Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi

[elmarko]

No it doesn't. Try opening your mind.

So it was all a metaphor/allegories - then by what criteria do you determine what's actual & what's allegorical?.

Let me guess, everything that's been dis proven by science is a metaphor & everything which hasn't/can't is factual.

You are intolerant and close minded.

Being closed minded does not mean accepting anything uncritically & without evidence.

I'd be happy to open my mind if evidence was provided, can you say the same thing?.

How exactly am I being intolerant?, all I'm saying is that you & the evolution poster can't assert what you are trying to assert - providing factual based evidence to combat the unfounded claims put against them.

 

[spudbynight]

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

Darn it. You caught me and all the others out there. Let me get on the phone now to the Holy Father and tell him we need to disband things.

 

[spudbynight]

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).

Well then you blame those people not the Church.

The Church is not actively causing harm and to be honest stating this as a fact is highly offensive.

 

[meths]

...The Church has a position on sex....

Missionary position?

 

[elmarko]

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.

I fail to see what you don't understand.

High ranking church members making things up about contraception (not being corrected by the leadership).

The pope continuing to be against contraception - (which is the best way to combat the aids epidemic?, because unlike preaching abstinence it would work).

Don't even get me started on the leadership being complicit in the covering up of child rape, at times it makes me sad there isn't a hell for them to burn in.

 

[RDM]

Well then you blame those people not the Church.

The Church is not actively causing harm and to be honest stating this as a fact is highly offensive.

Other than the lying about condoms bit obviously...

Regardless surely the Church is aware that people are only following part of their policy and so should react to the reality of the situation?

 

[spudbynight]

So it was all a metaphor/allegories - then by what criteria do you determine what's actual & what's allegorical?.

Let me guess, everything that's been dis proven by science is a metaphor & everything which hasn't/can't is factual.

Science and religion can both coexist. They don't contradict each other as they are both asking different questions. Essentially we are looking at the how and why of things. Science examines how things happen and religion examines why they happen.

There is a quote here that is worth looking at on the subject :

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

Being closed minded does not mean accepting anything uncritically & without evidence.

I'd be happy to open my mind if evidence was provided, can you say the same thing?.

I am open minded. I was a pretty vocal atheist for much of my life. I returned to faith of my own accord from a position of extreme scepticism.

How exactly am I being intolerant?, all I'm saying is that you & the evolution poster can't assert what you are trying to assert - providing factual based evidence to combat the unfounded claims put against them.

What am I trying to assert that you take exception to?

 

[anything I don't mind]

Religion and science contradict each other, only modern day belief systems have attempted to reinterpret their own belief systems in such a way as to make out as if it is compatible with science and the modern day intellect.

spiritualism or spirituality is however irrespective of science and one could believe in god of some kind but not subscribe to a belief system and that would be "compatible" with science.

 

[SMed]

Well then you blame those people not the Church.

The Church is not actively causing harm and to be honest stating this as a fact is highly offensive.

If The Church knows that many Africans will not follow many of the rules with regards to sex, and The Church knows that this results in the spread of HIV, and The Church knows that condom use will dramatically reduce the spread of HIV... why don't they just say, "Please do not have marriage outside of sex, it is a sin. But if you do, wear a condom at least"?

I think they did do something like this recently, but seemed to only specifically mention homosexual male prostitutes. I could be wrong, please clarify.

Do you think, that if they are going to break the rules on extra-marital sex, they should at least wear condoms? Such as the ABC program?

 

[elmarko]

What am I trying to assert that you take exception to?

You are utterly ignorant to the actions of the church, an apologist & hold a false view that religion & science ask difference questions.

How the world came into existence, how humans should behave, our origins are questions in which science & religion have conflicting viewpoints.

A few of the major religions have given up ground on the arguments they can't afford to publicly lose again & again & again ad infinitum, due to the problem it makes them look even more ridiculous than they do already.

Nobody is trying to tell you that you pretend that a man exists in the sky & cares for you, just that you should keep those view at home & don't try to make scientific claims about the origins of the world.

I respect religious people who simply admit, it's a matter of faith & the religion is personal to them & they keep it at home (outside of workplace/government/decision making) - as long as they are not actively hurting anybody.

 

[spudbynight]

Other than the lying about condoms bit obviously...

I don't agree with the quote in question. However can you prove it to be a lie rather an error?

Regardless surely the Church is aware that people are only following part of their policy and so should react to the reality of the situation?

I don't ask you to agree with the church's teachings however I would like to explain something.

The Church's teachings are based on moral constants. Essentially something that was wrong yesterday is still wrong tomorrow. It isn't as easy as just changing its mind on something.

Again, I don't ask you to agree with the Church, just to understand that it can't just easily change things.

 

[spudbynight]

Religion and science contradict each other

How exactly?

 

[RDM]

I don't agree with the quote in question. However can you prove it to be a lie rather an error?

Because it flies in the face of all scientific knowledge and even when this was pointed out they stuck to the same stance. Now you may want to see the Catholic Church in the best light possible and suggest it was just an honest mistake but to do it in this case would certainly be deserving of the "apologist" label previously banded about.

Would you also like to defend the Church's original stance on hiding child abuse?

I don't ask you to agree with the church's teachings however I would like to explain something.

The Church's teachings are based on moral constants. Essentially something that was wrong yesterday is still wrong tomorrow. It isn't as easy as just changing its mind on something.

