Is Love Of The Environment And Love For Human Life Incompatible?

[Spock]

All of you need should read through this. And just ignore anthing PunkMaister sais about me, that guy is out to get me. Here you go anyway:

The “Imminent” destruction of humanity

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by Spock

All of you need should read through this. And just ignore anthing PunkMaister sais about me, that guy is out to get me. Here you go anyway:

The “Imminent” destruction of humanity

Dude I did not say anything about you here on this thread whatsoever, what is the matter with you? And no they should not ignore anything me or anyone else who dissents with your view has to say.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by PunkMaister

Dude I did not say anything about you here on this thread whatsoever, what is the matter with you? And no they should not ignore anything me or anyone else who dissents with your view has to say.

You have done so on other theads, so it is only logical that you would attempt to do so here. What I am bothered with is that you disagree with me on everything, to such an extent that it is intrusive for the entire community. But do what you will, looks like every thread we see each other in turns into a five page debate.

[Tsyal Makto]

IMO all life is equal, and all life has an equal right to exist on this planet. No one species (IE: humans) should be allowed to do whatever they want to it because they have an extreme superioity complex.

Humans must keep their population, and resourse consumption, in check, because they aren't the only creature using this planet.

My big concern is that religion seems to advocate unchecked procreation. One of the reasons Africa is overpopulated and facing such AIDS outbreaks is because the Vatican prevents the import of condoms by aid groups. Religion seems to teach that procreation is the meaning of life, even at the cost of every other creature.

Originally Posted by Genesis 1:28

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Some interpret "have dominion" as meaning it is OK to kill them off, as long as the human population can grow (how my religion teacher seems to interpret it). I interpret "have dominion" as meaning we must protect them, as they are gifts from God, too.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

IMO all life is equal, and all life has an equal right to exist on this planet. No one species (IE: humans) should be allowed to do whatever they want to it because they have an extreme superioity complex.

Humans must keep their population, and resourse consumption, in check, because they aren't the only creature using this planet.

Unfortunately the human race does not see things that way, but why should we? We have evolved that way, one species will allways triumph over another. It's only natural.

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

My big concern is that religion seems to advocate unchecked procreation. One of the reasons Africa is overpopulated and facing such AIDS outbreaks is because the Vatican prevents the import of condoms by aid groups. Religion seems to teach that procreation is the meaning of life, even at the cost of every other creature.



Some interpret "have dominion" as meaning it is OK to kill them off, as long as the human population can grow (how my religion teacher seems to interpret it). I interpret "have dominion" as meaning we must protect them.

I hate religion, it flies in the face of all natural human tendancies.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Spock

My big concern is that religion seems to advocate unchecked procreation. One of the reasons Africa is overpopulated and facing such AIDS outbreaks is because the Vatican prevents the import of condoms by aid groups. Religion seems to teach that procreation is the meaning of life, even at the cost of every other creature.

Originally Posted by Spock

I hate religion, it flies in the face of all natural human tendancies.

On the other hand, there are many religions on earth that do respect the environment and all forms of life. I also know many who have been woken up religion pretty much similar to I woke up thanks to Avatar + PAD + people like you.

I think it's not the religion that is bad, it's the human nature again...

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Fosus

On the other hand, there are many religions on earth that do respect the environment and all forms of life. I also know many who have been woken up religion pretty much similar to I woke up thanks to Avatar + PAD + people like you.

I think it's not the religion that is bad, it's the human nature again...

Ok, I probably should rephrase that. I think religion is a curse, especially the Catholic church. Although the grass roots level is good. Its the spirituality of the environmentally respectful religions that I admire. Although, I will never put the blame on human nature, whatever our nature be, it is our natural tendency. Therefore it is natural selection and what evolution has created us to be like.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Spock

Ok, I probably should rephrase that. I think religion is a curse, especially the Catholic church. Although the grass roots level is good. Its the spirituality of the environmentally respectful religions that I admire. Although, I will never put the blame on human nature, whatever our nature be, it is our natural tendency. Therefore it is natural selection and what evolution has created us to be like.

