Slashdot Mirror

No, the third world is overpopulated.

"First" "second' and "third" world is mostly an indication of economic prosperity, not that what happens over there has no relation to us here. We all live in one world, doubly so in the age of globalization.

How about telling that to the people in the third world popping out kids faster than they can feed them?

A quick search told me that

Millions of women around the world do want contraceptives but can't get them

We are trying to get them to have less kids. We're sending them contraceptives as part of our aid (and certain church folk hate it)

Other religious folks are working with the rest of society in family planning (and this article was back in 1994, so the idea isn't new)

People in rich countries who think that an ever shrinking skilling workforce from low birth rates will somehow be able to support the ageing population are completely misguided when they think not having kids will have any affect on the overall picture of population and that there are no negative economic effects for remaining childless .Who is going to pay the taxes to support your services such as doctors and hospitals?

No, you are the misguided one. It appears the concept of immigration is lost on you. Or the idea of uplifting 3rd world nations so their increasing populations and labor pool can be used to support us in the future.

Besides, there is also such a thing as machines and automation. I would love to have a harem of my own sexy robot maids to tend to my every need in old age. In fact, I'd like to have them now if we had the technology.

Interested readers might also like to see what the Catholic Church itself wrote regarding the 1992 pardoning of Galileo. They cite a mutual misunderstanding, and place blame on both sides. Here's a quote from a portion blaming the Church:

Galileo was finally condemned by the Holy Office as "vehemently suspected of heresy." The choice of words was debatable, as Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by either the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. In any event, Galileo was sentenced to abjure the theory and to keep silent on the subject for the rest of his life, which he was permitted to spend in a pleasant country house near Florence.

I think the fact that in 1992 the Church itself, after more than a decade of studying Galileo's case, concludes that Copernicanism was Galileo's suspected heresy, should lay the question to rest. Heliocentrism, AKA Copernicanism, was indeed Galileo's heresy.

Interesting article. After 1483 the Spanish Inquisition was at the command of the King of Spain.

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition

Because it was both professional and efficient, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records.

These documents are a goldmine for modern historians who have plunged greedily into them. Thus far, the fruits of that research have made one thing abundantly clear – the myth of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing at all to do with the real thing. . . .

In 1483 Ferdinand appointed Tomás de Torquemada as inquistor-general for most of Spain. It was Torquemada's job to establish rules of evidence and procedure for the Inquisition as well as to set up branches in major cities. Sixtus confirmed the appointment, hoping that it would bring some order to the situation.

Unfortunately, the problem only snowballed. This was a direct result of the methods employed by the early Spanish Inquisition, which strayed significantly from Church standards. When the inquisitors arrived in a particular area, they would announce an Edict of Grace. This was a 30-day period in which secret Jews could voluntarily come forward, confess their sin, and do penance. This was also a time for others with information about Christians practicing Judaism in secret to make it known to the tribunal. Those found guilty after the 30 days elapsed could be burned at the stake.

For conversos, then, the arrival of the Inquisition certainly focused the mind. They generally had plenty of enemies, any one of whom might decide to bear false witness. Or perhaps their cultural practices were sufficient for condemnation? Who knew? Most conversos, therefore, either fled or lined up to confess. Those who did neither risked an inquiry in which any kind of hearsay or evidence, no matter how old or suspicious, was acceptable.

Opposition in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to the Spanish Inquisition only increased. Many churchmen pointed out that it was contrary to all accepted practices for heretics to be burned without instruction in the Faith. If the conversos were guilty at all, it was merely of ignorance, not willful heresy. Numerous clergy at the highest levels complained to Ferdinand. Opposition to the Spanish Inquisition also continued in Rome. Sixtus's successor, Innocent VIII, wrote twice to the king asking for greater compassion, mercy, and leniency for the conversos – but to no avail. --- more

Interesting article. After 1483 the Spanish Inquisition was at the command of the King of Spain.

The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition

Because it was both professional and efficient, the Spanish Inquisition kept very good records.

These documents are a goldmine for modern historians who have plunged greedily into them. Thus far, the fruits of that research have made one thing abundantly clear – the myth of the Spanish Inquisition has nothing at all to do with the real thing. . . .

