years that those who most loudly accuse others of
intolerance are the most intolerant of all.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
If you are determined to influence people that your way is right I suspect
you are not doing yourself any favors with this approach.
I may be wrong, and I certainly don't want to come across as judgmental, but
just by way of observation it seems that perhaps, for whatever reason,
hatred
and bitterness in your heart may be clouding your judgment and distorting
your logic.
With genuine concern (not a condescending attitude) I would also suggest
that
there is a solution to this if you would be willing to listen.
David Giddings
'Cardinal Sins' for centuries, terrorising people's minds, and above all
strengthening the free¡err (in theory) Protestants' resolve not to be
dragged into the Republic.
"Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
news:3B491F20...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
Eric de Souza
<david.g...@tin.it> wrote:
>But surely 'murder' and 'taking the pill' are not quite the same are they?
>Unless you are the Pope or Cardinal Sin - they say they are .To 'good'
>(i.e. blind unthinking) Catholics they are both going to condemn you to
>eternal flames in hell.
But, if someone believes that contraception is murder, does
that person not have a moral duty to oppose it by all means?
What bothers me much more is the resources devoted to
condemning contraception whilst silence is maintained with respect to
genocide, mass murders, robbing the poor, etc.
Eric
Eric de Souza
Bruges
Belgium
David Giddings
you have a duty to have a 'well-informed conscience (i.e.. get brainwashed
by the cardinal first), so the cardinal has a moral duty to read up on the
subject and listen to out-of-touch celibates that know nothing first-hand
about having another mouth to feed.
Especially since - where the law allows it - intelligent Catholics obviously
ignore them. If they were wise, they'd shut up.
"Eric de Souza" <edes...@coleurop.be> wrote in message
news:3b496c16...@cnews.corel.ca...
David Giddings
<You use the language of someone who has the ability to forcefully impose
his will upon others - but you don't. You talk like you wish you could
impose conformity to what you believe is correct. You talk tough like the
playground bully who is mostly bluff - and the truth is, it sounds kind of
silly and childish.>
Dae: answer this question first: are you against birth control?
Would or do you practise birth control?
Would or do you tell your people they are 'immoral, absurd and unHungarian'
if they take the pill, or seek divorcefrom an abusive criminal spouse?
Answer these questions first, and we can talk about your presumed 'right' to
impose these restrictions on people's freedom. It is bullying churchmen
holding important posts in society - especially uneducated socities - that I
am fighting. I am not seeking to impose. It's an old trick to keep asking
questions instead of answering, and you don't seem to wish to understand my
English. What am I IMPOSING? Answer that first.
|
| "He is a clown , and someone should kick his arse for him.
<Literally or figuratively? >
Figuratively of course. I've met him. He's a sweet, jolly old man - that's
why he's so dangerous. A good psychologicla kick in back of cassock would do
him a world of good - especially to teach him a little humility.
<Aren't you suggesting and endorsing a human rights violation?>
Which one?
<'If not he must be made to keep quiet.'| What means would you suggest? Has
he no rights? You seem to be violating the very principles you claim to
espouse>.
I challenge his right to call me immoral, unpatriotic and absurd for
practising birth control and getting divorced. He does not have this right.
Of course he speaks for his version of god - so he claims a superior
authjority, which I reject, naturally.
<'Like any other contract. There's noting 'sacred' about marriage. It's just
a live-in arrangement, to provide mutual protection and a safe environment
to perpetuate our
species.'
<I disagree. So do a lot of others - millions and millions of others.
Should we be threatened or subjected to physical harm? Should we be silenced
somehow? Sounds like you are suggesting tactics that really are more in
keeping with totalitarianism than libertarianism. This tends to reinforce my
observation over the years that those who most loudly accuse others of
intolerance are the most intolerant of all.>
That is the traditional religious reaction to Freethinkers, of course. For
you, marriages are made in heaven, with things like perpetuity thrown in.
For those of us who don't have these otherworldy dimensions - and for civil
society in most countries I may add - marriage is a mere contractual
relationship. If you want to stick together through thick and thin for life,
do so. But don't expect everyone to do that on such spurious subjective
grounds as yours.
The fact is that marriage - whether you like it or not - is a juridical
relationship between 2 people under contract. And what they mean by it is
what the state and the parties to the contract mean by it. The fact that
people get matrried in church is because they like fancy photographs: but
not many people, judging from the demographic statistics in good Catholic
countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, Southern Germany,
Poland .... believe any of the vows you churchmen 'force' them to make in
order to use the historic buldings that actually belong to the community.
<There are none so blind as those who will not see>
Exactly.
<If you are determined to influence people that your way is right I suspect
you are not doing yourself any favors with this approach.>
I am only trying to show you that you are ALSO wrong.
What does 'right' mean? 'Right' is usually what the law says it is, at any
given time. And that is why the Catholic church - and apparently yours as
well, if you are missionary in an alien land - and by what 'right'? I may
ask - is up in arms about abortion, birth control and divorce. When the law
permits it for those who VOLUNTARILY do it, it becomes right.
Just now they are not only damned to eternal fire (which scared few people
any more) but it makes them criminals!
Now that does bother me.
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
liberal mindset that I have come across - not all, but any - it is their
unflinching protection of someone's right to free speech and ideas UNTIL
they disagree with you. Then you must be silenced.
"Richard D. Greenwood" <rgree...@greenwoodlaw.com> wrote in message
news:3B491B3A...@greenwoodlaw.com...
David Giddings
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3b498c48$1_3@cnews...
Dave James
> "Dave James" <djame...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:3b495c3d_3@cnews...
>
> <You use the language of someone who has the ability to forcefully impose
> his will upon others - but you don't. You talk like you wish you could
> impose conformity to what you believe is correct. You talk tough like the
> playground bully who is mostly bluff - and the truth is, it sounds kind of
> silly and childish.>
>
> Dae: answer this question first: are you against birth control?
> Would or do you practise birth control?
> Would or do you tell your people they are 'immoral, absurd and
unHungarian'
> if they take the pill, or seek divorcefrom an abusive criminal spouse?
My personal views or what I believe the Bible teaches about these are
irrelevant to the issues I raise in the discussion.
> Answer these questions first,
>and we can talk about your presumed 'right' to
> impose these restrictions on people's freedom.
I never claimed that right. You're putting words in my mouth.
