# How crazy is the Catholic Church



## tango35 (Mar 7, 2009)

Hello folks, at first i dont want to offend in his religious behaviour, but maybe you have read or seen on TV the story about the 9 year old girl who was raped through the last 3 years and now she was pregnant with twins. The twins were aborted in a clinic otherwise the girl would suffer and die.
Now a crazy bishop excomunicated the girl, her family and the the people who made the abortion, and he said he had to this and he ( the catholic church ) had to save the life of the unborn twins instead of the mother.
How crazy is this ?

A 9 year old girl who was raped will be a second time treated in a bad way by her church. For my opinion this is darkest medieaval age thinking.

In my opinion this bishop should shut up his face and think before he says such nonsense.
It can be discussed if abortion is the right way but not if a child is involved or if the femals person becomes pregnant by rape; than is only her decision and not a dicision of a court or the church.

greets 

Thomas


----------



## 109ROAMING (Mar 7, 2009)

What The ...... 

9 

I would LOVE to get my hands on some of these F**kers .OMFG 

What has this world come to?

...Hate runs deep


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2009)

Agree Tango - 

And again not to offend any catholics but I was raised catholic in my early years and seen some pretty hypocritical things - this doesn't really surprise me. Where I grew up we had known mafia members attending mass, tossing $100 bills in the coffers and then later that day could be seen driving around with their mistresses. Pretty sick.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 7, 2009)

Unfortunately, organized religions have a bad side along with a good side. I will not defend the Cathlolic Church about this, it is not my faith. But I will say that sometimes, decisions made by ANY religion or creed make no sense whatsoever. This is one that I will never understand.


----------



## Heinz (Mar 7, 2009)

Likewise my experiences via family have left me with NO time for the Catholic Church.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 7, 2009)

No to offend anybody, but I'm not very religious. I do believe that there is a god, but I've been to church only three or four times in my life.


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2009)

sounds medieval and like a typical power hunger from one that was given high position in his area which should not have.

ex-communication is no big deal, there are others- Christian church's that will accept her and her familie and love on her, as she needs it right now besides a truck load of counseling. and a person wonders why in the name of Christ so many are HATED and will never ever set foot in a place of worship ......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2009)

Well said Erich...


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Mar 7, 2009)

Hold it, folks. First off, I am Catholic. I am also not pro-abortion. However, what Tango35 said does not fit what I know of what the Church teaches. I'd like to see the news clippings to know exactly what was said.

Letting the mother die to save the kids is not Catholic teaching. If the kids could be saved, they should be, but not at the cost of the mother's life. If the girl's life was in jeopardy, then it was sad, but necessary to terminate the pregnancies.

Killing the innocent is against all moral teaching, not just religious ones. If that weren't so, we wouldn't have organizations like Atheists for Life. 

As to what the bishop said, if the abortion was necessary, then there was no violation of Canon law, and no one would be excommunicated, especially not the girl. Even then, the excommunication can be lifted if the person involved makes a full confession and honestly tries to clean up their act. I know, as my wife's parents forced her to have an abortion when she was a teenager, and she was able to return to the Church and is now active in our parish's Pro-Life ministry.


CD


----------



## evangilder (Mar 7, 2009)

If the kids lives could be saved, they should be? Sorry CD, but I have to disagree on this. The pregnant girl was only 9 years old. You honestly cannot ask a 9 year old to carry a pregnancy to full term and give birth at 10. That's just crazy.

I am pretty much pro-life in belief, but also believe in choice. In this case, with rape resulting in pregnancy of a nine year old, termination seems the only choice here.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 7, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> I'd like to see the news clippings to know exactly what was said.
> 
> CD



BBC NEWS | Americas | Rape row sparks excommunications

I Just googled "excommunicted 9 year old raped"


----------



## tango35 (Mar 7, 2009)

[_Hold it, folks. First off, I am Catholic. I am also not pro-abortion. However, what Tango35 said does not fit what I know of what the Church teaches. I'd like to see the news clippings to know exactly what was said.

Letting the mother die to save the kids is not Catholic teaching. If the kids could be saved, they should be, but not at the cost of the mother's life. If the girl's life was in jeopardy, then it was sad, but necessary to terminate the pregnancies.

Killing the innocent is against all moral teaching, not just religious ones. If that weren't so, we wouldn't have organizations like Atheists for Life. 

As to what the bishop said, if the abortion was necessary, then there was no violation of Canon law, and no one would be excommunicated, especially not the girl. Even then, the excommunication can be lifted if the person involved makes a full confession and honestly tries to clean up their act. I know, as my wife's parents forced her to have an abortion when she was a teenager, and she was able to return to the Church and is now active in our parish's Pro-Life ministry._]

At first the mother and the doctors were excommunicated for allowing and doing the abortion ( my fault ),
but this makes the whole not better. And the facts are the same.
You said killing of the innocent is against all moral teaching, hmm, whats about rape, or child abuse done by catholic priest ?
OK, so you think that a 9 year girl who is a child should - if she is physical able - to carry out the " fruit " of a criminal act. And for me its a plasphemy to say that rape is " sad ". 
And to say that a law has no value for a bishop, hmm, very interesting point of view, so he not better than a criminal who is neglecting the judicial system of a state.
For me these announcements of the catholic church are second rape of this poor girl and not to forget the stepfather raped her 14 year old disabled sister, too.
And did the bishop talked with a raped woman; i dont think so , otherwise he wouldnt say such bulls... . A femal person of any age feels after a rape helpless, dirty and in 99/100 she thinks that she is guilty for what has done with her. A rape - especially when she become pregnant - isnt a gods gift.
And so its her decision - no other persons decision.


And here for you and all the other news clippings to this theme :

greets 

Thomas


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Mar 7, 2009)

> Letting the mother die to save the kids is not Catholic teaching. If the kids could be saved, they should be, but not at the cost of the mother's life. If the girl's life was in jeopardy, then it was sad, but necessary to terminate the pregnancies.


I did not say that rape is sad. I said that the necessity to kill the children to save her life was sad. The idea that the Church demands the mother be sacrified for the sake of the kids is not true. And, as someone who was raped (statuatory and incestuously, but still raped), I cannot approve of it nor any sexual abuse in any form. Still, even though I still bear the emotional scars from my experiences, I cannot put it at the same level as killing someone. The man still needs to be punished, but for a different crime.

After you gave me the articles, I Googled more on the subject. Yes, my wife and I both agree that Bishop Sobrinho over-reached himself, as did Bishop Re. Do remember that one big difference between civil law and Canon law is that the Church has no jails, plus it's a lot easier to come back after confession than it is to be paroled from a penitentiary. Christ tasked us to forgive.



> A femal person of any age feels after a rape helpless, dirty and in 99/100 she thinks that she is guilty for what has done with her. A rape - especially when she become pregnant - isnt a gods gift.
> And so its her decision - no other persons decision.


First, it isn't just females who feel that way. I know, all too well. Fortunately, I couldn't become pregnant, but I have wondered what my abuser would have done if I had made HER pregnant, as we never used any protection. Second, the little girl in question is innocent. She is unable to make any such decision; she's just too young. 

By the way, you do know that "excommunication" simply means that the offenders can't receive communion until they confess, right? They are not cast out of the Church, nor are they not allowed to attend Mass. Whilst not being allowed receive the Host is a significant punishment for Catholics, it does not mean they are no longer welcome in the Church.

CD


----------



## Freebird (Mar 7, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> As to what the bishop said, if the abortion was necessary, then there was no violation of Canon law, and no one would be excommunicated,
> CD



And yet they were excommunicated for performing an abortion after deciding that a 9 year old girl would likely not survive the attempt to deliver twins



Captain Dunsel said:


> Yes, my wife and I both agree that Bishop Sobrinho over-reached himself, as did Bishop Re.



Seems to me like a bad case to decide to pick a fight.



Captain Dunsel said:


> By the way, you do know that "excommunication" simply means that the offenders can't receive communion until they confess, right?
> CD




Which means that it is permanent, as the doctor cannot "confess" if he thinks he is doing the right thing. A 9 year old girl who might weigh 50 or 60 pounds is very likely incapable of successful delivery.

Unless the Pope overturns the edict 


BTW, Did the Church have any comment about the unemployed single woman having octuplets?


----------



## Crunch (Mar 8, 2009)

Heinz said:


> Likewise my experiences via family have left me with NO time for the Catholic Church.



I'm not going to get into the debate that's unfolding, but I do agree with this.

Full of hypocritical, corrupt wankers. If it was a smaller emerging religion, it'd be deemed a cult.


----------



## Graeme (Mar 8, 2009)

Crunch said:


> wankers.



Are you a fan of The Chaser" Crunch?

The Chaser - Memoirs of a reject sperm donor

Cardinal George Pell
C/o Tony Abbott MP
House of Representatives
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Cardinal Pell,

The Salvos have cornered getting people jobs, Hillsong have cut a swathe through the music industry and the Masons control the world. It's time for the Catholic church to strike back! Especially after Dan Brown's disgraceful novel accusing you of writing Jesus' squeeze out of the bible. 

You need to get into the sperm and egg donation business! Think about it, you love people having babies and you hate abortion. But there is a drastic shortage of sperm and egg donors. It's practically a sin not to get involved! 

I am happy to act as a consultant to this project. My first thought is a pilot scheme using the ten minutes of your male parishioners' 'dead time' at weekly confessional. A few provocative pictures of a nun or two and a little stack of sterile containers, and off we go. 

And indeed I'm personally happy to ‘bash the bishop' as much as it takes to get some good initial stocks. I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,

Tim Brunero


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2009)

This is a prime example of why I no longer support the church. My mother is Catholic and I do believe in god, but I will never support the church as a whole. I believe that God knows if you are a believer or not and you don't have to pray within walls.

_God is in you and all around you,
and not within the walls you worship._

Fact is fact, the Church was wrong in this case! If the Vatican supports this, it only confirms to me that it is a corrupt state.