In 1483 Ferdinand appointed Tomás de Torquemada as inquistor-general for most of Spain. It was Torquemada's job to establish rules of evidence and procedure for the Inquisition as well as to set up branches in major cities. Sixtus confirmed the appointment, hoping that it would bring some order to the situation.

Unfortunately, the problem only snowballed. This was a direct result of the methods employed by the early Spanish Inquisition, which strayed significantly from Church standards. When the inquisitors arrived in a particular area, they would announce an Edict of Grace. This was a 30-day period in which secret Jews could voluntarily come forward, confess their sin, and do penance. This was also a time for others with information about Christians practicing Judaism in secret to make it known to the tribunal. Those found guilty after the 30 days elapsed could be burned at the stake.

For conversos, then, the arrival of the Inquisition certainly focused the mind. They generally had plenty of enemies, any one of whom might decide to bear false witness. Or perhaps their cultural practices were sufficient for condemnation? Who knew? Most conversos, therefore, either fled or lined up to confess. Those who did neither risked an inquiry in which any kind of hearsay or evidence, no matter how old or suspicious, was acceptable.

Opposition in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church to the Spanish Inquisition only increased. Many churchmen pointed out that it was contrary to all accepted practices for heretics to be burned without instruction in the Faith. If the conversos were guilty at all, it was merely of ignorance, not willful heresy. Numerous clergy at the highest levels complained to Ferdinand. Opposition to the Spanish Inquisition also continued in Rome. Sixtus's successor, Innocent VIII, wrote twice to the king asking for greater compassion, mercy, and leniency for the conversos – but to no avail. --- more

Like actual violence only? Or are stories like this false? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with religious conservatives on this issue. But Canada's reputation is of being a country where one can be civilly liable for expressing politically incorrect opinions, and if so, that's pretty fucking far from free speech.

(somewhat paraphrased conversation between CS Lewis and JRR Tolkein relayed by Humphrey Carpenter that I like)

CS Lewis: "Myths are lies and therefore worthless, even though breathed through silver."
JRR Tolkein: "They are not lies. Far from being lies they were the best way — sometimes the only way — of conveying truths that would otherwise remain inexpressible. We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily toward the true harbor, whereas materialistic "progress" leads only to the abyss and the power of evil."

anyhow - read Joseph Pearce's article on the conversation and back story .. quite interesting .. http://catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0107.html

...who cover up the crimes of baby-raping priests in order to protect their own interests.

Exactly what interests would those be? The Church doesn't "cover up the crimes", it openly opposes them. Some members of the Church have covered up some crimes, but that doesn't make the entire Church as a whole bad.

Not that I believe any of this God/Satan claptrap, but if you're gonna accuse others of Satanism, it's incumbent upon you to have a long, hard, honest look at yourself before doing so.

Last I checked, Satanism is the name of a variety of actual religions that are practiced in parts of the world (however small their membership may be relative to more popular religions). Mere sin itself is not "satanism". The Church HAS apologized for the sin of it's members. Some priests might have committed crimes, but can you explain to me how that makes the entire Church itself a criminal institution? What sense would it make for them to randomly abuse children? What in the world would they gain?

BTW, the Catholic church isn't primarily a religious institution, any more than the Mafia is primarily a waste disposal business. It's a huge financial and political entity - soul-saving and Satan-stomping are just tools to help maintain and consolidate the power base.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Your claims that the Church is "powerful" and "rich" are purely popular myths that are quickly debunked with a simple Google search. Likewise, the "millions" of Inquisition victims are also highly innacurate. Spouting that crap just makes you look like an idiot that only hates on the Church to seem cool and karma whore. You're going to need to troll a lot harder than that.

Why can't a Catholic priest be an astronomer? A Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, came up with the Big Bang theory

As a Philosophy undergrad, I find Dawkins pretty irritating. There is one nice podcast that pretty much summarises a lot of my problems with Dawkins, it's a podcast between him and David Quinn, and it's pretty much the first time I've seen Dawkins talk to anyone who even knows a little Philosophy.

Because it might want to acknowledge one of the roots of Western civilization and an institution that has provided intellectual and moral leadership for over 2,000 years?