> It is bullying churchmen
> holding important posts in society - especially uneducated socities - that
I
> am fighting. I am not seeking to impose. It's an old trick to keep asking
> questions instead of answering, and you don't seem to wish to understand
my
> English. What am I IMPOSING? Answer that first.
Once again, you side-step the points I raise, and counter by asking
questions (the very tactic that you claim to be an "old trick") and continue
on your own way.
> I challenge his right to call me immoral, unpatriotic and absurd for
> practising birth control and getting divorced. He does not have this
right.
Actually, he does. At least he he has just as much right to say this as you
claim for yourself when you call him an "irresponsible criminal" in your
opening post.
> Of course he speaks for his version of god - so he claims a superior
> authjority, which I reject, naturally.
Subsitute "god" with "libertarianism" and you describe your approach to the
topic.
> This tends to reinforce my
> observation over the years that those who most loudly accuse others of
> intolerance are the most intolerant of all.>
>
> That is the traditional religious reaction to Freethinkers, of course.
There are usually reasons for traditions.
> What does 'right' mean? 'Right' is usually what the law says it is, at any
> given time. And that is why the Catholic church - and apparently yours as
> well, if you are missionary in an alien land - and by what 'right'? I may
> ask - is up in arms about abortion, birth control and divorce. When the
law
> permits it for those who VOLUNTARILY do it, it becomes right.
Of course you wish to take away his right to state his conviction although
according to the law he has that right. You may disagree with the law, but
you can't legitimately call him a criminal for exercising his right.
This is why I continue to maintain that your logic is flawed and
inconsistent.
Peter
Should every lunatic be silenced? David, I thought you could debate better
than that.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b4991a5_2@cnews...
David Giddings
silenced, or Oswald Moseley on the Right, and Lenin and Co on the Left.
Mugabe is another dangerous lunatic who could be silenced without any harm
to anyone and a great deal of good to Africa.
Free speech is not without limits.
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49a886_2@cnews...
David Giddings
I still want you to answer this question, then we can proceed. If not, it's
pointless.
"Would you or do you tell people tell people that birth control or divorce
is sinful?"
"Dave James" <djame...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3b49a424_3@cnews...
Peter
then be silenced.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b49ac4a_1@cnews...
David Giddings
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49b29b$1_1@cnews...
Christine Forber
>
> But, if someone believes that contraception is murder, does
> that person not have a moral duty to oppose it by all means?
> What bothers me much more is the resources devoted to
> condemning contraception whilst silence is maintained with respect to
> genocide, mass murders, robbing the poor, etc.
Thanks Eric. That's my feeling too. Very hypocritical.
Anyhow, I don't see how using the pill can be equated with murder. It
prevents conception in the first place. Therefore there is no fertilized
egg to "kill". There is no "murder" taking place. Same with condoms and
other barrier methods. IUDs are the only contraceptive method that I can
think of that actually "kill" the fertilized egg. (not counting
ab*****n.)
Christine
Peter
between your knees. <g>
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"Christine Forber" <m...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3B49BD4...@isp.com...
Peter
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b49b73e_3@cnews...
David Giddings
'kill' something. But condoms and the ordinary pill don't 'kill' anything.
they simply prevent.
So I would not allow a priest to get away with calling a couple 'murderers'
for using condoms. It is religious terrorism in the true sense of the term
(if anyone is still terrified of eternal punishment stories) to tell them
that. Such views can kill the very marriages these people are claiming to
stand up for! That's the hypocrisy of it.
Anyway, 'murder' is not a subjective term. It is defined by law. These are
'morals' and morals are notoriously subjective and culture-constrained.
That's why I attack the cardinal of Manila for probably preventing people
from exercising their freedom of conscience. IF THEY WISH TO - I'm shouting
because the religious people don't like to hear that I am not dictating - I
am opposing dictators.
But since they have no answer, they simply say I am doing what I am
condemning in others.
"Christine Forber" <m...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3B49BD4...@isp.com...
David Giddings
Or a glass of water works well, too. Didn't you know that, Peter?
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49bdfd$1_1@cnews...
David Giddings
In my case this would not apply _ in this instance at least.
Because I am saying 'let the elected people decide if they want to introduce
divorce' and 'let people who want a divorce to come out of concubinage and
start fresh'.
The church is scaring the parliamentarians with hell fire to prevent
parliament from passing a perfectly moral law, and the people from
exercising this democratic right.
My other views would be seditious in some places, like China or Pakistan I
suppose. But that in itself doesn't make them dangerous.
I have not incited anyone to commit a crime (except the joking reference to
kicking the Cardinal's arse - which he'd perhaps enjoy - he's very jolly and
bouncy and rubber-bally). And if you read my opinions they are virtually all
to prevent people from imposing impositions on freedom of conscience, to do
things which are legal and accepted in any modern, civilised, secular
society.
Of course if I advocated burning down a mosque or poisoning the altar wine,
or poisoning the River Ganges ... that would be criminally irresponsible,
and lunacy. And I should be shut up - and away.
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49bdfe_1@cnews...
Eric de Souza
wrote:
I'm not saying it is. All I'm saying is that if someone
believes it is, then that person has a moral duty to oppose it.
Just as someone who is convinced that it is not has a duty to make
sure that the other does not get his/her way, especially in less
developed countries where religious opposition to contraception, or
artificial birth control, is dominant.
Eric de Souza
<david.g...@tin.it> wrote:
>I can also see the point with the day-after pill, which could be said to
>'kill' something. But condoms and the ordinary pill don't 'kill' anything.
>they simply prevent.
>So I would not allow a priest to get away with calling a couple 'murderers'
>for using condoms. It is religious terrorism in the true sense of the term
>(if anyone is still terrified of eternal punishment stories) to tell them
>that. Such views can kill the very marriages these people are claiming to
>stand up for! That's the hypocrisy of it.
Read my follow-up post to Christine.
>Anyway, 'murder' is not a subjective term. It is defined by law. These are
>'morals' and morals are notoriously subjective and culture-constrained.
So, if one is convinced that capital punishment is murder, one
should do nothing about it, just because it is legal?
Peter
dangerous fairy tales poisoning the minds of children, etc.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b49c886_2@cnews...
<snip>But that in itself doesn't make them dangerous.
D-Bird
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b49ae7e_3@cnews...
Dave James
discuss the issue. You refuse to deal with the real issues and questions
that I pose, then you turn around and expect me to answer an irrelevant
question before you will continue. I'm not into that game.
