The Church needs to stop impeding science.
J.A.B.C. said 03/14, 05:21 AM
The church has recently expanded on it's view of Mortal sin, to include such things as Drug Abuse, the separation between Poor and wealthy, and genetic manipulation. Normally, I wouldn't care about what these men think, but one thing has pushed me to act: Genetic Research.
The Church has a notorious track record for the suppression of scientific thought throughout it's history. And with the current outcry against rational solutions to disease [Stem-Cell Research], population control [Abortion and Death Penalty], and other scientific progresses, one has to wonder why?
Then, the answer is simple: They wish to retain control. Through archaic dogma and outdated papal law, thy want to extend the control they had in the Middle Ages into the Current time. And the world will suffer for it.
Religion continues to use a double standard within it's own hierarchy, as well. exemption from tax ensures that their funds are not re-distributed to those who may need them. Their priests continues to abuse minors. And in some situations, they condone abortion [if the fetus is in the 200th trimester].
The world needs to see through this facade, and the Church must allow growth.
swdowning said 03/15, 02:06 AM
First, I need you to clarify a couple of your statements. You write "...the current outcry against rational solutions to...population control [Abortion and Death Penalty], and other scientific progresses..." You started by talking about the church's record; is the outcry from the church or the public? Also, abortion and the death penalty have never been used for population control, although both have reduced our population. Do you really see these as "scientific progresses" toward population control?
Neither the Church nor its priests is perfect, so I think the abuse issue is off point in this debate. I have to ask you about the Church condoning abortion in the 200th trimester. What do you mean?
The Church does not impede science. As an organization, it has every right to state its moral opposition to an action. Scientists have every right to ignore that. The Church has almost no ability to enforce its doctrine, so what you really want is for the Church to be restrained. Would you want our government to do this, and if so do you see any establishment clause problems?
The solution to wrong speech is more speech, not less.
J.A.B.C. said 03/15, 03:12 AM
For the 200th trimester remark, I would ask you to investigate the abortion clinic bombings, all of which were carried out by 'sane, god-fearing' baptists. Or what about Jihad, The Inquisition, and other forms of religious war that end life? You can find many examples of people being killed in 'the name of God.'
As for not impeding science, what about Galileo, or the current religious outcry against stem-cell research by many Judeo-Christian factions, to include the Catholic Church? A research that may prove vital to curing such genetic-level impairments such as Parkinson's Disease, and they wish to stop it. How about Intelligent Design, which provides no evidence for it's theory aside from attacks on Evolution?
Even by stating it's opposition, it harms those who wish to discover through science by ostracizing them as 'not in line with the views of the Church', as it does many.
As for the Population Control incident, I will admit my wording was off, and I apologize. But murders do still deserve to die, and women should be offered a choice of abortion in special circumstances, such as ****. It should still be their choice, nonetheless.
swdowning said 03/15, 04:39 AM
You said the Catholic Church favors the abortions of fetuses in their 200th trimester. I presume that means adults, despite the absence of "fetus" status. But you have to go to Baptists to support the point. They don't take orders from the Catholic Church. Jihad is an Islamic event. Your message isn't anti-Catholic, it's anti-religion. You hate those who have faith, and any evidence that religion influences behavior is a threat to you and must be stopped. Fine. How would you do it? This is the second time I've asked this of you.
I agree with you that the Catholic Church in the inquisition diverged from Christ's teachings, and this includes the treatment of Galileo. But that was over 350 years ago, at a time when the Church wielded real power and could enforce its doctrine. No longer is this the case. You're not suggesting that anti-Catholic or anti-religious intervention is needed now to prevent the Church's torture of stem cell researchers, are you?
The issue of choice is off topic. Abortion is legal, despite the Church's constant opposition, which is even more evidence that its expression in opposition poses no threat. Intelligent design is also off topic.
Support your point.
J.A.B.C. said 03/15, 05:08 AM
Thatcher once wrote that when you attack the messenger, you've lost. Let me re-state what i've said.
*You said i am straying from my argument by using baptists and Muslim believers. I said 'The Church.' This can mean many religions.
*The Church, to include not only Catholic, but also Islamic, Christian, Protestant, etc. impedes on progress my exerting it's views of morality upon those who follow the religion.
*You say the Catholic Church wielded real power back in those days. They still do wield significant power, in every nation. As do other faiths and beliefs.
*My solution was never part of this debate. I simply stated that The Church [Or churches, if you prefer the plural] need to stop in their aggrandizement of science and progress.
*Intelligent design has been consistently linked with religious beliefs on The Creation and The Genesis.
*Yes, abortion is legal. That didn't stop the Army of God from sending 'anthrax' letters to abortion clinics.
As for my 'hate' of those who have faith, that is a flat-out lie. My parents, as well as many of my co-workers have faith. I do not hate them for that, I don't have the right. What I hate is people using faith to stop progress.
swdowning said 03/15, 05:37 AM
Your first sentence began "The church has recently expanded on it's [sic] view of Mortal sin..." The only church to have done that is the Catholic Church. Sorry if I presumed too much, but this is probably evidence that you lump all faiths together, and hence for you all faithful people are suspect. Your new definition of "Church" supports this interpretation.
You wrote "the Church must allow growth." So you're appealing to all faiths to stop advocating courses of action over which they have no legitimate control?
Intelligent design is not part of your original argument. The only nexus here is that some religious people believe it. This is still further evidence that you lump all people of faith and everything they believe into one big ball and then decide to be so suspicious of it that you declare it must be stopped because it's somehow impeding science when some element of it does nothing more than express its beliefs.
I'm sorry, friend, but I think you haven't made the point that the Catholic Church is impeding science, nor have you convinced me that it should stop expressing its beliefs.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I admit my loss. I have not changed my views on the subject, but I did not prepare my case well enough. Congratulations, swdowning.
J.A.B.C. | 03/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks, J.A.B.C. We all have off days. I look forward to debating you in the future.
swdowning | 03/16/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
It pains me to have to vote against J.A.B.C., because I do deeply feel that the church needs to stay the hell out of science, but J.A.B.C. has just done such a terrible job in establishing impacts for why religion should stay out that I have no choice but to vote for swdowning.
Accidental Democrat | 03/15/08
Report Offensive Comment