Spock, I don't think that you understand the Church's position on the situation. Of course AIDS needs to be reduced. Look into what Uganda has done to combat the problem. They have been able to get their numbers reduced by educating people to stop having multiple partners. Condoms are not an end all solution. Its attitudes and behavior that must change in order for the disease to be curtailed. The Church does not teach that one must have an uncontrolled population. That is a myth. I understand that many are confused as to what the teaching is but its not uncontrolled conception. That is almost impossible anyway. I think you also forget that the Church is the one who came into to these places and set up schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc. There are many aid workers right now in Africa, in Haiti, etc all over the world that goes at a moment's notice to help others in need.

I don't know if I can explain the position without getting flamed since I do not want a flame war and I don't think that anyone does but if you wish, we could discuss this issue in private message. What do you think?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

Spock, I don't think that you understand the Church's position on the situation. Of course AIDS needs to be reduced. Look into what Uganda has done to combat the problem. They have been able to get their numbers reduced by educating people to stop having multiple partners. Condoms are not an end all solution. Its attitudes and behavior that must change in order for the disease to be curtailed. The Church does not teach that one must have an uncontrolled population. That is a myth. I understand that many are confused as to what the teaching is but its not uncontrolled conception. That is almost impossible anyway. I think you also forget that the Church is the one who came into to these places and set up schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc. There are many aid workers right now in Africa, in Haiti, etc all over the world that goes at a moment's notice to help others in need.

Uganda is an exceptional example, although, I do believe other African countries should learn from this and try to work towards that as well. The thing is, most of these countries don't have workable systems that allow for them to independantly educate their own masses. The church does make the situation worse, though. I would like you to explain to me exactly what their teaching is. What I do know is that setting up schools, hospitals and orphanages are just drip feeding the problem. Let the environment cull the population to a point where the population can live sustainably and happily. Condoms should be allowed in too. They do help.

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

I don't know if I can explain the position without getting flamed since I do not want a flame war and I don't think that anyone does but if you wish, we could discuss this issue in private message. What do you think?

I'm not going to flame, merely debate.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Spock

Uganda is an exceptional example, although, I do believe other African countries should learn from this and try to work towards that as well. The thing is, most of these countries don't have workable systems that allow for them to independantly educate their own masses.

You know what that problem is though. Many of these countries are ruled by military dictatorships that don't care for their people. They like to amass weapons, etc and don't do much to help their infrastructure and educational structure.

The church does make the situation worse, though. I would like you to explain to me exactly what their teaching is. What I do know is that setting up schools, hospitals and orphanages are just drip feeding the problem. Let the environment cull the population to a point where the population can live sustainably and happily. Condoms should be allowed in too. They do help.

The Church can only persuade. It can not force. There are people who are not going to listen to the Church. We see it all the time so why should the Church be blamed for the AIDS problem? Many of these people will do what they want, including wearing condoms but we know that condoms are not a fail safe way to prevent the disease. They break easily. Sometimes the man doesn't put one on. Sometimes they forget. Condoms are not a cure all to the AIDS problem.

We are debating from two VERY different worldviews. In your view, at least from what I have seen from your debates, you believe it is perfectly fine to allow millions of people to die in order to help the environment. I do not come from that world view. Neither does the Church which is why there will always be a conflict.

Setting up schools, hospitals, and orphanages are very good. They are compassionate. It shows love. This is where we will differ. Now, for the Church's actual position. Not the one that is caricatured in the media:

The Church believes that every human life is precious, VERY precious. She also believes that it is God who makes human life with the cooperation of the man and woman. We believe that human life, in fact, all life is a gift from God but that human life is very precious and is a very good gift from God. Therefore, having children is a good. Its a good for society, etc. Since it is God who ultimately decides how many children there should be then the man and woman should not do anything to prevent children from coming.

However, this doesn't mean that there need to be families of 10 or more children. What this means is that the couple in question will trust God to decide how many children they should have.

