How crazy is the Catholic Church

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 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...

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.

How crazy is the Catholic Church

More options

Maestro

Master Sergeant

Lucky13

Forum Mascot

Maestro

Master Sergeant

mkloby

Master Sergeant

Lucky13

Forum Mascot

Maestro

Master Sergeant

Maestro

Master Sergeant

Lucky13

Forum Mascot

Maestro

Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads