News Flash: We Lost Our Religious Freedom in 1970
Before I say another word that might come across as persnickety, I am so grateful to our United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for their continued vigorous efforts against HHS violations of religious freedom in the health care reform mandate. 100% grateful, supportive and encouraged for they know the bigger picture, and if they say it’s time to fight back, then fight back I will. Bring it!
This is really for anyone who is just waking up to this issue, because I remember the day I woke up and I was perturbed that no one explained it me before. They probably had, I just didn’t listen. So, if you are at all curious about the title, then for goodness sake, listen!
This hit me like a brick the first time I heard it, and it’s a point that needs to be grasped.
Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Repeating the important part:
This means that our tax dollars have already been used, currently at about $330,000,000 per year, to fund whatever Planned Parenthood does. There’s never been a restriction on the use of those funds for contraception. They says there’s been a restriction on the use of those funds for abortion, but that is meaningless. There are no little labels on each dollar bill that magically guard the “federal dollars” from funding abortion as if they had some kind of ability to poof into non-existence if they go into an “abortion-only” bank hole. Anyone with a family/personal budget knows that it matters not how the money is allocated. A budget is a budget.
The real question is where does the money out go. Ever wonder about that? Who does Planned Parenthood pay? They pay to maintain their buildings and equipment, they pay to buy their contraceptives which they turn around and sell, they pay their salaries. The blood money circulates through our system over and over again.
So yes, folks, what it really means is that as participants in this U.S. (and world) economy, we’ve been forced to violate our conscience for a long time. My entire life actually.
What do we do? We still unite and do what the bishops tell us to do. This isn’t a time for picking apart the past. This is a time for action. If you are hesitant because it doesn’t seem like this loss of freedom is that big of a deal, realize that it is and it took a long time to get here. Thus, it will take time to set things right again. We are part of a bigger picture, a story that was already in the making and that will go on after us. But on our watch, let it not be said by our children and grandchildren that we were blind and did nothing. Support and pray for our bishops. Look to them for guidance.
May I suggest a little remedy. I pray for protection for our family’s tax dollars, a personal plea that each and every Trasancos tax dollar somehow, graced and guided by the Holy Spirit, finds a way to draw a soul closer to Heaven. They may not have little labels, but I imagine that they have little wings of sanctification flying them around the economic system with a blessing.
Category: Abortion, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Just out of curiosity, say you were an employer paying your employees. If you know one of them is taking birth control, what do you do? If you don’t want your tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood, you should really not want your employee’s paycheck going towards the Pill/condoms/whatever. If your religious freedom is gone because your tax dollars might have gone to PP, certainly your religious freedom would be more gone because your employee used their paycheck to buy contraceptives, right? I’m wondering how you would propose to exert that kind of control on a small scale (because in the employer situation, you have zero doubt that your money is going towards contraceptives, whereas in the tax situation, who knows – your money might be going towards public libraries or something totally benign).
A salary is different than taxation. A salary is property/money earned for providing a service under the agreement of a mutual contract. The employer does not have the right to tell the employee what to do with his or her own private property. Neither does the State.
Taxation is money taken by the government to be used for the common good. It belongs to the people, the legislators are stewards. Their job, in part, is to decide how the money will be spent for the common good. A citizen has every right to speak up about how politicians spend our tax dollars.
You misunderstand where the attack on religious freedom is. Do you understand the difference in paying for something yourself vs. demanding someone pay for it *for you* against his/her conscience?
Like I said too, ultimately I hope that women learn what contraception really is and what it does to their bodies and relationships and reject it of their own free will. For now, because so many women do not see this bigger picture, it is a good step in the right direction to at least stop forcing people to pay for contraception and abortion against their will.
And how about people being forced to pay more taxes because of the tax benifits religious institutions like the Catholic Church get on the property values and stuff? As an atheist I wouldn’t want to pay for that.
As a pacifist I don’t want to pay for anything even remotely related to any type of military, including coast guard and border patrol.
As a man I don’t want to pay for women having an annual cervix examination to prevent cervix cancer or mammography for screening on breast cancer.
As a fully medically insured employee I don’t want to pay for Medicare for the uninsured.
I take it by now you’ll understand it simply doesn’t work the way you see it. No one likes to pay taxes and no one agrees completely how their tax dollars are spent. My conscience is plagues especially since I have to pay more taxes so religious institutions don’t have to or to finance the art of killing those we don’t agree with by the military. Still, I can’t do anything about that and neither can you, or all Catholic bishops in the world combined.
Guess what? Because of their tax free status my taxpayer’s money is going to subsidize the community services that churches rely on and don’t pay for.
You don’t like your tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood? Well, I don’t like my money going to the Catholic Church and its homophobic rants.
“Do you understand the difference in paying for something yourself vs. demanding someone pay for it *for you* against his/her conscience?”
Yep–I do. And I’m gonna work to make churches lose their tax free status.
Fair enough, and I do see the difference. I do completely understand the desire to direct your tax dollars away from something you object to – I’m not employed, but when I do start paying taxes, I will regret that some of that money will go towards funding wars. It would be awesome in theory if we could direct our money to only the things we approved of (in practice, there’s no way it would work), but I’m not sure I’d agree that federal funding of PP is a violation of religious freedom. Once those tax dollars leave your bank account, it’s not you paying PP, it’s the government. So while I think you have every right to be bothered by it, your religious freedom isn’t actually being violated.
Others raise interesting points regarding the tax-exempt status of churches, and even more so regarding the idea that taxes do go to churches, directly and indirectly. Stacy, what do you make of that?
Edward,
“And how about people being forced to pay more taxes because of the tax benifits religious institutions like the Catholic Church get on the property values and stuff?”
Quoting myself, “A citizen has every right to speak up about how politicians spend our tax dollars.” That’s not just my opinion, that’s the way our country works, and that is just. The problem with that argument is, it is only your opinion and there is no proof of the claim. Religious charities already fund much that relieves the burden for taxpayers and if you take money from them for spite, you have to wonder who you really are trying to help.
“As an atheist I wouldn’t want to pay for that.”
Justify that statement then. I challenge you. Is it just out of spite, or do you have a legitimate basis. How does a religious charity using its money to help the poor in local communities harm you or offend your moral sensibilities?
“As a pacifist I don’t want to pay for anything even remotely related to any type of military, including coast guard and border patrol.”
Please justify that. Do you think that a country without a military will exist for very long? Do you enjoy your safety? Do you even realize what the military does to secure your safety? Got a retired officer under my roof, he can tell you all kinds of things the military does to further the good of this country, if you would like facts to base your opinions on instead of emotions.
“As a man I don’t want to pay for women having an annual cervix examination to prevent cervix cancer or mammography for screening on breast cancer.”
Fair enough! I don’t need you to pay for it either!
We agree there.
“As a fully medically insured employee I don’t want to pay for Medicare for the uninsured.”
I do because there will always be the poor among us and they need our help. Everyone needs the help of family and community at some point in their lives and it is only just that we help those in true need. What is wrong is for those who are not really in need to take anyway just because they can.
“I take it by now you’ll understand it simply doesn’t work the way you see it. No one likes to pay taxes and no one agrees completely how their tax dollars are spent.”
No reason to lay down and give up!
“My conscience is plagues especially since I have to pay more taxes so religious institutions don’t have to or to finance the art of killing those we don’t agree with by the military.”
Your conscience sounds like it is misinformed with poor information and is more the result of personal anger than any real objective issue outside yourself.
“Still, I can’t do anything about that and neither can you, or all Catholic bishops in the world combined.”
On the contrary! You absolutely can, you first need to stop believing the “I’m a victim” mantra. People have said for all its existence that the Church would fall. It has not, and it will not. They are the good guys and I’m proud to be part of that body.
cminca,
“Guess what? Because of their tax free status my taxpayer’s money is going to subsidize the community services that churches rely on and don’t pay for.”
What? That doesn’t make sense. What community services does the Church rely on for subsidization?
“You don’t like your tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood? Well, I don’t like my money going to the Catholic Church and its homophobic rants.”
And you have a right as a citizen to try to make your case.
“Yep–I do. And I’m gonna work to make churches lose their tax free status.”
First I think it would be good if you made the case for what the Church needs to pay taxes on? What? Donations from taxpayers? LOL. You think that if I donate to a charity, the charity should have to give part of my money to the government instead, when I’ve already paid taxes on it once? Why? Again, it just sounds like emotional spitefulness, not really anything based on sound reasoning.
Michelle,
“I will regret that some of that money will go towards funding wars.”
Why? This is a tangent, but all three of you mentioned it. Why do you want to live in a country that does not protect you? I honestly don’t get that reasoning. My husband is a retired Major in the Army and I think for the most part, people don’t understand what the military really does for them. Do you get your information from people who have direct experience, or from secondary sources?
“It would be awesome in theory if we could direct our money to only the things we approved of (in practice, there’s no way it would work), but I’m not sure I’d agree that federal funding of PP is a violation of religious freedom.”
OK, I’m sure, and that’s why I speak up about it, and vote accordingly.
“Once those tax dollars leave your bank account, it’s not you paying PP, it’s the government.”
Oh, no, no, no! NO! Did I say no?
This is very poorly understood by some people and I’ve heard more than a few college folks speak this way, but this is NOT what our constitution says. We elect officials to ***represent*** us. We basically hire them, and they get a salary, but our TAX DOLLARS are NOT their salary. They are entrusted with them to spend them for the common good.
“So while I think you have every right to be bothered by it, your religious freedom isn’t actually being violated.”
Thanks, I’ll be the judge of that though. I think it is, and like I said, I have every right as a citizen to work to stop it.
“Others raise interesting points regarding the tax-exempt status of churches, and even more so regarding the idea that taxes do go to churches, directly and indirectly. Stacy, what do you make of that?”
See above. It’s based on a speculation that IF churches paid taxes, there would somehow be a reduction in taxes for the rest of the people. It’s pure speculation, and it seems to be based on spitefulness rather than logic.
Stacy–
“What? That doesn’t make sense. What community services does the Church rely on for subsidization? ”
Let’s start with roads, shall we? Then move onto emergency services. How about water and sewage? You know, all the stuff that property taxes normally pay for.
In California:
“California property tax laws provide for three exemptions that may be claimed on church property:• The church exemption, for property that is owned, leased, or rented by a religious organization and used exclu-sively for religious worship services • The religious exemption, for property owned by a religious organization and used exclusively for religious wor-ship services or religious worship services, and certain school activities The exemption may also apply to leased personal property • The welfare exemption, for property owned by a religious organization and used exclusively for one or more of the above activities or any other religious activities The exemption may also apply to leased property if both the lessor and lessee qualify In other words, both the organization and property use must qualify for the exemption.”
Now–Let’s move onto income, shall we? I have absolutely no problem with taxing churches on income if you are writing off your charitable donation from your taxes. Which effectively negates your double taxation arguement.
How’s that for “sound reasoning”?
cminca,
So, let’s see what would that gain you then?
Churches pay property taxes and income taxes like for-profit institutions. OK, we get the same privileges then too. We get to donate to campaigns. We get to lobby. We get to influence science and public education in an organized way (we’re good at organization!)
And frankly, you can only claim so much on charitable donations before you no longer get tax relief, so if we could get tax relief on ALL that we donate, we’d probably donate much more especially if the money donated were going to be used by an organization we intimately trust to change things for the betterment of the common good.
Is that what you want? The Church NOT being separate from the State? OK.
You sold me, I think. If you want us to have a seat at the table, then we get to act like we have a seat at the table.
I’ll have to check with my friends to see if I’m reading this right, as it’s new to me, but I guess I’m kind of wondering if you really thought this through or if you are just repeating what you’ve read because it sounded good: “TAX THE CHURCHES!”
Oh, and also then, no more tax money to Planned Parenthood. Fair is fair, right? Let them pay taxes too, and let them get their money from their followers.
Catholic charities got money from the govt for adoption. Catholic charities won’t adopt to gays. Why should my money go for that?
Why should my money go towards keeping the catholic church in business when they want to deny me the right to marry whom I want?
Whats the difference between this and planned parenthood?
I don’t think our current wars have done much to protect or benefit us, honestly. Over a trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands killed/injured (mostly civilians), plus increased anti-US sentiments in the international community, and heightened Islamophobia here, and more soldiers coming home with PTSD – I don’t see any of that as productive or desirable. We’d have been significantly better off putting that effort and funding elsewhere.
Yes! I do agree, we should all be concerned about where our money is going. All I meant was that you are not morally culpable for where your tax money goes. I guess this is a better way to put it – if you do feel that your religious freedom is being violated, then how do you propose to solve that? Cutting all funding to PP, would, I’m sure, be ideal to you, but then it would also be ideal to me if the government never entered a single unjust war. How would you account for the enormous differences of opinion regarding how government money should be spent?
Alan,
Well, Planned Parenthood kills children. That would the biggy for me.
CC was not the only adoption agency, they were just the most effective. People (adults mind you!) pitched a fit over ***what they wanted*** with no care about the children, and they got their way in this state. Don’t worry alan, your money is no longer going to help Catholics find homes for children who need them.
Michelle,
“I don’t see any of that as productive or desirable.”
Well, see, we’ve tried to tell them to stop threatening our safety nicely, but they just won’t do it. A country needs a military, and this is borne out time after time in history. Countries that are weakly defended, perish. (So do countries that kill their young.) I don’t want to live in a country like that. I want to live in a place that is strong and safe, good and kind, just and charitable.
My husband helped design the software for defense missiles. Do you know what they do? They intercept enemy missiles in the air and stop them. Why is that good? Well, it saves lives. It means we don’t shoot a missile at the enemy, we only stop the enemy from killing us. That took a lot of mathematical and engineering genius. It took a LOT of money. You know what? We were the only ones doing that, and we are still the leaders at defense technology. THAT is where much of our tax dollars go. Little appreciated fact. Look it up.
And when the enemy knows we mean business and they’ll only waste time and money shooting missiles at us, they learn to leave us alone. Plus, WE learn how to innovate in all kinds of ways that are beneficial to our society, and to countries and economic systems all around the world.
What is so bad about that?
“All I meant was that you are not morally culpable for where your tax money goes.”
As citizens, we have rights and rights ALWAYS come with obligations. So, if I do nothing, yes I am culpable.
“entered a single unjust war”
We agree there. What Obama did in Afghanistan was horrendous.
And I’ll just come right back and ask you what’s good about dead, injured civilians (newsflash: people in other countries are people too! Just as deserving of safety as us). Is knowing that “we mean business” worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? Is categorizing entire countries and groups of people (most of them civilians) as “the enemy” even productive? Is that “pro-life” or loving in any sense of the word? I’m not saying we don’t need a military; I’m saying that it’s not as simple as “the enemy hates us and won’t play nice, even though we tried! What meanies.”
Take that $1.3 trillion and invest it in education and research, and we’d have a happier, healthier, more prosperous society with fewer dead civilians on the other side of the globe. Sounds like a more valuable and lasting success than having other countries being reminded every day that “we mean business” thanks to their devastated communities and families.
Michelle, I said I agreed with you about what Obama has done. I agree that any killing of innocent people is wrong. No other country tries as hard as the US to avoid that. Sending troops on nonsense missions to get killed is immoral. You missed what I wrote I think. Developing defense technology costs NO lives. Those are people sitting in labs and testing in the field.
Bombing civilians – that does kill. That is immoral.
When I use the word “enemy” I use it to mean those who want us dead. That is a legitimate use of the word.
And I’ll be honest, as hard as I’ve tried to understand war, I can’t. I don’t think women are really supposed to. We bear life, we trust men to protect us. It’s just natural.
My husband would stop anyone, any way that is necessary, who tried to harm our children. I’m OK with that. I don’t think I’d stand aside and say, “Oh honey, don’t hurt the poor bad man, oh wait, that might hurt his feelings, don’t hurt the sweet man trying to kill our children, just let him go, let him kill them, my goodness! we can’t hurt his poor widdle feewins.”
Um, no.
A country needs a strong defense, that actually saves more lives than anything. At a fundamental level, most things are that simple.
Tracy,
“Do you even realize what the military does to secure your safety? Got a retired officer under my roof, he can tell you all kinds of things the military does to further the good of this country, if you would like facts to base your opinions on instead of emotions.”
Thanks. I’m a retired officer myself. I held the rank of lieutenant in the Dutch army since I had to serve as a doctor for 18 months as a way of paying back part of my student loans for medical school. As soon as those 18 months were over I ran as fast and far away for military life as humanly possible because being in the army goes against much of mu believes. Unfortunately, I had little choice.
“It’s based on a speculation that IF churches paid taxes, there would somehow be a reduction in taxes for the rest of the people. It’s pure speculation, and it seems to be based on spitefulness rather than logic.”
If the government needs a certain ammount of money to cover it’s expenses everyone needs to pay a share of the money. So if you give a certain group of people or organisations a tax-exempt that means everyone else needs to pay up more to raise the same ammount of money. That’s no speculations; that’s Economy 101.
“Why do you want to live in a country that does not protect you?”
I don’t believe in war. I don’t believe in the right of one country to invade another country, in killing people in another country or in asking / forcing your own people to die in another country. I also don’t believe in forceful resistance. When you examine history every conflict that was handled with force only led to bloodshed and animosity while every non-violent resistence ultimately led to the defeat of the agressor as well. The best known examples are Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Or do you think Gandhi would have been able to force the British out of India with force? Pitchforks against guns?
Well, and since I don’t believe in war or forceful resistance there’s no reason to have an army to begin with, in my opinion.
“Churches pay property taxes and income taxes like for-profit institutions. OK, we get the same privileges then too. We get to donate to campaigns. We get to lobby. We get to influence science and public education in an organized way (we’re good at organization!)”
That’s exactly the point. You already have all this. You already have all the privileges but none of the responsibilities.
Religious groups already donate to campaignes. The contributions are being kept just below a certain threshold above which they would have to be reported.
This entire discussion started with trying to set up a lobby to make sure federal funding of Planned Parenthood. And let’s not forget the very active lobbying Catholic bishops and priests performed in the State of New York against same sex marriage (a lobby they lost, by the way).
The Catholic church already influences science and education. It’s, in part, the Catholic church that keeps evolution from being taught in schools and it was the Catholic church in part that is responsible for the ban on research in embryonic stem cells.
So, since you’re already “at the table” maybe now is a good time to start paying your dues?
“Well, Planned Parenthood kills children. That would the biggy for me.”
And Catholic priests abuse and rape children, which is a “biggy” for me, among other things. The more parishes and priests are being investigated the more cases of abuse, rape and (sexual) violence are discovered. Several countries in Europe already state the Catholic church is rotten to it’s core. In Belgium, a traditionally Catholic country, the DA’s office is trying to get the Catholic church branded a criminal organisations, dealing in human trafficing and prostitution of minors.
“Countries that are weakly defended, perish. (So do countries that kill their young.) I don’t want to live in a country like that. I want to live in a place that is strong and safe, good and kind, just and charitable.”
Your own statement makes it clear the US doesn’t need a strong army since abortion is legal in the US and will remain legal, just as a lot of other things the Catholic church throws a fit over. Again, not much you can do about it. Last year you noticed how the majority of the people responded to your ideas so what makes you think they respond better in the future?
Oh, and the Kindom of Heaven is not on earth so the country you’re looking for won’t be found during your lifetime.
“And when the enemy knows we mean business and they’ll only waste time and money shooting missiles at us, they learn to leave us alone.”
Or they will learn to use the same guerilla tactics the Vietcong used in Vietnam, the Taliban uses in Afghanistan or Al-Quaida used on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. No matter how hard you try, thinking you can stop everything and everyone is just an illusion.
“Sending troops on nonsense missions to get killed is immoral.”
Both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are “nonsense missions”. Iraq and most of the Gulf region has destabilised since the American invasion and the removal of Saddam Hussein (as it was predicted it would) and no foreign power has ever been able to defeat the Afghan people, a trait the US used to it’s own advantage in the late 80′s to make the Sovjet’s lives miserable.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad but if the US hadn’t supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran he would never have been such a threat later. If the US hadn’t supported the Mujahedin in Afghanistan against the Sovjets there wouldn’t have been an Al-Quaida to begin with.
So if the US hadn’t sold weapons to Saddam or hadn’t trained and armed the Mujahedin the US would have had three wars less to fight in the past 20 years. If there hadn’t been an American military intervention in both countries when it suited the US, hundreds of thousands of people on both sides would still be alive. If there hadn’t been an US army there wouldn’t have been something like 9/11.