When you are ready to get back on track, I will be glad to continue.
--
Dave James
WOL Hungary
David Giddings <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b49ae7e_3@cnews...
Davon Harrison
David's pledge sure didn't last long did it?
<chuckle>
David Giddings wrote:
>
> Quaintly named cardinal Sin (Top of the Pops of the 7 deadlies?) has
> condemned divorce as 'immoral, unFilipino and absurd'.
> This is a good example of where you must not respect people's views. this is
> a criminal irresponsible statement to make in a country that contains many
> Muslims, protestants and freethinkers.
> Am I right or wrong?
> President Fox of Mexico has come out of the closet and civilly married his
> long term 'mistress' 'concubine' having been unable to get his first
> marriage/divorce accepted by the Holy Rota court (the Vatican 'divorce'
> court).
> The Bishop's spokesman said he must separate, not he must abstain from all
> sexual activity (a hot-blooded Latin American! some hopes!) and that 'he has
> broken the link between Christ and the Church' (whatever that means).
> Another potty 'belief' that I strongly object to,a nd will not tolerate as a
> freethinker. What right have these fatuous interferers have?
> I'd like to hear from some of our 'immoral, absurd' people here. I know we
> have a few (hush, hush...) divorcees living in lustful sinful unions with
> another partner, perhaps even without ever being 'legally married in the
> eyes of the churches, listening in...
> I feel sorry for you poor wicked absurd people.
--
Few blame themselves until they have exhausted all other possibilities.
David Giddings
good fairies and bad fairies, and evil giants, and flying in the sky, and
being invisible yet talking to people who are convinced they are there.
Having heads chopped off, and being eaten alive, and going to sleep for
hundreds of years and waking up again.
All these things can be found in religions. but children know they are
stories. They actually believe them to be true when they are told they are
true.
Some children's hymns are horrific, especially the older ones.
Are these Christian hymns educative?
"There's not a sin that we commit.
Nor wicked word we say,
But in thy dreadful book 'tis writ
Against the judgement day".
The grammar is as ludicrous as the substance, but these are mind-bending for
children.
Pure fairy stories to adults.
Or
"There is an hour when I must die
Nor do I know how soon 'twill be,
A thousand children, young as I,
Are called to death to meet their doom".
Very nice stuff for toddlers! And poisoned minds.
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49caee$1_2@cnews...
David Giddings
at, and you would be right if we were comparing like with like. But a condom
and the electric chair are different, and so is using a condom with your
wife, and sticking a man to roast on the electric chair. So the analogy does
not hold.news:3b49cc4b...@cnews.corel.ca...
David Giddings
because it would be an indictment of missionary activity. He must answer
mine first. He is the one supporting the limitation of freedom to do moral,
lawful acts by blackening them. I am simply saying that he (or the churches)
has no right to stop me having a divorce, or using birth control if I wish
to on their spurious moral grounds based on fairy tales.
Perhaps I sound bullying - I would certainly have been out bullying the
Hitler Youth and the Young Fascists if I'd had half the chance. Of course I
would. They were imposing constraints on freethought and freedom of choice
on the spurious grounds of a poisonous mythology.
That would have been my duty if I'd been around. And perhaps 12,000,000+
people would still have been alive in 1945 to say how lovely the 30's and
40's were!
So the onus is not on me. It's on the people that impose their beliefs and
sue their position of authority to deny basic rights like divorce and family
planning.
Let's start with that. Then move on.
"D-Bird" <don't_email_me.com> wrote in message news:3b49d016$1_3@cnews...
Mike Lorrey
> news:3b49ae7e_3@cnews...
> >
> > I still want you to answer this question, then we can proceed. If not,
> it's
> > pointless.
> >
> > "Would you or do you tell people tell people that birth control or divorce
> > is sinful?"
Dave James wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but you are not writing the rules by which I am willing to
> discuss the issue. You refuse to deal with the real issues and questions
> that I pose, then you turn around and expect me to answer an irrelevant
> question before you will continue. I'm not into that game.
>
> When you are ready to get back on track, I will be glad to continue.
Well, so far as I know, it's not the job of anybody here to say what is
sinful or not. Frankly, I find the whole thing ludicrous. That is not to
say I am not moral, but I consider sin to be a separate issue from
morality, since sin is only important in reference to one's belief in
eventual disposition in an alleged afterlife, a postapocalypitic chit
sheet. Since I don't believe in such a thing, I obtain my morality by
objective means.
There are different sorts of birth control, and even abortionists
consider abortion to be a very poor method of birth control. I'm all for
the pill and condoms, etc. I am also for educating women, the most
effective means of birth control there is. I do consider abortion to be
ending a life.
I consider divorce to be an act against children. If a couple has no
children, then there is no fault. If a couple does have children, it is
the responsibility of the parents to not only equitably see to the
economic, social, and emotional well being of their kids, this includes
eliminating animosity and manipulation between spouses. Conducting a
vicious and hostile divorce, using kids as pawns, and refusing one's
responsibilities out of spite are all wrong acts. If there is any sin in
this world, hurting kids has to be near the top of the list. If adults
can act like adults in these situations, then divorce is fine, and can
even serve to strengthen the protection of children, which is the
purpose of marriage.
Mike
David Giddings
OK. There's no point in going on, you're right. But apart from some spurious
claim about being told by 'The Lord Jesus Christ' to go and create
conscience problems for otherwise happy, ignorant Hungarians, what are you
doing there in the first place? We you invited (apart from by the Lord) to
go there? Was it an inner voice? People get locked up, or used to in the bad
old days, for hearing voices.
These are the serious questions. Proselytising and missionary work can be
seen an unwarranted interference. Why not go to Africa, and wash lepers, or
Aids victims? They are real missionaries. I only wish they would stick to
bed-baths, though, and leave the mind-bending at home.news:3b49d1ff_1@cnews...
Steve Caple
> Same with condoms and other barrier methods.
But, but ... every sperm is sacred!
David Giddings
when you say that "even abortionists consider abortion to be a very poor
method of birth control". I think that 'even' should be replaced by 'also'.
No-one in their right mind - and certainly not the woman involved - would
see abortion as a cheap, quick and pleasant form a birth control, when the
pill and condoms are freely available.
"Mike Lorrey" <mlo...@datamann.com> wrote in message
news:3B49ECB5...@datamann.com...