Now, there are ways which have been scientifically proven to space the amount of children using completely natural means instead of using artifical means. The woman's cycle is very predictable. IF a woman knew what signs to look for then she would know when not to get pregnant. Yes, this requires control and some amount of knowledge but it isn't difficult. It isn't harmful to the woman nor the environment and its safe.

You know as well as I do that all those hormones that women take in their birth control pills, etc do get into the water supply. As a result, certain populations of fish, etc have been effected. Artificial means to control birth also can lead to harming women. I find it interesting that every commercial for the latest in birth control come with various warnings attached in which there is a possibility that the woman could have a stroke, bleeding, heart attack, etc if she uses the drugs.

Basically, the Church teaches that one should not use artificial means to control birth. Naturally spacing children, etc is fine. The Church DOES NOT require that a woman need to be barefoot and pregnant the whole time. Yes, there are some families who have a lot of kids. I know of some. Not everyone will be able to have that many. Basically she asks that people be open to life. That is all. Be open.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the AIDS issue but it does help to explain why we believe what we do. Again, I know you won't agree with me and you are entitled to your opinion but I wanted to clear up the Church's position since it seems there is a lot of misunderstanding.

As for as the AIDS issue goes, what is needed is education. I know that condoms will be used even though the Church discourages their use due to the fact that they are not always effective in preventing disease and that it is a barrier to be open to life. AIDS does raise the issue of behavior. Having multiple partners is honestly, from purely a medical standpoint, unhealthy because there is a greater chance of spreading disease which countless studies have shown. Reducing partners would help. But that requires a change in attitude and behavior much like a drug addict must change his/her behavior in order to quit.

Its a complex issue. There is a lot of gray area and I'm not sure what the best solution is but at least you can understand the Church's actual position instead of the one that states that the Church is forcing people to have as many kids as possible, etc.




I'm not going to flame, merely debate.[/QUOTE]

[neytirifanboy]

I'm going to be optimistic here.

I do think that the theory of evolution is relevant here. The theory is that the species that adapt the best will survive and prosper. It is not the species that breeds the mosts or is the strongest, or even the most intelligent. It is the most adaptable. That is why ants have been around for millions of years.

Humanity is very adaptable, which ironically, is why we find ourselves in this position. So humanity is very capabale of adapting again to save our own species. This means that humanity as a whole, and especially those with the power, need to adapt to preserve what nature is left. It will be interesting to see if we are successful or not.

I think over population is a problem. But I think current behaviour is a bigger one. Our problem is that we live in a consumer society where resources are wasted in creating lots of pointless stuff that is thrown away. So if we move away from the consumer society then things may improve.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

Condoms are not a cure all to the AIDS problem.

On that logic, you could say that any treatment isn't, even if was 99.9% effective. Doing nothing only makes a problem worse. Even if something only prevented it 1% of the time, that's better than nothing.

We are debating from two VERY different worldviews. In your view, at least from what I have seen from your debates, you believe it is perfectly fine to allow millions of people to die in order to help the environment. I do not come from that world view. Neither does the Church which is why there will always be a conflict.

I'e always said, if the church really wanted to help people, they'd use some of the money they're sitting on. They have enough there to make a HUGE amount of difference to poverty, famine, drought, war, homelessness, anything they wanted to. Instead, they sit on it or use it to cover up sexual abuse of children by their priests.

The Church believes that every human life is precious, VERY precious. She also believes that it is God who makes human life with the cooperation of the man and woman. We believe that human life, in fact, all life is a gift from God but that human life is very precious and is a very good gift from God. Therefore, having children is a good. Its a good for society, etc. Since it is God who ultimately decides how many children there should be then the man and woman should not do anything to prevent children from coming.

I find this contradictory. Without control over number of children, then if there isn't enough food, water, free/affordable education, if they can't be protected, then how is that life being respected? I'm not sure if I want children or not, but I would definitely never have children if I knew that they were going to have a substandard quality of life.

However, this doesn't mean that there need to be families of 10 or more children. What this means is that the couple in question will trust God to decide how many children they should have.