“I agreed with you about what Obama has done”
I let this go the first time, but seriously? When Bush started two unnecessary wars, you’re willing to overlook all that and blame it on Obama? Are we getting back to your crazy double standards?
You’re putting words into my mouth. I said originally that I didn’t want my money going towards war. Defense? Fine (but I still think that money would be far, far better spent on positives like education and research). But those wars aren’t defense, they’re killing innocent people. I don’t want my money going towards that. That’s all.
Back to my original question about tax money going to things we oppose (I’ll just copy and paste from above) – if you do feel that your religious freedom is being violated, then how do you propose to solve that? Cutting all funding to PP, would, I’m sure, be ideal to you, but then it would also be ideal to me if the government never entered a single unjust war [just like you don't think these wars were unjust (it seems) while I do, I do think PP deserves government funding]. How would you account for the enormous differences of opinion regarding how government money should be spent?
And, for what it’s worth, I’m glad you can’t understand war. I don’t think it’s a matter of femininity, but human decency. Of course, self defense (or defense of someone else) is different, but war is so messy. It’s a far cry from a simple “this individual was seconds from hurting me, so I had no choice but to hurt him to stop him.” You portray my anti-war views as saying “don’t defend yourself” when my views are actually “are we even defending ourselves, or are we just making things worse for us and the country we’re fighting?” Just wanted to make that clear.
Stacy, your hyperbolic rhetoric (planned parenthood kills children) has no affect on me. They provide all sorts of services, the termination of pregnancies being one of them.
“CC was not the only adoption agency, they were just the most effective. People (adults mind you!) pitched a fit over ***what they wanted*** with no care about the children, and they got their way in this state.”
Correct CC was not the only adoption agency. But they accepted government funds. And it’s funny that you make a point of adults pitching a fit to get their own way, with no care about the children. But see to me that can be turned right back on CC themselves. Their rights were more important to them than the children. They stopped and entire program. Don’t blame me for that, it was their decision.
It saddens me that you can attempt to make opposing views to yours so childish as to comment they pitch a fit to get their own way, but that is exactly what you and other catholics are doing. It is not different. You want your way and will do what you have to to get it. Where is the difference.
And I may be slow and not have read every word, but didn’t Bush the younger bring us to Afghanistan? You disdain for Obama is well noted, but please keep in mind that his presidency inherited from Bush much of what is wrong in this country right now. Not an endorsement for or against the man, just a simple statement of facts.
Edward,
“Unfortunately, I had little choice.”
I’m sorry, but the primary function of a military is NOT so you can pay off student loans. I didn’t realize you were in the Netherlands. I don’t know how to say this without sounding arrogant, and I don’t mean it that way, but the historical truth is that the Dutch army was little more than a bump in the road in WWII. If it weren’t for larger armies, namely the US, you would likely be speaking German today.
“If the government needs a certain ammount of money to cover it’s expenses everyone needs to pay a share of the money…Economy 101.”
That’s a myopic view of the full situation in the US. A significant part of the population pays no taxes at all. Everyone pays sales taxes, not everyone pays property taxes. It’s much more complicated than you realize. Suffice it to say that if churches were taxes tomorrow, not a single person here would as a result pay fewer taxes the next day.
Don’t churches already pay taxes where you live? How much did your taxes go down when that started? Just curious?
“Well, and since I don’t believe in war or forceful resistance there’s no reason to have an army to begin with, in my opinion.”
The very first thing that leads to war is conflict, and here you are causing conflict. By your own ideology, you should be quiet and leave people alone.
Even children know they need someone to protect them because it is a fact of human nature that evil exists in this world, that’s why they cling to their parents when they are scared. For a grown man to say what you said is not just ignorant of human nature, but, frankly, a display of stupidity.
Edward, what would you do if someone told you to give them your wallet? Hand it over? What would you do if you saw someone stabbing a child on the street? Sprinkle pixie dust and pretend it’s lala-land? Seriously? Have you thought this through?
I have to skip a lot, I really just don’t know where to start.
“Again, not much you can do about it. Last year you noticed how the majority of the people responded to your ideas so what makes you think they respond better in the future?”
Oh dear. If you think THAT was a majority, you are out of touch with reality. That was nothing more than a very loud, but very minor tantrum from a bunch of people that would probably be mortally offended by a stop sign.
Michelle,
“I let this go the first time, but seriously?”
Yes, seriously.
I may not have agreed with everything Bush did, but the wars were not unnecessary. What Obama did was beyond poor decision making. It was evil.
“But those wars aren’t defense, they’re killing innocent people. I don’t want my money going towards that. That’s all.”
You don’t pay taxes, remember?
Same question I asked Edward. If someone tried to take your purse, what would you do? Pretend no one exists who would do that as they ran off with your things?
“Cutting all funding to PP, would, I’m sure, be ideal to you…”
Yes, and it gets closer every day. Until then, I’ll help the people fighting for that, pray, and do what I can to stand up for the right thing too.
“How would you account for the enormous differences of opinion regarding how government money should be spent?”
Human nature, Michelle. See pixie dust comments above.
Same question as Edward too. If you saw someone stabbing a child, what would you do?
“You portray my anti-war views as saying “don’t defend yourself” when my views are actually “are we even defending ourselves, or are we just making things worse for us and the country we’re fighting?””
OK, you need to know a lot more about history to authentically answer that question though. Do you know the nature of the conflict in the Middle East?
Alan,
“Stacy, your hyperbolic rhetoric (planned parenthood kills children) has no affect on me.”
Shocker!
Thats all huh Stacy?
I think most of us would step in if we saw a child being stabbed. War is not a child being stabbed. Neither war Bush started were because we were threatened and protecting ourselves.Don’t be so niave. Be truthful and admit you don’t like Obama so you will blame him for everything. Your an adult, admit things for what they are.
Stacu–
I’d suggest you read your responses, and then go back to your defence of your anti-gay screed where you claim to love all and to be so hurt by the venom sent your way.
You are incredibly rude, smug, and condensending to anyone who disagrees with you.
Not exactly the “christian virtues” you like to champion but oh, so catholic.
Alan, war is conflict, evil vs. evil or evil vs. good. I understand conflict. I understand first principles.
What would *you* do if you saw a man stabbing a child? Mind your own business like a good “pacifist” or protect the child like a man?
Perhaps the real pacifist is the man who protects the child and stops the evil aggressor.
I’m sorry, but the primary function of a military is NOT so you can pay off student loans. I didn’t realize you were in the Netherlands. I don’t know how to say this without sounding arrogant, and I don’t mean it that way, but the historical truth is that the Dutch army was little more than a bump in the road in WWII. If it weren’t for larger armies, namely the US, you would likely be speaking German today.
You are arrogant, and you don’t mind sounding it. And you historically ignorant.
American didn’t declare war on Germany. They joined the war in Europe after Germany declared war on us. Because we had declared war on Japan.
Edward–I’d like to apologize for those of us who aren’t arrogant (fill in the blank).
And Stacy–since you’re such a fan of Bush’s–perhaps you’d like to consider that Bush use the Netherlands, among other countries, as part of the “coalition of the willing” or the camouflage for the illegal and immoral war he waged in Iraq. Which, as we all know, was for oil.
cminca,
I think perhaps you just couldn’t figure out how to respond.
Is that what you want? The Church NOT being separate from the State?
I’d love to hear how you reconcile that? What do you propose? Take money from people and tell them to shut up and obey? That’s tyrannical, you know.
I’m tired of the anti-Catholic bigotry. I’m tired of the whiny women acting like birth control is the only thing in the world that matters. I’m tired of every.single attempt to genuinely have a discussion turning into some hate-fest against Catholics. I don’t go to blogs where I disagree and pick fights with people because that’s childish. Why do you do it?
Your first comment here was extremely rude. If you don’t want people to respond that way, then check yourself. No one made you come here and write what you wrote.
“What would *you* do if you saw a man stabbing a child? Mind your own business like a good “pacifist” or protect the child like a man? ”
Stacy–what would you do when presented with the FACT that the organization you champion has a history of not only abusing children but covering up the CRIME,protecting the CRIMINALS, and LYING about it?
Stacy I think the more important question is what would you do if you saw a child being stabbed? Would you be a man and protect the child?
But I thought you would get the implication in my response that if most saw a child being stabbed they would step in. Yes I would attempt to stop a person stabbing a child. I would also attempt to step in if I saw a person stabbing you. That is a human thing, not man, not woman but decent human.
Are you assuming I am a pacifist because I state that no war started by Bush was to protect ourselves?
I understand that you don’t go to websites you don’t agree with to “pick fights”, but you certainly seem to think that it is acceptable for you to “pick fights” where you see fit. And as you seem to be an intellligent lady I know you understand that when you veer off from your catholic church subjects you will get objections. I think you relish it, because as even those new here can see your intolerance, condescention and rudeness to those who disagree with you.
I have always tried to be polite to you, and yet have not always received the same in return. I still strongly believe I am owed several apologies from you, but it’s your fifedom here so I wont hold my breath. Nor am I particularly disturbed by your lack of grace in this area.
Lately your responses have seemed to be more harsh though. I do hope that everything is ok in your world (and this is sincere whether you choose to believe it or not). I know there are stressers in your life (moving being a big one) so this might account for it.
But rest assured as sick as you are of the world whining against catholics there are some of us who are tired of catholics whining about everything they want. I have no problem with catholics, I have am not bigoted against them. I have said from the start your right to practice your religion (the only right you are actually guaranteed) is not being infringed upon in any way shape or form. You can go to your church, believe in god, teach your children what you want. The only thing infringed upon is your belief that you can discriminate based on those beliefs.
Stacy, I told you I have no problem with actual self defense. And yes, I am familiar with the situation in the Middle East. I used to live there, and what Israel has done is pure evil.
Anyway, as per usual, you didn’t answer my question (if you actually did, point me to it, but I can’t find it). When I do pay taxes, I don’t want to pay for wars that I consider unjust. When you pay taxes, you don’t want to be paying for PP. We have a difference of opinion that isn’t going to be solved by your snark and double standards. How do you propose to account for the differences of opinions regarding how taxes should be spent? If your money going towards PP is a violation of your religious freedom, my future money going towards war is just as much a violation of my conscience. Do we allow individuals to decide where every one of their tax dollars goes? Do we only fund things with zero controversy behind them? Do we only fund things Catholics approve of? What’s your solution?
Alan,
You said, “War is not a child being stabbed.”
It is exactly that. Good people don’t want to go to war. No one hates war more than a good soldier. But — realistic people also know that war is unavoidable because of the fallen nature of man. Protecting a child from an unjust aggressor IS just war against another man. That is the first principle.
Ever heard the adage that nations behave like people?
Evil man: attacks innocent people. So do some nations.
Good man: lives peacefully, but will defend himself and the innocent. So must nations.
War is the result of evil. There are no wars of good vs. good.
If good people do nothing, evil wins every time. A man can’t go out and stop every murder happening, the first priority is the threat to his home and family. But at some point if no good people stop the evil people, the evil comes to your doorstep. That’s bascially, in a nutshell, why peaceful nations go to war.
I’m not an expert on the Middle East conflicts, but the US and other countries do have to step in at some point to stop the unjust aggressors. Just like we learned in WWII, if we sit back and try not to get involved, we only delay the inevitable until a time when the cost is much higher. I understand you have an opinion, but (not to play the *my husband told me so* card again) my husband has a doctoral degree in military science, numerical mechanics, a Purple Heart, Silver Star, and served as a Major in the Special Forces (and he didn’t do it to pay off student loans) – so if you won’t get too frazzled, I think I’ll listen to him instead of some anonymous pesky dude on the internet who doesn’t see the connection between protecting children and protecting a nation of them.
Especially when the commenter would have no problem asking me to pay for a woman to get a doctor to kill her child for her.
On the subject of military. My father in law is also an accomplished career military man, having reached the rank of Major General.
I can echo Stacy’s claim. When you know the real people who run the military, you find that — almost without exception — they hate war more than peaceniks do. I know it sounds incomprehensible to you guys, but it’s penny plain to me.
My father in law always saw himself as being in the business of ending war.
It’s almost surreal for me to hear the depictions of outsiders as to what the military is. It’s like we live in two radically incommensurate worlds.
Michelle,
“I told you I have no problem with actual self defense.”
OK. Why do you say that what Israel did was pure evil? It’s a tangent, don’t go there if you don’t want to, but I’ve got a little time today and I’m sincerely curious why you say that. I don’t think they are evil, I think they are threatened out of existence, which tends to bring out some extreme behavior.
“When I do pay taxes, I don’t want to pay for wars that I consider unjust.”
OK. Me either!
“When you pay taxes, you don’t want to be paying for PP. We have a difference of opinion that isn’t going to be solved by your snark and double standards.”
It won’t be solved by your snark and double standards either.
“How do you propose to account for the differences of opinions regarding how taxes should be spent?”
Justice? Freedom? Let people have a voice, make their case, vote. All the things we do in this country when the opposition doesn’t tell us to be silent. Honest journalism would be good, but we’re too far from that now on both sides. However, I think the internet will correct that in the coming years.
How do you answer your own question?
“If your money going towards PP is a violation of your religious freedom, my future money going towards war is just as much a violation of my conscience.”
I answered that several times already, quoting myself over and over again. You have a right to speak up about how your (future) tax dollars are spent. You were the one (I think) that suggested otherwise by suggesting that the government officials own our taxes.
“Do we allow individuals to decide where every one of their tax dollars goes?”
Read the constitution. Taxation, representation stuff.
“Do we only fund things with zero controversy behind them?”
Only if we really think the only thing in life that matters is happiness all the time.
“Do we only fund things Catholics approve of? What’s your solution?”
Free speech! Honesty at the ballot boxes, fair representation, respect for authentic authority. Michelle, this IS my solution. I speak up, I carefully form opinions, I’m raising my children to be (hopefully) good citizens. There’s no turn-key overnight solutions. But moms like me — we won’t shut up. Got too much skin in the game.
Stacy–
First–let me point out that you responded by name calling–and then calling me childish. Love the hypocracy.
Second–let me point out that if you are tired of anti-catholic bigotry perhaps you catholics should stop being bigots. You see–I don’t have a choice being gay. You have a choice being intolerant.
Third–You’re tired of wemon whining? Well I’m tired of organized religions whining that enforcing equal rights for all is somehow trampling religious liberties. It is against your religion to use birth control or have an abortion? Than don’t. But stop trying to tell the rest of the country to live. You whine about tyranny but you don’t see anything wrong in trying to legislate how the rest of the country should live.
Fourth–If you don’t want people to challenge you than don’t post a web-site. Believe it or not–this isn’t your personal internet.
And finally I’ll point out that you have just gotten back what you sent out into the universe. Times three. Ain’t Karma a bitch?
It is a tangent, and I don’t actually have much time today. But when a group of people comes into a region, claims they own it, and then is surprised and responds with violence when the people already living there don’t like it – to me, that’s evil. This is a pretty good summary (probably not complete, but it seems like a good overview): http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/
Okay, so, to make sure I understand: you don’t actually want to change how anything is done. I assumed that because you felt your religious freedom was being violated that something specific needed to be done to ensure that that doesn’t continue to happen. I’m alright with the system as it is, and hopefully I didn’t imply that we should have no say in what the government does with our taxes! I only meant that your money going to PP is indirect, not you directly donating to them, so (from my perspective) your religious freedom isn’t being violated. It would be being violated if, for instance, someone said you had no right to argue for what you thought taxes should be spent on. As much as I disagree with you on…just about everything, it seems, I am glad that you are willing to take a stance and argue for it. There’s too much apathy and slacktivism going on, and the more people care, the better.
Glad that’s cleared up! No idea what the weather is like out in your part of the country, but if it’s as nice as it is here, go out and enjoy it! (The gay people who are also outside don’t bite!
)
cminca,
Your first comment was offensive. That was your choice, you got back more than you probably wanted and that upsets you. Yes, you are being childish.
Spare me the intolerance of intolerance routine. It’s old. You don’t tolerate others, and if you did, you wouldn’t have arrived on a blog and started with such impropriety. Some days I tolerate that better than others, but I’m not obligated to tolerate hateful comments ever.
My vote counts as much as your vote. You’d vote your conscience, while telling me I shouldn’t. That won’t do, I’ve said 5 times now that every citizen has a right to speak up about how tax dollars are spent. Go for it! God bless you.
That’s what real challenge is.
And I don’t believe in Karma. Good and evil may be opposites, but they are not equal. Evil doesn’t drive away goodness any more than dark drives out the light. Light, does however, in even the tiniest amounts, eradicate the darkness.
Pesky….oh Stacy you have such a way with words. As long as you aren’t being rude.
Yes please listen to your well educated husband over me, I have no issues with that. Just like I will listen to my brilliant scientist husbands opinion over yours on science.
And please stop assuming we don’t know military people ( I have several former airborn ranger cousins as well as my dad and grampaws) because that just shows ignorance on your behalf. Yes most has wars, but you initially intimated that we were directly protecting ourselves in our last wars and that is not true.
And again, no a child being stabbed in not a war. It’s an individual act of aggression. To me it’s not the same. Of course you should do what you can to help.
Still uncertain where you rudeness as of late comes from, but people are not going to not post on your blog just because you don’t want them to. You don’t want us to respond stick to just the. On controversial catholic topics. Or don’t allow us to respond. But your rudeness is becoming amazingly childish. How you going to raise your kids right if this is the example you are setting?
Michelle,
“http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/”
Thanks for the link. Alison Weir seems like a trustworthy person, she writes about media bias and that’s not a hard thing for me to believe.
“Okay, so, to make sure I understand: you don’t actually want to change how anything is done.”
Not constitutionally. I want the constitution to be upheld, like many other people do. I want what is best for the common good.
“I assumed that because you felt your religious freedom was being violated that something specific needed to be done to ensure that that doesn’t continue to happen.”
Defund PP. Also repeal Obamacare. This latest nonsense about college women crying victim because they are having so much sex they can’t afford their own birth control, so the Catholics should buy it for them, is insane. That is a huge violation of religious freedom.
“I’m alright with the system as it is, and hopefully I didn’t imply that we should have no say in what the government does with our taxes! I only meant that your money going to PP is indirect, not you directly donating to them, so (from my perspective) your religious freedom isn’t being violated.”
Knowledge is a powerful thing. If I were ignorant and didn’t try to change it, I’d be culpable on some level for my blindness. If I’m not ignorant and I still do nothing, I’m more culpable.
“It would be being violated if, for instance, someone said you had no right to argue for what you thought taxes should be spent on.”
OK, people on the left say that a lot though.
“slacktivism”
Great word!
“No idea what the weather is like out in your part of the country, but if it’s as nice as it is here, go out and enjoy it! (The gay people who are also outside don’t bite! )”
If you only knew how we really lived. Email me sometime and I’ll let you know what the Trasancos family is actually up to. We have guests quite frequently, maybe someday you’ll come to visit?
Stacy–
I got back more than I wanted? Hardly. All I’ve seen is arrogance, rudeness and intolerance.
And you haven’t addressed one of my points.
I’d specifically like an answer to:
“What would *you* do if you saw a man stabbing a child? Mind your own business like a good “pacifist” or protect the child like a man? ”
Stacy–what would you do when presented with the FACT that the organization you champion has a history of not only abusing children but covering up the CRIME,protecting the CRIMINALS, and LYING about it?”
“Spare me the intolerance of intolerance routine. It’s old.” Wow. Thanks for proving my point.
You say “god bless” and talk about light. You’re ignorant of both.
Alan,
You are pesky. That is a fitting word.
And you must tolerate my appreciation for fitting words.
Thanks!
cminca,
If someone were stabbing a child, I’d protect that child the very best that I could. If my husband were with me, I’d protect my own children and let him do the job since he’s better suited for it than I am. I love that!
Spare me the effort at epiphany on the Catholic Church. Not a single antagonist ever has a discussion with us without tossing out that ill-informed accusation like it’s supposed to be some kind of gotcha moment. The CAPS were a nice touch though.
What I really think, and why I let antagonistic comments stand, is that you come to argue with Catholics because you know the Church guards the Truth. I sure have come to love that, and the more I learn, the more I love. She has an awesome history — the ascendancy of the Catholic Church has been the most liberating event in human history.
Still no response.
You exchanged one dependency for another. Both addle the brain.