Captain Dunsel said:


> By the way, you do know that "excommunication" simply means that the offenders can't receive communion until they confess, right? They are not cast out of the Church, nor are they not allowed to attend Mass. Whilst not being allowed receive the Host is a significant punishment for Catholics, it does not mean they are no longer welcome in the Church.
> 
> CD



That is not the point. The church has no right to interfere in such matters. She was a 9 year old rape victim for crying out loud, and her life was in jeopardy. 

She did nothing wrong, what does she need to confess for????


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 8, 2009)

First off, let me just say that I have very little time for _any_ organised religion. But the Catholic Church really is regressing back to the Stone Age of late.

This episode is merely the most tragic of a number which have occurred in recent years showing the increasing tendency of Catholic bishops and the Vatican to cleave to a fudamentalist and literalist interpretation of the Bible and of canon law, as well as an ultra-conservative world-view. Just a few months ago, a British bishop well known for Holocaust denial, as well his opinions that women should not be permitted to enter higher education (or wear trousers), was re-admitted to the church after years of excommunication. And still, despite the HIV epidemics ravaging Africa, the church refuses to condone the use of condoms - better, it seems, that thousands die than an ancient teaching be modified. 

This episode further demonstrates the Catholic clergy's negative view of females, (the life of the 9 year-old rape victim being considered expendable in this case), and their preoccupation with sticking to a literal interpretation of the faith rather showing the compassion and love that Christianity is supposedly about. I was baptised an Anglican, but I cannot remember the last time I set foot in a church. I was educated about Christianity and a number of other religions in school, and what I see of Christianity in the public sphere sounds nothing like the religion I learned about  It is precisely this kind of thing that has made me extremely dubious of _any_ organised religion, as all of them seem more bothered with internal and international politics than caring for their followers.


----------



## Captain Dunsel (Mar 8, 2009)

Interesting. No matter how many times I keep pointing out that the Church did not say anthing about the girl being guilty of anything, you folks keep insisting that it and I say she is! Can any of you get past your anti-Catholic prejudices and READ, then THINK????

CD


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 8, 2009)

I, for one, am not saying the church found her guilty of anything, merely that they find her life less worthwhile than that of her unborn children. You surely cannot argue against that interpretation, as the Church would rather have had her continue to full term (thus placing her life in grave danger), than have a termination.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> Interesting. No matter how many times I keep pointing out that the Church did not say anthing about the girl being guilty of anything, you folks keep insisting that it and I say she is! Can any of you get past your anti-Catholic prejudices and READ, then THINK????
> 
> CD



I am not saying that you personally are saying so, I am saying the Church said so. 

If the church did not think so, then why is the church having everyone (minus the girl apparently) involved excommunicated?

Granted the Church is saying that it is not her fault, but they are saying that the doctors and mother are guilty of breaking gods law. They saved the girls life. The girls life is more important in this case, and the church does not have the right to say otherwise.

By the way I am not Anti-Catholic thank you. I do not agree with the Catholic church, but I am not prejudice against it! Thank you very much!


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 9, 2009)

...and on the subject of religion...
from one end of the age range to the other

A bit harsh, methinks

Saudis order 40 lashes for elderly woman for mingling - CNN.com


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 9, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> ...and on the subject of religion...
> from one end of the age range to the other
> 
> A bit harsh, methinks
> ...



Love how that works, getting deported and whipped because you had two unrelated men in your home.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Mar 9, 2009)

I feel sad for the little girl, what she went through and what she had to give up (I hope the [email protected]@@@@ who did that to here gets fried). Personally, that bishops should have kept his bloody mouth shut.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm a Catholic, and this is a messy horrid case. The Most guilty of all is that child rapist, may they enclose him in a prison for life, as I doubt Brazil has the death penalty. I think a Judge would be justified doing it if they did allow, that stepfather is sick. 

Only thing the doctors could have done if the girl was too young to come to term and give birth the normal way was to have a caesarean operation performed on her. Of course if they were forced to take the babies out early, it might kill the babies as well, and in that case I don't know if the Bishop would approve of that or not? 

I suspect if the babies were taken out via a Caesarean, (even a few months early) and given life support as soon as they were out of the womb, I imagine the Bishop would not have excommunicated them, even if the babies died afterward from being born prematurely.

Another thing is that the girl may very well have had a miscarriage, and the babies would have died naturally. Often if a womb is too young to support a baby in there, as likely her womb was, then the babies would not survive. 

I understand the terrible quandary of the threat to the girls life, and that keeping a pregnancy in someone that young could be dangerous, and I can understand why someone people think the Catholic Church is just being cruel to the girl. Basically the Bishop was asking the family of the girl to take a risk, and not have an abortion, and let God decide what would happen to the children inside. 

I know the thought that those children would have a rapist father is dis-gusting to many, and the thought they might grow up like him even worse. And even adoption for the two babies would be hard for a mother to go through, but basically the Catholic Church holds the two babies are innocent, and that they should not be killed. 

My mother had to have a Caesarean operation to have my, and while the circumstances were completely differant, she was in her 20's and married, I'm still grateful to her for taking that risk.

This case is terrible, a nine year old forced to become a mother because of a fiendish stepfathers, and perhaps the Bishop has handled the matter the best way he could. 

I hope some sort of peace can be achieved in that family, and that the girl can find some peace herself, even though a terrible thing happened in her life. I hope the Stepfather is punished, and not let out on the streets again. 

One last thing, I'm not saying the remaining family has to absolutely go back to the Catholic Church, It's their decision to leave if they choose to feel the Church was too harsh to them. I don't think the Catholic Church will change it's position, but I do think if the family chooses to stay in the Catholic Church, it would eventually lift the excommunication ban on the family of the girl. 

It's a terrible case, that's all I can say. Wish it never happened.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 10, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I'm a Catholic, and this is a messy horrid case.
> 
> Only thing the doctors could have done if the girl was too young to come to term and give birth the normal way was to have a caesarean operation performed on her. Of course if they were forced to take the babies out early, it might kill the babies as well, and in that case I don't know if the Bishop would approve of that or not?
> 
> I suspect if the babies were taken out via a Caesarean, (even a few months early) and given life support as soon as they were out of the womb, I imagine the Bishop would not have excommunicated them, even if the babies died afterward from being born prematurely.



Problem is that she would need to carry the infant to at least 6.5 or 7 months, and a 9 year old girl's body just can't do that - especially with twins. There is still some chance that she will die, and there might be 70% - 80% chance that she will be infertile afterwards. Is it fair to ask this of the girl?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2009)

freebird said:


> Problem is that she would need to carry the infant to at least 6.5 or 7 months, and a 9 year old girl's body just can't do that - especially with twins. There is still some chance that she will die, and there might be 70% - 80% chance that she will be infertile afterwards. Is it fair to ask this of the girl?



Ditto.

It is not that hard to understand, so I do not understand why the church can not understand this.


----------



## magnocain (Mar 10, 2009)

This is horrible situation any way you look at it. It should have never happened.
This was a difficult choice either way, take two lives, or maybe take three. I cannot contemplate this horrible situation. I think that the bishop went overboard, but if he let her have the abortion he would be been called a hypocrite. Abortion is murder, but this is exactly the situation that puts it in the morally gray.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 21, 2009)

Captain Dunsel said:


> Can any of you get past your anti-Catholic prejudices and READ, then THINK????
> 
> CD



I am honestly shocked at some of the comments here. If some of you could get past blind hatred of the Catholic Church, you might be interested in reading this article. While not the same case, it might help you to understand the Church's teachings on such a subject.

Or maybe it fits into your own view more easy and convenient to simply not understand and hate?

CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2009)

mkloby said:


> I am honestly shocked at some of the comments here. If some of you could get past blind hatred of the Catholic Church, you might be interested in reading this article. While not the same case, it might help you to understand the Church's teachings on such a subject.
> 
> Or maybe it fits into your own view more easy and convenient to simply not understand and hate?
> 
> CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith



Matt I do not think that there is a blind hate for the Church. Myself for one do not have anything against the church overall. I myself am a Christian (not Catholic though...), I just do not agree with the Church's stance on this case.

Just because someone is a Christian, does that mean they have to agree with everything the Church does or says?


----------



## mkloby (Apr 23, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Matt I do not think that there is a blind hate for the Church. Myself for one do not have anything against the church overall. I myself am a Christian (not Catholic though...), I just do not agree with the Church's stance on this case.


I wasn't referring to your post, Chris. I don't think, though, that this decision proves the Vatican is a corrupt state. I do think, though, that there is widespread animosity for the Catholic Church (perhaps hate is too strong a word).

This situation definitely poses a very difficult moral dilemma, there is no doubt about that. But instead of any debate about the situation, the right of the unborn twins to live, how far along they could physically be carried before it posed a threat to the girl, the mental and physical pain and suffered caused to the girl and that would result from continuing the pregnancy, etc. - some jump straight to the Catholic Church is crazy, it is full of corrupt wankers, comparing it to a cult... In reality, it is calling me a corrupt wanker that is a member of a cult. It's the same as if comments similar to that were made about any other certain nation, race, or religion.

Not to stray too far, but I just get really tired of how it is acceptable to bash and demean Christianity and Catholicism, and other religions must be treated with respect. This is also the general attitude held by democratic party here, and I'm more than sick of it.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just because someone is a Christian, does that mean they have to agree with everything the Church does or says?


"Christian" is a very broad term encompassing billions of people! There's A LOT that Christians of all denominations disagree with the Catholic Church about - it's their right. As far as Christians across the board are concerned, I think we should all focus on what we have in common (which is an extraordinary amount), rather than focus on our differences.


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2009)

What I will say is that I believe in god, but I don't care too much about the church. A priest is a human being just like you me, and I don't believe he is better than you me or in better contact with god. A priest however should try his best to be a role model for the teachings of his religion, and if he deviates as fundamentally as the priest in discussion, well then he needs to be stripped of his position and kicked in jail.