Fine in theory, unfortunately it doesn't work.

Now, there are ways which have been scientifically proven to space the amount of children using completely natural means instead of using artifical means. The woman's cycle is very predictable. IF a woman knew what signs to look for then she would know when not to get pregnant. Yes, this requires control and some amount of knowledge but it isn't difficult. It isn't harmful to the woman nor the environment and its safe.

Not completely true, there are variances in the cycle which can be affected by numerous things, even such as diet and mood/stress. Yes, they don't cause huge variations, but combined wit the fact that indications aren't always regular or accurate, and this 'method' is really not that useful.

As for as the AIDS issue goes, what is needed is education. I know that condoms will be used even though the Church discourages their use due to the fact that they are not always effective in preventing disease and that it is a barrier to be open to life. AIDS does raise the issue of behavior. Having multiple partners is honestly, from purely a medical standpoint, unhealthy because there is a greater chance of spreading disease which countless studies have shown. Reducing partners would help. But that requires a change in attitude and behavior much like a drug addict must change his/her behavior in order to quit.

Even if they are used, there are always people who would have otherwise sued them but won't because religious people told them to and they don't know any better. The church have falsely claimed that condoms cause HIV, which is laughable to educated people, but in some of the areas where it is most prevalent, many people are likely to consider it. If, as you said earlier, 'every human life is precious' then why do they knowingly cause people to become infected?

[rapunzel77]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Human No More

On that logic, you could say that any treatment isn't, even if was 99.9% effective. Doing nothing only makes a problem worse. Even if something only prevented it 1% of the time, that's better than nothing.

I understand your viewpoint on this. Its a complex problem. I guess it would be a better analogy in regards to drug addicts. There are organizations that give out sterile needles to them in the hopes that AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases won't spread but then the question arises, is this encouraging the further drug use by giving them needles? This is basically why the Church is discouraging the use of condoms because it could be encouraging certain behaviors that lead to greater disease and problems. I know that probably doesn't make sense to you but this is the reason for the viewpoint. Again, the Church isn't forcing people not to use condoms because people will do what they want.

I'e always said, if the church really wanted to help people, they'd use some of the money they're sitting on. They have enough there to make a HUGE amount of difference to poverty, famine, drought, war, homelessness, anything they wanted to. Instead, they sit on it or use it to cover up sexual abuse of children by their priests.

The Church has many hospitals, schools, homeless shelters, mental health clinics, etc. In fact, the Church has been on the forefront against the Iraq war and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Church was also actively involved in worker's rights and civil rights. There is a lot that the Church has done. At the same time, there are bishops who have had to pay out a ton of money in sex abuse cases. Some of these actually happened. Some didn't and I feel that the trial lawyers are just finding a way to milk to Church because its easy money to them. Please don't listen to the media. They love to sensationalize everything.

I find this contradictory. Without control over number of children, then if there isn't enough food, water, free/affordable education, if they can't be protected, then how is that life being respected? I'm not sure if I want children or not, but I would definitely never have children if I knew that they were going to have a substandard quality of life.

I understand your viewpoint on this. This is where better use of resources can help. I'm sure that you are aware that in many of these 3rd world countries, the governments steal from their people. They rather build up their armies then to insure that resources are used well. This is more of a problem of education and conserving resources.

Fine in theory, unfortunately it doesn't work.

This is where it takes faith and I know that many don't have that. It can work only if one is faithful. Again, not everyone is going to have a ton of children. That is impossible.

Not completely true, there are variances in the cycle which can be affected by numerous things, even such as diet and mood/stress. Yes, they don't cause huge variations, but combined wit the fact that indications aren't always regular or accurate, and this 'method' is really not that useful.

The variances in the woman's cycle is taken into account in using natural methods. I know because I use natural methods. The method that was used in the 50's and 60's didn't work well. There have been advances in the science though that makes it easier to predict when is the best time to get pregnant or to avoid pregnancy. It takes a little work but it isn't difficult. Again, education is the key.

