If the Vatican is against Obama he must be on the right track.

[LowlyPion]

Vatican attacks US abortion move

The Vatican has condemned President Obama's move to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions.

One Vatican official warned against the "arrogance" of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

Another official said it dealt a blow to groups fighting against "the slaughter of the innocents".

The White House says the move aligns the US with other nations fighting poverty and promoting health care.

On Friday, Mr Obama ended a ban on giving US federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information about them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7849600.stm

Speaking of those in power being arrogant, I think maybe the Vatican ought to look at their own agenda through the lens of those in poverty or afflicted with aids, instead of the gold gilded windows of the Vatican?

The list of what they have been against - Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin - just may be putting Obama on the right side of history.

 

[Phrak]

Hmm. Very Reganesk. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 

[LowlyPion]

As an example of Vatican grace see:

Vatican says it does not owe Darwin an apology
5:24 17 September 2008 by New Scientist staff and Reuters

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14751-vatican-says-it-does-not-owe-darwin-an-apology.html

 

[Hurkyl]

The list of what they have been against - Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin - just may be putting Obama on the right side of history.

Is that a complete list, really? Or are you just cherry-picking things to manufacture a particular viewpoint being used in a flawed argument? (And I don't think these examples were ad hominem things as you suggest)

 

[LowlyPion]

Hmm. Very Reganesk. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

I've nothing against the Catholic Church per se. And that really isn't my point. They are neither friend nor foe to me in any absolute sense. But at a certain point it just seems to me their meddling in secular affairs - like reproductive rights - given their own resume - should be a little more restrained.

 

[LowlyPion]

Is that a complete list, really? Or are you just cherry-picking things to manufacture a particular viewpoint being used in a flawed argument? (And I don't think these examples were ad hominem things as you suggest)

Sure they've spoken out about the Holocaust too, but that does rather cut across the breadth all human experience.

 

[Hurkyl]

Cherry-picking, got it.

I've nothing against the Catholic Church per se. And that really isn't my point. They are neither friend nor foe to me in any absolute sense. But at a certain point it just seems to me their meddling in secular affairs - like reproductive rights - given their own resume - should be a little more restrained.

"Thou shall not kill" is one of the ten commandments. Given the premise that a fetus is a human life -- which the Catholic Church appears to adopt -- this is very much an affair in which they should be 'meddling'.

 

[Gokul43201]

"Thou shall not kill" is one of the ten commandments.

As is (approx):

Thou shall work for only six days in the week and keep the Sabbath on the seventh day.

Isn't it time the Vatican started getting involved in labor laws?

 

[Hurkyl]

Isn't it time the Vatican started getting involved in labor laws?

I'm going to assume from the form of your reply that you are implying the argument:

The third commandment says something about labor. The Catholic Church doesn't meddle in labor laws. Therefore, it is invalid to argue that the sixth commandment justifies the Catholic Church meddling in laws about the killing of human life.​

(If this isn't what you meant to say, then it's your own fault for not stating it yourself. )

Aside from the fact your argument is formally invalid¹, it's based on a false premise², and a strawman³.

1: Other responses might be that the Church is content with current labor laws, or maybe that it should be meddling more
2: The Catholic Church does have things to say about labor laws, e.g. here
3: The Catholic Church's actual position regarding the Sabbath can be seen here

 

[LowlyPion]

Cherry-picking, got it.

"Thou shall not kill" is one of the ten commandments. Given the premise that a fetus is a human life -- which the Catholic Church appears to adopt -- this is very much an affair in which they should be 'meddling'.

Since abortion is not generally accepted by everyone as murder, I'd say their proselytizing on the subject outside their faith, by employing such ad hominem rhetoric against Obama as calling him arrogant is unwarranted, and might ipso facto be seen as arrogance on their part.

Given their stances against the march of science, their choice of drawing the line even non-intuitively at prohibiting contraception, suggests to me that their dogma and attempts to project infallibility have been more important than the realities and the opportunities presented to humanity by science.

 

[Phrak]

I've nothing against the Catholic Church per se. And that really isn't my point. They are neither friend nor foe to me in any absolute sense. But at a certain point it just seems to me their meddling in secular affairs - like reproductive rights - given their own resume - should be a little more restrained.

Sure. If on-the-job-training means anything, they should obstain from comments on wives, husbands, children, girlfriends, lovers, familes, live-ins--just about anything other than coworkers and friends... On the otherhand they claim to be interpreting other authority.

What does 'right' mean?