And as for abortion, if a pregnancy is the result of rape then abortion is completely OK by me! If it was a case of getting pregnate on purpose and then a change of heart later then I believe it to be a moral grey area unless the fetus is older than 3 months, then I think the baby should get every chance to live.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Not to stray too far, but I just get really tired of how it is acceptable to bash and demean Christianity and Catholicism, and other religions must be treated with respect. This is also the general attitude held by democratic party here, and I'm more than sick of it.



I hear you my friend, and I agree with you.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 23, 2009)

Soren said:


> What I will say is that I believe in god, but I don't care too much about the church. A priest is a human being just like you me, and I don't believe he is better than you me or in better contact with god. A priest however should try his best to be a role model for the teachings of his religion, and if he deviates as fundamentally as the priest in discussion, well then he needs to be stripped of his position and kicked in jail.


How did this priest "deviate," and kicked in jail? Charged with what?



Soren said:


> And as for abortion, if a pregnancy is the result of rape then abortion is completely OK by me! If it was a case of getting pregnate on purpose and then a change of heart later then I believe it to be a moral grey area unless the fetus is older than 3 months, then I think the baby should get every chance to live.



Why three months old, out of curiosity?


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2009)

mkloby said:


> How did this priest "deviate," and kicked in jail? Charged with what?



lol I didn't read the story through, I mistakenly assumed the priest raped the girl. I've heard all those stories about the alterboys you know, so I thought I already knew the beginning of this story. My mistake, duh! 





> Why three months old, out of curiosity?



They say that is where the part of the brain which controls the concious starts to develop.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 23, 2009)

As one of the people who heavily criticised the Catholic church whenthis thread started, I feel I should clarify my position a little...

I am not driven by a hatred of the Catholic church - I simply find some of their views bizarre and out of step with the times in which we live. As I am a liberal by inclination, and the Catholic church, as an institution, is strongly conservative, I suppose that is no surprise.

But I do not single Catholics, or even Christians, out for special criticism. After all, the three great religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are tied by strong conceptual and even scriptural links, and many of their key narratives share timeframes and actors, although these connections are often forgotten in the present geopolitical climate. In that sense, I deplore the Christan 'eye for an eye', the violence of Muslim Sharia law, and the use of capital punishment in secular law equally. I find some elements of Protestant theology just as alien as some in Catholic theology. I will however admit that I find some of the actions of the present Pope to betray a return of ultra-conservatism in the Catholic church, and it does concern me that such a globally influential organisation has a leader who tacitly, if unintentionally, endorses the views of a holocaust-denying misogynist who his predecessor excluded from the church as a sign that such views held no place in the Catholic religion. That doesn't mean I hate Catholics though - I am just concerned that such a powerful opinion-forming body sends out a message that such views are welcome within it's higher echelons...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 23, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> As one of the people who heavily criticised the Catholic church whenthis thread started, I feel I should clarify my position a little...
> 
> I am not driven by a hatred of the Catholic church - I simply find some of their views bizarre and out of step with the times in which we live. As I am a liberal by inclination, and the Catholic church, as an institution, is strongly conservative, I suppose that is no surprise.


Perhaps morality is timeless, and should not change with the times?



BombTaxi said:


> But I do not single Catholics, or even Christians, out for special criticism. After all, the three great religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are tied by strong conceptual and even scriptural links, and many of their key narratives share timeframes and actors, although these connections are often forgotten in the present geopolitical climate.


This is true.



BombTaxi said:


> In that sense, I deplore the Christan 'eye for an eye', the violence of Muslim Sharia law, and the use of capital punishment in secular law equally.


Did not Jesus speak out against "eye for an eye?" The Catholic Church does not support capital punishment either.



BombTaxi said:


> I find some elements of Protestant theology just as alien as some in Catholic theology. I will however admit that I find some of the actions of the present Pope to betray a return of ultra-conservatism in the Catholic church, and it does concern me that such a globally influential organisation has a leader who tacitly, if unintentionally, endorses the views of a holocaust-denying misogynist who his predecessor excluded from the church as a sign that such views held no place in the Catholic religion. That doesn't mean I hate Catholics though - I am just concerned that such a powerful opinion-forming body sends out a message that such views are welcome within it's higher echelons...



Just off the top - ultra-conservative to you is probably moderate-conservative to me! Let's correct a few things. When did the Pope endorse the view that the holocaust did not occur, or misogyny either for that matter? Pope John Paul II excommunicated the individual you are referring to, Richard Williamson, over illegitimate consecration as a bishop by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, not due to personal belief over the holocaust. I do agree with you, however, about the external message that was received by revoking the excommunication.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 24, 2009)

Okay, I haven't read all of the thread but as a 1st class Atheist I think I should speak out and toss in my two cents.

First of all, I think it is better I clarify my "religious background"... I was born in the Catholic religion, went to a public elementary school (right next to a church with a few nuns as teachers). Carried on with the catholic religion in high school until I first realized all the crap those priest did in the name of God... And all the "forgiveness" the different popes showed to those "black robe criminals".

I'm so sick of this crap that I even thought about turning Protestant (even though I'm now Atheistic since i'm about 15) just to make sure no one could ever link me to the pope's delire.

What happened to that little girl is plain dis-gust-ing. But let me aswer your question by a few things that happened around here (Province of Québec)...

In the 50s-60s, an orphanage (which were all held by the Catholic Church, back in the day) decided to "convert" to an ophanage for mentally-ill kids. It was a trick aimed at getting money from the Provincial gouvernment, who was giving an extra amount of money for every "mad" kids living there. The director of the orphanage took the file of most of his kids and falcified them. So the direction received money from the friendly gouvernment (led by Maurice Duplessis) and the kids received unnecessary treatments. The Catholic Church got in a civil lawsuit in the 90s and those kids are now known as "The Children of Duplessis".

In the 60s, two priest invited a a boy to a fishing trip at a shack near a lake. The boy was mollested and raped. When he later complained to the Archbishop of Québec, the said Archbishop covered his friends.

In the 90s, a priest was found guilty of rape in France. It was later found that he was earlier sentenced for two other sex-crimes in the Province of Québec in the 60s-70s... And he was already a priest back in the day !

Somewhere between 2005 and 2008, a priest was sentenced to two years of jail for rape. Like the old man was phisically sick, the Church offered to send him in a monastery. The juge accepted. A few weeks later a roporter went to the said monastery and interviewed him... He was living in a nice building, with a nice room and a great backyard with a garden.

When interviewed on TV about the first and last story listed above and the pedophiliac priests being protected by the church by sending them overseas, the Archbishop of Montréal said : "I don't wanna answer that question... You know Jesus told us to "turn the other cheek"."

Hah ! Yeah, right !  "If he strikes you on your left cheek, turn him the right cheek... If he strikes you on the right cheek, introduce him to your cousin who is a made-man of the Russian mafia !"  

And what about all that recent crap about the pope in Africa telling to *not* use condoms even though there is a huge epidemia of AIDS over there ? Is he insane or simply a moron ?

In my book, the Catholic Church has become a shelter for pedophiles... Sending them to freshly-new territories when they get caught by the local police.

Anyway, it was my opinion and I share it with you.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 24, 2009)




----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 24, 2009)

The more I think about this I remember a program Discovery earlier this year. In this program it was stated that the Catholic Church and Vatican, new about the holocaust, but had made an agreement with the Germans not to say and do anything. But as it turned out, the Pope that had made this agreement died under the war and when the Pope that followed him tired to do something about it, he was murdered.

Is this true or is it just another of those WWII conspiracies?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 24, 2009)

The Pope you mention that died shortly after becoming Pope is John XXII. Some think he may have been poisoned, but there is no certain evidence of that. The official cause of his death was peritonitis. 

Pope Pius XII did shelter Jews during WWII, and was not the friend of Hitler as some books insinuate. He did not die during WWII, but lived untill 1958.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 24, 2009)

Thanks SW! Remember watching the program and thinking WTF!


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 24, 2009)

Matt,

I think there are some keystones of morality which are timeless - the 'Golden Rule' is one, for sure. However, morality cannot stand still. There are new challenges to be met - nuclear weapons, genetic modification, HIV... the list goes on. A system of morality that does not adapt to frame responses to these situations lives in danger of becoming irrelevant. HIV is a case in point - the Catholic Church's unbending opposition to the use of contraceptives has been a massive obstacle to controlling the spread of this awful disease - one could say, without too much hyperbole, that the Catholic policy is a potential death sentence for believers. It is cases like this where dogma needs to make way for a truly caring and compassionate ethics, IMHO.

I am aware that the Catholic Church does not specifically support capital punishment, the example was the first one I could think of to illustrate my point about no picking on Christianity for it's own sake. Not a very good example though... 

Finally, I am aware that the Pope has never personally or explicitly condoned Holocaust Denial or misogyny - but his actions in re-admitting Williamson to the faith send out a message that he does. The Pope is a smart guy and surely realises this... So maybe he should define the position once and for all. And I would similarly suspect that while John Paul II excommunicated Williamson on a technical point, he knew exactly what the act would say about the church stance on his views...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 24, 2009)

Maestro - clearly you cannot help yourself. That view of the Catholic Church as a whole is as ill founded as smearing the entire American, German, or Japanese people for the actions of the government in the past, or as associating the actions of some Muslim clerics to all of Islam. 

The sexual abuse scandal is a terrible thing, and deeply upsetting. It's difficult to identify a rooted cause for it within the Church. A search of sex offenders of my own zip code returns dozens of offenders. There are caes breaking out all the time of sexual abuse by teachers, Rabbis, Mormons, etc.

The individuals in the Church did not handle sexual abuse cases properly in the past, which is acknowledged by the difference in which accusations and allegations are handled.

Your Russian mafia comment is simply ridiculous.

As far as the Pope's comment regarding condoms - it was purposefully put out of context, and it seems that you don't mind that at all, since it fits your hostility toward the Church. Relying upon condoms is not going to bring about the end of HIV. People will not always use condoms when they have them, they'll forget them, and do what they will anyway. Distributing condoms only serves to promote a type of lifestyle that contributes to the spreading of HIV.


