Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi

[elmarko]

Indeed. Using it as an argument against religion comes from a position of ignorance.

What the hell are you talking about?.

I wasn't using it as an argument against religion, if you read the thread instead of being a contrarian you would understand this discussion was started by somebody calling evolution BS.

Besides, religions resistance to evolution does provide a reasonable grounds for criticism religion & it's denying reality.

Just because you can't understand the importance of this, it does not mean that it's not important.

 

[Longbow]

Then you should be made accountable for your actions, what the....?

The bible told me to do it.

 

[elmarko]

Hang on, the flaw in my argument is that the Chruch is quite happy to ignore reality? No, I would say that this is a flaw in the Church policy.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

One among many.

I was thinking his argument seemed a little flawed...

Also from that article.

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV."

A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass .

 

[spudbynight]

What the hell are you talking about?.

I wasn't using it as an argument against religion, if you read the thread instead of being a contrarian you would understand this discussion was started by somebody calling evolution BS.

Besides, religions resistance to evolution does provide a reasonable grounds for criticism religion & it's denying reality.

Just because you can't understand the importance of this, it does not mean that it's not important.

Are you not bright enough to understand the point I was making? Let me spell it out for you.

Religion as a concept does not contradict evolution.

Certain individual religions don't believe in evolution. If you want to make this point then make it against those specific religions not against religion as a whole.

As I pointed out the largest religion in the world (along with many others) is perfectly happy with evolution.

 

[Danthus]

Not an argument I have heard before. Got a source for this?

Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo said......

The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." These false claims were echoed by an archbishop of Nairobi, as well as by Catholics as far Asia and Latin America

That do you?

 

[Naffa]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think that she is advocating a middle ground. Just because we have a (oooh here comes the danger word!) multi-cultural society doesn't mean people should dampen their religious roots for fear of criticism.

I couldn't agree more, but that's the reality of a secular society. It doesn't imply that one cannot be religious, it simply implies that there is no significant religious component of governance.

Secular society is the 'middle ground', in which people of all religions can flourish and prosper. That's why I thought the Baroness' article was so rife with ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Danthus]

Is religion even a choice or is it indoctrination?

 

[SMed]

Are you not bright enough to understand the point I was making? Let me spell it out for you.

Religion as a concept does not contradict evolution.

Certain individual religions don't believe in evolution. If you want to make this point then make it against those specific religions not against religion as a whole.

As I pointed out the largest religion in the world (along with many others) is perfectly happy with evolution.

Are you not bright enough to have followed the thread? The only person that said evolution was a problem, was a religious person here - kedge. He was the only one to bring it up, all the other evolution posts were in response to his ramblings.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Yes, well said naffa. Even the most abhorrent of anti-religious (from religious perspective), myself included are not and have not been calling for a witch hunt style masscre of religious people or religious buildings. But the anti-religious will continue the battle for rationality.

 

[spudbynight]

Hang on, the flaw in my argument is that the Chruch is quite happy to ignore reality? No, I would say that this is a flaw in the Church policy.

The Church has very clear teachings on this matter. You can't pick and choose parts in isolation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

One among many.

In fairness that doesn't seem to be an official Church teaching. It seems to be the opinion of one person who admittedly is in an influential position.

As a Catholic I often criticise the views and opinions of senior clergy. +Vincent Nichols is currently the leader of the Catholic Church in this country. I strongly disagree with some of the things he comes out with (as does the Vatican from time to time) but it doesn't mean every word he utters is an official Church position.

 

[shadow_boxer]

How can it be non sense, I never said anything about pushing islam. I just said pushing religion in general. Just because the middle east is infected with religion does not mean the west has to be. The heritage of the west is actually a battle against religious totalitarianism and conflict that goes back 1000s of years. For a muslim woman to say we need to be a more just society is an insult to western culture. If she wants a more just society she should cover her body and move to the middle east.

lol. so misinformed!

 

[elmarko]

Are you not bright enough to understand the point I was making? Let me spell it out for you.

Religion as a concept does not contradict evolution.

Certain individual religions don't believe in evolution. If you want to make this point then make it against those specific religions not against religion as a whole.

As I pointed out the largest religion in the world (along with many others) is perfectly happy with evolution.

We are talking about religious groups & religious people who don't believe in evolution, not those that do - I never said evolution was evidence against the existence of god - neither did I say that religion a as a concept contradicts evolution.

But evolution does directly go against the creation story's, which most religions do have.

Nice straw-man.

It's not possible to get evidence against something which doesn't exist.

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

 

[spudbynight]

Are you not bright enough to have followed the thread? The only person that said evolution was a problem, was a religious person here - kedge. He was the only one to bring it up, all the other evolution posts were in response to his ramblings.

This thread is littered with posts about evolution. Every time a thread starts that mentions religion the same old arguments are wheeled out.

My point is that it is a tangent. Some people though get overcome with rage and indignation that they can't see past that.

 

[Nitefly]

But evolution does directly go against the creation story's, which most religions do have.

Spudbynight and others believe in what you and I might call 'a less literal' interpretation of genesis.

 

[elmarko]

The Church has very clear teachings on this matter. You can't pick and choose parts in isolation.


In fairness that doesn't seem to be an official Church teaching. It seems to be the opinion of one person who admittedly is in an influential position.

As a Catholic I often criticise the views and opinions of senior clergy. +Vincent Nichols is currently the leader of the Catholic Church in this country. I strongly disagree with some of the things he comes out with (as does the Vatican from time to time) but it doesn't mean every word he utters is an official Church position.

"The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend." - I'm sure the pope was the official position.

Do you read anything written/linked on here before posting?.

 

[RDM]

The Church has very clear teachings on this matter. You can't pick and choose parts in isolation.

So regardless of the damage such an approach is having you keep doing it? That would be a flaw in church policy.

In fairness that doesn't seem to be an official Church teaching. It seems to be the opinion of one person who admittedly is in an influential position.

As a Catholic I often criticise the views and opinions of senior clergy. +Vincent Nichols is currently the leader of the Catholic Church in this country. I strongly disagree with some of the things he comes out with (as does the Vatican from time to time) but it doesn't mean every word he utters is an official Church position.

The pronouncements were whilst he was the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family so it pretty much was official church policy. It was also a pack of lies. It was despicable behaviour and the fact that he received no censure for it is pretty disgusting too. The Catholic Church can be remarkably flawed at times.

 

[spudbynight]

But evolution does directly go against the creation story's, which most religions do have.

No it doesn't. Try opening your mind.

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

You are intolerant and close minded.

 

[Danthus]

No it doesn't. Try opening your mind.




You are intolerant and close minded.

Genesis, Chapter One doesn't really tally with the theory of evolution does it.

 

[TJM]

The Church has very clear teachings on this matter. You can't pick and choose parts in isolation.

But people do pick and choose, and it's completely obvious that they would do so. The Church is actively causing harm by teaching people not to use condoms (easily done) and abstain from sex (contrary to human nature and liable to be ignored by everyone).

 

[spudbynight]

"The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend." - I'm sure the pope was the official position.

Do you read anything written/linked on here before posting?.

Never mind reading the thread. You seem to be unable to read an individual post that you are commenting on.

The point about an official Church position was in direct response to the reference to Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo.

If you look at my post you will see it was in direct response. No obfuscation.