Whatever anyone else has told you, yes, you do absolutely have the right to argue for what you believe is right. I can and do disagree with your viewpoints, but freedom of speech is for everyone. If your ability to speak and fight for what you believed was taken away, I’d be the first to fight against that. (And, absolutely agreed on ignorance and culpability, by the way.)
I appreciate the offer! If I’m ever heading out that way, I’ll be sure to let you know. Enjoy your weekend!
“Defund PP. Also repeal Obamacare. This latest nonsense about college women crying victim because they are having so much sex they can’t afford their own birth control, so the Catholics should buy it for them, is insane. That is a huge violation of religious freedom.”
You do realize that that is a complete fabrication by Rush Limbaugh don’t you?
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, what? Citation please. I don’t think Rush is passing any bills.
From Sandra Flukes testimony:
“In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.
“A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
“Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
“When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2
Rush Limbaugh:
he reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke — or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is — the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex, she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, “Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You’d call ‘em a slut, a prostitute or whatever.”
http://emptysuit.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/rush-limbaugh-slut-transcript/
Still laughing Stacy?
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.”
She was also referring to herself, was she not? That she goes on to discuss anecdotally how contraception is not used for contraception as if that’s the only purpose of it, is irrelevant. She wants her pills/devices so she can have sex and she wants tax payers to pay for it.
True or false?
Oh Stacy, thank you for continually teaching me the catholic values. I really do fear for your children (and feel free to tell me I don’t have to but your actions and words here speak volumes as to how you and your amazingly educated husband are raising them.
Your children will earn be to intolerant of others ( but you have said many times tolerance is not a catholic value), t ignore words they don’t agree with the definitions of and that it is ok to attempt to insult and belittle those you think lesser than you. Sad really.
But rest assured you have not offended me (even without the multiple of apologies you owe me) for T the end of the day your opinion me ands nothing to me (as I am sure mine clearly means nothing to you)
I look to find a way to share the world, you look for a way to dominate the world with your thinking. Just plain ignorant. And you hide this behind your alleged god and your intelligence.
Now I am off on vacation, and to keep my mind happy I won’t see your particular brand of ignorance for about a week. But rest assured pesky me will be back to tell moronic you where you are wrong :0)
Well Stacy, since she was talking about insurance, not the cc, the answer to your question would be false. (Just so you can’t deny it–this is what you wrote: “so the Catholics should buy it for them”)
And I’m happy to point out that you are trying to ignoring the fact that is was Rush that tried to make this about “so much sex that you can’t afford insurance”.
So now we know where you get your “facts”. Rush, Fox news, and the heirarchy of the cc. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised…..
Alan, one more swipe at my family and I will ban you from this site. That is your only warning. You’ll have the distinction of being the first, but I am under no obligation to publish your hateful comments against my family and my faith. None whatsoever. I absolutely will not tolerate it.
If you don’t like what I have to say, no one’s forcing you to read it and comment.
Otherwise, enjoy your vacation.
cminca,
Was Miss Fluke referring to herself as a contraception user who has trouble paying for it? Yes or no?
Was she arguing that a Catholic institution should buy it for her, and anyone like her? Yes or no?
I’m getting those facts right from the transcript you linked. Could you please answer the questions?
Stacy
Yes
No–she was not asking for the cc to pay for it. She was asking for the insurance company to pay for it.
And now please answer this question–where does she say she is having so much sex she can’t afford it. Is it possible that she, too, has a medical condition that could be allieviated by taking prescription birth control? Of course it is.
It was Rush who turned this into a sexual orgy.
You laughed and asked for citation. You don’t like the fact that you’ve been exposed as a repeater of trash talk from a right wing bigot.
Tough.
So, 1) she wants to use contraception but she has trouble paying for it and 2) she wants the *insurance* from the Catholic institution to pay for it?
OK — who provides her insurance?
A) She gets it from an independent source with her own money.
B) It is paid for, in part or in full, by the Catholic institution.
A or B?
(And since you make assumptions about what I read, I would like to point out that BuzzFeed is a liberal “the hottest, most social content on the web” forum.)
Well stacy–since she is paying the university she is, ultimately, paying for the insurance herself.
I googled her testimony and the buzzfeed linked popped up. So nice try at branding me but…..swing and a miss.
BTW–you never answered the question. Where did she say she was having so much sex she couldn’t pay for it?
Stacy, I’m not sure how you do it. You have more patience than any person I know.
cminca,
If she’s paying for it herself, then why doesn’t she get it from an independent source who covers contraception?
I didn’t brand you, I just pointed out that the source you linked is quite liberal. Do with that what you will.
Now, the point I believe that was being made by me, regardless of Miss Fluke’s private life, is that college girls want to have sex for recreation and to use birth control to avoid the consequences, but they don’t want to have to pay for it.
Is that correct? I believe that is the issue in general. Did I miss anything?
Justin, if you saw me in person sometimes you probably wouldn’t still think that, but thanks for support.
“Now, the point I believe that was being made by me, regardless of Miss Fluke’s private life, is that college girls want to have sex for recreation and to use birth control to avoid the consequences, but they don’t want to have to pay for it.
Is that correct? I believe that is the issue in general. Did I miss anything?”
No Stacy–this was the point you were making:
“This latest nonsense about college women crying victim because they are having so much sex they can’t afford their own birth control, so the Catholics should buy it for them, is insane. That is a huge violation of religious freedom.”
You, just like the intolerant bigot rush limbaugh, was making the point that Sandra Flukes was some slut.
You can pretend to be thoughtful about it now, but your intolerance and your reliance on trash news sources was, and is, completely transparent.
Is that the issue or not? Do college girls 1) want to have sex for recreation and do they 2) want to use birth control and do they want 3) someone else to pay for it?
Which part am I missing?
I’ve just read thourgh this ‘discussion’ and want to say first, every male member of my family which includes nephews and brother-in-laws have all served in the armed forces – not one was drafted.
Cminca wrote: “what would you do when presented with the FACT that the organization you champion has a history of not only abusing children but covering up the CRIME,protecting the CRIMINALS, and LYING about it?” less than 1% of priest (including those in religious orders) world wide have strayed from their vows, the number of child abusers for Protestant faith beliefs and Mormons and among school teachers, and immediate families (including close friends) is much higher, but you won’t find much on the news about them – their not Catholic so it doesn’t sell. ciminca also wrote: “You see–I don’t have a choice being gay.” – sorry does not fly in the face of science – there is no gay gene. Also remember being gay is not in the light of major Christian religions sinful, only the willful act. Science has linked in cases the lifestyle one chooses to live can relate back to abuse as a child – they think as a child it is normal, and this is what gay organizations and organizations like PPH are pushing not only in the US but throughout the world with the help of the UN.
Church taxes – my parish pays for the upkeep of its parking lots and building maintiance through what people drop in the collection – the city maintains all roads leading to my Church which sits in the middle of a neighborhood – everyone benefits from this upkeep. My parish does not get free water, sewage or garbage pick-up even though it is provided by the city, we have to pay for those services – nothing is free, we even pay for phone and electricty like everyone else – and guess what – there is a tax on everyone of those bills so your argunment that churches do not pay taxes does not fly.
Richard–
The fact is that the cc willfully covered up, moved, shuffled, and tried to hide the abuse. For decades. When you come up with the same examples of criminal facilitation in any other organization-let me know. The fact is that the cc should be prosecuted under RICO statutes. Just like the mob.
““You see–I don’t have a choice being gay.” – sorry does not fly in the face of science – there is no gay gene.”
Correct. Not that we’ve found. There isn’t a gene for being left handed either. Are you going to argue that people aren’t born left handed? Or that they don’t deserve to be married or have the same civil rights?
(It is actually a very interesting comparison. About the same percentage of the population. There are severely left handed people, severely right handed people, and ambidextrous people. As there are gays, straight, and bi-sexual people. You can try and force a left handed person to write with their right hand, and they might, but it has been shown to promote learning disablities. Even the ex-gay proponents now conceed that ex-gay therapy only changes behavior and doesn’t change attraction. And it can lead to depression and subsequently to substance abuse. And, finally, there are biblical censures against both.)
“Science has linked in cases the lifestyle one chooses to live can relate back to abuse as a child – they think as a child it is normal, and this is what gay organizations and organizations like PPH are pushing not only in the US but throughout the world with the help of the UN.” First of all–I was not abused as a child and I take huge issue with the fact that you would claim that. Secondly–please cite any reputable study that supports any of the rest of that bilge.
Does your church pay property or income tax? Yes or no?
Richard–
There is one way you can prove to me that same sex attraction is a choice.
Let me know how it goes.
Is that the issue or not? Do college girls 1) want to have sex for recreation and do they 2) want to use birth control and do they want 3) someone else to pay for it?
Which part am I missing?
The part that you are missing Stacy is this–
1. If insurance is offered it should be comprehensive and the drugs prescribed should be the business of the patient and the doctor only. Not the insurance company and certainly not an employer.
2. The use of contraception is not just for having sex. As Sandra discussed. As I cited. And as you continue to dodge.
3. Whether two consenting adults want to have sex or not is none of your, or the catholic church’s, business.
4. Your screed about Sandra Fluke was intolerant, unfactual, and based on BS from Rush Limbaugh. And, I might add, apparently at odds with your own history.
Anything else I can clear up for you?
cminca – “The fact is that the cc willfully covered up, moved, shuffled, and tried to hide the abuse. For decades. When you come up with the same examples of criminal facilitation in any other organization-let me know.” Not going to do the searching for you, all you have to do is power search for it, which is what I did when in college and had to do a research paper on homosexuality for one of my several sociology courses (it was my minor, major was Theology).
“Does your church pay property or income tax? Yes or no?” Yes, When the property for my church (early 1900′s), school and additional ground (1999) property tax was included in the sale price along with state sales tax, income tax – no was we are like other church’s exempt from the but not our pastor or church/school employees.
left handed gene: “The genetic proposal to explain hand preference states that there are two alleles, or two manifestations of a gene at the same genetic location, that are associated with handedness. One of these alleles is a D gene (for dextral, meaning �right�) and the other allele is a C gene (for �chance�).” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-some-people-t
also I was insinuating that you had been abused, was just stating a fact.”In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.” (this is just one of may sites that share same info:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Sexual_abuse_being_a_contributing_factor_for_homosexuality
Stacy wrote: Do college girls 1) want to have sex for recreation and do they 2) want to use birth control and do they want 3) someone else to pay for it? Which part am I missing?
that is what the topic started out being but it got side tracked along the way. My answer to the questions is ‘yes’ on all counts.
Stacy,
“I didn’t realize you were in the Netherlands. I don’t know how to say this without sounding arrogant, and I don’t mean it that way, but the historical truth is that the Dutch army was little more than a bump in the road in WWII.”
My point exactly, although the main reason why the Dutch army surrendered as quickly as it did in 1940 was because the German airforce bombed Rotterdam, killing thousands of innocent people and threatened to do the same with every major city in the Netherlands.
“If it weren’t for larger armies, namely the US, you would likely be speaking German today.”
Again true. However, if it hadn’t been for the non-violent resistence cells in the Netherlands the Allied Forces would never had the intelligence needed to know how to defeat the German troops in the Netherlands or even how many troops were stationed near cities like Arnhem, a city the Allied Forces needed to take in order to have a clear way to Berlin.
“Don’t churches already pay taxes where you live?”
No, unfortunately religious institutions have the same privileges in the European Union as they do in the US, including tax-exempts and the right to interfere in our lives without allowing the outside world to interfere with the churches.
“what would you do if someone told you to give them your wallet? Hand it over?”
Of course I would. Or do you think I’d risk my life over a debit card, a credit card and some change?
“What would you do if you saw someone stabbing a child on the street? Sprinkle pixie dust and pretend it’s lala-land?”
I most certainly wouldn’t do anything to threaten myself. Not only is it the first rule to emergency medicine to guarantee your own safety first but I would be of very little use in trying to safe that child’s life if I was stabbed myself as well. If the assailant would get away I would at least be able to provide emergency care to the child in question. Seems more important to me than catching the person who did this to the child.
“That was nothing more than a very loud, but very minor tantrum from a bunch of people that would probably be mortally offended by a stop sign.”
Right. So please explain why, for a short time, your blog was the most discussed Catholic blog in the US and Europe? And most of the things sais weren’t in your favour, I might add.
“I’m tired of the whiny women acting like birth control is the only thing in the world that matters.”
You keep rattling that cage yourself. I don’t understand by now you still don’t realize for a lot of women birth control IS one of the few things that matter. You’re an intelligent woman so by now you should realize women (and every other group that once was suppressed) will never stop to either demand the right to live their lives the way they see fit or defend the rights they have. You say you’re tired of hatred against Catholics. What do you think will happen if Catholics prove to be succesful in making abortion illegal again?
“Evil man: attacks innocent people. So do some nations.
Good man: lives peacefully, but will defend himself and the innocent. So must nations.”
Hmm, somehow I don’t think that’s what Christ meant in Matthew 5:38-41.
“Let people have a voice, make their case, vote.”
The people did and this led to abortion being legal, just like same sex marriage. You can keep trying to fight it but it’s easier to defeat windmills. Maybe you (and the Catholic church as a whole) should take your losses and move on.
“But moms like me — we won’t shut up.”
Trouble is, moms like you are being tuned out after a while. And in a time and society where “15 minutes of fame” have been reduced to little more than 15 seconds people lose interest faster than ever. The main reason why I returned to your blog was because I found it while cleaning “My favourites” where I had stored it after last years controversy. But both your blogs as your comments are nothing like those of last year. In stead of spicy the tone is now sour. In stead of subtle blogs that make a person think they are now loud and just a repetition of earlier successes.
“I want the constitution to be upheld, like many other people do.”
That’s not your job. That’s up to the United States Supreme Court. And the United States Supreme Court has ruled abortion to be legal and the federal government in it’s right to spend tax dollars funding abortion clinics, birth control pills and family planning clinics.
“If someone were stabbing a child, I’d protect that child the very best that I could.”
Than start doing so for children within Catholic institutions. The Lord knows they need it.
“She has an awesome history — the ascendancy of the Catholic Church has been the most liberating event in human history.”
She has a history, alright, although “awesome” wouldn’t be the word I’d chose. “Bloody” comes to mind, as does “dirty”, both in the distant and recent past.
“Now, the point I believe that was being made by me is that college girls want to have sex for recreation and to use birth control to avoid the consequences, but they don’t want to have to pay for it”
Maybe that has something to do with the AMA,following the WHO, stating birth control in any way, just like protection against STD’s, falls under basic medical care and should be paid by health care insurance or by Medicare.
So, one way or the other, any woman who wants any type of birth control should be compensated, either by her insurance company or by the (federal) government.
Richard,
“less than 1% of priest (including those in religious orders) world wide have strayed from their vows”
According to European investigations that percentage is much higher, between 10 to 15% and all of the priests who have violated their vows have done so repeatedly with multiple victims.
“there is no gay gene.”
True, but there is a gay anatomy. When examining the brains of gay men post-mortem Prof. Dr. Dick Swaab from the Netherlands Institute of Brain Research (nowadays called the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience) found the fundamental elements of those brains resembled those of straight women while the brains of gay women resembled those of sttraight men. And since these parts of the brain don’t change after birth he proved people are being born gay or straight and choice has absolutely nothing to do with it.
“Science has linked in cases the lifestyle one chooses to live can relate back to abuse as a child”
Which has been disproven by the American Psychiatric Association in the late 1970′s. If you want to make statement, please keep your knowledge up to date.
“your argunment that churches do not pay taxes does not fly”
Really? How much does your church pay on property taxes on the land that parking lot lies on or on the church building? Or the land it was built on? How much taxes does the local clergy pay on the salary they receive from the diocese? How much money does your church have in reserve in the bank and how much taxes are being paid over that ammount?
Richard
“Not going to do the searching for you, all you have to do is power search for it, which is what I did when in college and had to do a research paper on homosexuality for one of my several sociology courses (it was my minor, major was Theology).’
In other words you’ve got nothing but the theological bias of your hypothesis.
“Does your church pay property or income tax? Yes or no?” Yes, When the property for my church (early 1900′s), school and additional ground (1999) property tax was included in the sale price along with state sales tax, income tax – no was we are like other church’s exempt from the but not our pastor or church/school employees”
In other words they paid sales tax and you can’t write a grammatically clear sentence.
“left handed gene: “The genetic proposal to explain hand preference states that there are two alleles, or two manifestations of a gene at the same genetic location, that are associated with handedness. One of these alleles is a D gene (for dextral, meaning �right�) and the other allele is a C gene (for �chance�).””
The first sentence of you citation makes it clear that they have NOT found the gene that creates left handedness, but that they have a theory. Hmmm. Just like being gay.
As for your citation about abuse:
“Gender role nonconformity and gay or bisexual identity may precede abuse. For example, males exploring their sexual identity may do so in venues, such as public sex environments, where abuse may happen more frequently.”
Then we get to Dr. Satinover–”Satinover argues that homosexuality involves compulsive but innate impulses and that it may be considered a soul sickness, in the spiritual sense. He also argues that “gay activism distorts the truth and harms not only society, but homosexuals themselves,” and ultimately takes the position that there is no such thing as sexual orientation. This position has become a pervasive theme in ex-gay circles.[7] A significant portion of the book discusses human sexuality from a Biblical perspective. He states that “[i]n the end, the debate over homosexual behavior and its implications for public policy can only be decided on moral grounds, and moral grounds will ultimately mean religious grounds.
So I’ve yet to see that “reputable” science.
So–if you want to prove that being gay is a choice all you have to do is to ind a consenting partner, engage in gay sex, and enjoy it.
I’ll be waiting for your report.
Richard,
“was just stating a fact.”In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.” ”
Do you know why that is? Because somehow there are still people who believe in corrective rape. By raping gay boys and young men they hope to create a negative feedback and by raping gay women they hope to show them what they are missing.
Furthermore, I’d be interested in the research population they perfomred this research in and the timeframe. The statement “nonclinical adults” suggests it was done in a psychiatric facility and it’s pretty normal to find more victims of sexual violence there. Since homosexuality was still considered a mental illness until 1977 a study done before that date would generate a higher percentage gay men and women in psychiatric facilities but in this case we don’t even know the number of gay men and women in this research population. If there were only 10 gay men and women among the 942 participants the outcome would not be considered to represent a true measurement.
If this was an American study it has to predate 1982 because that was the year the APA banned all research between psychiatric illnesses and sexuality. And if it is an American study from later than 1982 the study was conducted illegally, discrediting the outcomes even more. Either way, I wouldn’t use this kind of numbers in a discussion if I were you. Makes you look kinda dumb.
Edward–
We’d love to see in in San Francisco sometime!
(That’s right Stacy–I live in the Sodom of the West. Where we actually live “land of the free”, not just talk about it.)
Off topic, but one of my favorite SF earthquake ditty’s is about a distillary that miraculously survived even though the entire neighborhood burned down around it:
If, as they say,
God spanked the town
For being over frisky
Then why’d he burn
The churches down
But save Hotaling’s whiskey?
LOL
Stacy-
Your blog was at some, point the most discussed Cathloic blog in the U.S. and Europe?
Impressive!
Keep up the good work and never let the trolls get you down ( however, if they go after your family, boot em . They lose the right to engage).
“Your blog was at some, point the most discussed Cathloic blog in the U.S. and Europe?”
Unfortunately Stacy’s blog never reached the quality it had after that.
Edward, I’ll get back to you when I have a chance. A couple of you here just seem to have perennially hurt feelings, overly sensitive. It makes it difficult to discuss because you seem to think you are entitled to hurl any sort of insult, but any bit of the tiniest criticism in return crumbles you.
I’m taking a break for a while this weekend, got other stuff to do.
Veritas Mater, Haha! No, not really. It went mini-viral on three continents, but only within certain very minor communities who think they are the whole world. I got an email from someone in France telling me I was the most hated woman in Europe, LOL! And several wishing death to me and my children from the people who preach tolerance.
Have a good weekend everyone, back soon!
In the meantime, check out our Catholic Education symposium at Ignitum Today and Sr. Patricia’s satire piece for the weekend.
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2012/03/17/the-twelve-fruits-of-catholic-education/
“Tolerance – teach the students to respect other beliefs and customs. Never put up with someone who’s intolerant, though. Gently remind them that being intolerant won’t be tolerated.”
Hey, Edward. You said this:
“When examining the brains of gay men post-mortem Prof. Dr. Dick Swaab…found the fundamental elements of those brains resembled those of straight women while the brains of gay women resembled those of sttraight men.”
