Write to the American Catholic Bishops...

No. We're not discussing encouragement not to have sex. This thread, despite your usual tedious derailleur tactics, is about the Catholic Church avoiding the truth about its female parishioners near complete contempt for a prime tenet of its religious doctrine. Stick with that, would'ja?

The Catholic Church is claiming to need an exemption from the Affordable Health Act due to this tenet that, it is agreed even by the Church, less than 3% of of its own communicants follows.

It would be the same as if the Catholic Church claimed all of its followers had to eat at least one pound of whale blubber every week as the reason it was opposing the laws against whale hunting.

This isn't about sex, it's about control over women's lives.

Joe( try to tell us what the Roman Catholic Church should do)Nation

I think the reasoning is that if the Catholic Church was to become more conservative, many fewer Catholics would be in it, and the Catholic clergy would lose much of its power to enforce its misogynous agenda through the lobbying of lawmakers.

If that's Joe's reasoning, I'm skeptical. Look how well this has worked for theologically-conservative evangelical churches.

In the last two posts there has appeared the words "misogynous" and "control over women's lives".

It seems to me that such language is the result of people having taken a position against the RC Church in early life, for personal reasons I assume, and have used these expressions, which are unexamined assertions, to such an extent and presumably without challenge that they have come to believe they are facts.

But they are not. Their use prejudges the argument in their own favour by the pejorative tone of such expressions and thus they are circular and disingenuous.

The other side believes that ABC is misogynous and seeks control over women.

If the expression "control over women's lives" is changed to "control over women's lives in women's interests" the real argument is engaged. If it is not in women's interests to have themselves mechanically and chemically spayed for the convenience of men who seek cheap and easy sexual intercourse without responsibility then it is perfectly obvious who are the misogyists and who is seeking control over women.

Control over people's lives in their interest is the whole point of democratically agreed laws. Control of people for no reason but the exercise of control is another matter.

What is happening is that a devious use of these pejoratives without reference to the interests of the people controlled is being deployed presumably on the assumption that the intended audience is stupid.

So there is a necessity of people promoting ABC to prove that it is in the interests of women, and men. It is certainly in the interests of the businesses involved in the manufacture, distribution, retailing and advice concerning their use, to promote ABC. It is certainly in the interest of low intensity eugenicists as I have explained.

Is it in the interests of women? That's the question. That the subject has become an issue in the race for the White House suggests that people qualified to be President, and their teams, are of the view that ABC is not in the interests of women and that those promoting it are misogynists.

You might as well say that the Pope is full of **** and leave it at that. Because that is what you are really saying with your sneaky pejorative assertions designed to delude the unwary. And at least a billion people disagree with you.

If Joe and Thomas will get on with doing that we might be able to have a grown up, intelligent discussion on the matter.

Sex is not on the agenda with ABC. You are discussing encouragement to not have sex whether you like it or not. Sex is an evolved response to the procreation and continuation of the species. How can the deliberate circumvention of that be classed as sex when it is merely recreation and setting out to defeat the evolved urge on which the recreation is based?

A2Kers will decide for themselves whether my posts are "tedious". They do not need your guidance on such matters Joe. Once again, like most things you say, it is circular. I'm full of **** as well as the Pope and the billion odd Catholics and all to prove you are right. You ego is out of control.

If you read my tedious posts, which you obviously don't, you would know that it is of no relevance how many Catholic women use ABC to the official position of the Church. Just as it is of no relevance to the Government's position on speeding or drug taking how many people break the speed limit or take drugs. That some female parishioners express "near complete contempt" of the Church's teaching in this regard is another meaningless, asserted circularity based on your desire for them to have such contempt which I do not believe they have whether they have recourse to ABC or not.

Your reference to whale meat demonstrates your lack of understanding of the issues involved.

The Roman Catholic Church will do what it has always done and seek to protect women from the carnal depredations of men such as yourself and your eager followers. You are the misogynists and seekers of control over women's lives and assertions to the contrary are pointless and stupid unless you explain why doing nothing about the natural woman to change her nature is guilty of the specious and self-serving allegations you make against that position. Why do you need me to tell you what the Church should do. It's position is clear and out in the open and I agree with it.

I'm not sure that the position of the business interests in ABC is out in the open. I think those interests have dangled a temptation before your eyes and you have succumbed to it.

BTW Joe--why did you take the trouble to specifically invite me onto this thread? Were you running out of people to insult?

I have put the argument as I see it. What else do you want me to do?

After inviting me what's your position on the poison thumber down?

