Should the Church be silent ?

Originally posted by bbarr
Not according to the RC. Abstinence would be the permissible course of action regarding the transmission of STDs.

If people would take the advice of the RC Church and many others to be faithful to one's (and one) partner, all these diseases (STD's) would not be so successful in doing their dirty work, make people ill, miserable, unhappy and in killing them in the end.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Reference?

You gave me two minutes !

The reference is there. Check it out.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

If people would take the advice of the RC Church and many others to be faithful to one's (and one) partner, all these diseases (STD's) would not be so succesful in doing their dirty work and make people ill, miserable, unhappy and kill them in the end.

This is true, but unfortunately we have a real situation in many parts of the world where innocents are suffering for lack of timely medical intervention (read:ignorance of condom use), leading to a situation where the niceties of Victorian marriage are not likely to be adhered to.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Why don't you get a grip. If you were in a one religion theocracy your attitude would make sense. Where there is plurality in belief then your stance in totally unreasonable. Your advocating a society run along the same lines as Saudi. Pfft

Nah ......

Originally posted by KneverKnight
This is true, but unfortunately we have a real situation in many parts of the world where innocents are suffering for lack of timely medical intervention (read:ignorance of condom use), leading to a situation where the niceties of Victorian marriage are not likely to be adhered to.

Now this is what I don't get:

Suppose I'm a loving husband who contracted AIDS due to no fault of my own (say, an infected needle was used during a blood transfusion). I love my wife and want her to come to no harm. Would I still want to have sex with her knowing that she could be infected if the condom is not used properly or it breaks? (Let's ignore the whole virus-diameter-condom theory for the moment). Is having sex with her my birthright?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Where my beef with the Religious Right occurs is when your side tries to intrude on private matters. I also think that your side gets so worked up into a lather about morals issues that you fail to see how critically important financia ...[text shortened]... hey're wrong, you damn well better have your own house in order.

While I can agree with your position on homosexuality, surely adoption is not an issue you can remain neutral about if you consider the fetus to be a human organism (I'll avoid the word "person" ) with rights?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
This is true, but unfortunately we have a real situation in many parts of the world where innocents are suffering for lack of timely medical intervention (read:ignorance of condom use), leading to a situation where the niceties of Victorian marriage are not likely to be adhered to.

This problem of the spreading of the HIV virus is closely linked to underdevelopment. The only true and permanent solution to the HIV problem is the changing of people's sexual habits. Giving them condoms and telling them that they are protected 100% is a lie and we in the West know this. Condoms do NOT give 100% protection against the HIV virus. We have to tell the people in the third world, and everywehere else for that matter, the bitter truth. They have been deceived too many times by the Western countries. Telling them lies about the supposed 100% protection condoms give is in my view another crime that can be added to the long list of crimes the Western countries have committed against the Third World.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
No, I think adoption's a great thing. In fact, I think that the people who spin their wheels against abortion could do a far mroe useful thing - take in a young girl who's been kicked out of her house because she got pregnant, care ...[text shortened]... then adopt that baby if the mother still doesn't want to keep it.

Aaargh! I wrote "adoption" for "abortion". 🙄 That's what happens when you switch between threads.

Personally, I think your idea is great. But the fact that a more useful thing to do exists should not stop one from doing something else that is useful (though, admittedly, less useful) nevertheless.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Now this is what I don't get:

Suppose I'm a loving husband who contracted AIDS due to no fault of my own (say, an infected needle was used during a blood transfusion). I love my wife and want her to come to no harm. Would I still want to have sex with her knowing that she could be infected if the condom is not used properly or it breaks? (Let's ...[text shortened]... re the whole virus-diameter-condom theory for the moment). Is having sex with her my birthright?

That would be your (and your wife's) choice.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

This problem of the spreading of the HIV virus is closely linked to underdevelopment. The only true and permanent solution to the HIV problem is the changing of people's sexual habits. Giving them condoms and telling them that they are protected 100% is a lie and we in the West know this. Condoms do NOT give 100% protection against the HIV virus. We have ...[text shortened]... dded to the long list of crimes the Western countries have committed against the Third World.

Condoms reduce the risk of contracting a venereal disease. Rubber gloves reduce transmission of cold virus in food handling.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Getting into this thread late, so I apologize if I'm about to duplicate someone's efforts here.