Debra Earle
| But there are objective criteria for calling a thin dangerous or hazardous.
|
Can you give an example? Not just of dangerous/hazardous, but also of
something that is not.
--
DE
Greg Brock
views. Said flock is free to ignore, and thus, castrate his authority. Seems
to me that you are most aggrieved by the unwillingness of the flock to do so but
that is their choice.
David Giddings wrote:
> I am opposed to 'abuse of authority'. That is what the cardinal is doing.
> The law is not imposing anything. The cardinal is imposing a ban on a
> fundamental right of choice that democratically elected people are
> demanding - to bring the country into line with the more advanced
> jurisdictions in the world.
> He does not have the right to stop the democratic process. That is why I say
> he must be stopped. I am not imposing my will - what will? Forced abortions?
> Forced divorces? Forced birth control'
> I am advocating stopping those who responsible for forced pregnancies,
> forced household violence, forced marital rape, forced physical and sexual
> abuse, forced poverty, ...
> Is that enough or shall I go on?
>
> "Dave James" <djame...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:3b48ee1e_1@cnews...
> | You didn't really respond to my post - you simply restated your position -
> | but I'm getting used to that :-)
> |
> | David Giddings <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
> | news:3b48e848_2@cnews...
> | > I defy the cardinal's right to use his paramount `position - or anyone
> | else
> | > for that matter - to say that divorce is 'wrong, immoral, unpatriotic
> and
> | > absurd.
> |
> | On what grounds and with what authority? You have neither the power nor
> the
> | authority to do anything whatsoever. You use the language of someone who
> has
> | the ability to forcefully impose his will upon. You talk tough like the
> | playground bully who is mostly bluff - and the truth is it sounds kind of
> | silly and childish.
> |
> | > His is a clown , and as I said need someone to kick his arse for him.
> |
> | Literally or figuratively? Are you saying that you would be willing to
> | inflict physical harm personally or by proxy? Isn't that a human rights
> | violation?
> |
> | > If not he must be made to keep quiet.
> |
> | What means would you suggest? Has he no rights? I'm not saying I agree
> with
> | him - but you seem to be violating the very principles you claim to
> espouse.
> |
> | > Like any other contract.
> | > there's noting 'sacred' about marriage. It's just a live-in arrangement,
> | to
> | > provide mutual protection and a safe environment to perpetuate our
> | species.
> |
> | I disagree. So do a lot of others - millions and millions of others. Does
> | someone need to do us physical harm? Should we be silenced somehow?
> |
> | Sounds like you are suggesting tactics that really are more in keeping
> with
> | totalitarianism than true libertarianism. This tends to reinforce my
> | observation over the years that those who most loudly accuse others of
> | intolerance are the most intolerant of all.
> |
> | If you are determined to influence people that your way is right I suspect
> | you are doing yourself any favors with this approach.
> |
> | Well, it's late (early) here - as it is in Italy. I wish you a "Good
> night."
Randolph Davis
impression that this view came from the belief that God is the giver of
life. To use any form of birth control would be to interfere with God's
right/intent to create life. Therefore, any form of birth control would be
considered taking a life that God intended. That's not to say I agree with
it, as I am not an RC, but that is what I understood from my reading and
from discussions with some Catholics.
Randy Davis
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b49c64b_3@cnews...
Dave James
> When I get his answer I shall. But I know that he dare not answer it,
> because it would be an indictment of missionary activity. He must answer
> mine first. He is the one supporting the limitation of freedom to do
moral,
> lawful acts by blackening them. I am simply saying that he (or the
churches)
> has no right to stop me having a divorce, or using birth control if I wish
> to on their spurious moral grounds based on fairy tales.
Once again, it is precisely here that you insist on misrepresentation of the
facts and insist on straw-man arguments.
I do not have the legislative nor executive power or authority to stop
anyone from doing anything. However, in a democratic society I have the
opportunity to influence the people and those entrusted by the people with
legislative and executive powers. It makes no difference which side of the
issues I am on. If you are more successful than I am in persuading enough
people that you are right and such legislation is enacted that is in harmony
with your ideology - then that is democracy at work. You simply refuse to
accept that those with opposing views have should have equal opportunity.
This is why I am more consistent in my position than you. I am not
advocating a theocracy. I am willing to function in a society with freedom
of religion and expression of ideologies that I think are fundamentally
wrong in order to preserve my freedom to do the same and allow the
democratic process to work. However, you are not.
Once again, I maintain that you are advocating totalitarian principles under
the guise of libertarianism. And unless you can come up with a reasonable
answer to that I seriously doubt that you are going to win many into your
camp - no matter how hard you pound the pulpit.
Giuseppe Bilotta
> But, if someone believes that contraception is murder, does
> that person not have a moral duty to oppose it by all means?
If someone belives that <fill in with the appropriate racial, social,
religious, political group> are subhuman/inferior/undeserving to live,
does that person have a moral duty to oppose integration/exterminate
them?
> What bothers me much more is the resources devoted to
> condemning contraception whilst silence is maintained with respect to
> genocide, mass murders, robbing the poor, etc.
Because the RCC has a long history and present of genocide, mass
murders, robbing the poor, etc. [And I'm not implying that the other
Churches don't].
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
Axiom I of the Giuseppe Bilotta
theory of IT:
Anything is better than MS
Peter
which, in your opinion, they poison the minds of children. They point is
whether you should be forcibly and permanently silenced, because someone may
call you a dangerous lunatic for expressing those views.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b49e780_2@cnews...
Walter Burbach
because I have friends who, and have myself, gone ballistic when we hear
or see something that irks us. From my POV, this Cardinal is free to
express his opinion in a religious context, but should be called into
check if using terms like un-Filipono, un-patriotic, and absurd (expect
perhaps, religiously absurd, whatever that might mean). I'm guessing
that's the part that really ticked you off as well and, while we all
have sore spots, yours is about the abuses of religion - which is fine
with me. There's certainly a lot to be upset about there.
I think others should use what freedom of speech they have to condemn
his comments, but the most useful condemnation would be by other RC
leader and/or the people of the Philippines. To try to segue into a
thought on your post below, I wonder what the people of the Philippines
are saying.