Because Catholic contributions to science - and to a culture that makes science possible - have been by no means trivial? How the Catholic church built Western Civilization

Because at a time when the secular culture of the West has become deeply suspect elsewhere it might make more sense to be building bridges than tearing them down?

The Vatican has been a very important centre for astronomical research since well before the space race. A Catholic priest developed the Big Bang theory. The Vatican accepts the reality of evolution and has criticised the American movement to teach "Intelligent Design" in science classes.

Things have changed since 1633 you know (and no, I am not a Catholic.) Maybe you thinking of some other denomination?

Actually, Copernicus was encouraged by the Church. Galileo's fault was that he insisted on calling those people who didn't accept his theory (purported to be fact, even though he could not prove it) morons - including the Pope. During his trial, it was repeatedly stated that the charges would be dropped if he could provide proof for his theory - but he could not. The Church also offered a middle ground - accepting heliocentrism as a hypothesis - even superior to the geocentric one - until more proof was forthcoming.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologet ics/ap0138.html
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Gal ileoAffair.html

Can we let this myth die?

>>> "Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for thousands of years. You can explore the idea that the earth is flat too if you want. Just because some people are exploring it doesn't mean we need to start teaching that to children in science class. Teach that myth the same place we teach the other myths - in religion or humanities classes or the like."

[Here's a Christian idea ...]

The big bang? Sure. Explore it all you want. It has been explored for tens of years. You can explore the idea that the Earth is flat too if you want ....

The big-bang, incidentally is an untestable event as by definition the established principles of physical science break down at the singularity (and how would we observe, a temporal action, before time existed). So, it becomes a matter of faith as to whether there were a big bang or a re-expansion or some other creative event [or none! like Newton, Maxwell, Einstein et al. thought] ... which I find hilarious. What's doubly funny is that a lot of people arguing against a creator argue for a big bang whilst cosmologist are moving towards alternate theories. And to cap it all the big-bang was proposed by a Belgian priest (LeMaitre) - I'd like to think that his faith inspired him at least in part.

I guess the big-bang is probably still the standard model. But every standard model I ever studied was proven to be inconsistent with observations ...

Oh well.

LeMaitre - http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/ sc0022.htm

As far as judging other people goes, check out the philosopher Roger Scruton's article Bring back Stigma in City Journal. He also has another good article Shameless and Loveless that appeared in the Spectator.

Basically, every object/being either exists by itself, as part of its basic essence, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by itself of ites own essence, then it exists "necessarily and eternally" -- outside of time, et cetera. It is an independent being. If it does not exist by itself, it requires a cause, and is a contingent/dependent object/being. For example, everything that exists in time is clearly contingent/dependent, as there is a definite chain of causation in time.

The First Cause argument avoids your dilemma by proposing that the First Cause is independent, rather than dependent. That is, the First Cause is eternal and has no cause.

I know the other objections: infinite chain of causation, cause not applicable to intangibles, et cetera. Check out The First Cause Argument for a brief summary of how they're addressed.

Who says that a universe needs a first cause?

And to add a magical mythioal god is just to say "ok, we give up, let's make something up and call it a day". Why would anyone do that? Isn't it better to just say "we don't know, but maybe one day we will, and not thanks to religion anyway".

Earthquakes, volcanoes, plagues, et cetera all are events or objects that have causes. Each of them has a chain of causation that can be followed back in time.

From other posts, it is apparent that you are not alone in denying the necessity of a first cause, but I find this unreasonable. Rather than lay out the entire First Cause argument, here, I'll just link to a summary of it. It addresses several of the objections that have been raised.

The First Cause Argument

For his work, Lemaitre was inducted as a member of the Royal Academy of Belgium. An international commission awarded him the Francqui Prize. The archbishop of Malines, Cardinal Josef Van Roey, made Lemaitre a canon of the cathedral in 1935. The next year Pope Pius XI inducted Lemaitre into the Pontifical Academy of Science.

Okay, my bad, it wasn't a medal from the Pope. Close enough for rock and roll though.

As a sidenote, this may also help explain some of the hostility of *protestant* fundamentalists to the Big Bang theory.

That is not correct. The issue was never one of whether Galileo was correct, but it was the treatment of Galileo and others. A nice write-up of it is here.

bunch of screeching Christians like to pretend that they did

That might be because the last time the government assured us that a new law wouldn't make someone compromise their religious principles that *promise* lasted only a couple of years.