 

[jgens]

Hurkyl, while one of the ten commandments claims that "thou shalt not kill," the catholic bible also claims that anyone who labors on the sabbath should be put to death. The church itself doesn't appear to be able to uphold the "designs" of god. Appears as if they are the ones "cherry-picking."

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, while one of the ten commandments claims that "thou shalt not kill," the catholic bible also claims that anyone who labors on the sabbath should be put to death. Appears as if they are the ones "cherry-picking."

Allow me to refer you to my previous post in this very thread, where I responded to Gokul43201 implying the very same argument.

 

[LowlyPion]

What does 'right' mean?

Right as used in say "reproductive rights" is founded in secular Law. I'm not suggesting charging it with the property that it is necessarily ethical within all faith. Just that it is a choice that secular society grants to those that would bear children. Hence in my mind not open to repeal by The Church.

My objection to their statements is that they would cast it in terms of the arrogance of others, as opposed to say appealing in a more positive way to secular leaders to consider their position on the issue. Whatever money the Obama administration frees up is, after all, not the Vatican's to decide about.

 

[jgens]

(Exodus 31:15) - "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death."

My argument is this: The Vatican does not promote that individuals put another to death for working on the Sabbath regardless of any complaints regarding labor. Though they may complain about labor laws, they do not go to the extreme presented in Exodus - which is seemingly contradictory to the commandment "thou shalt not kill." As they cannot remain consistent within their own system of beliefs, which uses the bible as justification, why should an argument regarding religious scripture be given credibility?

 

[Hurkyl]

My objection to their statements is that they would cast it in terms of the arrogance of others, as opposed to say appealing in a more positive way to secular leaders to consider their position on the issue.

Why not hear their actual statements, before objecting? The BBC article has only picked out a couple quotations from the entire interview. It's not even asserted that these statements were made in an official capacity!

... My argument is this: ...

jgens: again, I refer you to my previous post, including the footnotes.

 

[lurflurf]

Rember to the catholic church
suffering=good

 

[LowlyPion]

Why not hear their actual statements, before objecting? The BBC article has only picked out a couple quotations from the entire interview. It's not even asserted that these statements were made in an official capacity!

Oh come now. There is sufficient context:

Vatican criticizes Obama on abortion issue

VATICAN CITY – Vatican officials said Saturday they were disappointed by President Barack Obama's decision to end a ban on federal funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on them.

Monsignor Rino Fisichella, who heads the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, urged Obama to listen to all voices in America without "the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death."

Fisichella said in an interview published Saturday in Corriere della Sera that "if this is one of President Obama's first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we're heading quickly toward disappointment."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_obama_2

I'd say he would be like the Vatican Secretary for Anti-Abortion Affairs.

 

[jgens]

Having read your second footnote regarding the Vatican's views regarding labor laws, I find nothing that addresses the excerpt from Exodus that I posted; hence, am I to conclude that the Catholic Church does not promote the slaughter of Sunday laborers? (a contradiction of what they should believe as prescribed by the Catholic bible) Or perhaps I missed something?

Regardless of my arguments formality, why grant credibility to an organization which cannot consistently apply the "rules" set down by its system of justification?

 

[Hurkyl]

Having read your second footnote regarding the Vatican's views regarding labor laws,

What about the third footnote, citing their position on the Sabbath?

Regardless of my arguments formality, why grant credibility to an organization which cannot consistently apply the "rules" set down by its system of justification?

As far as I can tell, the topic in this thread was never about credibility.

(Also, note that it isn't a discussion about the veracity of the Catholic faith, nor a debate about whether abortion should be legal / moral / whatever)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who here is Catholic?

If your are not then why do you care? The Pope talks to Catholics, the rest of us are going to hell anyway.

Oh yes, this thread is clearly an attack on religion. Try this one for a change: Live and let live. The Catholics have the right to vote just like anyone else. At least they don't make it their mission to bring the world to an end, as some modern religions do.

 

[Phrak]

Right as used in say "reproductive rights" is founded in secular Law.

Interesting. I was referring to this usage 'right' in general.

After paying attention to it's use over time. I've found that,

I have a right to X means:

I want X.
I claim X as mine.
I have a legal claim on X.
Forgoing legal claim, it is a 'fundemental right', 'self evident right', 'natural right', etc.

How these adjectives come about, is supported by uninterpretable metaphysics, or deference to religious authority.

 

[jgens]

Hurkyl, do you mean to suggest that the Chatholic church proposes the death of all individuals who labor on Sunday? Or do you suggest that they cannot follow what is prescribed by their own bible? Which is it?