In contrast to Peter A.S. observation with liberals, most I know and
hear don't believe that people should be silenced, even the devils
you've listed. In fairness to him he wrote: "not all, but any" which I
think should have been, "not all, but many." To go astray for a moment,
I might turn the tables that a mindset I despise among those with a
conservative mindset, not all, but many, is that while the say they are
against bigotry and racism they rarely speak out against it, especially
when perpetrated by one of their own. Our own political philosophies
taint our perception of different philosophies.
But enough of that diversion. Instead of silencing people like those
you've mentioned, and other we probably both can think of, we should
counter them, speak out against them, condemn them. While these people
did have their critics, they clearly did not have enough of them, and
frighteningly enough, they had a lot of supporters. That's the kind of
stuff that really irks me. None of these people (I admit not knowing
who Moseley is) could have gotten where they are without support. That
to me is the real tragedy of the human race. Not that there are
dangerous lunatics - we'll always have those - but that there are those
who will follow them.
Walter
David Giddings wrote:
>
> Only dangerous lunatics. yes. Hitler, for example, should have been
> silenced, or Oswald Moseley on the Right, and Lenin and Co on the Left.
> Mugabe is another dangerous lunatic who could be silenced without any harm
> to anyone and a great deal of good to Africa.
> Free speech is not without limits.
> "Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49a886_2@cnews...
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49bdfe_1@cnews...
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
out of a substantive retort so he switches gears.
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b4a22b7_3@cnews...
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b49bdfd$1_1@cnews...
> Aspirin works very well. The technique is to place the aspirin firmly
> between your knees. <g>
>
> --
> Peter
>
> You can lead a horticulture,
> but you can't make her think.
> mailto:pete...@optonline.net
>
> "Christine Forber" <m...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:3B49BD4...@isp.com...
> > Eric de Souza wrote:
> > >
> > > But, if someone believes that contraception is murder, does
> > > that person not have a moral duty to oppose it by all means?
> > > What bothers me much more is the resources devoted to
> > > condemning contraception whilst silence is maintained with respect to
> > > genocide, mass murders, robbing the poor, etc.
> >
David Giddings
open for Gid to decide to impregnate.
Disgusting isn't it? So superstitious.
"Randolph Davis" <ra...@ranbec.com> wrote in message
news:3b4a00e8_1@cnews...
David Giddings
(non-RCs) from being able to have a divorce, because it is unFilipono,
absurd and immoral to want a divorce.
Hands up everybody here who is .....? (And how many of you are living in
sin!!?)
"Greg Brock" <Gr...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4A01C2...@cableone.net...
David Giddings
that missionaries are likely to drill into impressionable children's heads,
that's all.-
"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3b4a34c4$1_2@cnews...
David Giddings
to be fought.
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b4a22b7_3@cnews...
Peter
donation to that organization. I proceeded to throw my money up in the air
and told them that g-d could take and keep whatever he wanted.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b4a3c81_3@cnews...
Christine Forber
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> There are different sorts of birth control, and even abortionists
> consider abortion to be a very poor method of birth control. I'm all for
> the pill and condoms, etc. I am also for educating women, the most
> effective means of birth control there is. I do consider abortion to be
> ending a life.
I know nobody who is really "pro-abortion". I do know many people who
consider abortion to be a private matter between a woman and her doctor
(and the husband in some cases). Anyhow, I have read in many places that
educating women is the quickest way to lower the birth rate, lower the
child mortality rate and lower the abortion rate.
> <lots snipped> If adults
> can act like adults in these situations, then divorce is fine, and can
> even serve to strengthen the protection of children, which is the
> purpose of marriage.
The only problem is that some people never act like adults, especially
with respect to their spouses (or with lack of respect?).
Christine
David Giddings
supported Hitler, worn black shorts and did all the arms up things that
Fascist tend to do, with flags (especially the British flag - the 'Union
Jack' as it is popularly known) and made a habit of walking noisily through
Jewish areas of London (there were no blacks to beat up, or set fire to in
those days, so the next best thing were the (mostly Polish) immigrant Jews.
They would beat them up causally, and smash and daub slogans, and generally
behave the way Fascists tend to behave.
But obviously a lot of people in this newsgroup think that this is fine.
Apparently I'm the lunatic for saying that this should not be allowed - IN
THE NAME OF FREEDOM. Is that too hard to comprehend? To me it's simplicity
itself.
Would the people who disagree with me here - and they seem to be in the
majority - be happy if their religious leaders were to try to get the
government to force everyone to abstain from sardines? or to forcibly
circumcise all their male - and female - babies? or to oblige them to stop
work and jump up and down 5 times a day facing Silicon Valley, and attend
indoctrination sessions every Sunday morning, and wear a badges to show
their religion or political allegiances, and make women wear skirts and ban
trousers? or deprive the women of the right to wear in public restaurants
without their husband, and ....?
Because this is essentially what we are talking about. Change the culture,
change the bans and obligations, all equally senseless, and it is clear that
we are dealing with a dangerous cleric in the Filipines who does not know
the place of the churches in the modern secularised world.
"Walter Burbach" <gro...@nospamnetwalk.com> wrote in message
news:3B4A32CC...@nospamnetwalk.com...
David Giddings
prevent people from freedom of choice - that what religion is basically all
about of course, so it's hardly surprising - and I want people to be able to
choose. He imposes something. I don't. I defy his right to prevent me from
choosing to have a divorce.
Not to see the difference is, I'm afraid, just bad faith on your part. But
no less than I would expect.news:3b4a0c9e_1@cnews...
Steven
:) Also, I don't see how I'm equating birth control with a whore for a wife -
please do expound on that point.
Steven
David Giddings wrote:
> Please don't play the old Catholic game of equating birth control with
> treating you wife as a whore! That's an old one. I thought that it was no
> longer part of the Catholic repertoire.
> "Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
> news:3B491AF6...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
> | You also have the right not to have sex. The right to not get married.
> The
> | right to move to a different country. Now how about others' rights? The
> | unborn child has the right to life. The born child has a right to have a
> | mother and a father. I'm gonna guess that the Cardinal has also said that
> | prostitution is immoral...
> |
> | Steven
> |
> | David Giddings wrote:
> |
> | > That is unfair.
> | > Beheading is clearly a violation of human rights, and must be stopped.
> | > Divorce or birth control (I will not raise abortion for the moment) is
> the
> | > contrary: it is the upholding of a human right.
> | > The Cardinal has no right to stop people having divorces or using the
> pill
> | > if they wish to. He is trampling on human rights. I am defending them.