Again, I don't ask you to agree with the Church, just to understand that it can't just easily change things.

And I would ask you to understand that this is a flaw in the church and that by holding on to this policy, actively promoting this policy and using political power to try to ensure no other policy is allowed they are doing untold harm.

Because of church policy more people die than is necessary. If you are happy with this because at least the church is staying true to its values, then fine. However I don't think that such moral isolation is a healthy stance.

I would also be very careful about calling people intolerant whilst following a religion that is itself intolerant to some degree.

 

[spudbynight]

You are utterly ignorant to the actions of the church, an apologist & hold a false view that religion & science ask difference questions.

Making such wild comments does come across as intolerant.

You have made 3 assertions.

1 - I am utterly ignorant to the actions of the church.
2 - I am an apologist
3 - I hold a false view that religion and science ask different questions.

Can you substantiate those comments please.

How the world came into existence, how humans should behave, our origins are questions in which science & religion have conflicting viewpoints.

Can you clarify the conflicts please.

A few of the major religions have given up ground on the arguments they can't afford to publicly lose again & again & again ad infinitum, due to the problem it makes them look even more ridiculous than they do already.

Are we talking about specific religions or religion in general?

Nobody is trying to tell you that you pretend that a man exists in the sky & cares for you, just that you should keep those view at home & don't try to make scientific claims about the origins of the world.

I respect religious people who simply admit, it's a matter of faith & the religion is personal to them & they keep it at home (outside of workplace/government/decision making) - as long as they are not actively hurting anybody.

The whole point of Baroness Warsi's statement is against militant secularism. People of faith are entitled to their beliefs. Oppressing those beliefs is the hall mark of "totalitarian regimes"

 

[elmarko]

How exactly?

Because religion makes scientific claims.

Science is not just confined to physics. biology & chemistry - religion is also being challenged by our understanding of neuroscience, psychology & sociology.

The entire concept of "right & wrong/good & evil" is considered a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour patterns - with causes & effects which are pretty well documented & understood.

It's quite hard to find a religion which does not at least subscribe to this flawed concept (even most none-religious people suffer from this - as they have dropped religion but remnants still remain).

 

[stockhausen]

Warsi (not Wars) is a madwoman . . . isn't she also some sort of a Chair at Tory parties

 

[RDM]

The whole point of Baroness Warsi's statement is against militant secularism. People of faith are entitled to their beliefs. Oppressing those beliefs is the hall mark of "totalitarian regimes"

Are they entitled to those beliefs without criticism though? As far as I can see in the UK you are entitled to hold whatever beliefs you wish so is Baroness Warsi really calling for people to have something they already have?

 

[spudbynight]

Because it flies in the face of all scientific knowledge and even when this was pointed out they stuck to the same stance. Now you may want to see the Catholic Church in the best light possible and suggest it was just an honest mistake but to do it in this case would certainly be deserving of the "apologist" label previously banded about.

Would you also like to defend the Church's original stance on hiding child abuse?

First of all, do you really think that smiley was appropriate?

As regards the child abuse scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church this is my position.

It is a great source of shame for me as a Catholic. There were undoubted cover-ups which cannot be excused in any way whatsoever.

Is that clear enough?

And I would ask you to understand that this is a flaw in the church and that by holding on to this policy, actively promoting this policy and using political power to try to ensure no other policy is allowed they are doing untold harm.

Because of church policy more people die than is necessary. If you are happy with this because at least the church is staying true to its values, then fine. However I don't think that such moral isolation is a healthy stance.

I respect your position on this and feel we need to agree to disagree.

I would also be very careful about calling people intolerant whilst following a religion that is itself intolerant to some degree.

The Catholic Church is incredibly tolerant. I don't believe any of the Church's official teachings are intolerant.

There are Catholics however who are intolerant. I myself can be intolerant of others. It isn't something I am proud of but one thing the Church teaches is that none of us are without fault.

 

[elmarko]

The whole point of Baroness Warsi's statement is against militant secularism. People of faith are entitled to their beliefs. Oppressing those beliefs is the hall mark of "totalitarian regimes"

Is wanting religion to not have a special status being militant? ,or not wanting religion to encroach on our government the hallmark of a totalitarian regime?

This argument is pointless, if rational discussion could persuade you otherwise then you wouldn't be religious to begin with.

I mentioned specific examples of everything you mentioned above in various posts, I don't have to time to constantly repeat myself.

1 - I am utterly ignorant to the actions of the church. - You denied that the church was promoting that condoms don't work/that they were not responsabile - RDM then showed a link directly proving otherwise - you don't even seem to know what the church is upto, but defend them anyway.

2 - I am an apologist - You are ignoring the support those high up in the catholic church have provided to those (including the pope) who have either lied about contraception or taken an active part in trying to discourage people from using.

You are ignoring the very real suffering causes by these actions by simply stating "it takes time to change" - how many more people need to die while an ex hitler youth member procrastinates on the issue? - the blood is very much on the churches hands in this case.


3 - I hold a false view that religion and science ask different questions. - I've already replied to this, more than once - science & religion both speak about some subjects which are similar.

How do you feel about senior members of the church covering up child rape? - also, to one of the previous posts you made.

You mentioned that you have to disagree with RDM - seriously, you disagree that letting people die is wrong?.

Makes me glad I have my own reasoned secular morality if that's the alternative.

 

[spudbynight]

Because religion makes scientific claims.

Are you talking about religion as a concept or a specific one?