----------



## fly boy (Apr 24, 2009)

tango35 said:


> Hello folks, at first i dont want to offend in his religious behaviour, but maybe you have read or seen on TV the story about the 9 year old girl who was raped through the last 3 years and now she was pregnant with twins. The twins were aborted in a clinic otherwise the girl would suffer and die.
> Now a crazy bishop excomunicated the girl, her family and the the people who made the abortion, and he said he had to this and he ( the catholic church ) had to save the life of the unborn twins instead of the mother.
> How crazy is this ?
> 
> ...



i'am sorry but you can get a 9yr old pregent and for the bishop shut the F**k up and let them do this


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2009)

Hehe, I love how the Athiests say they want peace acceptance and then they go on with a complete lack of tolerance for anyone religious, mocking them for being so. Talk about contradicting yourself..


----------



## Maestro (Apr 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hehe, I love how the Athiests say they want peace acceptance and then they go on with a complete lack of tolerance for anyone religious, mocking them for being so. Talk about contradicting yourself..



Uh... I never claimed I wanted "peace and acceptance". I personnally think that religion (_any_ religion) is a poison. A poison used by twisted leaders (pope, imams, gurus or what ever) to get what they want. (Power, money, control over their neighbors... and war over other religions.)

If you wanna believe in God (or Allah or what ever the hell you call him), then it's fine with me. However, when someone does something "because the spiritual leader said it", he becomes the leader's weapon. And *that* is dangerous.

But as I said, you can whoreship God, Jesus, Allah, Buddah or even a sheep if you want... I don't care.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 25, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Maestro - clearly you cannot help yourself. That view of the Catholic Church as a whole is as ill founded as smearing the entire American, German, or Japanese people for the actions of the government in the past, or as associating the actions of some Muslim clerics to all of Islam.
> 
> The sexual abuse scandal is a terrible thing, and deeply upsetting. It's difficult to identify a rooted cause for it within the Church. A search of sex offenders of my own zip code returns dozens of offenders. There are caes breaking out all the time of sexual abuse by teachers, Rabbis, Mormons, etc.
> 
> The individuals in the Church did not handle sexual abuse cases properly in the past, which is acknowledged by the difference in which accusations and allegations are handled.



Sexcrimes within the Church are still handled that way, my friend. Re-read my post, you'll see one or two stories that happened in the late 90s and in 2005-2008. And they were only a few exemples. If you dig a little deeper, you'll find at least one cause of sexcrime commited by a catholic priest in Canada every year since the late 50s.

... And most of them were covered up by either Archbishops, Cardinals or even the Pope himself.



mkloby said:


> Your Russian mafia comment is simply ridiculous.



Of course it is ! It was intented as a sarcastic comment... Now I'll explain the joke : if you introduce the bastard to you Russian-mafiosi cousin, then you must assume that he's gonna beat the living sh*t out of him, right ? Now, you get my joke ? Of course, you're not forced to find it funny.



mkloby said:


> As far as the Pope's comment regarding condoms - it was purposefully put out of context, and it seems that you don't mind that at all, since it fits your hostility toward the Church. Relying upon condoms is not going to bring about the end of HIV.



Of course I'm hostile to the Church, I've always been hostile to any religion trying to control my thoughts.

And of course the use of condom will not bring an end to AIDS, but it can greatly help to reduce the cases of HIV infections.



mkloby said:


> People will not always use condoms when they have them, they'll forget them, and do what they will anyway. Distributing condoms only serves to promote a type of lifestyle that contributes to the spreading of HIV.



Unfortunately, it is now my turn to call that comment ridiculous. If we give condoms to peoples, it can make them think twice before screwing without using a type of protection. Having sex when you use a condom is in no way dangerous.

While, to some extends, having unprotected sex with your wife (or husband) is unsafe. Because you don't know if he/she cheated on you recently... And if it did happen, if he/she used a condom. You have to thrust him/her.

So all that "no sex before wedding" story that we can hear in every religion is just a load of bullsh*t. If your married with your wife for 20 years (even though you were both virgin at wedding), it doesn't prevent you from getting a VD since your wife could... erhm... "look somewhere else" _afterward_.

So as you can see, there is only one way to control the spreading of VDs (not only AIDS, but all VDs) : education *and* protection. Religion won't help anyone in any way.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 25, 2009)

What are your opinionsd on this then?
F.C.F.C.'s page
The Vatican'
Nopedo - Other crimes of the Catholic Church

Is *ANY* of it true?!


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 25, 2009)

I could go into my little story on my religious beliefs, but it would mirror thousands and thousands of similar stories on how someone lost their faith, but no one should be picking on Maestros choice of religious reflection, nor find his displeasure at the acts of the Catholic Church insulting...

He is entitled to his opinion of God just like I am and Eric is and Matt is.... To have faith in SOMETHING is still faith, and thats what it boils down to.... In my opinion, the severely over-driven religions are doing nothing more than trying to control its followers to the testaments and decrees of ancient times....

Its just not realistic anymore to act and behave the same way that religious supporters were taught 2000 years ago.... Like everything else, it should evolve...

Ive read this entire thread, including the links, and I still dont see how anyone can defend the Church in this instance... I wonder if the rapist was a Priest or a Deacon would such a display have happened???

Confess and ur un-excommunicated??? What would a 9 year old girl have to confess about her rape??? That the skirt she was wearing was too short?? It wasnt her choice to get raped, nor was it her choice to get the abortion....

So she should go into confession and lie, just so she can get to eat her nasty tasting cardboard wafers???

Question tho, the Priests and religious types that are convicted/busted on their child rape/homosexual conquests, do they get excommunicated as well, and if so, do they get forgiveness if they confess they are scumbag motherfu*kers that took advantage of the innocent children of their Faith???


----------



## Maestro (Apr 25, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> What are your opinionsd on this then?
> F.C.F.C.'s page
> The Vatican'
> Nopedo - Other crimes of the Catholic Church
> ...



Are you talking to me or to BombTaxi ? Because I think he is the one who brought out the "Holocaust card"...

But if you want _my_ advice, then... well... I don't quite know. It seems pretty believable... So it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.

All I can tell you is that Catholic priests over here (Province of Québec) were encouraging peoples to pray for Hitler... To make sure he succeeded in destroying the "comunist empire".

Also, the Vatican always wanted to kill other religions or nations with a different line of thoughts and had some "black ops" going on all the time... Just remember the Templars back in the Crusades : foreign knights (mostly German) being hired by the pope to take Jerusalem.

And what about the (Catholic) Irish priests encouraging the revolution against a (Protestant) English King/Queen throughout the 20th century ? Or the Vatican encouraging an Anglo-Spanish war to remove Elizabeth I (a Protestant) from the English throne ?

I'm sure there is more, but that's all I can think of right now.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 25, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> I could go into my little story on my religious beliefs, but it would mirror thousands and thousands of similar stories on how someone lost their faith, but no one should be picking on Maestros choice of religious reflection, nor find his displeasure at the acts of the Catholic Church insulting...
> 
> He is entitled to his opinion of God just like I am and Eric is and Matt is.... To have faith in SOMETHING is still faith, and thats what it boils down to.... In my opinion, the severely over-driven religions are doing nothing more than trying to control its followers to the testaments and decrees of ancient times....



Thanks for your support, Les.



lesofprimus said:


> Its just not realistic anymore to act and behave the same way that religious supporters were taught 2000 years ago.... Like everything else, it should evolve...
> 
> Ive read this entire thread, including the links, and I still dont see how anyone can defend the Church in this instance... I wonder if the rapist was a Priest or a Deacon would such a display have happened???
> 
> ...



Damn right... And a damned good question...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 25, 2009)

Was just general question Maestro, not really directed at anyone.  Isn't also the Catholic Church the only religion with a HQ or what you want to call it? Can't remember that the Protestant, Jewish etc. religions have anything remotely similar to the Vatican, maybe I'm wrong...


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 25, 2009)

The German Catholic Church certainly did much to co-operate with Hitler, as Catholicism and National Socialism shared a middle-class conservative support base and also shared the objective of crushing international Marxism/Bolshevism. On the other hand, I personally believe that had the Catholic Church been able to form a truer estimate of the evil Hitler was capable of, they would not have thrown such massive support behind his cause. Lets not forget that for European conservatives, the Nazi Recih, prior to 1939, was a bulwark against the Soviets, and Hitler seen as a leader of anti-Bolshevik resistance, with wide support from the conservative elements of European society. It wasn't until WWII actually started that he was really seen for the evil that he truly was. 

Lucky, the Vatican is unique in it's position and function within a major religion. I believe it's existence can be attributed to the role of Catholic Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire in the early centuries AD. Much of what is now the Vatican emerged during that period as the apparatus of a state religion which worked hard to crush it's competitors, chiefly paganism and the old Roman cults. Catholicism certainly owes it's massive influence to it's time as the official religion of the world's greatest empire, which set it upon a pedestal which no other faith could dislodge it from.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> I could go into my little story on my religious beliefs, but it would mirror thousands and thousands of similar stories on how someone lost their faith, but no one should be picking on Maestros choice of religious reflection, nor find his displeasure at the acts of the Catholic Church insulting...
> 
> He is entitled to his opinion of God just like I am and Eric is and Matt is.... To have faith in SOMETHING is still faith, and thats what it boils down to.... In my opinion, the severely over-driven religions are doing nothing more than trying to control its followers to the testaments and decrees of ancient times....
> 
> ...



Got to agree with most of what you said here. 

That is why I have faith in god, but I do not support the church it self very much. But then again I do not believe that a man in a church has to tell me how to have faith in god.



Lucky13 said:


> Was just general question Maestro, not really directed at anyone.  Isn't also the Catholic Church the only religion with a HQ or what you want to call it? Can't remember that the Protestant, Jewish etc. religions have anything remotely similar to the Vatican, maybe I'm wrong...