I’m actually writing a paper somewhat related to this topic right now, and haven’t seen that paper (I did see one showing that transgender men have brains that look more like those of straight men than women, I believe) – would you be able to get me a citation for the paper that has the findings you mention? This isn’t a challenge, I’ve just seen lots of really helpful articles by Swaab and have either missed/haven’t found this one. Thanks!
Hi Michelle,
I take it you searched Pubmed?
There are several papers by Dick Swaab referring to these findings. The most important being:
Horm Res. 1992;38 Suppl 2:51-61. Review.
Brain Res. 1990 Dec 24;537(1-2):141-8.
And I think this is the original paper I was referring to but it’s been a long time since I was involved in this research topic:
Exp Clin Endocrinol. 1991;98(2):161-70.
Hope this is helpfull. Also, Prof. Dr. Swaab can always be reached by email. You can find his emailaddress on the website if the NIN and the AMC in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Thanks, Edward! I did search PubMed – turns out my school just doesn’t have online access to these papers. I’ll have to check our print holdings or email Dr. Swaab. Thank you!
Interesting discussion. When I was in college, girls (including me) used birth control to facilitate casual sex. Is Cminca trying to argue that college girls today, in the height of the hook-up culture, are using birth control primarily because of polycystic ovaries and endometriosis? And is he doing it with a straight face? Because even Obama and Sebelius have said that it’s a “reproductive rights” issue, with Sebelius specifically stating that fewer pregnancies/children will result in lower health care costs. So, what gives, Cminca?
Also, Cminca, I understand that you believe that gay people are born that way and cannot help their own actions (see, I would separate feelings from actions, but I think you believe sexual feelings must be acted on). So, what do you say in response to the pedophiles who say that they, also, were born that way? I’m not being snarky, I’m seriously asking. No one has given me an answer, in years, other than to dismiss the question or talk incessantly about “consent” (as if consent has anything to do with what we are “born with”, or as if consent is the sole criterion of the good). Thanks!
Oh man, can’t believe I’m jumping back into the discussion, but here we go!
Leila, I had meant to ask you at some point what you thought of the use of birth control for conditions like endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, and polycystic ovaries. Setting aside their use as contraceptives (since we both know where we stand on that), do you think Catholic institutions should be required to cover the standard treatments for those conditions, even if that treatment happens to be birth control? If not, why?
As for pedophiles, I do think consent is the relevant issue at hand. I’m not sure if they’re born that way – I assume there is at least some neurological component to it, but I haven’t researched it at all – but the relevant issue is whether their actions are harmful. The paper I mentioned I was writing above actually discusses acceptance of homosexuality based on the belief that it is inborn or chosen. From what I’ve read, acceptance is positively correlated with the belief that it is inborn. But to me, it doesn’t really matter if a preference is inborn or chosen – if acting on that preference is harmful, that is what matters. I don’t care if pedophilia or homosexuality is inborn, because regardless, sexual relations with children would be wrong and sexual relations with a (consenting, adult) member of the same sex wouldn’t be wrong. Proponents of pro-LGBT legislation do sometimes use the “born that way” idea in an effort to win favor, but I don’t find it that compelling, and wouldn’t find it compelling for pedophilia either. Hope that makes sense!
Michelle, I agree that the “born that way” issue is irrelevant and that is why the argument, to me, is silly. Who cares if someone is born with a particular attraction or disorder? We all are “born with” proclivities that we fight against. The question is whether or not to act on them. So, for alcoholism or pedophilia, we would say NO, don’t act on them, even if you were “born that way”. I would include any type of disordered sexual attraction, including homosexuality. You would say that homosexuality is fine.
But at least we both can agree that the “born that way” argument is not valid in determining what makes an act moral.
Yes, it is licit to use the Pill for true pathologies, and to treat disorders. I would argue that there are always better treatments than the Pill, but certainly those treatments are licit for treatment of something that is actually a medical illness or disorder. Fertility, of course, is health, and is in no way a disorder or illness that requires treatment. Fertility is health.
Do you think most college coeds use the Pill for legitimate medical reasons?
Great to “see” you again!
Sorry, I will add that I am under the weather and my posts may be a bit incoherent. Wanted to mention that the Pill does not so much “treat” endo and PCOS, etc., as it does simply mask the symptoms (leaving the underlying problem untreated). So, it’s not really good medicine, in my opinion, even for those conditions.
Leila,
“And is he doing it with a straight face?”
Yes, he appears to be doing exactly that, while shocked that I’m referring to contraception as primarily something that is used to prevent conception.
And as for “born that way,” I don’t see how people can dismiss the wealth of evidence that tells us that the external environment has a tremendous impact on children as they are being raised in favor of some needle in the haystack like a “gay gene.” You are talking about “fundamental element” but do you even know what that would be?
It seems more likely that sexual orientation develops over time
in response to life events, just like so many other things do.
Plus, we know that homosexual orientation can change. There are statistics that say about half the homosexual population naturally moves towards heterosexuality, the population only being about 2.5% anyway (as opposed to the 10% usually touted by promoters).
See the intro of this book. I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but it’s on my list. http://www.mygenes.co.nz/
He makes a good point about how silly it is to expect to find a single gene responsible for homosexuality, like trying to find a hair in a cable knit sweater that is responsible for how the whole sweater behaves.
Michelle,
What you wrote makes sense to me, except for the part about “harmful.” How would you determine that? One could easily argue (I wouldn’t) that pedophilia is not harmful. There have to be axioms or metrics to lay a foundation to test on, and with a question like that, there can’t be. It could easily, if “harmfulness” is the criteria, be different attitudes about what is harmful and what is not in different cultures. It’s too subjective it seems.
Stacy, exactly! The idea of what is “harmful” changes from person to person. I have a very different idea of what is harmful than Michelle does, on any number of issues.
Wow, lots of things are being discussed in the comment line. Amen to Richard’s and Leila’s comments. Additions: yes, they have found a left-handed gene:http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v8/n9/full/nrg2194.html – at least, back in 2007, it was a predisposition towards one (but they can name it).
As a biologist, still no “gay” gene. And, I know this is a hard one for some people to understand, but the Church teaches love for the person – not for the sin. So, just as we ask “heterosexual” singles to remain chaste – same goes for “homosexual”. Yes, we believe that marriage is a sacrament between the union of one man and one woman (I’m not going to cite all of my sources there – just stating one of our sacraments). To do anything else would be a sin – distancing yourself from God.
As for the pill being paid for by insurance – when my daughter truly needed the hormonal therapy for cysts (not “birth control”) all she needed for the Catholic institution was evidence from her physician of her needs – kind of a moot point in that whole argument in my mind made by Ms. Fluke.
Also, as for remarks accusing the Catholic church of not allowing evolution to be taught in schools, no, that would be the fundamental churches. This is from JP II himself: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm (I’m also a high school teacher). And, I hate to say it – but many school organizations have hidden the transgressions of teachers in the past – it is only in recent years (as rape victims have no longer been labelled as “asking for it”) that you see more and more things coming to light but the “Good ol’boy” network does still exist where men will still hide their infidelities from the wives out of loyalty to their buddies. (I’m sick of the “mistress” and “strip club” mentality – you’re not a good man if you are participating or not telling your married best friend that he’s wrong).
Also, abortion is flat out murder – if you don’t believe me, then when you finally carry that baby to term – you tell me that you didn’t want to check out how healthy the baby was, what sex the baby was, and if you shared the “first photo” of the baby in the womb? So, yes, not happy with Planned Parenthood and their promotion of abortion (murder in the first degree because it is the planned termination of life).
And, God Bless our military – how do you think we even have a country? Oh, and, as for Israel? Blame us – after WWII – several of us countries got together and decided that the mass extinction that Hitler and his cronies had enacted upon the Jews was so horrific that they deserved a Home-land to return to live in safety so that they would never experience such a thing again!
God bless you Stacy – and your family!
I LOVE YOU, Catholic Grammie. Thank you for ALL of that.
Forgot to mention, I’m not coming at this from a ‘theological’ point of view but a sociological point of view – theology view is that homosexuality is not a sin – only the act – if you have a Bible you can look it up, it is in both the Old and New Testaments, but homosexuality is a social issue, especially when activest for it try to force it down the throats of others as the new norm. If we object to what others are pushing, just like the mandate for free contraceptives – which is now also being mandated for schools,”Obama admin widens abortifacient birth control mandate to college students” (3-16-2012) “Obama administration announced a proposal that would require universities, including religious universities, to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to their students, as well as their employees, without a co-pay (for free).” “Covering birth control with no co-pays means college students will not have to choose between paying for tuition and books, or paying for basic health care like birth control.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-obama-admin-widens-abortifacient-birth-control-mandate-to-college
As for Sandra Fluke – she is not a 23 year old college student, but is 30 years old and she graduated from college in 2003 (Cornell) and expected to grad from GTown this year.
Leila–
The only thing I’m trying to get though the fog of Stacy’s intolerance and rudeness is that is none of her, or your, or the cc’s business. I might as well be yelling at paint to dry.
Stacy–thank you for posting the link.
http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2012/03/17/the-twelve-fruits-of-catholic-education/
I’d suggest you read my remark to the sister. I’d suggest you go back and read your original screed against gays and substitute “catholic” for “gay” and see exactly how intolerant it was. And then I’d suggest you read your remarks to anyone who disagree’s with you and compare them against the sister’s list of virtues.
(Actually, I can save you some time. You display none of them.)
You are living in a world of medieval voodoo that, thankfully, seems to be dying in the western world. Your children and grandchildren will be embarassed by your ugliness.
Don’t bother blocking me. You are a seriously ugly human being with a seriously ugly outlook on humanity. Let me warn you. You best be prepared when, at the pearly gates, you’re faced with the question “who the hell were you to so despise my children?”
cminca,
It was totally lost on you that Sr. Patricia is fictional, and the piece was satire. Haha!
This might have tipped you off:
“But when it comes to revitalizing Catholic education, I propose we allow the Holy Spirit to transmogrify those fruits into a new newness of newnessness.”
I’m not blocking you just yet. I want to see if you can offer some explanation about why it is that you can speak this way to me, knowing it won’t change a single thing about my life, yet if I were to even hint that some of your views might be disordered, you’d shrivel in disgust.
Can you explain that?
Good to “see” you again too, and in such unusually agreeable circumstances!
I’m not too well-versed on the treatments for those conditions and their alternatives, but I am glad that Catholics aren’t indiscriminate when it comes to condemning the Pill. And, no, without a doubt, most use of birth control is for birth control. I didn’t follow the HHS contraception debate too closely, but I did just want to be sure that the Pill would still be covered at the very least for those who truly needed it.
And yes, the “born this way” argument can be intriguing on the surface, but for me, it was more the realization that I wouldn’t find homosexuality any less okay if every single gay person chose homosexuality over heterosexuality (which of course isn’t the case, but just a thought experiment). Kind of interesting that we can come to the same conclusion from opposite ends of the argument!
I love you, too, Stacy. Keep up the good fight. Put on the breastplate of St. Patrick. P.S. Leila sent me! Praying the prayer of St. Michael for you!
The note to Edward on taxes paid by church and pastor and references to articles on gay genes has disappeared, maybe I hit the wrong button, but I did respond to those posts.
Leila,
“So, what do you say in response to the pedophiles who say that they, also, were born that way? I’m not being snarky,”
Yes, you are since every blog gets the same question from conservatives and religious opponents of gay rights. So, for the umpth time, gay men and women harm no one when having consensual sex with someone of the same sex while pedophiles always harm children by having sex with them, consensual or not.
Furthermore, while decent scientific research has shown gays ARE born that way research never found a shred of evidence the same goes for pedophiles. So the simple statement pedophiles make about being born a pedophile just as gays are been born gay doesn’t make it true.
And yes, sexual urges must be acted on. Mammals, like humans, have no long term self control and denying yourself sexual release is nothing but a recipe for disaster. The best argument is the Catholic church itself. If one thing can be concluded from the sexual abuse situation in Catholic institutions it is that celibacy is unnatural, unwanted and impossible.
“Do you think most college coeds use the Pill for legitimate medical reasons?”
Sorry, but that’s no one’s business except the coed and their doctor. If my government would decide birth control pills would only be funded for “true pathologies” all my female patients requesting birth control pills would instantly have a “true pathology” in their file and statistics be damned.
Tracy,
“I don’t see how people can dismiss the wealth of evidence that tells us that the external environment has a tremendous impact on children as they are being raised ”
That’s quite simple, actually. Any and all “evidence” you refer to is coming from either conservative / religious groups, is being funded by conservative / religious groups or is published in in less than trustworthy scientific magazines which are mostly owned by conservative or religious groups. If the evidence used is generated by the ones who experience the most benefit from the evidence to begin with it already is discredited. If the so called evidence is in contradiction with the findings of main stream scientists and studies published in highly regarded magazines and performed by experienced and recognized scientists it will lose ever more of it’s credibility. The “evidence” you are refering to belongs to both categories.
Catholic Grammie,
“we believe that marriage is a sacrament between the union of one man and one woman”
The keyword here is “believe”. The fact you believe something doesn’t make it true, doesn’t turn it into law and doesn’t mean you have the right to force it onto others. But this is exactly what Christians in general are trying to do for centuries already. And now all the non-Christians are done with that and are pushing back so all of a sudden Christians all over the world are experiencing they are not the powerful majority they thought they were.
A good illustration is Brasil. When the Brasilian government decided to let the people vote on gay rights and same sex marriage the conservative factions thought they were save. After all, pretty much all people in Brasil were strict Catholics, right? So they were more than a little shocked when 68% of the country voted in favour of gay rights and 53% voted in favour of same sex marriage. In the large cities like Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro more the 90% of the people voted in favour of gay rights and same sex marriage while less than 2% voted against those issues. The answer most heard when asked why people were in favour of gay rights and same sex marriage was: “Why wouldn’t I be? The Church has no power over me”.
Cminca,
Way to completely dodge my very pointed questions.
But I do hope you answer Stacy’s last question to you.
We are discussing ideas here, not condemning individual souls. You should know that such discourse exists. Thinkers discuss ideas all the time, and don’t make it personal. If you ever do decide to answer my questions, I would would show that you care about the exchange of ideas and are not a close-minded anti-Catholic bigot.
Blessings!
Michelle, our agreement reminds me of this post I wrote:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-devout-secularists-and-devout.html
And recently, I heard a pro-abort (truly, a self-proclaimed “lover of abortion”), who also makes perfect sense, but from the opposite side. Everything she says is logical (of course, I would say it is all chillingly evil as well). You may have seen it:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/14/choice-words-about-abortion-0
Do you think she is wrong? I can’t find a flaw in her argument. I am grateful for her clarity! She has pushed all the way to the end of her position, to the logical conclusions.
Great to know you are still out there and hopefully doing well!
Blessings!
Hello, Edward!
You said:
“…gay men and women harm no one when having consensual sex with someone of the same sex while pedophiles always harm children by having sex with them, consensual or not.”
Well, I disagree with you on the first part, and many proponents of children’s sexuality disagree with you on the second part. So, what now? Are you right because… you’re right? Because pedophiles think they are right, and I think I am right, etc. You realize this is no answer at all, don’t you?
As we’ve said before, everyone has different ideas of what is “harmful” and what isn’t.
Basically, all you have given is your opinion. Even Planned Parenthood International is more “open-minded” than you about children’s sex lives:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/09/normalizing-pedophilia-next-stop-on.html
Do you disagree with Planned Parenthood?
To continue, Edward, you said:
“So the simple statement pedophiles make about being born a pedophile just as gays are been born gay doesn’t make it true.”
Exactly right! Just saying that stuff does not make it true.
Then you said:
“And yes, sexual urges must be acted on. Mammals, like humans, have no long term self control and denying yourself sexual release is nothing but a recipe for disaster.”
So, my very healthy, well-adjusted and happy daughter (chaste) and my awesome pre-med son (chaste), and all the absolutely amazing young and pure people that I know are lying? I don’t really know wonderful, holy, chaste people? And, these joyful, amazing folks who are not being used and using others (or having sex with their hands) are headed for disaster? They really have NO self-control? Who told you that or taught you such a thing? It actually breaks my heart that an adult could go through life and not know of any innocence and purity among those he associates with. We must know very different people.
And, if humans MUST act on their sexual urges, then who are you or anyone to say that any sexual act must be suppressed? Maybe if the necrophiliac does not get his fill, he will be headed for “disaster”! Or, maybe the man who had sex with the back end of a truck hitch (whom my policeman friend arrested in the parking lot of a restaurant while his unsuspecting family sat eating inside) should have been free to act on his “urges”. Who are we to say he’s wrong? And man, that guy down the street is awfully cute. I think I need to sneak out tonight and leave my husband and children so that I can go scratch my itch! It’s an urge, after all…. And I am nothing but an animal who can’t control myself.
You also said:
“The best argument is the Catholic church itself. If one thing can be concluded from the sexual abuse situation in Catholic institutions it is that celibacy is unnatural, unwanted and impossible.”
Because if you, Edward, say that celibacy is impossible (despite the lived experience of millions upon millions over the millennia, including many priests and nuns I know personally), then it must be true.
But please clarify: This is true for Buddhist monks as well, right? They are disasters, correct? It’s “impossible” for them to be celibate, correct? They live unnatural lives of horror, and the Buddhists are also “the best argument” as well, right? I really want an answer to that. Or, are you simply anti-Catholic in your bigotry and not anti-Buddhist?
Edward, I am sad that you do not associate with anyone who has sexual self-control. I can’t imagine it. I am sorry. And I mean that sincerely.
Edward:
I asked this question:
“Do you think most college coeds use the Pill for legitimate medical reasons?”
You answered:
“Sorry, but that’s no one’s business except the coed and their doctor.”
But no one’s privacy is being violated in this question, so that’s an odd dodge!
Interestingly, Michelle (an atheist pro-”choice” college student) was able to answer the question easily:
“And, no, without a doubt, most use of birth control is for birth control.”
That is such an obvious answer that I wonder, Edward, what made you feel you had to evade it?
“The Church has no power over me.”
One last thought, Edward. The Church has no power over a human being’s free will, this is true. Free will is a sacred gift that God gives every person. I can use my free will to choose good or to choose evil. So in that sense, you are exactly right. No one has to choose good. The whole world could choose sin and darkness as if they are choosing candy canes and lemon drops. But in the end, they are violating their own human dignity and risking their own soul.
The Church cannot force anyone to choose good over evil. The Church proposes, not imposes. So to that extent, your statement is correct.
Blessings!
Edward,
“Any and all “evidence” you refer to is coming from either conservative / religious groups, is being funded by conservative / religious groups or is published in in less than trustworthy scientific magazines which are mostly owned by conservative or religious groups.”
Actually ALL the evidence in support of the “gay gene” comes from people who support the “gay rights” movement. The book I linked was not from a religious organization either.
I hope you address Leila’s questions.
Oh no, abortion again?! Alright, I’ll answer briefly, then I have a question for you.
I’m not sure I agree with her entirely. While I am pro-choice and agree that abortion isn’t unethical, it is controversial, can be painful/risky, and can result in regret for some. So while I think I agree with her overall premise – that abortion shouldn’t be stigmatized to the degree that it currently is – I don’t think it’s something I’d attach the word “love” to. Like all medical procedures, I assume, it’s something you don’t want to have and do your best to avoid, though you appreciate the fact that it exists as a last-resort option if you really can’t/don’t want to carry to term. I get where she’s coming from and agree with the idea, but I don’t think “loving” abortion quite captures the complexity of the procedure and its potential effects. Hopefully that answers your question to your satisfaction!
Question for you, then – if abortion becomes illegal, and if a fetus is equivalent to an autonomous person, what would be the consequence for the pregnant woman who seeks out an abortion?
(Sorry, Stacy, hopefully this isn’t derailing the conversation too much!)
Michelle,
I don’t mind at all if good conversations ensue. I think you answered that question well about “love.” It could never be the right word. I used to feel like you describe, but I think having children did a lot to change my mind. Seeing their ultrasounds really brought it home that that is a baby, a living human worthy of love and life. I realize you don’t hold your views because you just hate little babies, and you care about women. I’ve just come to understand that the best thing for women is to love their babies, even when it seems like it will make life hard.
Regarding your question about abortion becoming illegal, I’ve answered that before and the law wouldn’t absolutely stop women from doing that, but it would remove the idea that it is a real option. I’d love to see people reject abortion, rally to help women who are truly in need, and to teach young people to be accountable for their actions, to hold themselves in dignity and to practice self-control in anticipation of happy and successful marriages.
Just chiming in…
Michelle, so you think she’s illogical only because there are some medical risks to the mom? But I thought that it’s safer to have an abortion than to give birth (according to pro-”choicers”)? If so, that part (worry about safety) is negated, it seems to me. The regret issues is interesting, of course. I have seen women who are so devastated by the fact that they killed their own child that they have become anorexic and suicidal. I have known women who can barely speak of it to this day, years later. By contrast, I have never seen anyone become suicidal (or form support groups, or get counseling) because of a successful apendectomy.
Also, you say “last resort” but is that how abortion is done here in America? 54 million tiny human corpses since Roe. I am not sure “last resort” holds. (Of course you know even then I believe that killing any innocent human being is wrong, but I’m just questioning how you feel about the fact that there is no “last resort” mentality in what this woman is saying, nor to the practice of abortion in America. And, why should it be a “last resort” if it’s safer than childbirth? That is, assuming you believe it is safer than childbirth; I don’t mean to put words in your mouth.)
As for the law, it would be the abortionist who is prosecuted. I believe women are victims of abortion (and the lies of the industry). The abortionist is no victim.
Hope that makes sense.
Edward, one more thought. You said this:
“The best argument is the Catholic church itself. If one thing can be concluded from the sexual abuse situation in Catholic institutions it is that celibacy is unnatural, unwanted and impossible.”
I assume you are speaking of the priest scandal (where over 80% of the sexual contact was male on male, with the average victim being an adolescent. In other words, pederasty, not pedophilia).
If you are talking about the priest scandal, then please tell me more about how you come to your conclusion. Most adults who abuse children do so in families (a father, an uncle, a grandparent). By far the family is the most dangerous institution if we are talking child sex abuse. There is no “celibacy” issue in a family, so what gives? Also, what gives that most pedophiles are married, and not celibate? Please explain.
Also, as you can see by this in depth AP article, sexual abuse of children in the public school system (and subsequent cover ups) is about 100 times more prevalent than in the priesthood:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html
There is no celibacy issue in the public school scandals. So, again, what gives?
Also, priests offend at the same (low) rates as other religious clergy (non-celibate), so how do you continue to say that celibacy proves the case?
Thanks, and I am really interested in your logical responses, addressing the questions and points I’ve specifically raised.
Edward, your points are very common from the Left, so I wonder if you would mind if I used them in a post on my blog (where I will attempt a rebuttal)? Thanks! It won’t be till after Lent (given up political blogging and debates with the Left, until then).
Leila,
“I disagree with you on the first part, and many proponents of children’s sexuality disagree with you on the second part.”
Truth be told, I don’t really care whether or not you agree with me. Science is very clear on the matter, society is very clear on the matter and the law is very clear on this matter. So I won’t losr any sleep over the fact a group of religious people doesn’t see it the way it is. Maybe if religion will be joining the rest of the world in the 21st century I might start to care but I wouldn’t hold my breath for that if I were you.
“my very healthy, well-adjusted and happy daughter (chaste) and my awesome pre-med son (chaste), and all the absolutely amazing young and pure people that I know are lying?”
And what proof do you have they are, indeed, chaste? Nothing more than their word and I wouldn’t take that at face value, no.
“I don’t really know wonderful, holy, chaste people?”
No, I don’t think you do.
“Who told you that or taught you such a thing?”
One of the first things we learn in medical school when dealing with sexuality. Your son will be able to tell you some very nice stories before long. Do you know what the first lesson about sexuality in medical school is? “People lie. Don’t take anyting any patient says for granted when dealing with sexuality because each and every one of them will withhold information”. And you know what? In my years as an MD I found that statement to be absolutely correct.
“Who are we to say he’s wrong?”
I would say you’re finally getting it but the entire tone of the rest of your comment says differently.
“Because if you, Edward, say that celibacy is impossible (despite the lived experience of millions upon millions over the millennia, including many priests and nuns I know personally), then it must be true.”
It’s not something I said, to be honest. It’s the end conclusion of a research group assembled by the European Committee in order to investigate the underlying problem for the sexual abuse cases within the Catholic church. Their conclusion was that, without the demand of being celibate by the Catholic church the chances of long term sexual abuse would have been limited and possibly eradicated completely.
“But please clarify: This is true for Buddhist monks as well, right? They are disasters, correct? It’s “impossible” for them to be celibate, correct? They live unnatural lives of horror, and the Buddhists are also “the best argument” as well, right? I really want an answer to that.”
Truth is I don’t know that much about Buddhist monks but if they are also forced to live a celibate life I would day the same would be true for them as well, yes.
“Or, are you simply anti-Catholic in your bigotry and not anti-Buddhist?”
I’m opposed to any religion that holds back humanity and prevents individuals to live to their full potential.
“I asked this question:
“Do you think most college coeds use the Pill for legitimate medical reasons?”
You answered:
“Sorry, but that’s no one’s business except the coed and their doctor.”
But no one’s privacy is being violated in this question, so that’s an odd dodge!
Interestingly, Michelle (an atheist pro-”choice” college student) was able to answer the question easily:
“And, no, without a doubt, most use of birth control is for birth control.”
That is such an obvious answer that I wonder, Edward, what made you feel you had to evade it?”
Oh, that’s simple and I thought you might have understood that already: my training as a medical professional. Anything and everything a patient wishes to discuss with me will remain part of my doctor-patient confidentionality. It has nothing to do with privacy. It’s about the oath I took when I received my titles.
“The whole world could choose sin and darkness as if they are choosing candy canes and lemon drops.”
Well, there is also the important question about what, in fact, is sin and darkness. And, like I tried to make clear, an increasing number of people all over the world no longer take the answers to that question coming from the Catholic church to be true. Something that came as a complete suprise to the Catholics in Brasil.
Tracy,
“Actually ALL the evidence in support of the “gay gene” comes from people who support the “gay rights” movement.”
I know there is no gay gene and chances are slim it will ever be found now the HuGo project hasn’t found it. However, the scientists linked to the HuGo project did suggest a mechanism of several gene clusters working together in order to determine someone’s sexuality.
“The book I linked was not from a religious organization either.”
If my memory serves me right I didn’t limit my comment to religious groups, right? I remember me saying something about conservative groups as well?
Leila,
I’m not going to quote from your comment since your entire comment is based on one assumption: that the world now knows the extent of sexual abuse by the clergy. One of the other conclusions from the research committee was they had not been given free access to all Catholic archives from all orders. Furthermore, a lot of the documents they received were incomplete or edited. The committee concluded the only reason to do so was the protect certain people and to keep certain information from the committee. In their presentation of the final report the committee stated it was their firm believe the cases they were able to investigate consisted of less than 1% of the actual number of cases. The committee did, however, find evidence in 10 cases of brutal force in order to keep the victims quiet, including castration and removal of the colon so no evidence of sexual abuse could be found.
In the same presentation the committee stated less than 10% of the investigated cases dealt with children, male or female, older than 10 years. All other cases dealt with children in their preschool years. Not that it would make much of a difference. In Europe the law makes no difference between pedophilia and pederasty.
So, let me conclude with saying I highly doubt there are more cases of sexual abuse in public schools or private homes. And I most certainly reject your comment most pedophiles are married, simply because I reject the idea pedophiles can have a normal marrital life, including sexual contact with an adult.
Leila,
No, I don’t mind. Do what ye will and harm none.
Edward, I am extremely sorry that you feel that most people lie – especially to their doctors. I don’t see any point in withholding information from my doctors (they are supposedly there to help me and they can’t if they don’t have all the information). My father was an ob/gyn who transitioned to anesthesiology – my grandmother was a nurse. I’m a biologist and I’ve grown up around medicine.
As for telling Leila that her children aren’t chaste – shame on you. The only man I’ve ever made love to is my husband – I waited. My children have chosen to wait – maybe you should acquaint yourself with John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”. You sound so jaded that it makes me sad.
I will pray for you.
Catholic Grammie,
“Edward, I am extremely sorry that you feel that most people lie – especially to their doctors.”
It’s not a feeling but a proven fact.
“No doctor, I don’t smoke”. Than please explain the nicotine readings I found in your blood.
“No doctor, I don’t do anal sex”. Really? Than how come you have anal chlamydia?
“Doctor, I slept with no one but my husband”. Oh, than how come your baby is clearly negroid while you and your husband are both caucasian?
“Doctor, I never had sex in my life!” So the triple executed pregnancy test that was positive must be mistaken!
Do I need to go on or is my point clear? No only do patients lie; they lie about stuff they should know I can disprove quickly enough. Not only do they lie but they lie stupidly as well.
“As for telling Leila that her children aren’t chaste – shame on you. The only man I’ve ever made love to is my husband – I waited. My children have chosen to wait.”
Why shame on me? I’d say “shame on Leila” for being so gullible. It’s the 21st century and she actually believes her son, a college student, surrounded by young men and women who will put him under a tremendous ammount of peer pressure, is still a virgin? I hate to be the one to burst her bubble but please, woman, wake up! Of course her children will tell her they are still chaste. The alternative is either being thrown out or being forced to get married well before their time. I just hope for her children’s sake they do not prove to be gay or the **** will really hit the fan!
Same goes for your children. All you have is their word. It’s not like it can be proven they are chaste or not. There is only one person who knows for sure and that’s the person him- or herself.
Less than 5% of the teens are still a virgin when they reach the age of 18 and this percentage drops below 2% at the age of 21. Among college students this percentage is slightly above 0% at the age of 21 and it is actually 0% among the students living in the dorms. So I don’t see why I should be ashamed of myself. I’m not the one who believe my children to be holier than holy.
“Maybe you should acquaint yourself with John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body””
I’d rather have a root canal than reading something written by a person who made it his life’s work to oppress people and to hold them back, thank you very much.
“You sound so jaded that it makes me sad.”
Don’t be. Again, I’m not the one who needs a reality check.
“I will pray for you.”
If that makes you feel better. Makes no difference to me.
I actually don’t think she’s illogical, I’m just not sure I would take it quite as far as she did. She does seem to imply that abortion isn’t a first choice (“I understand the theoretical mindset: it is better for a woman to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to bear the physical and financial burden of an abortion.”, as well as in her second to last paragraph), but I think her bigger point is that stigma doesn’t help women. To be honest, I have no idea if abortion is treated as a last resort in general, but to me, it seems obvious that any undesirable medical procedure (and I think nearly all medical procedures are on some level undesirable, even if their results are unambiguously good) should be considered a last resort. It’s like someone smoking two packs a day and saying “Oh, but I can have chemo! Lung transplants can be done! No big deal.” Sure they can, but isn’t prevention easier in the long run? An ounce of prevention, however you choose to accomplish that, is worth a pound of cure. (Disclaimer: definitely not directly comparing an unwanted pregnancy to cancer, just saying that if you can prevent needing any medical procedure, you should. Also, speaking of cancer, I truly hope your sister is doing better!)
As for regret, I’m not sure there’s an analogous medical procedure, but yes, regret is a possibility. I at one point came across a site where people spoke about their abortions very candidly and stated they had no regret, so I think it depends entirely on the person, and is something the individual has to consider. As for safety, I did find a recent study that shows abortion to be significantly safer than childbirth (haven’t picked through the study to judge its merits; if I had the time I would), and the objections raised by sites like Life Site News seem to mostly lie in the fact that the study only addressed deaths in childbirth vs. deaths due to abortion, and nothing else following abortion/childbirth. The relevant comparison here shouldn’t be between abortion and birth, though, but between abortion and contraception – abortion should still be avoided if possible, because no one ever died of a condom.
I know you didn’t want to get into political debates, so if you’d rather not answer that’s okay, but your position on the law seems a bit inconsistent. If, under the law, a fetus is equivalent to, say, a toddler, then shouldn’t abortion be exactly equivalent to a woman hiring a hit man to kill her 2-year-old? The hit man would be prosecuted, but I believe the woman would be considered an accomplice to the crime.
Edward, I don’t know where you get your statistics. Even looking at this http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html, I don’t come up with your high numbers. In fact, it states that teens are waiting longer to have sex. You are so jaded, I don’t think I would choose you as a doctor. Maybe that’s why you get the patients that you do. (What is your specialty?) And, yes, shame on you! You are making an ad hominem attack on Leila’s children – not her. (And believe me – if any of those things occurred that you suggested regarding her children, I can guarantee that Leila would love and support her child through whatever trial – we Catholics love the person and hate the sin – a distinction that many don’t understand. Unlike many fundamentalists whom I know, we don’t shun or throw our children out – I know because I took one of those children in to my home when he was 18). My children are better than I am – if I could remain chaste during the ’70s – living in a dorm on one of the most liberal campuses in this country – anyone can do it! I suggested that you read Theology of the Body so that you might understand why people might choose to respect their bodies and their future partners by not having casual sex. But I guess you don’t care to learn about other people’s opinions, you truly just want to spout your own. You see, when I don’t understand someone’s viewpoint, if they can’t explain it to me, I read about it. You do seriously need a reality check and I will pray for you because you need it.
Edward,
If it’s a “proven fact” that most people lie, then why should we believe you? Why should we believe the stats you give without any citation? Why would you even believe the stats to be correct? Those were mostly lying people, right?
And yes, shame on you for what you said about Leila’s children. You do need a reality check.
All the things you say people lie about are things that are immoral – infidelity, anal sex, sex outside of marriage, smoking. People who try to live virtuous lives don’t have anything to lie about, and they know that lying never results in anything good.
If you are basing this conclusion of yours, this so-called “proven fact,” on your own personal experience, maybe that’s a function of your practice and not so much how the world really is.
Edward, how sad for you. I actually smiled when you first started in about my children, because I anticipated that you would say that about my kids, as if I am naive and don’t know them or their character or beliefs, or how they live their lives. You do live a very sadly jaded life. I am sorry for you that you don’t know any people of virtue. And believe me, I know what goes on on college campuses. I was one of the “bad” girls. And there were good girls and guys there, too. It shouldn’t shock you that virtue still lives, but apparently in your world, virtue does not exist anymore. How sad for you. I will pray that some goodness and virtue comes through your life.
As for the rest, you continue to evade the question and you seem to live in a reality of your own making.
Thank you for your permission to use your words!
God bless!
“I’d say “shame on Leila” for being so gullible. It’s the 21st century and she actually believes her son, a college student, surrounded by young men and women who will put him under a tremendous ammount of peer pressure, is still a virgin? I hate to be the one to burst her bubble but please, woman, wake up! Of course her children will tell her they are still chaste. The alternative is either being thrown out or being forced to get married well before their time. I just hope for her children’s sake they do not prove to be gay or the **** will really hit the fan!”
My children in college are very taken by this! My daughter immediately asked to write a post in rebuttal to you, and she then ran down to tell her brother to come up and read this! They are laughing, and incredulous. We are all dying here! Not only does my daughter think you are “rude!” and my son thinks you are a “sick” “loser” and “just because his kids can’t keep it in their pants!”, etc. Too funny, although I don’t condone them calling anyone a loser. But you have so insulted them and so insulted teens everywhere. I mean seriously? You think we are all animals? I think you need to get a new circle of friends.
And the idea that this is true:
“Less than 5% of the teens are still a virgin when they reach the age of 18 and this percentage drops below 2% at the age of 21. Among college students this percentage is slightly above 0% at the age of 21 and it is actually 0% among the students living in the dorms.”
Where on earth is your source for this drivel?
I am sad for you. Truly sad.
And the idea that my kids would be kicked out of the house or be forced to marry if they have sex? You live in a world that I have never heard of, dear Edward. Seriously, this is out of left field.
In which state do you reside, by the way, that you have never met anyone virtuous? You don’t have to answer that, of course, but I just can’t fathom it.
Thanks!
Michelle, I just typed a response to you, but it disappeared because I hit submit without having first put in my name and email! So, I lost it all. I will consider that God’s way of telling me to lay off the political discussion. But maybe one day….
Leila,
I am so sorry! I changed the settings. I didn’t realize it was STILL that way because when I’m logged in the field for email and name don’t show up.
I know what you mean about God speaking through lost comments though. Been there!
Another thing I’ve noticed about liberal free-thinking is that often arguments are constructed with no consistent definition of words. They try to make logical sense by changing the meaning of words to whatever they need, but in another context the meaning will change again, completely subjective. That’s the most illogical thing to do though. It actually reduces all the language to jibberish.
Have you noticed that?
Here’s how I see Edward arguing his points:
“I don’t care if you believe me, but my points are definitely true. When you make a point, however, you are lying, or you are being gullible because other people are lying to you. What I say is valid is valid. What you say is valid is invalid. And I don’t care what you say or what studies you have because you are wrong and I am right, so there.”
Okay, Edward.
But I will still try.
Here we go:
Truth is I don’t know that much about Buddhist monks but if they are also forced to live a celibate life I would day the same would be true for them as well, yes.
“Or, are you simply anti-Catholic in your bigotry and not anti-Buddhist?”
I’m opposed to any religion that holds back humanity and prevents individuals to live to their full potential.
First, Buddhist monks are not “forced” to be celibate, as far as I know. Neither are Catholic priests. Joining the priesthood is voluntary and everyone knows for years ahead of time what is expected of them, vis a vis celibacy.
Your words beg the question: How does an individual “live their full potential”? I would say one does so by being virtuous and living a life ordered to truth, goodness and beauty. You might say (I’m inferring?) that it means being able to have lots of orgasms. If one does not have lots of orgasms, one has not met his fullest human potential. Correct me if I am wrong.
You said, about the use of birth control being most for… birth control:
“Oh, that’s simple and I thought you might have understood that already: my training as a medical professional. Anything and everything a patient wishes to discuss with me will remain part of my doctor-patient confidentionality.”
Ummm, again, Edward: No one is discussing one particular patient, or even more than one individual patient, and no one is divulging anything. This is a bizarre answer. Or, a non-answer I should say.
You said:
Well, there is also the important question about what, in fact, is sin and darkness. And, like I tried to make clear, an increasing number of people all over the world no longer take the answers to that question coming from the Catholic church to be true. Something that came as a complete suprise to the Catholics in Brasil.
You utterly missed my point. The point is that it doesn’t matter if the whole world thinks sin is good. It doesn’t matter if the whole world rejects the moral law or the Catholic Faith. A world of false belief does not change what is True. The question of what constitute sin and darkness is another discussion entirely. But Truth itself does not always correlate to what is popular. That’s just common sense, wouldn’t you say?
Oh no, that’s always the worst! Well, for now, enjoy the rest of your mostly-political-debate-free Lent, and I’ll talk to you again another time!
Now, Edward, I don’t have an idea as to the merits of your European “committee”, but I am speaking of America. In America, the crisis of public school teachers molesting children is 100 times greater than in the priesthood (which is on par with other married clergy, and is much lower than instances of molestation in families). So, the groups with higher percentages of offenders are those who are not celibate and did not take vows of celibacy. How do you account for that?
If you say, “Because I don’t believe you!” then I will just say, “thank you” and move along, letting your response (or lack thereof) speak for itself.
And yes, the vast, vast majority of child molesters are married:
http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html
I’m sorry that fact doesn’t fit in with your anti-Catholic narrative.
But again, I believe that you have created your own reality.
Blessings!
Michelle, I feel bad, because I am actually engaging Edward and not you! But, I feel like we’ve done a lot of engaging before.
I do have to limit my time here, as my kids tend to take apart the house while I debate, so thanks for letting me off this time around….
Stacy, I’ve noticed it and it makes me crazy! Glad I am not the only one, ha ha!!
PS: Is there a way I can register on this site so that my comments will automatically connect to my blog or profile? Or does it require the steps each time? Thanks! No biggie either way! I am probably too lazy to register anyway, ha ha!
Leila, go here: https://en.gravatar.com/site/signup/
All you need is your email address. WP user use Gravatar, and it’s like logging into Blogger. You can upload a photo too (and get rid of the funny monster faces).
Michelle, here is something to read on that question, because I don’t want to leave you hanging, from this site:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/20qqabor.html
Question 6
Aren’t pro-lifers inconsistent when they say that abortion is tantamount to murder, but then shrink from advocating the prosecution and punishment of the millions of women who have gotten abortions?
Reply to Question 6
This is not necessarily inconsistent. There are various ways in which the two views alluded to might be held consistently:
Someone might think that no woman every freely and without coercion chooses to have an abortion, just as some people maintain that suicide is never a freely chosen act. If this is the case, the woman’s responsibility for procuring the abortion is considerably mitigated;
Someone might hold that a woman who gets an abortion does something seriously wrong, and is responsible for it, but that the act itself carries with it its own penalty, since she loses her child in the abortion. It might be thought that any further penalty is unnecessary;
Someone might hold that, although many abortions merit punishment, still, the state’s decision of whether to punish or not should be made with an eye to the common good, and the common good would not be served by punishing women who procure abortions.
Why? Because if any were punished then all would have to be; but it would be too harsh to punish all–the cure would be as bad as the ailment. So none should be punished; rather, the abortionist should be punished as being a sort of initiator of the abortion.
Basically, since the majority of abortions are coerced and under duress, I think society understands that we don’t prosecute the women who has been not only told that abortion is “good” but also that there is “no baby” there anyway. The abortionist, on the other hand, knows better. He is the one who has to reconstruct little arms, legs and torsos on a daily basis (to assure he got all the baby’s body parts out). He knows what he’s doing and he is doing it for pay. So, we can hold him accountable, legally. As far as morally, well, God knows the hearts of every mother, and everyone involved with an abortion. He will be the perfect judge in those matters.
Had more to say, but I think I should have listened to Stacy and God’s hint, ha ha!
Testing
Comment
Sorry for the testing! Just seeing how this works. Please delete if needed, Stacy!
Haha, yes, we have engaged quite a bit before! No need to respond further if you don’t want to (I think you have your hands full in real life and here already!), but I do sort of see the point in what you gave me to read.
I do still feel that consistency requires that there should at least be some investigation into the circumstances of the abortion, though. If it was freely chosen – no coercion, full understanding that it is illegal and constitutes the killing of a person (still speaking hypothetically here, imagining if abortion was made illegal and a Mississippi-esque personhood bill was passed) – I’m not sure I’d see any legal difference between the pregnant woman and the mother who hires a person to kill her toddler. There are no other crimes where we say oh, most people fall into this category, so we just don’t punish any of them, and if abortion were a crime, I don’t see why it’d be any different.
I saw (hopefully I embedded that right) a while back, and I don’t think anyone really answered the question fully, so I was curious what your take on it was. Just something to think about!
Aaand I clearly failed miserably at link embedding, whoops. That should read “I saw this video a while back”…it is the correct link, though!
testing out gravatar also -
Sorry Stacy – checking again
again?
Well hello ladies, nice to SEE you!
Michelle, it took me a while to figure out embedding. Here’s the general formula.
http://shell.cas.usf.edu/mccook/uwy/hyperlinks.html
It’s quicker just to drop the link which I do a lot, but people click on what you link more if you pretty it up. Sigh!
Catholic Grammie,
“Edward, I don’t know where you get your statistics.”
I got them from a textbook I used in medical school which is used in most medical schools in Western-Europe and which is considered (forgive the comment) the Bible in the field of sexual medicine.
“Unlike many fundamentalists whom I know, we don’t shun or throw our children out”
Really? Please tell my late boyfriend that. Oh, wait. You can’t since he’s dead, not in the least thanks to a group of Christian fundamentalist conservatives including his Catholic family. A Catholic family who forbade me to attend my lover’s funeral and was even friendly enough to call me to tell me the only way I would ever see my lover again was to take my own life and end up in Hell with him.
Doesn’t really like “Hate the sin, love the sinner” to me.
“I guess you don’t care to learn about other people’s opinions”
No, I don’t care to learn anything that sprouted from the mind of John Paul II since he was also the lunatic who stated condoms don’t protect people from HIV since the rubber has pores which are large enough to let the virus pass while it stops water from passing. Problem is water is a far smaller molecule than even the smallest amino-acid from the virus coat of HIV so the idea is too stupid to even consider. Unfortunately, his letter did set back the AIDS prevention programs in Africa by about 20 years.
Stacy,
“People who try to live virtuous lives don’t have anything to lie about”
I thought I already made it clear I don’t believe those people exist?
Leila,
“It shouldn’t shock you that virtue still lives”
It’s more shocking to me there are still people believing virtue still lives.
“Not only does my daughter think you are “rude!” and my son thinks you are a “sick” “loser” and “just because his kids can’t keep it in their pants!”, etc.”
Well, rude is not the worst thing I have been called in my life and neither is loser, so don’t go and punish your children on my account.
Furthermore, since my (adoptive) daughter is not even 4 years old yet and goes to daycare 2 days a week I certainly hope she keeps her jeans zipped tightly.
“And the idea that my kids would be kicked out of the house or be forced to marry if they have sex? You live in a world that I have never heard of, dear Edward. Seriously, this is out of left field.”
Really? Well, I’ve seen a lot worse, believe me. I have seen children beaten to an inch of their lives because of who they love. I have seen families going through all types of misery because of (or both) of their parents were actually gay but were forced to marry each other and have children together. A few months ago my husband and me had to take on my cousin in court since my now 16 year old cousin (her son) proved to be gay and was minutes away from being sent to an ax-gay camp to either “cure” him or have him die trying. Luckily he managed to run away and came to me so we could file for custody of my cousin. I’m not glad I had to do it but I am glad I managed to keep him from going to such a brain-washing facility.
So maybe you are one of the better Christians, I don’t know. Anyway, I experienced too many of the fundamental types to even give you the benefit of the doubt.
I live in a small city in the Netherlands, Western-Europe, where I work in one of the academic medical centers. Maybe you heard of my country. Not only were we the first country in the modern world where gay men and women were able to marry the person they love but, according to Rick Santorum, we are also the country where we make tons of money by selling the elderly bracelets stating: “Please, don’t euthanize me”.
“How does an individual “live their full potential”? I would say one does so by being virtuous and living a life ordered to truth, goodness and beauty. You might say (I’m inferring?) that it means being able to have lots of orgasms. If one does not have lots of orgasms, one has not met his fullest human potential. Correct me if I am wrong”
Ok, so I will correct you.
I would say a person will live their full potential if they experience no limitations forced upon them by outside sources. Now I know that will be difficult because there is always the law, so perhaps I should say: “no limitations forced upon them by outside sources as long as there is no legal conflict”. Since “virtuous” is a moral classification and also classifications like “truth, goodness and beauty” can be debate on I’d say we have quite different ideas about one’s full potential.
And yes, experiencing a lot of orgasms might get you closer to you full potential, yes. I know my husband is still quite happy I’m an experienced lover who can still please and suprise him after almost 10 years.
“It doesn’t matter if the whole world rejects the moral law or the Catholic Faith. A world of false belief does not change what is True. The question of what constitute sin and darkness is another discussion entirely. But Truth itself does not always correlate to what is popular. That’s just common sense, wouldn’t you say?”
Well, I think I can agree with that to certain extent. Problem is, though, apparently several dioceses in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium cannot, simply because they are on the brink of bankruptcy. Their incomes are going down continuously while their expenses are at the same level or rising. The diocese of Haarlem already ceased to exist (one of the eldest in Europe) and several others are nominated to dissapear as well. Which is why the Archdiocese of Utrecht and the diocese of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (don’t bother to pronounce that one) have lifted the bans on birth control, abortion and gay men and women to receive their Communion. They also have invested money in creating a modern version of the Bible, completely written in street slang.
So, apparently, the Catholic church itself no longer feels confident about it’s message.
“So, the groups with higher percentages of offenders are those who are not celibate and did not take vows of celibacy. How do you account for that?”
I’ll take your word for it and I have no answer to that. However, keep in mind chances are there’s the same underreporting of cases in Catholic institutions in the US as there is in Europe. It’s even quite likely there is.
Blessed be!
Edward,
How do you know the statistics given in a medical textbook in the Netherlands are correct? How do you determine that?
Because from the sound of your tragic stories, society is not working very well at ALL with all this free-thinking. In fact – if what you describe is the future for societies that toss any real meaning to family and marriage and Divine Truth, you’ve given me the best argument yet against it (tossing it out).
I don’t want to live in a place like you describe, a place where a man who calls himself a medical doctor and a homosexual no longer believes that virtue is possible in the human animal.
Sounds like hell.
Catholic Grammie,
“I don’t think I would choose you as a doctor. Maybe that’s why you get the patients that you do. (What is your specialty?)”
Forgot to answer this statement.
I’d rather have you not chosing me as your doctor because I have more patients than I can handle. Apparently I must be doing something right.
I used to work in the field of haematology and switched recently to pulmonology. In either field I mostly tend to oncologic patients, though, because I have an affinity for those patients and they for me. Acording to several of my patients the qualities they appreciate best in me is my no-nonsense approach and my bed side manner.
Edward,
Have you ever euthanized anyone?
You said this on another thread:
“Perhaps we need something like Animal control on human level as well. You know, People control?”
Do you practice “people control”? And if not, why not?
I would also like to know why you say the world is overpopulated? I’ve been on airplanes and looked out at vast empty land, even in Europe. If the world were over-populated wouldn’t there be no empty land anywhere and people crowded everywhere? Perhaps it’s not that the world is over-populated, but that some societies are failing to meet the needs of its people.
And, Edward, if you really believe that we should practice “people control” because the world is over-populated, why were you sad when someone you loved died. Seems, in a no-nonsense way, you should have rejoiced.
“How do you know the statistics given in a medical textbook in the Netherlands are correct? How do you determine that?”
Well, you kinda got me there. The most logical answer would be that I don’t but I believe it is. After all, if it wasn’t than why would the book be used in such a large part of Western-Europe? Doesn’t it make more sense if the data in the book are incorrect the book would have been banished a long time ago?
“Because from the sound of your tragic stories, society is not working very well at ALL with all this free-thinking. In fact – if what you describe is the future for societies that toss any real meaning to family and marriage and Divine Truth, you’ve given me the best argument yet against it.”
Hmm, don’t know about that. We have the lowest number of drug addicts (both in percentages as in absolute numbers) and people addicted to alcohol. The numbers of school dropouts are in the bottom 10% of the world, as are the numbers of teen pregnancies. The number of abortions in the Netherlands are about the same as the US (in percentages, of course) although I have to admit companies like Durex are getting rich from the Dutch population alone, yes.
However, and I think this will mean more to you than to me, we also have the lowest number of active parishes and the highest number of parishes closing down. I think the Netherlands is among the very few countries where a diocese has been closed down. We also have the highest numbers of churches being torn down which, although I doubt you’ll believe me, pains me. Not because of the churches or even the religions practiced there but because of the centuries of history and art that are now lost forever.
“I don’t want to live in a place like you describe, a place where a man who calls himself a medical doctor and a homosexual no longer believes that virtue is possible in the human animal.
Sounds like hell.”
You’d be suprised how refreshing it is to accept all of our virtues, our morals and our civilization is nothing more than a very thin mask that will come off whenever it suits us. 10 to 15 years ago I would have agreed with you but now I know the things that make us different from the animals goes only skin deep. In fact I prefer animals over human beings. At least animals don’t pretend they are more than they are.
“Have you ever euthanized anyone?”
Yes, I have. Quite recently, I might add. One of my patients was entering the final stages of his cancer and long before that time had come we had discussed his options, including euthanasia. He still expressed his desire to end his life, a colleague of mine concured with my analysis this man was suffering from an incurable illness which would cause him to suffer inhumanly in the nearby future and the medical ethics board agreed my patients met the criteria in which euthanasia is permitted according to Dutch law. I gave him an strong sedative with a colleague present as witness and when the patient was in a comatose sleep my collaegue administered the muscle relaxant, causing both the heart and the breathing to stop. The DA’s office reviewed the procedure and aquitted both my collegue and me of murder since, according to Dutch law, euthanasia was an acceptable treatment in order to prevent my patient to suffer.
“Do you practice “people control”? And if not, why not?”
When I perform euthanasia I do it at a patients request to prevent my patient to suffer beyond human comprehension. That’s not the same as I meant when I was talking about “people control”. I believe the one-child-policy in China is a good one and I also believe people should be encouraged to chose not to have children. The world population needs to decrease if we want to have a world left. This is one of the reasons why my husband and me decided against searching for a surrogate mother to be impregnated with either of our semen but to adopt a child in less fortunate circumstances and raise her as our own.
“I’ve been on airplanes and looked out at vast empty land, even in Europe. If the world were over-populated wouldn’t there be no empty land anywhere and people crowded everywhere? Perhaps it’s not that the world is over-populated, but that some societies are failing to meet the needs of its people.”
Maybe some parts of the world can’t meet the demand of it’s population? The Sahara desert fits the entire population of the European Union but I doubt they would survive there for long. About half the population of Germany would fit in the area that is called the Schwarzwald (Black Forest) but below a thin layer of fertile soil you’ll hit unrelenting granite which will be soon exposed if the trees that keep that soil in place with their roots are being torn down. And there are more examples like this from all over the world.
“And, Edward, if you really believe that we should practice “people control” because the world is over-populated, why were you sad when someone you loved died. Seems, in a no-nonsense way, you should have rejoiced.”
Let me answer a question with a question, ok? You believe a person goes to heaven to spend eternity in the light of your God, right? Are you rejoiced a loved one dies because of that believe or are you sad you’ll have to miss them from now on?
Question for Edward:
If your country is so open and liberal regarding homosexuals, what is an ax-gay camp? I’ve never heard of such a thing. I have several Catholic friends who happen to have homosexual sons – I can promise you that they have not disowned their children, nor have they forbade the presence of their children’s partners in their homes. In fact, they have treated them like their own children. As parents, they grieve what those choices mean in their children’s lives but they have been nothing but wonderful, supportive parents. One of my cousins died from AIDS – it was horrible. He had to go through losing his partner to AIDS first – and he wasn’t allowed to go to the funeral – but neither one of them came from Catholic backgrounds (nor had they openly come out to either of their families at the time – so, it was kind of a shock to his partner’s family). Also, one of my sisters has chosen a lesbian relationship – and, I say chosen, because she “swings” both ways but has been in this relationship for about ten years now. Does that make her any less my sister? No. Unfortunately, she doesn’t attend any church – her mother (one of my stepmothers) has been quite a promiscuous person and there hasn’t been much stability in her life. Despite that lack of stability, she (my sister) is a very sweet, loving person. As I said before, I took in “my” son when he was 18. His big sin – he loved a girl who wasn’t his religion and he wanted to go to college – both things that his fundamentalist Christianity didn’t allow. So, I helped him go to college – he’s had several girlfriends (and I think a boyfriend since then). Right now, I am left with paying his student loans while he has chosen not to come home (he’s 25 now). Would I do it all over again? Yes, he will always be my son – no matter how disappointed I am in his behavior as a young man. I expect to see him when his “sister” (my biological daughter) gets married in September because they still communicate and have always had a strong bond (I always called them the “twins” because they are 9 months apart and they seem to really understand one another). I am so sorry about your past. It sounds as though your country has passed a bunch of laws but that hasn’t dictated any tolerance or acceptance.
Also, if you are working in hematology and oncology – why are you getting patients that would seem to fall under family medicine or obstetrics/gynecology – as cited in your examples? And, aren’t you concerned, with China’s one-child law, about all the baby girls that are being killed (many not through abortion but actual infanticide) because they wanted sons? I can understand the euthanasia that you perform for your cancer patients – I’m not saying that I agree – but I’ve seen people who are terminally ill in extreme pain and I can see where you are coming at it from a compassionate place.
Edward, I appreciate the new information. I didn’t know you were from the Netherlands; I assumed you were writing from the US. What you are saying makes more sense now. But are there really no virtuous people left in your country? I find that so sad, truly.
I am sorry that the bishops and dioceses in the Netherlands long ago ceased to be faithful. No one ever said that the Church would survive in the Netherlands or in any country. Where bishops are unfaithful to the Church, the faithful diminish and apostasize. Where bishops are faithful and holy, the Church thrives. Your nation’s bishops long ago sold out the Faith, it appears. That is sad, but it only says something about the bishops and the Netherlands, not the Church. Here in my diocese, the Church is thriving. My 18-year-old son has four friends discerning the priesthood. They are virtuous, good and holy young men who are living their lives for God, in humility and love, and in celebration of life.
I am sorry that the Netherlands is in such a sad state now. It was lovely when I visited some years ago. One of the most beautiful places on earth. But I know that demographically, your nation is dying. This is not a surprise. Where life is rejected, death is inevitable. I mourn it, and I am sorry.
May I ask how you acquired your young daughter, if that is not too personal?
Blessings!
Edward, sorry, I see that you already answered my question about your daughter.
I don’t think anyone who knows the brutality of the forced abortions, raided houses and destroyed women and families could actually be “for” China’s one-child policy. Have you heard the women who have testified about what was done to them for the “crime” of carrying their child without government permission? It is a nightmare out of a horror movie. But I am guessing you are either unaware of that horror, or you truly do believe, as secularists are wont to do, that the ends justify the means.
I just feel more and more sad reading about the state of things where you are, and I pray with all my might that this great nation of ours does not travel that same dark road.
Lord, have mercy.
Stacy, I agree with you. It sounds like hell. Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. My next post was going to be about mercy, and I think that is the crux of it all, the oceans of mercy that our Lord pours out, even to the greatest of sinners. This is a dark, ugly world of sin, and the Culture of Death surrounds us. I thank God for the Light of Christ, which the darkness has not and cannot overcome.
Not because of the churches or even the religions practiced there but because of the centuries of history and art that are now lost forever.
What is good about the history or the art? Was the art beautiful? What could inspire that kind of beauty? Does the secular world produce art of such transcendent beauty?
You are indeed losing a lot.
One more thing, Edward. Could you respond about International Planned Parenthood’s push for child sexual rights? I put the link in a previous comment. Do you think that is a good thing, that the secular left wants children to have sexual freedom and encourages that? And that age of consent laws keep getting lower? Do you think children should have sex, Edward? Because I think your nation is okay with younger and younger kids having sex. Is this good for them? Do you ever feel like the adults have abdicated their responsibilities and now everyone is a child or adolescent, indulging in anything that brings pleasure and avoiding suffering at all costs?
And, virtues are very specific. So, I am not sure that you can just “redefine” things to be virtues that have never been considered virtues in the history of mankind. Are their any traditionally virtuous people left in your nation?
Catholic Grammie,
“If your country is so open and liberal regarding homosexuals, what is an ax-gay camp?”
This is a camp where they perform reperative therapy in order to convert gay men and women to straight men and women. We don’t have them in the Netherlands but there are several in the south of Germany and Belgium.
“Also, if you are working in hematology and oncology – why are you getting patients that would seem to fall under family medicine or obstetrics/gynecology – as cited in your examples?”
Especially in haematology you deal with patients in their fertile age. Besides, as an intern you have to work in all field of medicine before you can pick one specialty, including family medicine and OB/GYN.
Leila,
“I don’t think anyone who knows the brutality of the forced abortions, raided houses and destroyed women and families could actually be “for” China’s one-child policy. Have you heard the women who have testified about what was done to them for the “crime” of carrying their child without government permission? It is a nightmare out of a horror movie. But I am guessing you are either unaware of that horror, or you truly do believe, as secularists are wont to do, that the ends justify the means.”
I don’t agree with the way the Chinese government is enforcing the policy but I do agree with the idea behind it. The best way to shrink a population is to reduce the number of births per family. I don’t believe in forced abortions or to criminalize the women who decided to have a second child but I do believe in pointing out people’s responsibility to the greater good. One example is by reducing governmental child support for all children beyond the first or to increase taxes for families determined to have more than 1 child.
“What is good about the history or the art? Was the art beautiful? What could inspire that kind of beauty? Does the secular world produce art of such transcendent beauty?”
Lot of questions. I think all types of history is important, even if it’s just to learn from previous mistakes. And yes, the art was beautiful but I think that’s more because of the talent of the artist than the source of inspiration. Google “Jeroen Bosch” or “Hieronymus van Aken” as an example. Also, painters like Rembrandt van Rijn attended church to keep the clergy as a client but considered themselves to be an atheist. So I’d say the secular world has/had quite talented artists, yes.
“You are indeed losing a lot.”
At least something we can agree on, although from very different PoV.
“Could you respond about International Planned Parenthood’s push for child sexual rights? I put the link in a previous comment. Do you think that is a good thing, that the secular left wants children to have sexual freedom and encourages that? And that age of consent laws keep getting lower? Do you think children should have sex, Edward? Because I think your nation is okay with younger and younger kids having sex. Is this good for them?”
Difficult. It all depends on what you consider a child.
My 16 year old cousin has sex with his boyfriend (17 yo) in my house and I’m ok with that but I wouldn’t be if my cousin was 12 yo or even younger. I also oppose adolescents having sex with adults, although there is a difference between a 16 yo having sex with a 40 yo and the situation like my cousin’s, where, according to the law, he needs to stop having sex with his boyfriend when his boyfriend turns 18, only to resume their relationship when my cousin would turn 18.
I’m at work now so I can’t open the link but I doubt Planned Parenthood is in favour of having young children to have sex with adolescents, adults or even each other. If they are in favour of the situation like I described with my cousin I agree with their policy. If they are, indeed, in favour of children having sex while (emotionally and biologically) they are not ready for that I am opposed to that.
Edward,
I have so many questions. I’ll be honest, reading your description of life in a totally secular society has shown me that what I feared can happen, actually already HAS happened. I don’t know if fear is the right word though, because I find I still feel hope even reading of your misery. Life doesn’t have to be like that.
About the stats in a textbook: “The most logical answer would be that I don’t but I believe it is. After all, if it wasn’t than why would the book be used in such a large part of Western-Europe? Doesn’t it make more sense if the data in the book are incorrect the book would have been banished a long time ago?”
Well, then on what basis do you reject the Bible? It’s probably the most printed book ever in the history of mankind, and it’s been around for 2,000-3,000 years.
“We have the lowest number of drug addicts (both in percentages as in absolute numbers) and people addicted to alcohol. The numbers of school dropouts are in the bottom 10% of the world, as are the numbers of teen pregnancies. The number of abortions in the Netherlands are about the same as the US (in percentages, of course) although I have to admit companies like Durex are getting rich from the Dutch population alone, yes.”
Again, on what basis do you accept these numbers? If people lie about this stuff to doctors – no, if MOST people lie – then on what logical basis have you come to accept these government statistics collect by polling strangers?
“I think the Netherlands is among the very few countries where a diocese has been closed down.”
They should have been, they were dissenting from the Magisterium.
“In fact I prefer animals over human beings. At least animals don’t pretend they are more than they are.”
Then why did you adopt a female child? Why didn’t you buy a dog or cat instead?
“…cause him to suffer inhumanly in the nearby future and the medical ethics board agreed my patients met the criteria in which euthanasia is permitted according to Dutch law.”
I don’t understand this reasoning. If there’s a condition in a human body, how can it be something inhuman to suffer? That doesn’t follow.
“When I perform euthanasia I do it at a patients request to prevent my patient to suffer beyond human comprehension.”
Again, what is “beyond human comprehension.”
“”The world population needs to decrease if we want to have a world left.”
It seems the opposite is true. What good is a world with no people? You still haven’t made the case for over-population. People can move (we have airplanes) and food can be moved. If you fly across Europe or the US (moreso in the US) the land is mostly empty, farmable land too.
“The Sahara desert fits the entire population of the European Union but I doubt they would survive there for long.”
But there’s plenty of land that is not the desert where people can live.
“Let me answer a question with a question, ok? You believe a person goes to heaven to spend eternity in the light of your God, right? Are you rejoiced a loved one dies because of that believe or are you sad you’ll have to miss them from now on?”
I come from a position of obedience and acceptance, peace in knowing there is something greater than myself. I can’t play God. I accept the gifts. My children are gifts. I treasure every day I have with them and I’ll use my resources to raise them and teach them, knowing that even if they suffer, that is part of life and love transcends that.
But you don’t believe people can have virtue. You prefer animals. Why not kill your daughter and partner, get animals, and have a happier life?
I really can’t reconcile your views. Do you think your daughter or partner are capable of virtue? Of possessing some good in them?
Late to the party here, as I’ve just returned from vacation, but I wanted to let you guys know there is at least one virtuous man in the Netherlands: the priest Fr. Roderick Vonhogen, who is doing all he can to preserve and revitalize Catholicism in the Netherlands! I listen to his podcast “The Break” regularly.
Edward, thank you for your answers. I have many more questions and follow-ups, but I like Stacy’s questions so I’ll wait for your answers to those.
JoAnna, thank you!! I have some hope for the Netherlands now! The Light of Christ can never be completely extinguished in a nation that still has at least one faithful priest and the Eucharist. I will pray for him. Can you imagine his burden?
Stacy,
“Well, then on what basis do you reject the Bible? It’s probably the most printed book ever in the history of mankind, and it’s been around for 2,000-3,000 years.”
Perhaps the fact that it had been disproven. For example, when looking at the timelines in the Bible the earth can’t be more than 6000-7000 years old while carbon dating has proven layers of the earth’s crust and layers of ice on both poles are 30.000 years or older.
“Again, on what basis do you accept these numbers? If people lie about this stuff to doctors – no, if MOST people lie – then on what logical basis have you come to accept these government statistics collect by polling strangers?”
These numbers aren’t self-reported by gathered from hospital system, educational registries, etc. Free accessible for anyone who wants access (and who speaks Dutch, of course).
“Then why did you adopt a female child? Why didn’t you buy a dog or cat instead?”
And who says we haven’t?
“I don’t understand this reasoning. If there’s a condition in a human body, how can it be something inhuman to suffer? That doesn’t follow.”
Seriously? After all I wrote about how the Dutch euthanasia laws work this is the best you can come up with? Really?!
“People can move (we have airplanes) and food can be moved.”
True. However, since money makes the world go round, it won’t be. A few years ago a total of 23 billion litres of milk was destroyed in the European Union. The reason? The surplus of milk produced caused the prices to drop. The European Union, with the help of the UN, tried to have this milk be redistributed to other parts of the world but the market didn’t respond positively to this idea. It soon became clear the market wouldn’t accept any measure exept destruction. So that was the path chosen.
“If you fly across Europe or the US (moreso in the US) the land is mostly empty, farmable land too.”
I don’t know about the US. In Europe we have little farmable land left for reasons I described earlier.
“What good is a world with no people?”
At least it would be peaceful.
“But there’s plenty of land that is not the desert where people can live.”
Like?
“I come from a position of obedience and acceptance, peace in knowing there is something greater than myself. I can’t play God. I accept the gifts. My children are gifts. I treasure every day I have with them and I’ll use my resources to raise them and teach them, knowing that even if they suffer, that is part of life and love transcends that.”
How beautiful. You bring tears to my eyes and a sick feeling to my stomach.
“But you don’t believe people can have virtue. You prefer animals. Why not kill your daughter and partner, get animals, and have a happier life?”
First, because that would be murder.
Second, remember what you said earlier? How you would not tolerate people saying certain things about your children? How about living up to your own rules?
“Do you think your daughter or partner are capable of virtue? Of possessing some good in them?”
Hmm, tricky. Either way I end up being the bad guy with this answer.
As you might remember my husband is a former Catholic priest so I know what your feelings about his virtue probably are. And I know my daughter is capable of virtue and I hope she will chose a path in life that will make me proud. However, if she choses a path in life completely different of the path I’d like her to chose I will still support her. Even if she choses to be a prostitute I hope she will be the best damn prostitute the world has ever seen. You probably don’t agree with me but I find that pretty virtuous
“I really can’t reconcile your views.”
Now that’s more your problem than mine, isn’t it?
Leila,
“I have some hope for the Netherlands now! The Light of Christ can never be completely extinguished in a nation that still has at least one faithful priest and the Eucharist.”
In a country where less than 18% of it’s population still considers themselves Christian. During the last elections the traditional strong Christian parties were left with 28 seats (out of 150) in our version of the House of Representatives. And that’s not one party, but three Christian parties combined. This number represents the entire Christian political representation. In our Senate the combined Christian parties have 14 seats out of 75. But it even gets better.
It’s widely expected our government will fall over the issue of the 2013 budget and the combined Christian parties are expected to lose half of the seats, according to weekly polls, while the tradtional anti-religious factions (socialistic and libertarian) are quite likely to gain a majority. If that would happen it’s over with religious schooling, refusal to treat people equally, forced closure on Sundays and, if we’re really lucky, any and all influence of whatever religion in our public lives.
“I will pray for him. Can you imagine his burden?”
I think he’s going to need it although he chose his burden all by himself. Catholicism was never the most popular form of Christianity in the Netherlands, at least not since the Eighty Year War against Spain. But today a lot of people automatically brand you a pedophile if you openly defend the Catholic church in the Netherlands.
I must say I find this Roderick Vonhogen a very brave man. Although, in the end, he will accomplish very little. He’s too hardcore in his teachings. That doesn’t fit with a society in which the compromise is considered the ultimate goal.
Clearly, Fr. Roderick considers your country to be mission territory. Go Father!
Thanks for giving me a chilling look at where America is headed if we go down the road of secularism. By gosh, let every child be a good prostitute if she wishes!
And yet you in the Netherlands are still bothered by pedophilia? I still don’t understand why. But as I’ve shown, the push for pedophilia is growing:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/09/normalizing-pedophilia-next-stop-on.html
That’s the link from before. Would still love your thoughts on Planned Parenthood’s statements about child sexual activity. Seems like your thoughts are sort of all over the place: Two kids can have sex with each other, but not with adults? But only kids who are “emotionally” ready? That seems arbitrary and even restrictive. If kids can have sex, who are you to say what age group they should desire their sex from? Also, if they are too young go get pregnant, isn’t that a good thing? No risk of pregnancy, but all the fun, right?
What are your moral principles with regard to sex in general? And sex for children? A clear principle, if you will.
Blessings!
Edward,
“For example, when looking at the timelines in the Bible the earth can’t be more than 6000-7000 years old while carbon dating has proven layers of the earth’s crust and layers of ice on both poles are 30.000 years or older.”
Can you please provide that information? Carbon dating can’t date ice or rocks, only organic material. Radiometric dating has dated rocks surrounding fossils much, much older. Suffice it to say, we are not yet sure of the interpretation of the age of the earth. But, anyway, I was talking about the life, death and resurrection of Christ. More people believe that than use the Dutch medical textbook, and for much, much longer. So my real question is: why do you believe the stats in the medical textbook?
“These numbers aren’t self-reported by gathered from hospital system, educational registries, etc. Free accessible for anyone who wants access (and who speaks Dutch, of course).”
REALLY!? How do hospital gather information that 5% of teens are still a virgin when they reach the age of 18 unless someone self-reports it? How do they know that among college students that percentage drops to 0% at the age of 21? And that it is 0% among students living in dorms?
Please explain? That makes no sense. Are women required to report to the hospital to have their virginity checked at age 18???
Leila, Catholic Grammie and I have all asked for you to cite the statistics you used to call Leila gullible. Please make sense of this.
FOR EDWARD
Me: “Then why did you adopt a female child? Why didn’t you buy a dog or cat instead?”
Edward: And who says we haven’t?
Me again now: YOU, Edward. You said you adopted a female child, but you prefer animals to humans.
So…why did you adopt a child instead of a dog?
Me: “What good is a world with no people?”
Edward: At least it would be peaceful.
Me: Then what’s stopping you from killing everyone? You know, in the name of peace?
Me: “But you don’t believe people can have virtue. You prefer animals. Why not kill your daughter and partner, get animals, and have a happier life?”
Edward: First, because that would be murder. Second, remember what you said earlier? How you would not tolerate people saying certain things about your children? How about living up to your own rules?
This from the same man who said he did not believe virtue still lives…
Edward, honesty is a virtue. If you are going to believe ANY statistic AT ALL, you must believe that some virtue still lives, otherwise you admit you believe you should be lied to.
Protecting your innocent children is a virtue.
Either virtue still lives or it doesn’t.
Yeah, and hey Edward, this:
“By gosh, let every child be a good prostitute if she wishes!”
…is not virtuous. Teach her better, OK? Teach her that she has value beyond her body as a sex toy.
“I think he’s going to need it although he chose his burden all by himself.”
And it’s a burden that, in Christ, becomes light. A cross that he joyfully embraces. And he will bear great fruit, but he may not be around to see it. It’s not the temporal world that lasts, and he isn’t working for the temporal world.
Those who still believe in the transcendent, in some echo of the true, good and beautiful, those who haven’t been jaded into hardened indifference, will feel that spark of Christ when they encounter a faithful and holy priest and the sacraments, just as they have throughout the last 20 centuries, and will until the end of time. I don’t believe that the Dutch have lost every last scrap of human dignity.
Leila,
“Fr. Roderick considers your country to be mission territory. Go Father!”
Do you know what early Dutch men did with missionairies? They found them to be bothersome and killed them. Nowadays we don’t kill them physically, of course. We just kill their reputation. If Father Roderick becomes too much of a burden to the secular people in our country they will dig untill they find some dirt on him. And if they can’t find any …. Well, creating some is not that difficult in the computer era.
Perhaps people like Father Roderick should realize the vast majority in our country isn’t interested in whatever he’s selling.
“Would still love your thoughts on Planned Parenthood’s statements about child sexual activity. Seems like your thoughts are sort of all over the place: Two kids can have sex with each other, but not with adults? But only kids who are “emotionally” ready? That seems arbitrary and even restrictive. If kids can have sex, who are you to say what age group they should desire their sex from? Also, if they are too young go get pregnant, isn’t that a good thing? No risk of pregnancy, but all the fun, right?”
Well, as expected the pamphlet from IPPF is quite a bit more nuanced than your summary was. For example, I didn’t read they were in favour of having children sex. They defend a child’s risk to his or her own sexuality and the right to discover their sexuality freely and at their own pace. They even literally state no adult is allowed to have sex with a child but also no adult is allowed to dictate a child his or her sexuality.
Also, in the entire pamphlet they talk abour adolescents. Not once are they discussing children pre-puberty as the ones who should be able to experience their sexuality freely.
So, after reading the original pamphlet I don’t think there’s much difference between my PoV and IPPF’s, or the UN / Unicef, for that matter. So nice try to brand IPPF as a pedophile club but everyone who’d take the time to read the original document would see what you’re trying to do immediately.
And here you ask yourself why people have a distrust for religious people?
“What are your moral principles with regard to sex in general? And sex for children? A clear principle, if you will.”
I think I already gave you that, didn’t I? Sex between adults is a no brainer, in my opinion. As long as it’s consensual between adults everything goes. There are certain types of sexual activities I can’t imagine as pleasurable but, again, as it’s consensual between adults I don’t care what they do.
I also think I was quite clear in my opinion when children are involved. As long as they’re both children, in the same age and they don’t do things either (or both) aren’t ready for it’s fine by me. Of course, once more it has to be consensual.
Sex between children and adults is a no go area, except in the example I gave earlier. It would be kinda strange if two young persons are physically intimite with each other for a while already and they have to pause because one of them becomes an adult.
Is this clear enough for you or do you want graphic details with it?
Stacy,
“I was talking about the life, death and resurrection of Christ.”
Honestly, what do you think an MD thinks about the stories of a man who was executed, buried and resurrected after three days? Again, you were once a woman of science so you should know the answer to that. But let me indulge you.
I think there are two possibilities here. The first, and most likely, is that the entire Easter story in the Bible is nothing more than that: a story; a fairytale. When something is dead for 3 days it starts to decompose, especially in a warm climate like Israel. I for one wouldn’t want to see, let alone smell, whatever it is that came out of that cave, especially since the body wasn’t embalmed. After all, the Bible clearly states the women had no time for that since the Sabbat arrived.
Second possibility is he was never dead and whoever declared him dead screwed up. He was taken from the crucifix before he died and took his time to heal as much as possible in that cave and got away from Israel as fast as humanly possible when he regained some of his strength.
Scientifically there are no other options unless you’re willing to consider magic, divine intervention and more unprovable nonsense. As an MD and a man of science I don’t.
“More people believe that than use the Dutch medical textbook”
1. Not in the European medical community.
2. I think not even in the Dutch general population.
“REALLY!? How do hospital gather information that 5% of teens are still a virgin when they reach the age of 18 unless someone self-reports it? How do they know that among college students that percentage drops to 0% at the age of 21? And that it is 0% among students living in dorms?”
I thought we were talking about the number I gave about teen pregnancies, drug addicts and high school drop outs. Maybe the next time you can tell me in advance which figures you want to discuss because it’s hard to keep up with you, being all over the place and all.
“why did you adopt a child instead of a dog?”
Because we wanted a child. I didn’t think that is so hard to understand. Although we do raise our daughter a bit like a dog since we teach her never to have a hidden agenda and to appear exactly what she is.
Perhaps I misunderstand the question. But than again, it wasn’t the most intelligent question ever asked either.
“Then what’s stopping you from killing everyone? You know, in the name of peace?”
Because you would have to be crazy to do such a thing. And I’m a lot of things but no mental illness has ever been diagnosed in me.
“Either virtue still lives or it doesn’t.”
Ok, I give. So apparently some virtue still lives. I still doubt you and me consider the same things a virtue, though.
“Teach her that she has value beyond her body as a sex toy.”
Trust me, I intend to. However, if that is the life she choses for herself …. Could be worse, though. She could decide to go into politics *shudder*
“Those who still believe in the transcendent, in some echo of the true, good and beautiful, those who haven’t been jaded into hardened indifference, will feel that spark of Christ when they encounter a faithful and holy priest and the sacraments, just as they have throughout the last 20 centuries, and will until the end of time.”
Unlikely in a country that always lived of trade and commerce. Even in the high days of Christianity faith always came second to commerce. When people were persecuted because their refusal to become Christians the Dutch opened their lands for them and started trading with them.
“I don’t believe that the Dutch have lost every last scrap of human dignity.”
Like I said, Dutch history makes you wonder if the Dutch ever had it to begin with.
Edward,
You dodged this: “So my real question is: why do you believe the stats in the medical textbook?”
I am not all over the place, I’ve not strayed from this question, go ahead and search my progression. You said, when you called Leila gullible:
“Less than 5% of the teens are still a virgin when they reach the age of 18 and this percentage drops below 2% at the age of 21. Among college students this percentage is slightly above 0% at the age of 21 and it is actually 0% among the students living in the dorms.”
Immediately after that Catholic Grammie, then I, then Leila asked you about those statistics. And your very next response was:
“I got them from a textbook I used in medical school…”
You had said before that that most people lie, especially to their doctors, citing several examples that are sexually related (anal sex, sex outside or marriage, sex as a teen).
You also said of children and sex “It’s not like it can be proven they are chaste or not. There is only one person who knows for sure and that’s the person him- or herself.”
So, again, I ask: Why do you believe the stats in the medical textbook?
Edward,
Me: Why did you adopt a child instead of a dog?
You: Because we wanted a child. I didn’t think that is so hard to understand.
I hope you can see the confusion. You said on another thread that you prefer animals to people. Your daughter is a person. You chose to adopt her. It’s a logical negation to say on one hand that you *prefer* animals to people and on the other to say that you adopted a child because you *wanted* a person.
Either you don’t really prefer animals to people.
Or, you don’t think your daughter is a person.
Or, you say things without thinking too much. (Which it totally understandable, I do the same thing, I just want to know what you meant.)
Edward: “Ok, I give. So apparently some virtue still lives. I still doubt you and me consider the same things a virtue, though.”
Well, Edward, with that (and with your warning about politics) I will say that I am so glad and I agree with you. I actually understand preferring animals to people sometimes, though I’d say that I prefer animals and children to some adults. I imagine you meant the same. What is it about them that we prefer? I think it’s their innocence and beauty.
We could probably both agree that there is nothing more beautiful than a child and a baby animal (wasn’t sure which one to name) playing together.
To be honest, I wish I could meet your little girl, and you. Our youngest daughter is just 4 and she has dark hair and dark eyes, unlike the others. The two children would probably have a great time together. Children are like that.
Nowadays we don’t kill [missionaries] physically, of course. We just kill their reputation. If Father Roderick becomes too much of a burden to the secular people in our country they will dig untill they find some dirt on him. And if they can’t find any …. Well, creating some is not that difficult in the computer era.
Perhaps people like Father Roderick should realize the vast majority in our country isn’t interested in whatever he’s selling.
Ah, yes. The fruits of a “diverse” and “tolerant” and “highly evolved” nation!
ha ha!
You are right, Edward, that the IPPF document doesn’t come out and say, “We want kids to have all kinds of sex!” But I think the implications are clear to most thinking folks. They do not propose chastity for children. They do not promote innocence. They promote younger and younger sexuality, and sexual “rights”.
And, the document was aimed at children as young as ten years old, as is the PP pamphlet, “Healthy, Happy and Hot” which was given to Girl Scouts in this nation. You should check that one out.
M.D.s…
My father is an M.D. He is also a believer in the Resurrection. My uncle is an M.D. He is also a believer in the Resurrection. I know many, many M.D.s, personally, who are devout Catholics. And of course, I do love Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D, whose credentials in the land of science might even outstrip your own (he earned a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale University, did post-doctoral work at Harvard, has four undergraduate degrees — in molecular and cellular biology, chemistry, biochemistry and philosophy — and a couple of advanced degrees in theology, but that doesn’t mean much to you, I realize). He believes in the Resurrection.
http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=249
As for the Resurrection, I have never had one person give me a reasonable answer to the question I ask, here (nor even attempt one):
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-jesus-really-die-and-rise.html
I don’t want generalizations, I want a reasonable, logical account of just how it went down after the Crucifixion. Not broad strokes like you gave above, but step by step, how it could have happened.
By the way, I am shocked that as “an M.D. and a man of science” you don’t understand the brutality to the body that occurred in a first century Roman crucifixion! The massive scourging, the actual crucifixion, the lancing of the side, etc. It was all very public, and no Roman would be “confused” about whether or not the corpse on a cross was still alive or not. And to think that even if a man survived a Roman crucifixion, that he could settle down in a tomb after that bloody brutalization and just sort of “heal up” and then “run off” (pushing away that massive stone with his starved, beaten, dehydrated, broken body, with nail wounds through his hands and feet) — that is nuts! He wouldn’t have even been able to walk or push at all in his state, much less run off! And never even be seen by the Roman guards who were there watching the tomb on pain of death should they fail their duty.
Seems like you have put your common sense and medical degree aside to even attempt to defend that scenario.
Blessings!
One more thought, about Fr. Roderick: I’m quite certain that if all his work and suffering resulted in the saving of only one soul, it will have all been worth it to him.
As Jesus said:
“What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray.”
and
“I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.”
God bless Fr. Roderick.
Stacy,
“I actually understand preferring animals to people sometimes, though I’d say that I prefer animals and children to some adults. I imagine you meant the same. What is it about them that we prefer? I think it’s their innocence and beauty.”
Well, I meant their sincerity. Even a circling vulture can be prefered to a human being since it doesn’t pretend to be anything else than it is. It doesn’t pretend to want anything else than to tear your flesh off your body as soon as your heart stopped beating unlike (most) people do. I know I have little faith in my fellow men because of my personal experiences but especially in my world (world of medicine) you constantly have to watch your back for a different kind of vultures. And this kind is a lot more cuddly than the circling kind
“We could probably both agree that there is nothing more beautiful than a child and a baby animal (wasn’t sure which one to name) playing together.”
Well, I do love the photo of the kittens and the baby on your website. One of your own children?
“To be honest, I wish I could meet your little girl, and you. Our youngest daughter is just 4 and she has dark hair and dark eyes, unlike the others. The two children would probably have a great time together. Children are like that.”
Luckily my daughter is Chinese while my husband is Indonesian so things aren’t that awkward for her since she still has one Asian dad.
I think our daughters would get along better than you and me. I don’t think we ever will agree on much. Children don’t care about stuff like that until they are older.
Leila,
“You are right, Edward, that the IPPF document doesn’t come out and say, “We want kids to have all kinds of sex!” But I think the implications are clear to most thinking folks. They do not propose chastity for children. They do not promote innocence. They promote younger and younger sexuality, and sexual “rights”.”
Like I said, I read the document quite differently. I read it stating: “No one should interfere with a child’s sexual developement.”
“I know many, many M.D.s, personally, who are devout Catholics. And of course, I do love Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D, whose credentials in the land of science might even outstrip your own”
Those scientific credentials certainly outstrip my own. That’s why I don’t understand how someone can claim to be religious while, at the same time, is a scientist. Science means you have to stay distrustful even if the evidence is solid while religion means you have to believe something for which no evidence exist (and, most of the time, evidence points in the opposite direction). It seems to me those things are in contradiction to each other.
“Seems like you have put your common sense and medical degree aside to even attempt to defend that scenario.”
Well, I guess you have your answer than, don’t you?
“One more thought, about Fr. Roderick: I’m quite certain that if all his work and suffering resulted in the saving of only one soul, it will have all been worth it to him.”
That’s up to him. Most Dutch will say he’s even crazier than they already thought in the first place.
I read it stating: “No one should interfere with a child’s sexual developement.”
And if a child should desire to do sexual things with an adult? How does IPPF have a leg to stand on in opposition? Because according to that document (and “Healthy, Happy and Hot” among others), the “sexual development” of a child includes performing sexual acts if the child feels the urge to do so.
Thanks!
Even a circling vulture can be prefered to a human being since it doesn’t pretend to be anything else than it is. It doesn’t pretend to want anything else than to tear your flesh off your body as soon as your heart stopped beating unlike (most) people do.
Exactly! Animals do not have the capacity to sin, as humans do. Animals also cannot morally reason, and they cannot willfully love. They go on instinct. They give glory to God simply by being who they were made to be.
We humans, we are able to choose. We can choose good or evil. We can choose love or sin. We can choose to be what we were made to be, or choose to throw away our human dignity. Free will is a great gift, and risk. Hopefully, we all will choose to love. But, in experience, that is not always so.
Ahem, Edward,
You dodged this again: “So my real question is: why do you believe the stats in the medical textbook?”
I have not strayed from this question, go ahead and search my progression. You said, when you called Leila gullible:
“Less than 5% of the teens are still a virgin when they reach the age of 18 and this percentage drops below 2% at the age of 21. Among college students this percentage is slightly above 0% at the age of 21 and it is actually 0% among the students living in the dorms.”
Immediately after that Catholic Grammie, then I, then Leila asked you about those statistics. And your very next response was:
“I got them from a textbook I used in medical school…”
You had said before that that most people lie, especially to their doctors, citing several examples that are sexually related (anal sex, sex outside or marriage, sex as a teen).
You also said of children and sex “It’s not like it can be proven they are chaste or not. There is only one person who knows for sure and that’s the person him- or herself.”
So, again, I ask: Why do you believe the stats in the medical textbook?
Leila,
“And if a child should desire to do sexual things with an adult?”
Let me redirect that question. How many children do you know who would want to perform sexual acts with an adult? Maybe they fantasize about a celebrity or a model of something but if an adolescent (because I keep referring to this group since that’s clearly the group IPPF is aiming at, despite your attempts to incriminate them as a club for pedophiles) wants to experience sex they will search for someone their own age.
The exteremely small number of children who do want to try and have sex with an adult you can’t make a policy for, simply because you will never catch them. They are just too rare. So you can keep trying to point out this very small possibility but we both know that’s not what this pamphlet is about. The only reason why you’re trying to do this is so you can point to IPPF and claim they encourage pedophilia, even though you know perfectly well they don’t.
“We can choose to be what we were made to be, or choose to throw away our human dignity. Free will is a great gift, and risk. Hopefully, we all will choose to love. But, in experience, that is not always so.”
Your own attempts to incriminate IPPF as a pedophilia club is a very nice illustration of your own comment, yes.
Stacy,
“So, again, I ask: Why do you believe the stats in the medical textbook?”
I checked the paragraph in the book. The numbers were received from an anonymous questionnaire, performed at UCLA in 1991. So there are several reasons why to believe these statistics:
- The questionnaire was anonymous, so no one needed to lie since the answers wouldn’t be led back to them.
- Socially desirable answers in questionnaires like this mean to downplay your sexual activity, meaning the actual numbers on sexual activity could be even higher (for example: in stead of having 0% virgins in the dorms at the age of 21 it’s possible you can’t find a virgin there at the age of 18 but this was masked by socially desirable answers).
- UCLA is one of the most progressive universities in the US. There is very little reason to believe the students had any reason to fill in the questionnaire untruthfully.
- Such a questionnaire isn’t the same as a conversation face to face with a person, such as your doctor, so there’s very little reason to lie. There is no one who will think less of you because of your answers.
1991 – that’s a long time ago – particularly for those kind of statistics. Surprised that you’re content with that data. I also wouldn’t call UCLA the most representative university – we tend to be a bit more conservative in the midwest.
The numbers were received from an anonymous questionnaire, performed at UCLA in 1991.
You’ve got to be kidding me. I was just out of college then (graduated in ’89), at a party school. Believe it or not, not everyone was having sex.
And, I stand firmly by the evidence that Planned Parenthood is very “loose” on the issue of children engaging in sex acts. The very fact that they are okay with children having sex with other children is itself damning.
Not everyone has become that depraved yet. Praise God.
But Leila is the gullible one for believing her own kids, right now, under her own roof.
And Edward is not gullible for believing anonymous reporting from strangers two decades ago on another continent.
Got it! Thanks.
Stacy, well said.
And, I am still confused. The stats which are supposed to give us accurate information about the sex lives of all young people in the nation (America?) were based on one anonymous questionnaire of UCLA students in 1991?
Am I missing something?
Yes, you missed something Leila. Those stats are also to be accepted by medical students in the Netherlands.
Ah, I see….
Edward, you have been honest about many things and I appreciate it. One question if it’s not too personal: Do you have interior peace and joy? I’m not talking about the pleasures of sexual activity, etc., but interior peace and joy?
Blessings!
Leila,
“Do you have interior peace and joy?”
Please define these for me. If you mean I’m happy with my life: I am. If you ask me if I miss religion in my life: absolutely not.
Ever since I left religion behind I was able to make peace with myself. As a gay youth hearing every Sunday you will burn in hell doesn’t do much for your self-esteem, especially if you don’t have a lot of that to begin with. After a while (don’t know how long) I started wondering whether the church was right. So when I had several question I went to my Reverend (remember, I was a Baptist) and asked if we could speak since I experienced some doubt and had question. The Reverend said I should go home, read the Bible and pray for God to take my sinful doubts away since all answers could be found in the Bible and any question that couldn’t be answered by the content of the Bible wasn’t worth asking.
So here we are: a troubled youngster who’s faith, sexuality and personality are in conflict (I’m not one to accept easy answers like the one above) and you give him such an answer. That was the moment I realized religion wasn’t for me and that was the moment I felt I was seeing the world for the first time. And everything I saw made it clear to me there was no God.
Does that answer your question?
Thanks, Edward. That does not really answer my question, but maybe that’s okay.
Could you answer this?
The stats which are supposed to give us accurate information about the sex lives of all young people in the nation (America?) were based on one anonymous questionnaire of UCLA students in 1991?
Am I missing something?
PS: The reason I can’t reconcile your answer that you have peace is that you seem so jaded and seem to dislike humanity so much.
Edward,
I read today that it was discovered that the Dutch Roman Catholic Church castrated at least 10 boys back in the 1950′s.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html
This is not any official dogmatic position of the Catholic Church, and this may have something to do with Dutch people rejecting what they THINK is the Catholic Church. You said already that dioceses are being shut down. Yeah, I know why! They are corrupt.
My point is — what you think is Catholic teaching most likely isn’t. We don’t really tell people to just go read their Bibles and figure it out. That’s now what I learned when I really started reading the documents for myself.
Leila,
“Could you answer this?
The stats which are supposed to give us accurate information about the sex lives of all young people in the nation (America?) were based on one anonymous questionnaire of UCLA students in 1991?
Am I missing something?”
The only thing your missing is the results of that questionnaire are not used as accurate information about the sexual activity among young people in the US but in the entire Western civilisation.
“The reason I can’t reconcile your answer that you have peace is that you seem so jaded and seem to dislike humanity so much.”
First fo all, this is a discussion. In daily life I’m a lot more agreeable
Second, just tune in on CNN or any other 24/7 news source and tell me if you really like humanity after that. Same can be said about religion, by the way.
Stacy,
“My point is — what you think is Catholic teaching most likely isn’t. We don’t really tell people to just go read their Bibles and figure it out. That’s now what I learned when I really started reading the documents for myself.”
Most Dutch people associate Catholicism with decadence and evil. That is, in part, because of our history with Catholicism. During the War of Eighty Years (1568-1648) the Dutch fought Spain, our “rightful” ruler, for independence. Spain, however, wasn’t planning on letting go of the Netherlands anytime soon since that small part of the Spanish kingdom was the most profitable. The only sanctioned religion in the Spanish kingdom was Roman-Catholic while most Dutch were either Protestant or atheist. During the attempt by the Spanish to maintain control over the Netherlands they started to enforce the Roman-Catholic church on the Dutch people with the penalty of death for heritics. After the Spanish were driven from our soil Catholicism was forbidden in the Netherlands until 1853 (the year our new constitution came into effect, guaranteeing freedom of religion). But there are groups in the Netherlands, stating that was a grave mistake. They argue the freedom of religion shouldn’t have been granted in our constitution but the freedom of not having to deal with religion. These groups were already active in 1853 but gained more and more power in the 1960′s. Right now, politically, the groups advocating a right of no religion (or, the duty to keep your religion private and not bother other people with it) are the majority in the Netherlands. However, the religious parties are needed to get things done in our political system so so far they haven’t been succesful in amending the Dutch constitution yet.
So, to get back to the information you found: the news about castrations of gay youngsters in the early 50′s doesn’t startle anyone in the Netherlands. This kind of actions are right along the things the Dutch expect from Catholics and Catholic institutions. Actually, it suprises us more there aren’t reports of more and more recent cases than the 10 they found earlier this week.
When dealing with Catholics the Dutch expect the worst and the Catholic church and it’s representatives have not yet let us down in that assumption.
“The only thing your missing is the results of that questionnaire are not used as accurate information about the sexual activity among young people in the US but in the entire Western civilisation.”
Surely I am misunderstanding you. One anonymous survey of college kids from California on one university campus twenty-one years ago is an accurate representation of the entire Western civilization?
Huh??? This is science?
And, yes, the news shows a very dark side to humanity. We Catholics know about and teach about sin. We may be the only ones left who believe in sin.
But we are also a people of faith and hope, and we believe in the inherent goodness of people, who were made for transcendent things and who were made in the image and likeness of an all-good, all-loving God.
Pesky Alan is back.
Hubbybis teaching a short course at his convention so I had some time to catch up.
I guess my first question is how did you lose your religious freedom when planned parenthood got federal funding? As stated ad naseum we all pay taxes and some of those taxes go towards paying for things we don’t agree with. But that in no way infringes on my rights.
Second, why are we questioning Edwards statistics? Not too long ago the discussion focused on how you determined the “gay lifestyle” was harmful. And it was based on a study from 1996 based on obituaries from one gay newspaper. Yet those facts were what you based the gay life span on? Study was almost just as old, published well before the usage of life extending drugs for aids, and again from one specific newspaper. I guess I just want to know the criteria for what will offer proof of our points?
And there can be no questioning about Leila’s Children’s chastity (and I am not debating it, if Leila says they are, they are it is not up to me to question the validity of that statement), but Edward gets questioned when he responds that he is TRULY at peace.
Please remember we only see one aspect of people here (something I am completely guilty of) but we do not see the whole person. So when we all say something about ourselves or our families it should be accepted and not questioned. The questioning and occasional personal and snide comments detract from the discussion.
Hi Alan,
Stacy and Leila can question me all they want. I don’t really care about it.
Most truly religious people can’t imagine people being happy without their religion. After all, pretty much all religions state the true believers need to win over new recrutes, no matter if you’re dealing with Christianity or Islam. And yes, I too try to convince people there is no reason to believe in the Bible or go to church because I too believe I know what is true. There are some differences, though. For one, I don’t mind people questioning my believes while religious people do most of the time. Second, I have to come with all kinds of data and arguments which a religious person can undo with only three words: “but I believe”. Makes it frustrating sometimes but it shows one thing clearly: Religious might not need arguments or data but that’s a good thing, since there aren’t really arguments or data to provide to begin with.
Edward, Catholics have a loooooong history of intellectual pursuits and academic questioning, not to mention having founded the university system, the hospital system, and being on the forefront of modern scientific exploration. Surely you are aware?
Informed Catholics don’t mind a bit if they are questioned. I have a whole blog that is open to atheists and their questioning.
By the way, in my understanding, being “happy” is very different from having interior joy and peace.
But if Edward could address this:
“One anonymous survey of college kids from California on one university campus twenty-one years ago is an accurate representation of the entire Western civilization?
Huh??? This is science?”
Blessings!
Edward,
“So, to get back to the information you found: the news about castrations of gay youngsters in the early 50′s doesn’t startle anyone in the Netherlands.”
Actually I reread the article and it appears that the allegations are only of one reporter reporting what another reporter said, nothing really more than anecdotal here-say as to who was responsible. Certainly nothing that proves the Church was responsible.
“This kind of actions are right along the things the Dutch expect from Catholics and Catholic institutions. Actually, it suprises us more there aren’t reports of more and more recent cases than the 10 they found earlier this week.”
Actually someone did find more and more reports. Here’s a refereed journal, “Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,” in 2008 titled, “Eugenic and sexual folklores and the castration of sex offenders in the Netherlands.”
http://socialhistory.org/sites/default/files/docs/projects/eugenics.pdf
From the abstract:
It seems the government did this as a matter of scientific belief that this was the way to fix sex offenders and homosexuals. They were committed by the Dutch courts and permission to castrate them was given by the Department of Justice. Some of them were ‘voluntary’ too.
The article goes on to say (and cite with literature) Catholic theologians started the debate about whether castration and sterilization ought to imposed on sex offenders, which led to the end of that practice.
What do you make of that? Sounds like it was more the medical profession making a scientific claim about a way to punish or cure, than the Catholic Church.
Also Edward,
I kind find it funny that you would say this:
“When dealing with Catholics the Dutch expect the worst and the Catholic church and it’s representatives have not yet let us down in that assumption.”
- which is a ‘belief’ you have.
And then you would say this:
“Religious might not need arguments or data but that’s a good thing, since there aren’t really arguments or data to provide to begin with.”
Leila and I are both asking questions about data. She’s provided data about her own family, and nobody knows her own family better than a mother who has actually raised them (last part being critical). I’ve provided data too. You have, on the other hand, shown that you are willing to *believe* one study about strangers on another continent regarding the most intimate details of sexual behavior and you’ve also shown that you are willing to believe unsubstantiated sensationalistic journalism just because it furthers your hatred of a group of people.
Just pointing that out. You are welcome!
Just going to jump in to answer Leila’s question – I haven’t read the study, so I don’t know for sure (perhaps it was a study done by UCLA but covered more than just UCLA? seems likely, but again I don’t know), but no, that is not good science. This is actually part of why I cannot stand reading social science papers – they are by necessity limited, and the confounding factors are always far more numerous than the authors will concede.
If the study is as you describe it, Leila, and it very well might be, it should really only serve as a beginning. A truly comprehensive study would take into account region, urban/suburban/rural setting, political climate, student demographics (race, sex, socioeconomic background, religion, country of origin), sex ed laws in the state, and probably more factors that I haven’t thought of. Could a study possibly account for all of that? I highly doubt it. I think a better (though by no means perfect) study would take representative schools from major regions of the US and rank them on progressiveness, adherence to tradition, religiosity, socioeconomic makeup of the student body, political backgrounds, etc., categorize them by setting, and then conduct the surveys. That would make a far better study, but I would still read the article on it and find a million holes.
Also, it’s likely that studies can be done just fine – the UCLA one might be a great study, data collection-wise – but if they’re used to draw conclusions that are out of their scope, if you extrapolate too much, a good study can turn into an awful one.
All that to say, if you want to spend an afternoon ripping your hair out, settling down with a few social science articles is usually a good way to accomplish that!
Stacy, wow!
Michelle, thanks! I think, again, a lot of social science comes down to common sense. If teens live in areas that are liberal and secular and sexually permissive, there will be fewer virgins in that demographic. If they live in conservative, traditionally-minded, religious areas, there will be more virgins there. A California college campus is indicative of… a California college campus.
The fact that my kids and many others I know (and throughout history) are able to live very joyful, very fulfilling lives while remaining chaste until marriage, then that is very good evidence that we are not, in fact, animals that cannot help but act on our sexual urges — which is the unfortunate way that Edward sees humanity (and has stated so explicitly).
Blessings!
Comment
This is so interesting in light of our discussions with Edward. Again, International Planned Parenthood wanting it to be mandatory to teach ten-year-olds the “pleasures of sex”. But Edward doesn’t think that PP has any sexualizing of children in their agenda? Another interesting point is at the end of the news clip, there is a quote from some guy in the Netherlands, about how this is a great idea. Maybe Edward knows him?
http://moronicprochoicequotes.blogspot.com/2012/03/planned-parenthood-lets-sex-kiddies-up.html
My gosh, I am glad to still cling to America until it falls to godless secularism one day (please no).
-1′