If you want the details, it was when the government, (or was it just our unelected supreme court decided to add "Sexual Orientation" to the list of things you were not allowed to descriminate on the basis of that are listed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Well actually it was our unelected Supreme Court that decided to do this even though the people who'd written the Charter only a few years before had considered putting "Sexual Orientation" in the list and decided against it, but let's not get sidetracked).

This was all fine and good, but some people had concerns that their religious convictions against homosexual lifestyles would be made illegal. (For instance a religious school might get shut down for refusing to hire a man in a sexual relationship with another man). The architects of our new world order assured us this was merely our stupid redneck paranoia getting the best of us and that we shouldn't worry, because our betters would make sure that religious freedom was protected.

Some time later, a religious man in Toronto who owned a printing company was approached by an activist group wanting him to print their letter head, business cards etc. The man refused because he felt it violated his religious conscience to use his resources to aid an organization that promoted ideas contrary to his beliefs. Rather than go to another printer muttering something about ignorant dumbasses, (as some people might do if their business was refused), the group decided to make a human rights complaint. (Human rights commissions are not courts of law incidentally, but their decisions have the force of law). The man was fined $5000 and was told that he was not allowed to refuse orders like that.

A couple of other factors are interesting. This was in Toronto where there are many printers available, many of whom would have loved the business. It's not as if this action took away anyone's ability to actually get materials printed. Also, no one ever contested that the man did in fact serve gay customers and there was no suggestion that the man wouldn't serve people who were gay, merely that he wouldn't print materials promoting a homosexual lifestyle.

Now I know nothing about the situation other than what I've read, but I do have a personal connection to the next case. (Albeit a distant one).

A Christian man by the name of Chris Kempling teaches school in British Columbia. He wrote a letter to a local newspaper. (In fact he wrote one freelance column and six letters to the editor between 1997 and 2000). Dr. Kempler's views are so toxic that he addressed the UN on March 4th 2005 on the subject of Human Rights. The subject of of Dr. Kempler's letters were factual STD & promiscuity rates, that many religions consider homosexuality to be immoral, that it may be caused by negative psycho-social influences, and that it was nothing to be applauded. He did not express these views in the classroom, or in the staff room, but only in the editorial pages of the local newspaper. In 2002 he was suspended by the BC College of teachers. The suspension was upheld by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in last year.

My tenuous connection to this case is that a co-worker and friend of mine knows him personally and his father helped Dr. Kempler in his defence. (Unsuccesfully). The accounts I have heard is that Dr. Kempler is reasonable and does not descend to nasty behaviour. (Most certainly not a "redneck").

So I think you can see why

I believe that what you are looking for is in the book of Joshua: 10:1-15.

This is one of the priciple arguments against Galileo. No episode in the history of the Catholic Church is so misunderstood as the condemnation of Galileo. One of the main things it boils down to is that the Bible says that the Sun stood still, not the Earth. The Earth to them could not have stood still since it was un-moving.

Before Galileo had forced this argument into theology, the Church was for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial mechanics. Galileo's friend Archbishop Piero Dini warned him that he could write freely so long as he "kept out of the sacristy." But Galileo threw caution to the winds, and it was on this point -- his apparent trespassing on the theologians' turf -- that his enemies were finally able to nail him. see this link for more

If all this doesn't make you wondeer, there are Myths of "The Long Night" There are stories of a long day in Africa and Europe and Asia, there are sories of a long night in the Americas and Oceana. Though I believe in the heliocentric solar system, I do wonder what just may have happened on that day.

Yes, one must wonder how trustworthy are such things if psychologists can be pressured to edit out a behaviour clearly aberrant and treatable:

http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/issues/marco1.ht ml
http://www.narth.com/docs/alternative.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexu ality/ho0039.html

Catholics don't nessecarily believe in creationism. As a matter of fact, a catholic preist was the first man to propose the big bang theory.

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work," he wrote, "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion", to cults or practices, in the Imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." (Letter 142).

I'm lacking mod points, so instead, I'll just repost the AC comment from below:

From his own letters:

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work," he wrote, "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like "religion", to cults or practices, in the Imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." (Letter 142).

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0108. html