We all know that using natural foods and products is good. Why not extend that to regulating birth? Why is it ok to pump a woman full of harmful chemicals, etc for something that is natural to her body? Having a normal reproductive cycle is a good thing. It isn't a disease. Why is it being treated as one? Why is it being treated as something that needs to be regulated beyond recognition. It leads to serious health problems.

Even if they are used, there are always people who would have otherwise sued them but won't because religious people told them to and they don't know any better.

Everyone has a choice to use them or not use them. The fact that someone can just blame the Church for it is sad, I think because they chose to use a condom or not. It is ultimately their choice. Don't you think that would just be a way to get back at the Church by falsely blaming them when it was the person who was using dirty needles or having multiple partners? What about personal responsibility?

The church have falsely claimed that condoms cause HIV, which is laughable to educated people, but in some of the areas where it is most prevalent, many people are likely to consider it.

If you have the time, please find me an exact quote from a church official saying this. I would like to see it.

If, as you said earlier, 'every human life is precious' then why do they knowingly cause people to become infected?

The Church does not knowingly cause people to become infected. Take the case in Uganda. They instituted a program of education for their people. Education that stressed changing attitudes and behavior. As a result, their HIV cases went down. Its a personal responsibility issue. This is what the Church has been stressing. The issue of using condoms is a complex one. The Church is telling people that their behavior must change. There are countless medical studies that show that increased HIV and STD's happen when people have multiple partners and share needles. This is a simple fact.

Please note that the Church does not want people to be infected with AIDS. Its a terrible disease that I don't think anyone wishes people to have. The Church does believe life is precious and you will find that the Church has many programs to help the homeless, fight against war and oppression.

I hope this has helped. If not, let me know and I can try to explain it better .

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

I understand your viewpoint on this. Its a complex problem. I guess it would be a better analogy in regards to drug addicts. There are organizations that give out sterile needles to them in the hopes that AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases won't spread but then the question arises, is this encouraging the further drug use by giving them needles? This is basically why the Church is discouraging the use of condoms because it could be encouraging certain behaviors that lead to greater disease and problems. I know that probably doesn't make sense to you but this is the reason for the viewpoint. Again, the Church isn't forcing people not to use condoms because people will do what they want.

It doesn't make sense to me (addiction to such drugs is extremely strong and without clean needles, they will just reuse/share used ones... by giving out clean ones, then they're still killing themselves with drugs, but at least they're not spreading disease (plus, they collect used needles, which is far better than having them left in the streets...). the truth is, humans are evolutionarily and biologically programmed to have sex. It's not just for reproduction only, it's for pleasure, and nobody has the right to say that people aren't allowed that.

The Church has many hospitals, schools, homeless shelters, mental health clinics, etc. In fact, the Church has been on the forefront against the Iraq war and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Which would be fine if such assistance was given to everyone and without forcing their beliefs on them in return. My primary school was christian, and they tried to teach us their beliefs, when most people were far too young to understand.

We all know that using natural foods and products is good. Why not extend that to regulating birth? Why is it ok to pump a woman full of harmful chemicals, etc for something that is natural to her body?

I never said anything about hormone-based contraception (which I think the risks from are overstated, but that wasn't my point...). There are far more methods than just hormone-based ones.

Having a normal reproductive cycle is a good thing. It isn't a disease. Why is it being treated as one? Why is it being treated as something that needs to be regulated beyond recognition. It leads to serious health problems.

Yet having children that they may be unable or unwilling to look after is worse? again, would you deny people the basic right of a pleasurable activity just because they don't want children? Even the small chance of a pregnancy, even if timing, can be a huge problem... If someone is still in school/university, if they don't have the time or money for a child, if having one would be a physical risk to them...
What about people who are carriers of lethal or debilitating genetic disorders? Should they not be allowed to at all then, just in case they get a pregnancy

If you have the time, please find me an exact quote from a church official saying this. I would like to see it.