> | > Surely you can see the difference (I know the cardinal can't, but then I
> can
> | > hardly expect him to).
> | > He has the monopoly of Filipino morals. What the heck!
> | > "Dave James" <djame...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> | > news:3b484347$1_3@cnews...
> | > | That's what freedom is all about, and which church
> | > | > leaders will not permit.
> | > | > hence beliefs and toleration all over again ... damn these
> interfering
> | > | > people!
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | For someone who is trying to influence people's thinking I would say
> you
> | > do
> | > | a fair amount of shooting yourself in the foot with respect to your
> | > | reasoning.
> | > |
> | > | You make extreme statements that not even you believe - at least you
> | > | demonstrate that you are inconsistent in the application of your
> ideology.
> | > | For example, it seems that although a self-proclaimed libertarian, you
> | > would
> | > | endorse legislation that protects you from the imposition of
> religionists'
> | > | ideas upon you - while welcoming legislation that would impose aspects
> of
> | > | your ideology upon religionists - thereby restricting the unfettered
> | > | practice of their beliefs.
> | > |
> | > | The one-brush-stroke simplistic free-thinking libertarianism cannot be
> | > | practically or equitably be applied across the board without someone
> | > losing
> | > | their freedoms. The more realistic and rational approach is to examine
> | > these
> | > | things on a case-by-case basis and judge each on its own merits. If
> this
> | > | same Cardinal had said it is "un-Filipino" to take hostages and behead
> | > them,
> | > | then I don't think you would have reacted this way. The point being is
> | > that
> | > | you, too, support interference, but only that which is consistent with
> | > your
> | > | ideology. This being the case, while you seem to vehemently oppose
> | > | intolerance, you often tend to come across as far more intolerant than
> the
> | > | people or institutions that you condemn.
> | > |
> | > | I can't believe I'm trying to help you in this - but let's just call
> it
> | > | "handicapping" to keep the game fair :-)
Steven
neither one would be necessary if people [both the men and the ladies] used
their right to not have sex... Do you defy people's rights not to have sex?
And isn't defying his right, well, taking away his rights? And that goes
against your stand for everyone's rights...
David Giddings wrote:
> But surely 'murder' and 'taking the pill' are not quite the same are they?
> Unless you are the Pope or Cardinal Sin - they say they are .To 'good'
> (i.e. blind unthinking) Catholics they are both going to condemn you to
> eternal flames in hell.
> That is what this silly cardinal is on about. And I defy his right to harm
> people in this way.
>
> "Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
> news:3B491F20...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
> | That won't ever totally be possible. The state takes so many laws and
> 'rules'
> | from the church - be it whatever 'church' [ie, religion] a person belongs
> to. In
> | the case put forth earlier: death. Murder we can probably all agree is
> wrong.
> | But that didn't come specifically from the state - the church and the
> state
> | formed it together. To get one without the other would just be gross...
> |
> | Steven
> |
> | Christine Forber wrote:
> |
> | > I agree with David in that I believe that state and church should be
> | > totally separate and not meddle in each other's affairs.
> | >
> | > C.
> | >
> | > David Giddings wrote:
> | > >
> | > > The cardinal is not speaking in the abstract - he's addressing a piece
> of
> | > > draft legislation by the elected parliament with a large body of
> democratic
> | > > support, so the cardinal's intervention is anti-democratic.
> | > > I agree it's an internal matter for the people to decide, in whatever
> | > > constitutional manner they have. But for his eminence to slate the
> people
> | > > who want the possibility to be free to divorce if necessary as absurd,
> | > > unpatriotic and immoral, he needs his arse kicking.
> | > >
> | > > "Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:3b48abba$1_3@cnews...
> | > > | David, if that is what the people there want, who are we to
> interfere.
> | > > That
> | > > | is strictly an internal matter for the Philippine people. While I
> may not,
> | > > | no make that do not, agree with that teaching, neither you not I
> have any
> | > > | right to impose our respective beliefs there.
> | > > |
> | > > | --
> | > > | Peter
> | > > |
> | > > | You can lead a horticulture,
> | > > | but you can't make her think.
> | > > | mailto:pete...@optonline.net
> | > > |
> | > > | "David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
> | > > | > abortion. Like condoms. That's what freedom is all about, and
> which
> | > > church
> | > > | > leaders will not permit.
> | > > | > hence beliefs and toleration all over again ... damn these
> interfering
> | > > | > people!
> | > > | >
Steven
David Giddings wrote:
> The problems in Northern Ireland are partly due to having had their
> 'Cardinal Sins' for centuries, terrorising people's minds, and above all
> strengthening the free¡err (in theory) Protestants' resolve not to be
> dragged into the Republic.
Steven
Filipino, good, and moral to stay married. Rephrase - Filipino's shouldn't get
divorced. Rephrase - Filipino's should stay married. Rephrase - it is not
like Filipino to get divorced. Rephrase - It is like the world to get
divorced. You know, I'm just not seeing how he's preventing the rest of us . .
. are you reading his words differently?
Steven
your body? Since the earth presumably belongs to G-d [sidetrack: curiosity -
are you Jewish?], then whatever lands on the earth would be His to keep... And
to take that a step farther, since He owns the earth and He decides who to
impregnate, then He owns you, so anything that lands on you would be His as
well... :)
Steven
Well, we in the US are being forced to abstain from British beef that might
contain Mad Cow disease...[okay, so they're not sardines]
>or to forcibly circumcise all their male - and female - babies?
Well, we in the US are forced to get shots as babies [okay, so it's not
circumcision]
>or to oblige them to stop work and jump up and down 5 times a day facing
Silicon Valley
Well, we in the US are obliged to stop what we are doing and pay respect to the
American Flag during the pledge or national anthem... [okay, so that's not
Silicon Valley]
>and attend indoctrination sessions every Sunday morning
Well, we in the US all attend indoctrination sessions in our childhood years
Monday through Friday during the day... [okay, so that's not Sunday morning]
etc, etc, etc,
David Giddings
Religious polemicists usually throw in red herrings to get away from he
topic - your mention of prostitution seemed to be to be reiterating an old
RC position. Of course, now that people are ignoring the churches sin
ever-greater numbers, they are no quiet so dogmatic any more, and tend to be
'ultra-reasonable' and 'humble' (look at Dave's recent posts for example)
while the real lions under sheep's clothing are the Karl's of this world,
who are honestly open and unapologetic about their views. Not conversion by
stealth, which is so evidently Dave's approach, but take it or leave it.
