Slashdot Mirror

Not quite...

Some bits may be in order: Given the severe shortage of priests in many areas, and couple that with the average priest's schedule: doing confessions, ministering to the sick, visiting prisoners, administering their local parish staff (and those of parishes w/o a resident priest), attending meetings of numerous church groups (Right To Life, Knights of Columbus, etc), counseling/presiding in seminars and retreats, preparing (this year) for a large and impending change in how Mass is done (at least for the English-speaking Catholics)... oh, and actually saying Mass multiple times a week. Add to all of that the fact that the average age of these guys *at ordination* is 35 (retirement age is somewhere around 70, but that's been pushed up, IIRC).

Not exactly seeing them seizing an opportunity to fill an already cramped calendar...

But don't expect them to be in your corner when Comcast wants to stream NBC at a faster rate than ABC shows.

Really, then why did the Conference -- when commenting on specific legislative proposals in the area rather than just listing general priorities for the coming year -- specifically call for "legislation to prevent companies which control the infrastructure connecting people to the Internet from interfering with the content which is distributed" and refer to the threat that without net neutrality rules in place "companies will use their control over internet access to speed up or down connections to Web sites to benefit themselves financially"?

I may be totally wrong here. But that is the impression the statement left me with.

I think the problem is that you are reading two sentences in a broad statement of all the Conference's legislative priorities and assuming that because it doesn't dive deeply into one issue that you care about (even though it doesn't dive deeply into most of the issues it addresses, because that's not the point of the statement), that the issue isn't one that the Conference has considered deeply and taken a firm stance on.

Every issue that is mentioned even in passing in this address is one that is mentioned because it has come up in recent years and been considered and addressed by the conference and remains an active priority.

I suspect that those bishops who understand the issue are in favour of network neutrality.

The USCCB's 2006 expression of support for net neutrality rules being incorporated into federal law would certainly provide a fairly strong basis for the conclusion that the conference does, indeed, support net neutrality as well as expanded consumer access, rather than conflating the two issues as some Slashdotters have suggested is the reason for the two sentences (one on access and on one neutrality) in the current statement.

They are are trying hard to refocus the argument from equality of suppliers to equality of consumers.

No, they are addressing both issues, and sloppy slashdot readers are assuming that because they mention one issue (access) in one sentence, when they address the other issue (net neutrality) in the next sentence, its really just a reference to the first issue, and not a reference to what they say they are talking about, even though the Conference has -- in contexts where they weren't brief points in a broader policy address -- directly called for net neutrality (and stated why it is important for the Church as an institution) previously.

They're alluding to equality of access (for example, subsidy to get penetration into rural areas at rates at least comparable to dense urban, and hosting on non-discriminatory basis to ensure freedom of --- in their case religious --- speech), rather than what Slashdotters mean by net neutrality.

Wrong.

The speech has two sentences about the internet. One is about equal access, which is one area where the conference has policy concerns.

One is about net neutrality, which is another area where the conference has policy concerns (which have been expressed more fully previously.)

"We need X. We need Y." does not mean "We need Y, and, when we say Y, we mean X."

Notice that legislation and federal regulations are nowhere in there.

Its two sentences in an address laying out "principles and priorities that will guide the public policy efforts" of the US Catholic Conference in the year ahead. They aren't going to mention "legislation and federal regulation" in every sentence, but that's what the speech is about.

We have a (mostly) neutral network. That's how it was built and how everyone assumes it works.

Yes, that's the way it was built and worked for quite a long time -- under the FCC's old open access regulations -- its also what it has drifted away from since deregulation, which is what created the push for "open internet"/"net neutrality" laws and/or regulations.

And the USCCB has previously called for net neutrality rules to be incorporated directly in federal legislation. The incorporation of a reference to the issue in this speech is a statement that the issue remains a policy concern for the Conference.

If you read the letter, you will see that it is NOT about net Neutrality. It is about trying to get net access to all, basically, the poor.

Well, no.

If you read the letter, you'll see that there are two sentences about the internet.

The first focusses on access, the second on net neutrality.

The USCCB spoken more directly of its support for net neutrality outside of bullet points in broader addresses on public policy, as well.

Even sadder that this story suggests the Church is actually FOR net neutrality as we understand it today.

They are pontificating (sorry) about net ACCESS.

They have two sentences about the internet, one explicitly calling for "equal access to the internet" for everyone, and one explicitly calling for "true net neutrality" as essential for "a democratic society".

I think it is a mistake to assume that the second is merely a misphrased restatement of the first.

They totally miss the main points of net neutrality such as traffic shaping, throttling, or prioritizing your own traffic over competitive traffic.

I'm not sure how you can reach any conclusions about whether they get these details or not from the two sentences on internet issues in the broad "State of the Union" message.

But, if you look at previous messages that deal directly with the net neutrality issue from the Conference, you'll find direct statements of support for "net neutrality as we know it" going back several years, particularly the 2006 statement in which the Chairman of the Conference's Communication Committee calls for net neutrality requirements to be written into law (following the FCC deregulation of Internet access) because "Unless Congress requires telephone and cable companies to act as neutral providers of Internet access, as they had been required to do since the birth and through the spectacular growth of the Internet, those companies will use their control over internet access to speed up or down connections to Web sites to benefit themselves financially."

Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.

People that are against embryonic stem cell research are also against IVF. The Catholic Church is firmly against such things as am I. I not sure about protests but people are against it. Here are some quotes from Donum Vitae on the matter.

Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material."

In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission." By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenseless human beings.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part1.htm


Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person."[50]

These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case," i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it.

Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm

Funny how you don't see the anti-stem-cell people protesting IVF and other fertility programmes, even though they "kill" embryos too.

People that are against embryonic stem cell research are also against IVF. The Catholic Church is firmly against such things as am I. I not sure about protests but people are against it. Here are some quotes from Donum Vitae on the matter.

Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and subjects with rights: their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable "biological material."

In the usual practice of in vitro fertilization, not all of the embryos are transferred to the woman's body; some are destroyed. Just as the Church condemns induced abortion, so she also forbids acts against the life of these human beings. It is a duty to condemn the particular gravity of the voluntary destruction of human embryos obtained 'in vitro' for the sole purpose of research, either by means of artificial insemination of by means of "twin fission." By acting in this way the researcher usurps the place of God; and, even though he may be unaware of this, he sets himself up as the master of the destiny of others inasmuch as he arbitrarily chooses whom he will allow to live and whom he will send to death and kills defenseless human beings.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part1.htm


Conception in vitro is the result of the technical action which presides over fertilization. Such fertilization is neither in fact achieved nor positively willed as the expression and fruit of specific act of the conjugal union. In homologous IVF and ET, therefore, even if it is considered in the context of 'de facto' existing sexual relations, the generation of the human person is objectively deprived of its proper perfection: namely, that of being the result and fruit of a conjugal act in which the spouses can become "cooperators with God for giving life to a new person."[50]

These reasons enable us to understand why the act of conjugal love is considered in the teaching of the Church as the only setting worthy of human procreation. For the same reasons the so-called "simple case," i.e. a homologous IVF and ET procedure that is free of any compromise with the abortive practice of destroying embryos and with masturbation, remains a technique which is morally illicit because it deprives human procreation of the dignity which is proper and connatural to it.

Certainly, homologous IVF and ET fertilization is not marked by all that ethical negativity found in extra-conjugal procreation; the family and marriage continue to constitute the setting for the birth and upbringing of the children. Nevertheless, in conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm

How does 1 Peter 2:13-17 fit into your beliefs?

Then explain this to the copyright owner in your letter seeking an offer. If they wanted to sell more of it, they would license clips to you.

The early Jewish Rabbis and the early Church Fathers deployed similar philological tools; their Biblical interpretations stressed allegorical readings, frequently at the expense of the texts' literal meaning. They sought deeper meanings below the outward appearance of the text. Examples of such interpretations include the writings of Philo of Alexandria, Origen, and the Talmud.

... in Exodus 34, there's a completely different set of commandments.

No he didn't. He only told him not to worry, that his (God's) grace was enough to save him: 2 corinthians 12;7-9

(Sorry, bad pun...)

I've also read it in other versions of the bible as well.

If you are going off of the King James Bible, James in his infinite wisdom had it re-worded to make both creation stories consistent.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2 .htm

"Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground--

the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. "

emphasis mine.

Please. The central focus of $religiousGroup is what its followers choose to interpret on that day. This interpretation is so open ended for $religiousGroup == Christians, that the same book that you interpret as "love thy nieghbour" was interpreted as "jews killed jesus", Kill the muslims, kill the heathens, kill the blacks, kill the Witches etc.

And today for many christian groups the interpretation is kill the gays, scientists, and muslims again.

love your neighbour as yourself.
Thats hardly rocket science. Can you think of any other way to make the world a truly better place. My parents think the same (and I'm sure so do yours, even if they had not been westerners)

But what if the REAL interpretation is to kill anyone who dosent agree? Or maybe your god actually DOES want us to fly airplanes into tall buildings ? How do you KNOW he dosent want that ? What if that IS the ticket to get to heaven? If you say "my god is a loving god blah blah" I'd really like to see some proof of that. Or maybe it's in the bible where he kills the egyptions and buries an entire town because some inhabitants are gay.I'm sure you know more.

And what will your children decide tp interpret ? Your childrens childrens children ? What an I to interpret here ?

• A-I -- general patronage;
• A-II -- adults and adolescents;
• A-III -- adults;
• L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. L replaces the previous classification, A-IV. O -- morally offensive.

I always enjoyed reading their view on movies, it was usually the only reason I'd pick up the Catholic Key each week. Not that it ever stopped me from viewing them, but it was nice to know what they found offensive in them. The write-ups can be rather amusing in a stuffy sort of way.

Harold & Kumar go to White Castle
"Danny Leiner's road picture makes pretensions of social commentary concerning race and identity, but the only race it seems to care about is a race to the bottom, shamelessly finding humor in a story built around getting high while behind the wheel of a car. Recurring drug use, two instances of frontal nudity, much rough and crude language, as well as strong sexual and bathroom humor."

Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie
"Incoherent animated action adventure about a teenager named Yugi....this dizzying and disjointed mess is little more than a 90-minute commercial for "Yu-Gi-Oh!" products."

Gigli (you asked)
"Stale romantic comedy about a low-level leg-breaker (Ben Affleck) who falls for a beautiful lesbian mob enforcer (Jennifer Lopez) hired to assist him in kidnapping a federal prosecutor's mentally handicapped brother. Lopez and Affleck exhibit more fizzle than sizzle in this overhyped clunker written and directed by Martin Brest, full of forced lewd humor and fueled by a distorted suggestion that sexuality is a malleable social construct and a casual endorsement of homosexual activity. A sexual encounter, excessive sexually explicit and rough language, as well as profanity and brief strong violence. O -- morally offensive."

This ZIRE seems like a Palm III, except with a rechargeable battery, and no backlight. So, it's useful for lists, notes, and the occasional poorly ported game, but beyond that, it's mostly a novelty. I agree with tps12, it's not very useful for children, I would suggest a much more useful handheld.

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

If you read the article you'll see that in cases of fetuses with hydrocephalus "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." The passage of the fetus through the vagina would be extremely traumatic unless D&X is done, no?

make those arguments..out of desperation to have...murder ended

How desparate would you feel, knowing that the fetus you are carrying suffers from hydrocephalus, has no chance of survival after birth, and you will need to push an object 20 inches in diameter through your vagina because the procedure that would have removed it safely was outlawed by morality-driven religious zealots in Congress?

I hope that I have opened your eyes a little, especially regarding the issue of partial birth abortion. The women who are forced to remove a dead or unviable fetus via late-term D&X are usually EXTREMELY traumatized by the process; they wanted a child and things went horribly wrong towards the end of the pregnancy. Political grandstanding, complete with graphic depictions, rubs a lot of salt into those wounds.

I also found this link (refreshingly free of banner ads depicting a partial birth aborion) Late Term Abortions: Legal Considerations which is worth a read.

I think of myself as a pretty tolerant person, and you seem quite rational. Unfortunately not everyone is capable of recognizing that, "freedom of choice" aside, there are legitimate medical reasons when abortion is warranted to protect the woman. Consider this statement by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, "We have received inquiries whether the National Conference of Catholic Bishops would lend support to a ban on partial-birth abortion that would include an exception for the health of the mother. We want to state again that such an exception is too broad. We look for the elimination of abortion, beginning with the banning of partial birth abortion, without reservation or exception."

...Yes, responsibility ALWAYS must accompany choice. Where abusers get into trouble is when the have too much of the latter and not enough of the former.

...Following your argument we should all avoid medical treatment altogether. After all, isn't that the "natural" way? Now I hope you see the folly of such an argument.

You don't outlaw the process, you instead educate, cajole, and influence the abuser until they either (a) stop abusing it or (b) become a niche minority that you simply must accept.

...The builders of the tower wanted to elevate themselves above God. That is not the goal of genetic screening... ...We have had an ability to improve ourselves through genetic selection since the beginning of the race by choosing our mate. Now we have developed that SAME ability to a much more precise point.