Pope says condoms are not the solution to Aids - they make it worse -Times Online

In 2003 a senior Vatican official claimed condoms had tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass, exposing thousands of people to risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

It says cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns in four continents are saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms.

There are countless medical studies that show that increased HIV and STD's happen when people have multiple partners and share needles. This is a simple fact.

And what gives them the right to interfere in people's lives? The truth is, helping people is a lot easier than trying to tell them what to do, and does not risk people reacting to being told what to do by specifically ignoring the advice. The answer is education on how such diseases are spread, not forcing your values on people.

Please note that the Church does not want people to be infected with AIDS. Its a terrible disease that I don't think anyone wishes people to have. The Church does believe life is precious and you will find that the Church has many programs to help the homeless, fight against war and oppression.

And attempt to impose their views on other people, hide the massive corruption and abuse endemic in their organisation, shield Holocaust-deniers, make divisive statements, demand special privileges, indoctrinate people when they are young before they can truly make a decision, gain political power whether officially or unofficially...

I do think some of the things they do are good, but they will never have any respect from me while they attempt to impose their backwards morality on other people while being hypocritical... apparently, your life is their business, but their lives are none of the public's business.

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by Human No More

It doesn't make sense to me (addiction to such drugs is extremely strong and without clean needles, they will just reuse/share used ones... by giving out clean ones, then they're still killing themselves with drugs, but at least they're not spreading disease (plus, they collect used needles, which is far better than having them left in the streets...).

I understand the concept and it might help in hopefully weaning people off of them. They are killing themselves with drugs, etc and that isn't helpful either. Its a complex problem and there isn't an easy solution.

the truth is, humans are evolutionarily and biologically programmed to have sex. It's not just for reproduction only, it's for pleasure, and nobody has the right to say that people aren't allowed that.

Nobody that I know of is saying that sex is only for reproduction. In fact, due to the dual nature of sex (reproduction/pleasure) there is greater responsibility. I know that the board has discussed the problem in our society of being oversexed. It is due to the very important nature of sex that it should be protected. Its very intimate and shouldn't be abused. You have to admit that there is a lot of abuse of sex.

The Church does acknowledge this and doesn't think that sex is only for reproduction. In fact, Pope John Paul II wrote a series of talks on this very subject called the Theology of the Body. Its very academic and philosophical but he answers some of these questions.

Which would be fine if such assistance was given to everyone and without forcing their beliefs on them in return. My primary school was christian, and they tried to teach us their beliefs, when most people were far too young to understand.

I am also leary of some groups that do try to help others but also then try to force their beliefs on them. I don't agree with this approach either and I can see why this could turn someone off from any belief system.

I never said anything about hormone-based contraception (which I think the risks from are overstated, but that wasn't my point...). There are far more methods than just hormone-based ones.

The risks aren't overstated. In fact, several commercials for some of these contraceptives give disclaimers that then can cause heart attack, stroke, blood clots, etc. In fact, some have caused sterility so that when the time came for a woman to want to have children, she couldn't.

Yet having children that they may be unable or unwilling to look after is worse?

This is exactly why one must take sex seriously. It comes with responsibilities due to the dual nature of sex.

Again, would you deny people the basic right of a pleasurable activity just because they don't want children?

No. Most people aren't going to listen to the Church. They will do what they will. The Church can't force them to do anything.

Even the small chance of a pregnancy, even if timing, can be a huge problem... If someone is still in school/university, if they don't have the time or money for a child, if having one would be a physical risk to them...
What about people who are carriers of lethal or debilitating genetic disorders? Should they not be allowed to at all then, just in case they get a pregnancy

These are all factors that must be taken into consideration which is why the responsibility of sex ought to be placed on both the man and woman. It takes some work and some education. All the Church asks is that the couple who wants to follow the Church's teachings be open to life. If it isn't possible to have a child at the moment for the legitimate reasons that you state then during her fertile time, they probably should refrain. Remember that a woman is fertile for probably 3-4 days out of a month. This is the usual window. Every woman is different so of course their cycles will be different. With the knowledge of what their cycle is, they can pinpoint the time in which it is likely that they will be fertile and not. I speak as a practitioner of it.