I'll agree with you regarding the second point in your last post.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, do you mean to suggest that the Chatholic church proposes the death of all individuals who labor on Sunday? Or do you suggest that they cannot follow what is prescribed by their own bible? Which is it?

Formal fallacy, false dilemma. I suggest that their position on the Sabbath is that of my third footnote. If you want to discuss Catholic theology, then do so someplace appropriate.

(hint: hijacking a thread in a politics subforum of a physics site with a stated policy of forbidding this sort of religious discussion is not an appropriate place)

 

[Phrak]

The Sabath is Saturday, isn't it? When was it moved to the day of resurrection, and on what grounds?

 

[humanino]

The church officially conceded that the Earth was not stationary on the 31st of October 1992. Galileo died on the 8th of January 1642. If it takes more than 3 centuries to the church to admit scientific facts, and you are a scientist, why would care what the church has to say ? You will die before they come to reason, and figure out whether all they say is relevant before any progress in your discussion with them.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm going to assume from the form of your reply that you are implying the argument:

The third commandment says something about labor. The Catholic Church doesn't meddle in labor laws. Therefore, it is invalid to argue that the sixth commandment justifies the Catholic Church meddling in laws about the killing of human life.​

(If this isn't what you meant to say, then it's your own fault for not stating it yourself. )

I made no such argument. (Am I to be stoned to the death? )

As far as I believe the Church is concerned, there's hardly such a thing as a secular matter. Most any common (and not obviously religious) issue than anyone can name - the legality of working the Sunday morning shift at the neighborhood McDonald's being an example - will likely have some mention in the Bible, or will be implied from related "teachings" of the Bible. So I don't think the Church really needs to make an argument (themselves, or by proxy) for "meddling" in most any matter. Besides, they're just expressing their opinion, and we know what opinions are like!

Incidentally, does it say anywhere in your footnotes, what the church has to say about the legality of working the Sunday morning shift at the neighborhood McDonald's?

 

[jgens]

(hint: hijacking a thread in a politics subforum of a physics site with a stated policy of forbidding this sort of religious discussion is not an appropriate place)

As it seems I'm on the verge of being banned, I'm asking this out of sheer curiosity and is not intended in a religious context. Regarding the formal fallacy I presented, doesn't the position presented in the third footnote suggest that Catholics should not do exactly as prescribed in Exodus 31:15?

If this is stepping beyond the bounds can you please delete this post then?

 

[LowlyPion]

Interesting. I was referring to this usage 'right' in general.

After paying attention to it's use over time. I've found that,

I have a right to X means:

I want X.
I claim X as mine.
I have a legal claim on X.
Forgoing legal claim, it is a 'fundemental right', 'self evident right', 'natural right', etc.

How these adjectives come about, is supported by uninterpretable metaphysics, or deference to religious authority.

I'd say that falls into the 1, 2 ... skip a few school of counting.

It is sufficient that secular rights are not the same as what one religion or the other may judge as right in an ethical sense. There is in the extreme general agreement on issues like genocide. But by the very nature of the disparate views about funding organizations that might support a woman's right to choose, one can say that there is clearly a difference in rights as viewed by secular society.

 

[LowlyPion]

For those interested here is the complete interview in Italian:
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_ge...hi_494dc7ae-e9e3-11dd-a42c-00144f02aabc.shtml

 

[Gokul43201]

Oh yes, this thread is clearly an attack on religion. Try this one for a change: Live and let live. The Catholics have the right to vote just like anyone else. At least they don't make it their mission to bring the world to an end, as some modern religions do.

Is the last sentence there not an attack on some modern religions?

 

[Phrak]

I'd say that falls into the 1, 2 ... skip a few school of counting.

It is sufficient that secular rights are not the same as what one religion or the other may judge as right in an ethical sense. There is in the extreme general agreement on issues like genocide. But by the very nature of the disparate views about funding organizations that might support a woman's right to choose, one can say that there is clearly a difference in rights as viewed by secular society.

What's a secular right, and where does it come from?

 

[Cyrus]

I generally don't care much for the viewpoint of people who shelter child molesters.

 

[LowlyPion]

What's a secular right, and where does it come from?

You can start here I'd say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

There are lots of links in this article.

 

[Phrak]

You can start here I'd say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

There are lots of links in this article.

In your opening post you made an implicit assertion that such a thing as reproductive rights exist. I gave you my interpretation of the usage of the word 'rights', in general. You questioned my arithmetic, but gave no reason for it, that I could see. Where do you find my arithmetic in error? Secular means non-religous authority.