That does not make their views palatable or any more reasonable, but Karl
does make it abundantly clear where he stands. Take it or leave it. So it's
an honest and non-evasive, sincerely held position, which merits respect.
Back to you and my unintended 'smear': The Christian church is against
prostitution. Not all religions are, of course, but Christians always come
down hard on anything sexual, even though in modern societies there are many
who say that it is a perfectly respectable profession, if properly
regulated. I have no particular views on it. It you like it, do it
carefully, whether a user or a prostitute. Like divorce. If you need it, it
must be available. Not compulsory - available. The church denies that
right. I say that it has no right to deny that right. Nit all agree with me,
as you can see.
But since the church (at least RCs) propagates the unhealthy and bizarre
view that the sex act is designed *primarily* to produce children, any other
use of sex is wrong, In short, your wife is a baby factory, to be worn out
with multiple pregnancies, or denied sexual pleasure altogether. The male
has prostitutes available and always has. For women - at least in less
fortunate societies than our own - no such releases are available, because
they tend to be confined to the kitchen - or the convent, This means that
having sex with your wife in a manner that will not let God allow your sperm
to get at her egg is a form of prostitution - in the sense that you are
using your wife (( because traditionally women apparently don't really enjoy
these nasty male things!!) as a whore, purely for sensual and illicit
lustful pleasure.
So by your mentioning prostitution (and not having had the pleasure of
reading many of your previous posts, and hence not 'knowing' you in the way
that I 'know' so many others in this group) I immediately thought of the old
religious trick of clouding the eyes - with the 'cloud of unknowing.
Religion is based on unknowing, as you know.
"Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
news:3B4A6D8C...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
David Giddings
eyes then) busty-bosomed devoted women who adored children, who spent most
of their day with them supervising us, talking to us, loving us, making us
feel safe and secure, giving us a thrill when we saw them in the street and
they recognised us and greeted us by name. and we were able to present our
friends to them -'that's my teacher'.
How time shave changed!
But they were nearly all celibate women - devoted to their job, ploughing
all the energies into their work with other people's children, not having
their own. They had perhaps been 'left on the shelf' or has decided to forgo
marriage and having children because they derive dtheir satisfaction from
working in education.
And in those days 'loose women' would never have got away with it! So they
were probably extremely celibate in the true sense of the term.
There are also doctors out there in the Third World and so many other
professions who give up married life for their work or mission as they see
it.
That's fine. That's what freedom is all about. Non-one gain deny them that
right. It's heroic.
But to deny the opposite right - for example, to deny me the right to have
sex with another consenting adult or adults, in a loveless and purely sexual
relationship, as a form of therapy or sport is wrong. To call me immoral
because I am divorced is not only wrong but impertinent coming from a
celibate who (presumably!) knows nothing about having a crated family that
doesn't work.
"Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
news:3B4A6E7D...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
David Giddings
rightly - were appalled at the idea of being dragged into in Eire's
theocratic state, dominated by mostly ignorant and uneducated clergy. The
catholic church has an enormous share of the blame for the present-day
Orangemen's attitudes and antics. But - and this is the more important
thing - since the church is fortunately much less strong than it used to be
(in both parts of Ireland) because the church no longer has the ears and
the minds of the people, the Orangemen do not have this excuse any more for
opposing a united Ireland.
There is - unfortunately - no Church-State separation in Ireland any more
than there is in England.
"Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
news:3B4A6EAF...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
David Giddings
'Filipino's shouldn't get divorced'? or 'Filipinos should stay married'! It
is preposterous and not his business or mine to say that or to say that 'non
Filipinos should get/stay married. Every case is individual and specific and
the circumstances areĄrarely identical when marriages break up. And few
marriages break up for fun or whim.
"Steven" <ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu> wrote in message
news:3B4A75DF...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
David Giddings
The US is one of the rare examples of a free country. Largely because of
Church/State separation, and the free spirit that these people would like to
take away from you.
Look after it - when it's gone,. it's hard to get back without another
revolution!
If all these things you list were imposed on you in - say - Afghanistan,
Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or in the old Eire 50 years ago, you would have good
cause to complain. But you know that it is probably for your best interests
that it is done today, even if it irks you. In these other circumstances it
is only for mind-control and generating ignorance or repressing people.
Can you imagine conversations like these in any of these countries? You
would get ostracised and lose you job to start with, and possible even
executed of forcibly divorced for apostasy!news:3B4A7818...@ic3.ithaca.edu...
Debra Earle
simple way of showing that we are not as "free" as we would like to
believe, and that really there can not be a functioning nation where
everyone is absolutely free.
Yes, there are repressed nations, but we have our own repressive laws,
rules, regulations, practises.
I'm not even sure any more if we can count ourselves more "free" in any
way than, say, Canada ... even though we used to make a big issue of this.
For example, we're now bombarded with government propaganda in a way that
I would never have envisioned when I was a child, learning in elementary
school about Tass & such. We are not free from intrusive surveillence.
We are not free from what used to be considered "unlawful" search &
seizure, because some folks felt it was OK to give away our freedom in
exchange for fighting the dreadful "drug war". (Yet despite giving away
those basic rights, the drug war is a dismal failure and likely no more
successful than it would be if we still had the rights we used to have as
supposedly guaranteed in the Constitution.) The INS and BATF can bash in
your door and rip your belongings apart, force you to the floor and hold a
gun on you in front of your kids ... and then just walk away with an
"oops" because they have the wrong person & didn't check identities
clearly enough. (This happened several times in the Pac. NW, that I know
of, and we've all heard the stories about storming of a CA estate & other
similar situations where unarmed, innocent people were thought to be doing
something illegal and the storm-troopers moved in.) Even the way the
government moved in on that family in Idaho -- three weeks after a
chronically-ill father died -- was a horrendous example of how much we've
given up in our rights to even be safe and free in our own homes. (Yes, I
know that doesn't represent the full story, but look at how this was
carried out! -- with storm troopers, again!)
Now, I'm no David Koresh fan, but I think we are shooting ourselves in the
foot if we continue to give away our basic liberties for the hope of a
"safer" society thru repression.
