let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from Mus

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by golden_rivet, Nov 23, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. News today - the Catholic church may lift its ban on the use of condoms to stop the spread of HIV between married couples. Sounds good in theory (apart from the obvious fact that it's about 20 years late) but I foresee all sorts of further difficulties. Apart from the fact that I see no reason to spare the lives of heterosexual married couples over homosexuals or unmarried couples (but then I'm a loony liberal) a newspaper article referred to an article by the previous pope saying that 'every conjugal act should be open to life' which at the time was taken to mean that contraception shouldn't be used and that conception be a possibility. The article pointed out that this could also be interpreted as permitting the use of condoms which might actually stop one of the partners being needlessly infected i.e. remaining alive. Surely were this the case, that a couple had one partner HIV positive, then using a condom or having sex at all would be prohibited since wouldn't they be having sex for pleasure (shock horror) rather than for procreation.

    Tried to get my head round this for a while then decided (sorry remembered) what a load of silly asses they are. Anyway why can't they just finally decide that it's OK not to encourage their adherants to use condoms so that the size of the church doesn't decline due to large numbers of the members being HIV positive.

    :?
     
  2. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Lets just stop pissing about and have a SECULAR UK and remove the charitable status, education, seats in the Lords and any laws made to assist or promote religion. Ban all religious symbols from public buildings, schools, hospitals, airports, bus station, Military bases etc.

    Nutty

    GOD Iam on form this morning
     
  3. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Strangely enough I am in complete agreement with you Nutty, at least on this subject.
     
  4. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Well, I suppose this may have a military impact. The argument being that World population densities and distribution have a bearing on conflict dynamics. Added to this, in many countries, religious dogma translates into governmental attitude and policy.

    A recurrent theme of Roman Catholicism is the sanctity of life that extends to latent life. That principle explains the Vatican's views and edicts on abortion, "sexual self abuse" (whatever that is!) and, crucially here, contraception. Basically, Mankind's purpose in life is to procreate and spread the glory of God. Copulation must have the sole purpose of creating new life and we aren't here to enjoy ourselves. If the Pope is to relax the traditional view on contraception, the disturbance to the Catholic world must measure at least 8 on the Richter (or, maybe, rictus!) Scale. It would blow an appreciable hole in 2000 years worth of learned and profound religious teaching.

    Accepting that religions are predominantly centred on faith and a blind acceptance that their laws are received direct from the presiding Deity, what are the lesser mortals to make of the revision of a basic tenet? New word has been received from the big fellah on high? The big fellah's interpreters and administrators on Earth misunderstood what he originally intended? Either way, it's pretty faith shaking. The Pope, with his Triple Crown, is supposed to be God's 2IC. He's going to have to explain to his flock that either God got it wrong first time round or that the body that has made the laws and morals for old those years was flawed. If God really got that big one wrong, how many other things has he wrong? Not quite so stupendous but still pretty devastating (or should be!), how many other things has God's representative on Earth misunderstood. Cue schism or the total downfall of a religion that "controls" 17% of the Worlds population. Not a good time when it is in direct competition with a fervent Islam.

    As Golden Rivet (who clearly stays up late at night contemplating these things) suggests, this new thinking will have a great and beneficial impact on the loss of life from the transmission of HIV/AIDS and may see a reversal of the steady population rise in Catholic countries. Being totally dispassionate (and arguably callous), though, AIDS is an efficient population control and usually in counties that can least support large populations. Balanced against this, contraception and the admission that sex can be for fun only should see a significant decline in birth rates. A compassionate person may argue that it is a good thing that the scene is set for less misery being brought into the World and a tension has been released for a basic human urge. The big question now is, is it?
     
  5. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    I see your reasoning. Lets do it properly, though, and demolish all the churches, cathedrals and, logically, removal all religious symbols from graveyards and headstones. Let's face it, the dumb bodies planted there were just wrong and the right thing is to correct their tangible memory.

    Now is the time to sell lead on the Commodities Market before the bottom drops out.
     
  6. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    The comedian Dave Allan would have had a hay day with this. I remember when he was alive commenting on the Popes decision not to allow condoms. His comment "If you don't play the game, you shouldn't be allowed to make the rules!".
     
  7. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    A little over the top. I just want all, repeat all religions removed from Public life. What a person wants to do private in his church etc is up to them.

    Nutty
     
  8. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Good God

    I agree Nutty the state, any state should not favour any religion over another.

    Peter
     
  9. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    One minor point; our gracious Queen's power is vested in her by Big G. Move him from the story book and she will have to ask her people for her power.

    OK, who's the republican? Stand up, let's see you.
     