No most of them have some form of a headquarters. The Vatican however is the most prominent.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 25, 2009)

I think that you don't have to go to church to believe in God. I'm of the opinion that everyone can believe in God or any other higher power in their own personal way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> I think that you don't have to go to church to believe in God. I'm of the opinion that everyone can believe in God or any other higher power in their own personal way.



Ditto!


----------



## mkloby (Apr 25, 2009)

Maestro said:


> Sexcrimes within the Church are still handled that way, my friend. Re-read my post, you'll see one or two stories that happened in the late 90s and in 2005-2008. And they were only a few exemples. If you dig a little deeper, you'll find at least one cause of sexcrime commited by a catholic priest in Canada every year since the late 50s.
> 
> ... And most of them were covered up by either Archbishops, Cardinals or even the Pope himself.


You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I was referring to ordered engagement with local authorities regarding an accusation. I thought that was clear.



Maestro said:


> And of course the use of condom will not bring an end to AIDS, but it can greatly help to reduce the cases of HIV infections.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is now my turn to call that comment ridiculous. If we give condoms to peoples, it can make them think twice before screwing without using a type of protection. Having sex when you use a condom is in no way dangerous.
> 
> ...



All I can say is that there is another aspect of controlling HIV that you, and many others, are completely missing, and this is a major shame - the behavoiral aspect.



Maestro said:


> But if you want _my_ advice, then... well... I don't quite know. It seems pretty believable... So it wouldn't surprise me if it was true.


Shouldn't the lack of sources strike as suspect?



Maestro said:


> All I can tell you is that Catholic priests over here (Province of Québec) were encouraging peoples to pray for Hitler... To make sure he succeeded in destroying the "comunist empire".


Can you really validate a statement like that?



Maestro said:


> Also, the Vatican always wanted to kill other religions or nations with a different line of thoughts and had some "black ops" going on all the time... Just remember the Templars back in the Crusades : foreign knights (mostly German) being hired by the pope to take Jerusalem.
> 
> And what about the (Catholic) Irish priests encouraging the revolution against a (Protestant) English King/Queen throughout the 20th century ? Or the Vatican encouraging an Anglo-Spanish war to remove Elizabeth I (a Protestant) from the English throne ?
> 
> I'm sure there is more, but that's all I can think of right now.



This is an oversimplification of history.



lesofprimus said:


> I could go into my little story on my religious beliefs, but it would mirror thousands and thousands of similar stories on how someone lost their faith, but no one should be picking on Maestros choice of religious reflection, nor find his displeasure at the acts of the Catholic Church insulting...


I agree. It's not about "displeasure" regarding the Catholic Church. That is fine, and perfectly respectable - even encouraged. It is about some of the comments throughout the thread, not really even Maestro.


lesofprimus said:


> He is entitled to his opinion of God just like I am and Eric is and Matt is.... To have faith in SOMETHING is still faith, and thats what it boils down to.... In my opinion, the severely over-driven religions are doing nothing more than trying to control its followers to the testaments and decrees of ancient times....
> 
> 
> Its just not realistic anymore to act and behave the same way that religious supporters were taught 2000 years ago.... Like everything else, it should evolve...


In my opinion, it depends what exactly we're referring to. I believe that a lot of the teachings and morals from many religions are timeless across the board. I am also completely against the concept of moral relativity. I am afraid that many in the US operate without a moral compass... maybe that is because I grew up in NJ 



lesofprimus said:


> Ive read this entire thread, including the links, and I still dont see how anyone can defend the Church in this instance... I wonder if the rapist was a Priest or a Deacon would such a display have happened???


It's a terrible situation. I think that what it really comes down to is the right of the unborn twins to life vs increased risk to the girl's life as the pregnancy evolves in addition to the incomprehensible emotional and physical pain and suffering.



lesofprimus said:


> Confess and ur un-excommunicated??? What would a 9 year old girl have to confess about her rape??? That the skirt she was wearing was too short?? It wasnt her choice to get raped, nor was it her choice to get the abortion....


The girl was not excommunicated.



lesofprimus said:


> Question tho, the Priests and religious types that are convicted/busted on their child rape/homosexual conquests, do they get excommunicated as well, and if so, do they get forgiveness if they confess they are scumbag motherfu*kers that took advantage of the innocent children of their Faith???


I personally would like to see punishments for sex offenders much more severe across the board, and priests are no exception.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

No punishment is ever hard enough for sex offenders, especially when children are involved!


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Maestro,

I wasn't really talking to you 

It's just I've had a lot of run ins with Athiests, and somehow most of them are some of the most irritating "I know it all" types I've ever met. I was once asked by one wether I was religious, and being honest I responded by saying "Well, I believe in god", to which he responed by looking at me with a wierd face and said "Well I can't argue with religious people, they are blind to everything". He was trying to pick fight obviously, which I thought of as quite funny as he had no longer than 5min ago preached about how all athiests wanted peace acceptance, and how all wars in history were the results of religion. He also described religion as poison.

What he and many others fail to note however, is one of the many principle rules in this world, and that is: The best things in this world are often also the easiest to abuse.

Also remember we can only look so far, the best microscope has a limit and so does the best telescope, and thus no'one has yet to see the core of either what we're made of or what surrounds us. Thus by using that logic alone it makes as much sense to believe in god as it does not to.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 26, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> What are your opinionsd on this then?
> F.C.F.C.'s page
> The Vatican'
> Nopedo - Other crimes of the Catholic Church
> ...



I would say 50/50 perhaps. It's not like none of these things happened, but it's easy to slant some of the information a certain way. "F.C.F.C.'s page" might look more accurate than the others. 




Soren said:


> Also remember we can only look so far, the best microscope has a limit and so does the best telescope, and thus no'one has yet to see the core of either what we're made of or what surrounds us. Thus by using that logic alone it makes as much sense to believe in god as it does not to.



Good point.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 26, 2009)

mkloby said:


> All I can say is that there is another aspect of controlling HIV that you, and many others, are completely missing, and this is a major shame - the behavoiral aspect.



The behavoiral aspect ? What do you mean ? What can be wrong with controlling HIV ? You fear peoples will have more sex partners ?

Who cares ? If they use some sort of protection, I don't care if a guy (or a girl) had one partner in his/her life or one hundred. It is not of my business and it is not of _yours_ neither.

Live and let live, damn it ! 

Or may be you fear that when HIV infection cases will start dropping, peoples will stop protecting themselves ? No, because a well sexualy-educated person will know that there is other forms of VDs and that the pregnancy risk would still be in the picture.

That's why I'm 100% in favor of sexual-education (starting in Grade 6) _and_ condom distributors in high-schools and colleges bathrooms.



mkloby said:


> Shouldn't the lack of sources strike as suspect?



Of course, I don't have answers to everything !



mkloby said:


> Can you really validate a statement like that?



Well, ask anyone born in the Province of Québec who were still children during the war... They'll tell you exactly what I said.



mkloby said:


> This is an oversimplification of history.



It's not oversimplification, it was already simple to begin with. It's the _Pope_ who wanted the Crusades.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 26, 2009)

Maestro said:


> The behavoiral aspect ? What do you mean ? What can be wrong with controlling HIV ? You fear peoples will have more sex partners ?
> 
> Who cares ? If they use some sort of protection, I don't care if a guy (or a girl) had one partner in his/her life or one hundred. It is not of my business and it is not of _yours_ neither.
> 
> Live and let live, damn it !


There is a behavoiral aspect to HIV - namely that main form of transmission is through sexual contact. Making condoms available, while being very effective in reducing the transmission of HIV when used properly, does not address the behavoiral aspect of the disease.





Maestro said:


> Or may be you fear that when HIV infection cases will start dropping, peoples will stop protecting themselves ? No, because a well sexualy-educated person will know that there is other forms of VDs and that the pregnancy risk would still be in the picture.
> 
> That's why I'm 100% in favor of sexual-education (starting in Grade 6) _and_ condom distributors in high-schools and colleges bathrooms.


HIV infections dropping are definitely a good thing, no doubt about it. However, I think you'd have to acknowledge that the availability of condoms does not equate to the actual use of them. If this were true, there wouldn't still be such a large number of teenage pregnancies (Granted, since the peaks in the 80's, they have dropped - attibuted to both contraceptive and increased absitnence according to American Journal of Public Health, 2007).

Another issue I have with public availability of condoms is why should the public at large be financially supporting protection for sexual behavoir?




Maestro said:


> Well, ask anyone born in the Province of Québec who were still children during the war... They'll tell you exactly what I said.


Anything that would be easier to source other than me requesting leave to go to Quebec?  





Maestro said:


> It's not oversimplification, it was already simple to begin with. It's the _Pope_ who wanted the Crusades.



From that comment, I'm not sure if you truly understand the politics that surrounded the origins of Islam, the expansion, and the Christian response. Was it the Pope that founded the religion of Islam and expanded Islam through a amazingly aggressive and successful military campaigns? Look at the surge of Islamic expansion since its origin...

It is not close to as simple as you make it seem. It is common today, however, for the Crusades to be portrayed as a simple example of Catholic aggression against peaceful Islamic lands.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 26, 2009)

In Quebec where Maestro lives is majority French population and probably 80% + of the population is Catholic . The church controlled almost all aspects of life . The Catholic church was vehement in its anti war stance in both the first and second war and very anti semetic. Here is an excerpt from the official statement by the church
The senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada, seeking to get rid of church baggage and turn over a new leaf, asked forgiveness on Wednesday for sexual abuse and discrimination committed by Catholics in the past. 
In an open letter published in newspapers in the province of Quebec, Quebec Archbishop Marc Ouellet said that society in the Canadian province was burdened by wounded memories and that the Roman Catholic Church's moral authority had been damaged.

"It is time to take stock and make a fresh start," Ouellet wrote. "Mistakes have been made which have tarnished the image of the Church and for which I humbly ask forgiveness."

He spoke of the abuse of youth by priests, "causing them serious and traumatic damage that shattered their lives."

Ouellet also sought forgiveness for certain "narrow attitudes" before the 1960s, when what is known as the Quiet Revolution ended the *pervasive Catholic grip on Quebec society. He said some Catholics tended towards anti-Semitism, racism and indifference to natives, and discrimination against women and homosexuals*

Attendence in the Catholic church has dropped from 75% to less then 25% in recent years


----------



## mkloby (Apr 26, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> In Quebec where Maestro lives is majority French population and probably 80% + of the population is Catholic . The church controlled almost all aspects of life . The Catholic church was vehement in its anti war stance in both the first and second war and very anti semetic. Here is an excerpt from the official statement by the church
> The senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada, seeking to get rid of church baggage and turn over a new leaf, asked forgiveness on Wednesday for sexual abuse and discrimination committed by Catholics in the past.
> In an open letter published in newspapers in the province of Quebec, Quebec Archbishop Marc Ouellet said that society in the Canadian province was burdened by wounded memories and that the Roman Catholic Church's moral authority had been damaged.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the post, Pb. I think Cardinal Ouellette is right.




pbfoot said:


> Ouellet also sought forgiveness for certain "narrow attitudes" before the 1960s, when what is known as the Quiet Revolution ended the *pervasive Catholic grip on Quebec society. He said some Catholics tended towards anti-Semitism, racism and indifference to natives, and discrimination against women and homosexuals*
> 
> Attendence in the Catholic church has dropped from 75% to less then 25% in recent years


The same type of statement can be made about all groups - I don't see this as any more or less prevalent in Catholic groups.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 26, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Thanks for the post, Pb. I think Cardinal Ouellette is right.
> 
> 
> 
> The same type of statement can be made about all groups - I don't see this as any more or less prevalent in Catholic groups.



I think the control of the population was very similar to the ones on the Irish in the 1840's but they perservered longer in Quebec


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

What he is saying, is that they're looking for forgiveness for something themself don't forgive, or...?


----------



## mkloby (Apr 26, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> What he is saying, is that they're looking for forgiveness for something themself don't forgive, or...?



What? I don't know what you are saying.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 26, 2009)

What I mean is that, he/they as a church (I guess) is looking for forgiveness for something that their priests did, "he spoke of the abuse of youth by priests, "causing them serious and traumatic damage that shattered their lives."..." Something they don't forgive themself when others do it....

Why should they be forgiven?


----------



## mkloby (Apr 26, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Something they don't forgive themself when others do it....



Why do you say this?


----------



## The Basket (Apr 26, 2009)

Watching something on the discovery channel.

A Rabbi said that the bible is not based on truth but a higher truth...it don't have to be historically accurate.

So the basis of religion is belief. Belief in things that may or may not happened.

And im too much of a cynic to buy into it so to Hell I go...But the Devil loves his rock N roll so not all bad.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Personally I believe that god doesn't care wether we believe in him/her(or what'ever) or not, as long as we just treat each other well and have empathy sympathy for those in need.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 26, 2009)

mkloby said:


> There is a behavoiral aspect to HIV - namely that main form of transmission is through sexual contact. Making condoms available, while being very effective in reducing the transmission of HIV when used properly, does not address the behavoiral aspect of the disease.
> 
> HIV infections dropping are definitely a good thing, no doubt about it. However, I think you'd have to acknowledge that the availability of condoms does not equate to the actual use of them. If this were true, there wouldn't still be such a large number of teenage pregnancies (Granted, since the peaks in the 80's, they have dropped - attibuted to both contraceptive and increased absitnence according to American Journal of Public Health, 2007).
> 
> Another issue I have with public availability of condoms is why should the public at large be financially supporting protection for sexual behavoir?



Pbfoot having answered "Québec's anti-semetic question" for me, I'll concentrate on your statement above...

That is why *education* is so important (re-read my posts, you'll see that I always state that condoms must be "used" in conjuction with sex-ed). A well sexually educated teenage *will* use condoms. And if they use condoms, they won't get a friggin VD, no matter with how many different partners they have sex.

Plus you don't have to financially support the availability of condom... As I said, put condom distriboturs in high-schools/colleges' bathroom. The kid puts one buck in the machine and get a condom. Easy, simple, and you won't have to pay a token.

What better solution do we have ? Teach them absitence ? It would be blind and irresponsible since every societies in the western world tried it for centuries (remember the Church's famous sentence : "No sex before wedding.") and they failed. They couldn't prevent Mr. X to have sex with Miss Y and accidentally get her pregnant. The only thing that was different is that it was taboo to talk about it.

So what other solution do we have ? Hide our head in the sand and say : "It's not ganna happen" ? No, the best solution is to *teach protect.*

Because if you don't teach them to have a safe sex-life, they'll take their info from somewhere else (i.e. porn movies) and it is not nessessary the best source.

I'll tell you a story (and I swear it is a true story, it is too twisted to make-up)...

Note before starting : In my province, we have sex-ed in Grade 7, 9, 10 and 11.

I was in the sexual education class in Grade 9 (so I was about 14-15 and it was during the 1998-1999 scholar year). During the class, our teacher asked us, just out of curiosity, how many of us had sex before. About 10 (in a class of about 25 students) raised their hands. (I was part of the bunch who still had their hands down). He was surprised by the amount of hands raised, so he started to ask everyone with their hand raised how old they were when they did it for the first time. Most of them answered 14 or 15. However, one of them answered 12. The teacher was flabbergasted, you could see it on his face.

- 12 ? It's pretty young. Did you use a condom at least ?

- Erhm... No. Didn't have one and didn't feel like I needed one.

That's why you must educate kids and *start young*. Because, one way or an other, they will do it. And I would prefer my kids to have all the "weapons" in hands and have them have a safe sex-life rather than try to brainwash them with phrases like "Don't do it before wedding" and crap like that and finally ends up with a son who had his first baby at 13, caught Gonorea at 17 and died of AIDS at 25.

Think about it...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 26, 2009)

Maestro - you can use all the boldface and large font that you'd like; it still doesn't mean I'm going to agree that your approach is what is going to be successful or that it is what is needed. What's more, it doesn't create the statistics and backing for success.

It's expedient to write me off as burying my head in the sand and denying reality - it's easy and acceptable in today's political climate. There is a major difference in the approach to the problem of teenage sexuality - and it is a problem. You favor a more clinical approach to the problem, focusing on mitigating the risk through contraceptives and sex education. I favor an approach based on addressing the behavoir that is at the root of creating the risk.

I grew up in NJ, one of the most liberal parts of the US. The NJ school system has long prided itself on its program of sexual education. Before looking at numbers and possible effectiveness, you can first off argue as to whether or not NJ's sex ed program actually entails the necessary education (whole other detailed argument). Now, we can look at the situation in NJ and attempt to judge statistically how this aggressive program has actually worked.

Here is a link that details the topic and sexual eduaction in NJ.
The Failure of Sex Education - 94.10

Here is another link to Guttmacher which produces a lot of good information regarding teen pregnancy. If you focus on NJ, a very "progressive" state, the statistics are indeed terrible. Unfortunately, comprehensive teen pregnancy data more recent than 2000 for the US I don't think is available.

Here is the most recent comprehensive detail of teen pregnancy data from the Guttmacher Institute:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf

You can see NJ saw has seen somewhat of a drop in teen pregnancy, but it has remained relatively constant throughout the '90s. I'll be interested to see more up to date complete data when available. Noteworthy is that NJ is 16th in teen pregnancy, 43rd in teen births, and a whopping 1st in teen pregnancy.

Guttmacher also reports that the US teen pregnancy rate remains almost double that of other nations, including Canada, England, Wales, and eight times the Netherlands and Japan. This opens up a possibility that education could be an important issue, although NJ has long had a well established sex education program. Perhaps there is another issue.

Some interesting details regarding condom usage: 49% of women who received abortion reported that their condum use was inconsistent.

An interesting fact - NJ teen pregnancy cost taxpayers an estimated $167 million in 2004.

Teen pregnancy is a problem, regarless of how you think the problem should be addressed. Even with the implementation of comprehensive sex education programs throughout the US, it remains a major problem, especially in NJ. I believe that it is a problem that is rooted in the deterioration in traditional values. I agree with you that sex ed and contraceptives do in fact reduce teen pregnancy rates to varying degrees of success (I don't think you can argue this one), but there is more to the problem than that. The first article covers many other aspects of the problem that sex ed and contraceptive simply cannot address.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 27, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Something they don't forgive themself when others do it....





mkloby said:


> Why do you say this?




Hi mkloby!  
Well, just trying to understand here how the Catholic Church works and other religions as well, being a Swede makes me a Christian, but a Prostestant one.  If I step over the line, just let me know. 

Well, as with this child abuse that went on here, nobody should ever be forgiven for doing anything like that, as it says in an earlier post "The senior Roman Catholic clergyman in Canada, seeking to get rid of church baggage and turn over a new leaf, asked forgiveness on Wednesday for sexual abuse and discrimination committed by Catholics in the past."

What I'd like to know mate, is why should they expect to be forgiven, when they as a church (I'm guessing here), would rather see the common people that do such a thing like child abuse etc., burned at the stake....?

I'd like to know the reasoning why *they* should be forgiven, when *nobody* should....


----------



## Maestro (Apr 27, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Maestro - you can use all the boldface and large font that you'd like; it still doesn't mean I'm going to agree that your approach is what is going to be successful or that it is what is needed. What's more, it doesn't create the statistics and backing for success.
> 
> It's expedient to write me off as burying my head in the sand and denying reality - it's easy and acceptable in today's political climate. There is a major difference in the approach to the problem of teenage sexuality - and it is a problem. You favor a more clinical approach to the problem, focusing on mitigating the risk through contraceptives and sex education. I favor an approach based on addressing the behavoir that is at the root of creating the risk.
> 
> ...



Alright, you can shoot at my idea as much as you want, but how would *you* deal with it ? You haven't came out with a single clear idea.