Or perhaps I should cite the "no protest zone" enacted in Seattle for the
convenience of some visitors (WTO); since when do we declare an
"emergency" that says you can't enter a certain area of town if you even
dare to wear a patch that supports a cause that your government disagrees
with?! Since when do we keep innocent, unarmed people from aiding those
who have been thrown to the sidewalk and pepper-sprayed by police for
simply failing to disperse?
Folks my age have seen a lot of our "freedom" and rights erode over the
years, with no real benefit as a society. It's a sad thing, and I think
it is one reason why so many have lost the pride in "America" that they
used to have.
Oh, we're still a lot better than a lot of places ... but face it, we
ain't what we used to be.
-- DE
In article <3B4A7818...@ic3.ithaca.edu>, ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu
says...
--
DE, C_Tech
Debra Earle
borrow all of it (including the body) for your lifetime.
-- DE
In article <3B4A7698...@ic3.ithaca.edu>, ssch...@ic3.ithaca.edu
says...
--
DE, C_Tech
Peter
it. Which right is consistent and which is paradoxical.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b4aa5f8$1_2@cnews...
Peter
were quite passionate about work and play.
Having sex with a teacher was great. She would make me do it over and over
until I got it right.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b4aa2d9_3@cnews...
Dave James
> Sorry if I get you wrong, Steve. It was you final sentence that misled me.
> Religious polemicists usually throw in red herrings to get away from he
> topic - your mention of prostitution seemed to be to be reiterating an old
> RC position. Of course, now that people are ignoring the churches sin
> ever-greater numbers, they are no quiet so dogmatic any more, and tend to
be
> 'ultra-reasonable' and 'humble' (look at Dave's recent posts for example)
> while the real lions under sheep's clothing are the Karl's of this world,
> who are honestly open and unapologetic about their views. Not conversion
by
> stealth, which is so evidently Dave's approach, but take it or leave it.
> That does not make their views palatable or any more reasonable, but Karl
> does make it abundantly clear where he stands. Take it or leave it. So
it's
> an honest and non-evasive, sincerely held position, which merits respect.
You simply amaze me at times.
Anyone who has followed my posts should quickly realize that I am not
attempting "conversion by stealth" which you claim to be so evident. Nor can
it be said that I am not honestly open and unapologetic about my views. I
have clearly stated my position on every topic that I have dealt with -
including the fact that the only real reason I am interacting on the NG is
in view of and because of the fact that I believe there may be some who will
be influenced by my proclamation and defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It appears that your main problem with me may stem from the fact that I
won't let you "bait" me and I won't allow you to divert the discussion of
the real issues in a particular thread by answering questions that are
irrelevant to those immediate issues.
I have no problem with your question(s) in principle (including those about
my views on contraception and divorce) - and I have no qualms about letting
those be known. I have nothing to hide and am not afraid that somehow I will
weaken my credibility. However, if I perceive that my answering of a
question is going to "let you off the hook" and head down another road
before you answer me, I'm not particularly inclined to answer. I think that
is only fair and reasonable.
David Giddings
proverbial..
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b4ae70f_3@cnews...
Peter
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"David Giddings" <david.g...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:3b4aef5e_3@cnews...
Christine Forber
worry about creating a baby when we do so? I have two children, I want
no more. As it turns out, I've taken "permanent" steps to be sure I
won't have children. However, some people are uncomfortable taking that
step, and I think the Catholic church is against sterilization. Should
these people have to worry every time they have sex? No rhythm,
secretion, etc method is perfect, although some are pretty good. Some
women have erratic menstrual cycles and can get pregnant at just about
any phase in that cycle. Should they avoid sex altogether?
I don't think so. I believe that everyone should have choices - to have
unprotected sex and take their chances and deal with the consequences,
to use contraception (and deal with the consequences of failure of that
contraception), to avoid sex if that is what they want, to undergo
sterilization, etc.
Christine
Christine Forber
>
> Religious polemicists usually throw in red herrings to get away from he
> topic - your mention of prostitution seemed to be to be reiterating an old
> RC position. Of course, now that people are ignoring the churches sin
> ever-greater numbers, they are no quiet so dogmatic any more, and tend to be
> 'ultra-reasonable' and 'humble' (look at Dave's recent posts for example)
> while the real lions under sheep's clothing are the Karl's of this world,
> who are honestly open and unapologetic about their views. Not conversion by
> stealth, which is so evidently Dave's approach, but take it or leave it.
I've never gotten the impression from Dave's postings that he is
attempting conversion by stealth. He's always been upfront about what he
believes. He isn't as provocative or "in your face" as Karl (thank
heavens), but he certainly doesn't hide or obscure what he is trying to
convey.
Christine
Giuseppe Bilotta
to ... uh ...
David Giddings wrote:
> I don't think that these are on the same plane - I know what you're getting
> at, and you would be right if we were comparing like with like. But a condom
> and the electric chair are different, and so is using a condom with your
> wife, and sticking a man to roast on the electric chair. So the analogy does
> not hold.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
Axiom I of the Giuseppe Bilotta
theory of IT:
Anything is better than MS
Peter
The coffin covers you when going.
--
Peter
You can lead a horticulture,
but you can't make her think.
mailto:pete...@optonline.net
"Giuseppe Bilotta" <bilo...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15b5127e3...@cnews.corel.com...
David Giddings
it over and over
| until I got it right".
laid down (let me rephrase that, 'issued' - no, let me rephrase that again,
'stipulated') by the State curricular authorities, I take it?
"Peter" <pete...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:3b4af555$1_1@cnews...
David Giddings
Christine, as far as converting to Rome is concerned! you and Andrew must
live like brother and sister. that's the rule, I'm afraid. The pope said so
quite recently. I suppose that's easy to say (and do) at his age, though...
"Christine Forber" <m...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AFE84...@isp.com...
David Giddings
want to lull (or beat) us into conversion. They've made that clear. Whereas
we don't want to convert anyone to anything. On the contrary, we want to
de-convert.
"Christine Forber" <m...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AFF8A...@isp.com...
David Giddings
And that's what no religion will tolerate. They make the choices for you, as
the supreme moral authorities, believing that there is 'no morals without
religion'.
Which is obviously nonsensical, but there you are.
"Christine Forber" <m...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3B4AFE84...@isp.com...
Christine Forber
pearly gates!!
The Pope can think what he wants. I believe that a husband and wife have
the RIGHT to have sex together without worrying about procreation every
time they do so. I also believe that they have to deal with any
contraception failures responsibly.
C.