Ivanhoe (and usually I have a very hard time reading anything you write), I think you make a strong argument for your side. I agree ...[text shortened]... on't see this. It's plain as day.

So that's my bit, there.

Well Sasquatch,

You adress me as one of "them". Considering the globalisation of todays societies through means of the internet and all, this constitutes a little problem. The world is becoming more and more a "global village". This means that you should consider the possibility that you are not talking to an American. I'm not an American and I'm not a Republican. No panic please, It doesn't bother me. I have handled more serious problems in my life ..... lol ....

Sasq: "Where my beef with the Religious Right occurs is when your side tries to intrude on private matters."

It depends on how you look at things to decide what constitutes "private matters".

The State has the obligation to protect the lives and interests of its citizins. We can all agree on that I hope.

Unborn children are unborn citizins. In my view the State has the obligation to also protect these citizins. Is this a religious stance ? Not to me.

Sasq: " I'll go into detail: You feel that homosexual behavior is immoral. I don't."

My feelings are not decisive in these matters. Why homosexual behaviour is not morally acceptable according RC teachings has its reasons.

Sasq: "I think that no one would choose a lifestyle that includes the great potential for being ostracized by your family, beaten up by thugs, and being called a freak your whole life."

You are correct. That's why I oppose the things you mention. They are unloving, uncaring and disrespectful towards gay people.

Sasq: "I don't choose to live that way, but it's not hurting me - it's not hurting anybody - so I live and let live."

According to the teachings of the RC Church it is damaging to gay people themselves. They are endangering their true happiness here on earth and their eternal happiness in communion with the Lord.

Sasq: "I don't want anybody trying to tell ME what I can do in MY house."

Fair enough, but what about domestic violence and physical, mental or sexual abuse ?

Sasq: "Abortion? Yeah, not a big fan of abortion at all. I have a hard time understanding why killing a newborn is a capital crime by anybody's definition but aborting a viable fetus is viewed as a routine medical procedure. It's ghastly and ghoulish."

It is my opinion you should speak out against it publicly if you oppose abortion. It isn't necessarily a religious stance to take.

http://www.l4l.org/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html

Sasq: "But before you go knocking on other peoples' doors, telling them they're wrong, you damn well better have your own house in order."

In our globalised world we should all try to implement Human Rights, Justice and Peace for ALL. We must work together to realise these values. If you wait until "you have your own house in order" you can wait till yellow turns purple.

Sasq: "The other part of my argument - your side really doesn't believe that economic issues are important."

The side you are talking about isn't my side at all. I strongly oppose the Bush's administration's social and social-economic policies. They are a disaster in my opinion. In my view economic issues are very important.

If you would study the RC Church's stances on what constitutes a fair and social economic policy you would find that these policies are very progressive, not "conservative" or "Republican" at all.

Sasq: "So you elect a "moral" president that gives tax cuts to the very very rich while cutting Head Start programs, you elect a "moral" man who ran up a $440 billion budget deficit, which is causing rising interest rates and a falling dollar, which enormously weakens our national security; you elect a guy whose administration has made a habit of passing off false information to the American public and the world; you follow people like Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed, who for all of their public piousness are two of the most corrupt individuals on the planet."

I am not a fan of Bush's social and economic policies. His economic and financial policies are a reason for great concern in Europe and elsewhere. His foreign policy and domestic security policy isn't perfect either. Absolutely not.
I agree with you that the GOP is too much connected with the interests of the economic and financial elite to be a "social conservative" party.

So you see, I do not follow Bush and his pious corrupt friends Tom Delay and Ralph Reed and I did not elect Bush to the office of President of the United States.

In another thread I have adressed the two party system in the States. In my view it is responsible for the false dichotomies that rule and suffocate American political life.

I personally would love to see a political party that opposes abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. In short a party that wants to build a culture of life wherein the Sanctity of Life is respected and at the same time a culture can be built where there is room for fair and social policies in the fields of wages (minimum wages! ), good medicaid insurance, good social security, good housing, a good education for all and a reduction of the hours people have to work in order to earn a good living (in fact the latter is a minimum wages policy).

I must tell you I do not trust Bush and friends when they show their "Christian faces". They only show them if they need the Christian votes of the Right, if it does not cost any money and if it does not erode the GOP's political power position.

So you see, I agree with your analysis regarding the GOP.

One thing that should be done in my view is to implement a multi-party system .... yeah I know .... when hell freezes over.