I invited you to this thread, Spendius, because I thought, for once, you might join me in thinking the same thoughts if not for the same reasons. I hoped you would applaud my recognition of the danger the RCC (as you like to write it) is in and assist me in making suggestions as to how the bishops might extricate it.

I did not mean to insult you, that's not my style. I withdraw the word 'tedious' but I suggest you read what you write and compare the prose to some of the authors you are so fond of quoting. Decide for yourself, I say.

Joe(Good day)Nation

Every time you write ABC, I read alien big cat, and I must admit I'm intrigued to discover that the Beast of Bodmin has a position on this. It's not all ripping the heads off sheep.

Thank u, Tom, for that explanation. I see your reasoning, and I join in your uncertainty,
if that is Joe 's point. I very, very seldom argue the merits of theology
or of what people do in their churches, but I 'll make an exception,
for the moment, to raise a question addressing motivation, to wit:
If the Catholics believe that the Supreme Being, the Source of All Life,
the Creator of the Universe, desires that thay do thus and so,
then is it appropriate to refuse (even without considering Heaven or hell) ?

Izzy, permit me to commend u upon how comprehensible & intelligible
your other posts have been !





David

Does that count when he's telling Moslems to fly into skyscrapers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beast_of_Bodmin

Correct me if I am rong,
but I don 't believe that the Moslems accused Him of that.
Rather, thay just thawt He 'd like it, if thay coerced Christians into becoming Mohammedans.





David

How did this become included in the conversation ?

( I thawt that Basil Rathbone did a fine job in The Hound of the Baskervilles.
Notice that both he & Dr. Watson habitually carried their own English revolvers, when England was a free country.)





David

Read my original post, you'll see. It was just a joke, and now it seems quite laboured. Thanks for that.

First, knowing your form, I assumed you were taking the piss.

Second, I did agree with the letter and I added that wanking should be included. I thought it a cop out. A sort of self-conscious oversight.

I have also hinted that the ARCC is possibly not extricable. And that Rome might be aware of it. You're going all the way with the separation of Church and State. Locked on. As mainly lawyers the Founders would be opposed to Galatians. Chap 2. Verse 16.



Otherwise Hitler is justified.

I suggest you read without comparing the author to anybody else. If I were to do what you say what would I learn? I read as if it is a mobile phone from the past. Or as if a tale is being told me in a pub by a ghost.

You haven't learned much from all of your reading. It shows by the content of your posts; they are mostly irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Our son is an avid reader; his spare bedroom is stacked with books, but he also understands logic and relevance.

You need to get your money back from the schools you attended; they haven't taught you much about relevance and relationships.

That the majority of Catholics practice artificial birth control, and the Church knows it, should not prevent them from opposing the government's imposition of a mandate that is contrary to a core teaching and a violation of the First Amendment.

How the Church deals with the widespread disregard for this core teaching among its followers is an issue that it is within the sole purvue of the Church and its members. Certainlythere is no reason for the government to intrude and while non-Catholics are certainly entitled to their opinions on the issue they are, essentially, irrelevant.

That non-Catholic employees of the Church and it's associated institutions are affected by the religious positions it takes is a situation they have voluntarily assumed. If they find it oppressive, they can seek employment elsewhere. No one has a right to be employed by the Church, and certainly no one is being forced to work for the Church.

The issue of religious freedom is more important than any one church's position on any subject that is not in violation of a tight definition of public policy.

That the position has been rejected by the majority of the religion's followers is immaterial to the constitutional issue.

I'm sure the bishops truly appreciate your heartfelt desire to preserve their Church, and perhaps if you are ever granted an audience with the Pope, you can give him the benefit of your vast theological brilliance, and perhaps change his mind...in the interest of the Church.

Your apparent concern over religions' attempts to tell people how to live their lives - biologically or otherwise, confusing if you are a member of a religion, and predictable if you are anti-religion. What else do religions do then tell men and women how they should live?

You may not agree with their instructions, but finding that they instruct to be offensive is similar to take offense over the fact that snakes bite or governments govern.

Telling people how they should live their lives is hardly limited to the clergy. President Obama engages in the practice on a regular basis, as does Planned Parenthood, PETA, and The Sierra Club.

In reality, you only have a problem with individuals and institutions telling people how to live if you have a problem with the instructions they give.

nice screed, finn...

I like how you tied it all back to the left at the end.

very clever, if predictable...

You don't understand labor laws in this country about working for religious or non-religious organizations.

It's not about the Left?

Who else, other than perhaps Muslims, has such an animus towards the Catholic Church and Christianity?

You know Rocky, it might be nice if just once you replied to something I write with substance rather than pathetic snark.