Pope says condoms are not the solution to Aids - they make it worse -Times Online

BBC NEWS | Health | Vatican in HIV condom row

What the Holy Father is basically saying is that condoms are not an end all solution to the problem. Education is. It is true that condoms are porous, at least some brands are. They are not fool proof. The best solution is sexual responsibility. The Church is definitely not trying to deny people pleasure. I remember learning that in school when we had AIDS days.

And what gives them the right to interfere in people's lives?

Are they? For several decades no one has cared what the Church has taught. They have done what they will so why would they think that the Church is interfering. However, if someone is a Catholic and wants to practice their faith then there are certain responsibilities attached.

The truth is, helping people is a lot easier than trying to tell them what to do, and does not risk people reacting to being told what to do by specifically ignoring the advice. The answer is education on how such diseases are spread, not forcing your values on people.

I agree that education is the answer. I am sorry that there is the perception that the Church is "forcing" values on people. Like I said, many people aren't going to care what the Church says so how is that forcing?

And attempt to impose their views on other people, hide the massive corruption and abuse endemic in their organisation,

This is a source of grief for many Catholics who are faithful. We are disgusted with what some bishops have done. I personally think that most of these bishops need to be kicked out for this reason and others. I agree that this kind of corruption has done terrible damage to the Church's message . It hurts very, very much. You have to remember that the Church is a family. You are speaking about some of my less than savory family members who several of us are ashamed of. I don't think that to many people who are outside of the Church knows what sort of pain we have when we hear these stories. It disgusts us so much . I hope that the clean up will gain speed. There are a few signs but it will take many, many years. I understand why you wouldn't respect the Church when stuff like this is reported on .

shield Holocaust-deniers

I have to set the record straight on this. You are referring to bishop foot and mouth aka. Williamson. I'm not going to go into the whole story of the SSPX and the Church but suffice it to say that the bishop isn't actually a recognized member of the Catholic hierarchy. He belongs to a group that isn't technically in the Church. Again, its a long story. His excommunication was lifted along with three others on a matter that is totally different from his very silly holocaust denial or I should say his very silly denial that 6 million Jews were killed. He thinks that the numbers were lower. Yes, it is very silly since there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, since his VERY silly interview, he has been silenced by the SSPX and has thankfully done so.

make divisive statements

Well, everyone regardless of organization will make divisive statements. No one can please everyone.

demand special privileges, indoctrinate people when they are young before they can truly make a decision, gain political power whether officially or unofficially...

Demanding special privileges can be numerous things. You probably are referring to tax exempt statuses, etc. It is unique in that we have a global structure. Its due to this that perhaps some of the privileges stem. As for as indoctrination, well all parents, teachers, the media, etc do this. You can't escape that. All societies indoctrinate. As for as gaining political power. Right now, currently, the Church doesn't have the political power that it once had. The Church does have a moral voice and should be heard along with all others. I don't think that it needs to be silenced. You need multiple voices. I admit that due to some of the terrible corruption in some parts of the Church, this voice is lessened .

I do think some of the things they do are good, but they will never have any respect from me while they attempt to impose their backwards morality on other people while being hypocritical... apparently, your life is their business, but their lives are none of the public's business.

The Church is not forcing you to do anything. You don't have to listen to Her if you don't want to and that is your choice. As for as attempting to impose their "backwards" morality on everyone, the Church does have some things to say in regards to respecting life, opposing war, standing up for justice, etc. Are these so backwards that they ought to be silenced? I would hope not. Some ideas are universal and timeless.

I respect your opinion though. I know that the Church seems to be this hypocritical organization and to a degree its true. WE are all hypocrites because we are humans. The Church is an organization full of sinners and people who do bad things. It has always been that way. But, I love her and I try to show love to others, at least to show that not all Catholics have 3 heads that want to throw the Bible in their faces .


Btw, I am enjoying this conversation. I hope its helpful .