  10. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    I'm not that bothered about replacing Liz, she sent me a nice letter once, come to that I would rather have Charlie or even Wills doing the job than some elected poly like Blair or Cameron.

    Peter
     
  11. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    I totally agree with you on that score Peter. I'm a Royalist, because I don't much like the alternative.
    RoofRat
     
  12. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    To be fare the system works pretty well, it gives the tabloids something to print on slack news days, and rakes in lots and lots of tourist revenue, so all in all it is probably self financing. Ideal thatherite solution to the problem

    Peter
     
  13. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Who voted Blair in I didn't and Cameron is just as much a tosser :!:
     
  14. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Queen, God, Country. Maybe there should be a prize for the first to see the link.

    No good asking me, though, because atheists don't have a view on God the Omnipotent.

    Now what was Golden Rivet's original point?
     
  15. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Beejay, trying to find anyone who will confess to voting labour at the last election, is like trying to find Rocking Horse Shite! Nigh on impossible.
    RoofRat :lol:
     
  16. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    Some of you will have spotted the extraneous 'not' whose effect is to cancel out the point I'm trying to make. I guess that is a consequence of being (vaguely) awake in the small hours. [Where the heck does that expression come from - cue another thread].

    Strangely - after writing this I went back to bed and went straight off to sleep. Perhaps we can package RR to help reduce the NHS's drugs bill?

    :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
  17. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    g_r

    The illogical "not" and the silly time of the morning were both noted; no worries. Your meaning was still clear but, hey, I'm the only one that seriously entered the original debate.
     
  18. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from


    On the first point I think what we are suggesting is that we stick to just Queen and Country, after all most people even those of a religious disposition do not believe in the Divine Right of Kings any more.

    As to the possible problems of re=interpratation of past catholic teaching, most thinking people will always realise that religious dogma is and always has been mans interpretation of whatever god's will is. The spiritual message has always been given by men as 'chosen' messengers. So of course it was the MEN who got it wrong not God (if he she or it exists). Now I agree popes are not often in the 'we got it wrong' mode but they do from time to time.
     
  19. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    I'm a traditional Labour voter! I'd just like a Labour Party committed to socialist principles. I suppose I must also conceed to being a bit of a champagne socialist too. :oops: :oops: :oops:

    I broadly agree, as you might expect, with Nutty and Peter. People should be allowed to manifest their beliefs in private. They should also however be allowed to manifest them in public, contingent upon them acknowledging the rights and freedoms of others - something that is simply not accepted by those theists exercising influence or power. A perfect example of this is the current fuss over University Christian Unions. Many of these Unions have been infiltrated and taken over by conservative evangelicals promoting their own narrow agenda. They are exclusive and do not allow those who do not subscribe to their narrow interpretation of the Bible to join, yet insist upon being promoted to students as the Christian Union. Exeter University has, IMHO, taken the right stance, by requiring their CU to include the word 'Evangelistic' in their name so as not to confuse students. Conversely Christian groups are active in opposing any representatives of Humanism to be heard in schools or included within the RE curriculum in places like the London Borough of Bromley, which clearly violates Article 9(1) and 9(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

    Perhaps the perfect example this week has been in the correspondence pages of the Independent. The Church of England 's Commissioners have been criticised for their hypocrisy over their unethical investments*. They responded by asserting that they were merely complying with their legal obligations to invest in the best interests of their customers. What is interesting is that the Church Commissioners have never lobbied Parliament to grant them a dispensation in order to comply with the deeply held beliefs of a majority of their members and to conform with the apparent eternal truths of the Bible. By contrast the CoE has been activly lobbying for the right to discriminate against gays in the provision of goods and services on the grounds that to deny this offends against the deeply held beliefs of a majority of their members and denies them the ability to conform with the apparent eternal truths of the Bible. What was it Paul said about hypocrisy? :roll:

    Another good example is the fact that one can have a religious wedding where registration is part of the ceremony. By contrast Humanists (of which I am one) in most of the UK, bar enlikened Scotland, must register seperately then arrange for a Humanist ceremony. The government are currently refusing to change the law unless the Church of England gives its consent! Can you imagine the fuss about persecution if Christians had to get the approval of the Muslim Council of Britain before any legislation favourable to them could be passed? :x

    *
    End of Rant! :x
     
  20. Re: let's go for the Catholics this time- a change from

    If you have to believe in God to to accept Royalty then I am standing. I would be more than happy to shunt then off to Canada or Oz and let them visit every 10 years or so.

    No I am not an atheist, to be an Atheist you have to accept that there is a God for you not to believe in. Some have moved on past that point in that esoteric discussion.

    A curse on all your "isams"

    Nutty
     

Share This Page