As I stated, men will always be men. You can't expect them to keep it in their pants by telling them : "It's a sin." Abstinence is 100% safe, right, but it is not the solution, as teaching that to your kids will only make sex more taboo... But they will still continue to do it in your back. You know how it works, we've all been kids before !

You know, I read your article "The Failure of Sex Education", and it is making some good points. However, as I see it, both your (NJ) and our (PQ) system need some... erhm... "patches" here and there... Because they are not totally complete.

Of course we must give the good old "plumbing lesson" (to quote the article) but we must go farther : explain the differences in mentality and physiology between a boy and a girl (i.e. a boy has his sexual peek around 20, while a girl has her sexual peek around 30), inter-personnal relationships and the like. Both of our sex-ed courses are incomplete.

Those sex-ed classes I had gave me a good start, however I had to complete the course by taking info elsewhere... Medical encyclopedias, psychologists and sexologists hosting shows on the radio/TV.

That's were our kids are missing the boat. However, abstinence is in no way the solution. In fact, it will create more problems than anything else in today's society.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 27, 2009)

This is going to be another long one... I'd like to start by saying that I mean no offense to anyone, and not lecturing anyone regarding child upbringing or household model adopted. I am approaching this problem as I believe it exists from a sociological perspective, although of course individual cases and circumstances differ.

I think a major distinction must be made first in how the existence of teen sexuality is viewed. I look at the problem of teen sexuality and pregnancy as a cultural and moral problem, not as an inevitable reality. Every study shows a tremendous increase in teen sexuality from the beginning of the 20th century to now. 

In America, we have seen an increasing secularization combined with increasing resistance against traditional Christian values. In addition, there is the increasing influence of mass media on society, as never seen before. I view the problem as a sociological problem. Teen sexual behavior was not simply always like what we are currently experiencing I don't believe the argument that "this is the reality of teen behavior" holds up to historical scrutiny.

In combination with the drive towards "progressive" ideals, the traditional American family unit is increasingly breaking down. The decline of the traditional family model (husband as breadwinner and wife as homemaker) can be attributed to the rise of the dual income household, as well as the increase in single parent households due to the rise in divorce rates as well as the increasing rate of children being born out of wedlock (which in the US is currently 39.5%).

American households have also become increasingly consumerist throughout the 20th century. Elizabeth Warren of the Harvard Law School argues that a main causal factor of the dual income household is the desire for larger housing. In order to support this consumerism, many households have adopted the dual income model.

In the US, according to an AmeriStat study done in 2003:
Among married-couple households, about 13 percent consisted of families with children in which only the husband worked, 31 percent were dual-income families with children, 25 percent were dual-income families with no children, and 31 percent consisted of other types of families, such as older married couples whose children no longer reside in the household.

More recent US Census Bureau data from 2007 can be found here:
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2007/tabFG2-all.xls

Inherent in both the dual income household and the single parent household is a reduction in parental influence, contact, and oversight. There have been many studies done regarding family structure on adolescent sexual behavior, and they overwhelmingly support that an increased family influence reduces at-risk behavior of adolescents, including sexual behavior. Studies generally indicate that an intact family unit with two natural parents has the strongest effect on reducing teen sexual behavior. More difficult to study, however, is the influence of the traditional family model vs the dual income model. I would offer, however, that with the increased family support and structure of the traditional family model, at-risk behavior would decrease further below that of a dual parent family average including both traditional and dual income family models.

This does not address what exactly to do regarding the problem of teen sexual bahvior. The problem is deep, and beyond what merely sex education and distributing condoms can address, although basic sexual education I do not think is a bad thing. The problem with sexual education, as it is exists in many schools, is that many proponents seek to further isolate sexual behavior from the influence of the family, rather than increase it. This is contrary to the vast majority of empirical evidence that demonstrates that family structure is the leading factor in decreasing teen sexual behavior. 

An Example of how sexual education programs that seek to isolate the influence of family include anonymous distribution or availability of of condoms and other contraceptives. Another is text that presents pre-marital sexual behavior as a personal choice completely removed from morality altogether. A last example is the push by many in the sexual education field for the removal of parental consent/notification laws with respect to a minor's abortion. 

Proposing sexual behavior to our children as a personal right, choice, and decision is dangerous for many reasons. That they are immature children is the obvious and stark reality. Quite frankly, teenagers generally are not mature or responsible enough to handle the responsibility of sexual behavior. This is evident by the sheer numbers of teen pregnancy despite sexual education and the availability of contraceptives. There is also the enormous public cost of teen pregnancy and birth to the taxpayer, as teens often cannot bear the financial costs of their sexual behavior. The moral repugnancy of pre-marital sex in traditional Christian values seems to have a legitimate basis.


----------



## mkloby (Apr 27, 2009)

To bring about a change in adolescent sexuality, we must address the factors that have caused the problem to escalate. These are deep rooted issues not easily addressed. They are inter-related, systemic factors, of which adolescent sexual behavior is but one manifestation. In addition to unfettered American consumerism and the decline of the traditional family model, there is been a retreat away from traditional Christian values in the United States. Two critical legal factors which have laid the foundation for this are the erroneous interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade.

The flawed interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment is the leading factor causing . This clause states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," yet it has been interpreted by many to mean "separation of Church and state." That is clearly vague legal terminology, and those hostile toward the religious establishment has continued to push the limits on what the Establishment Clause entails. 

One major case that began the charge for "separation of Church and state" was Engel v. Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962). Prior to this case, Justice Stephen Field wrote in 1878, "Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order." The scope of actions that violate the Establishment Clause continue to grow to this day. This faulty interpretation, which is simply not substantiated in the text of the 1st Amendment, has given rise to legalized discrimination of Christianity in America. Christianity is specifically under siege as it is what is under attack in the preponderence of legal action initiated invoking "separation of Church and state." This view has been adopted by and large by American academia, and propagates itself throughout the school systems as well. This has led to an assault on Christian values that is intstitutionalized by the US government.

Christian values are under attack in the public schools and universities, in the legislative halls and the courts, and in the mass media. Those hostile toward Christianity have waged a coordinated campaign intent on removing the influence of Christianity to the greatest degree possible. Christian morality is being replaced with a moral relativism, in which there is no universal right or wrong. Is it truly any wonder that some sexual education programs for teens encourage sexual expression?

Another major factor affecting teen pregnancy was the decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. The decision to overturn state law criminalizing abortion based on due process with regard to privacy. The decision then qualifies when a woman maintains this right, and when the states' interest in promoting potential life may reach a compelling point, and the woman no longer maintains this right. This decision is inerently flawed, providing Constitutional protection of a to terminate a pregnancy, then further qualifying that right without giving any actual legal protection to the developing child under the Constitution.

This decision has been very aggressively propagated as the penultimate and defining acheivment of feminist "liberation." Unfortately, this decision has helped to create an environment that tremendously hurt the feminist cause. Ample evidence of this is found in the tremendous stress brought to women through great increase in teenage pregnancy rates, single-mother households, and dependence on government assistance. An argument can be made that the ground work for the Roe v. Wade decision was laid in the coordinated offensive against the Christianity (and Christian values) under the guise of the 1st Amendment.

A strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause would serve to destroy the legal foundation for the continued discrimination against Christianity in American public education, legislation, and jurisprudence that has fostered the coordinated offensive against Christian values.

The government must also acknowledge the societal benefits of the traditional family unit. This is why the traditional family deserves special status and recognition under the law. It is the core unit that Christian culture (indeed almost all cultures) is built upon, yet it is under attack by the very same forces that seek to remove all influence of Christianity in the US. 

Granted, this will not bring about immediate effects, but it will lay the foundation for the return of traditional values that America was founded upon. Bear in mind, we are presently fully reaping the damages that the "progressive" movement has been sowing for decades.

This is what I think. It goes 180* against what many out there will say.


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2009)

Ok, I'm gonna need a cop of coffee for this one.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 29, 2009)

mkloby said:


> A strict interpretation of the Establishment Clause would serve to destroy the legal foundation for the continued discrimination against Christianity in American public education, legislation, and jurisprudence that has fostered the coordinated offensive against Christian values.
> 
> The government must also acknowledge the societal benefits of the traditional family unit. This is why the traditional family deserves special status and recognition under the law. It is the core unit that Christian culture (indeed almost all cultures) is built upon, yet it is under attack by the very same forces that seek to remove all influence of Christianity in the US.
> 
> ...



We see this in the same way.


----------



## Maestro (Apr 29, 2009)

Wow... After reading both of your posts, I was like "WTF ?", but I'll try to sum it up and reply to it.

So you want the father back to work and the woman back at home. Although it seems realistic on paper, it isn't in practice. I was lucky enough to be raised in such a family, my father had a salary of about $25.00 CND an hour working in a paper factory. Which gives a good paycheck. However, those kind of jobs are more than rare now : they are almost inexistants.

I graduated from high-school in 2001, got a degree in Private Security in 2003 and I've been working as a security officer ever since... My salary is currently of $13.15 CND an hour. Last year I made a salary of about $27,000.00 CND (before taxes and union cuts) and I can barely get enough money to live and pay for my house (which is a very standard house evaluated at about $120,000.00 CND) and the gas to put in my 1997 Ford Ranger. So imagine if I had to feed a wife and two kids... I would hit bankruptsy within a year.

My sister's case is even worse... She graduated from high-school in 1995, got a degree in Dental Assistance around 1997 and a degree in Animal Health Care around 2001 and she is now working as a Animal Health Care Technician at $13.50 CND an hour.

In average, a worker in a factory in the Province of Québec has a salary of about $25,000.00 CND a year.

So, in short, families of today *need* two salaries to feed their kids.

Also, if we read between the lines, you are stating that couples should not engage in sexual intercourse until wedding... Which is, in my opinion, a load of bullsh*t. As I stated earlier, the Church tried it for centuries before and never succeeded in preventing Mr. X to secretly do Miss Y in her father's barn.

The problem with sexual education of today is that it doesn't go deeply enough (sorry for the pun) into the subject. In fact, they should give a complete course of sexology to make sure everyone clearly understand everything. (Damn, it took me years of "amateur psychology sexology" to start to understand how a woman "works", I assume it must be the same thing for women vs. men.)

Here is an article I posted on this forum a few months ago : Teen sex study doubts technical virginity | U.S. | Reuters

It proves that brainwashing teens to stay virgin until wedding like some teachers in some states of the US do is a major failure.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I read your post correctly you seems to be against "free" abortion if the teenager is under 18, right ? Stating that most teens are too irresponsible to take their responsabilities.

In other words, if a girl of 16 or 17 gets pregnant, she can't get an abortion without asking permission to her parents, unlike what the current law states. (Currently, the doctor must request the permission of the girl's parents only if she is under the age of 16.) So you could end up with many story like what we saw in the UK, remember the 13 year-old boy who got her 15 year-old girlfriend pregnant and still gave birth to the baby ? My two cents are that their own very religious parents didn't even want to consider the idea of abortion.

So you would certainly end up in the US (mainly in southern states), with a bunch of Jesus-freaks forcing their daughter to give birth to an unwanted child just because she had sex with her boyfriend... Who their parents tried to brainwash to *not* have sex before wedding, but did it anyway.

Integrism is dangerous, my friend. No matter if it is Muslism, Jewish or Christian integrism. And when gouvernments start sleeping in the same bed than religion, then it *is* integrism. In Québec we lived in Catholic integrism until we kicked Duplessis' _Union Nationale_ out of the provincial Parliament for good.

Anyway, that's my opinion. Hate it or share it...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

It's simple. The more that you try to stop them, the more they'll do it!


----------



## Maestro (Apr 30, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> It's simple. The more that you try to stop them, the more they'll do it!



Exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks, Lucky !


----------



## mkloby (May 2, 2009)

Maestro said:


> Wow... After reading both of your posts, I was like "WTF ?", but I'll try to sum it up and reply to it.
> 
> So you want the father back to work and the woman back at home. Although it seems realistic on paper, it isn't in practice. I was lucky enough to be raised in such a family, my father had a salary of about $25.00 CND an hour working in a paper factory. Which gives a good paycheck. However, those kind of jobs are more than rare now : they are almost inexistants.
> 
> ...


I'll apologize for the long, disjointed post. It was written throughout the day, broken up by flight planning and other nonsense. But, I'm back from TAD, so free time is not easy to come by anymore!  
I did not get a chance to read that link yet, maybe tomorrow morning.

Maestro - I'm not very well versed in Canadian specifics, I'll admit. You argue that the dual income household is a matter of necessity. However, in the US average income in 1920 was about $1200 and in 1950 was approximately $3200, which equals about $13,200 and $28,400 in 2008 dollars respectively. Average income for 2006 was $28,567 ($30,500 2008 dollars) If the number of dual income households was much lower in the past, with average income approximately equal to or less than (much less than for 1920) current income, it stands to reason that it is entirely possible to for a family to be raised in a single income model. The difference is consumerism, and according to Warren, the drive for larger housing. If the statistics are off, please let me know - but as far as I can tell, the statistics point to the dual income household being one of choice, not necessity. Of course, these are national averages, and individual situations differ greatly.

One other note, again going back to the First Amendment. I thought about things some more... I think there needs to be a serious application of a decency standard to freedom of speech. Much of the music, the magazines, movies, etc is extremely vulgar. Freedom of speech carries responsibility, and it must not damage the greater common good. In the military we phrase it as "good order and discipline." If exercising your right to freedom of speech does not meet this standard, then it should no longer fall under protected free speech. The limits of this have been pushed so much further out, even since I was a child. Our children today are swarmed by indecency at every turn, all in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech. I would argue that our society is not only being ill served by such policy, but it is downright dangerous.

Integrism is a pretty vague term, without a distinct meaning in political science. I do understand what your saying, but there is a vast continuum between complete unification of Church and state as one, and complete separation of Church and state. 

However, it still stands that you will not find the words "separation of Church and state" in the US Constitution - it is all a myth (I don't care about that it was used in a letter written by Mr Jefferson!). The interpretation of the Establishment Clause today has no legitimate basis in law.




Lucky13 said:


> It's simple. The more that you try to stop them, the more they'll do it!



This is the type of baseless comment, without any sort of evidence, that has perpetuated itself. Due to the fact that teen sexual behavior has increased dramatically over the last 100 years, while attitudes have become more accepting of the behavior, completely contradicts this.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

What is it that they say about the forbidden fruit taste the best....
This thread is interesting, gives me a bit of different views of different religions, just hope that we can keep it tidy...


----------



## Maestro (May 3, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Maestro - I'm not very well versed in Canadian specifics, I'll admit. You argue that the dual income household is a matter of necessity. However, in the US average income in 1920 was about $1200 and in 1950 was approximately $3200, which equals about $13,200 and $28,400 in 2008 dollars respectively. Average income for 2006 was $28,567 ($30,500 2008 dollars) If the number of dual income households was much lower in the past, with average income approximately equal to or less than (much less than for 1920) current income, it stands to reason that it is entirely possible to for a family to be raised in a single income model. The difference is consumerism, and according to Warren, the drive for larger housing. If the statistics are off, please let me know - but as far as I can tell, the statistics point to the dual income household being one of choice, not necessity. Of course, these are national averages, and individual situations differ greatly.
> 
> One other note, again going back to the First Amendment. I thought about things some more... I think there needs to be a serious application of a decency standard to freedom of speech. Much of the music, the magazines, movies, etc is extremely vulgar. Freedom of speech carries responsibility, and it must not damage the greater common good. In the military we phrase it as "good order and discipline." If exercising your right to freedom of speech does not meet this standard, then it should no longer fall under protected free speech. The limits of this have been pushed so much further out, even since I was a child. Our children today are swarmed by indecency at every turn, all in the name of artistic expression and freedom of speech. I would argue that our society is not only being ill served by such policy, but it is downright dangerous.



Concerning the salaries in the '20s, I don't have the numbers myself. But it must be about the same thing. But don't forget that, back in that time, about 70% of the population was working and living on farms (at least in Canada)... Which greatly helps to feed your family.

Now it's the other way around with about 30% of the population living on farms. So now about 70% of the population has to buy 100% of their food.

Concerning freedom of speech, and being a fan of Howard Stern myself, I completely desagree with you. The moment you start touching that right, you start walking on the very thin line separating democracy from dictatorship.

I don't care how many time one of those "wannabe pimps" rappers says : "f*ck da bitch" or "com' see you' masta, you li'le slut".

I don't care neither if Robert DeNiro says : "So, you're f*cking my wife you son of a bitch ?" Or if Silvester Stallone says : "Get over here, you mother f*ckers." Or if a pilot in a video game says : "Why don't you flyboys give us some cover, God damn it !" It just make it more real, because peoples in real life who are under pressure talks that way. No one in a make or break situation is gonna say : "Would you mind passing me the bazooka, please ?" no, he's gonna says : "Gimme that bazooka, for God sake !"

I don't care neither if a TV/radio host says : "Hey, did you see Miss X from Channel N ? Looks like her boobs are bigger than her brain." (This last example really happened here.) You can't just shut down the TV/radio channel or fire the host because of that. If you do so you are crossing the border I described earlier.

*You* are the one with the remote control, so it's up to you to switch to an other channel or turn off the TV/radio. Not to the gouvernment to control the shows for the kids because the parents are too lazy to do it themselves. A TV/radio is a machine, not a babysitter.

In French we says : _"La liberté des uns s'arrête là où celle des autres commence."_ Translated : "The freedom of ones' stops where the freedom of others starts."

If you start censoring signers/hosts/writers, then you are attacking their right to speak and our right to listen to them. If you don't want to listen to them, then switch of channel... Or turn off the friggin TV/radio.

You were also speaking about magazines... I never saw anything indecent in magazines over here. Or may be you are talking about Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse and that kind of stuff ? If so it's up to you to not let your men magazines on the coffee table, damn it ! 

No, I was joking with my last paragraph, however one part is true : if you don't want your kids to watch porn, it's up to you to make sure they won't... It's not up to the gouvernment to ban it for everyone !


----------



## Maestro (May 3, 2009)

mkloby said:


> Integrism is a pretty vague term, without a distinct meaning in political science. I do understand what your saying, but there is a vast continuum between complete unification of Church and state as one, and complete separation of Church and state.
> 
> However, it still stands that you will not find the words "separation of Church and state" in the US Constitution - it is all a myth (I don't care about that it was used in a letter written by Mr Jefferson!). The interpretation of the Establishment Clause today has no legitimate basis in law.



I'm not arguing the Thomas Jefferson thing.

However, in my opinion, as soon as the Church gets close to power, then the sh*t is gonna hit the fan. We experienced this with Maurice Duplessis and the _Union Nationale_. He was close to the Church and was doing everything the Church was asking him to do. Even the "padlock law", which was a law that was making illegal any type of workers' union... As it was seen by the Church as a Communist thing.

Communist = Bolshevick = "Unfaithful"



mkloby said:


> This is the type of baseless comment, without any sort of evidence, that has perpetuated itself. Due to the fact that teen sexual behavior has increased dramatically over the last 100 years, while attitudes have become more accepting of the behavior, completely contradicts this.



Well, not really. I don't think the numbers of "indecency" (i.e. sex before wedding, aldultary, etc.) has really changed through the years. It is just that the age of the crowd doing it got younger.

Of course it is very hard to find numbers on "indecencies", as sex was very taboo back in the day, however I can name you more than a few famous peoples who did it. (I.e. Kings, noblemen, ministers, actors, writers, etc...)


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

This with in some cases Catholic and Protestant Church reminds me of.....err...hhhmmm...yeah, the English and Americans are two people separated by a common language, if you know what I mean?


----------



## Maestro (May 3, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> This with in some cases Catholic and Protestant Church reminds me of.....err...hhhmmm...yeah, the English and Americans are two people separated by a common language, if you know what I mean?



I think I see your point, yeah.


----------

