I went to a relatively large evangelical church as a kid. Each year, they would hold an apologetics conference to inform people about threats to the face: the new age movement, various cults, and (the #1 topic) evolution. One year, they abruptly switched from young-earth creationism to old-earth creationism. There were no apologies, no explanations of how they had go wrong, no intellectual review that said "gee, this is how we will avoid making similar mistakes is the future". The Eternal Unchanging Truth of God as Revealed Thru His Word(TM) had changed overnight to match the best scientifically-established evidence (in the narrow regard of planetary age, at least).
It's interesting that the text was written by a person who is now the ruler of a totalitarian theocracy.
It is simply dishonest to call the Holy See a "totalitarian theocracy", when it is a _tiny_ city with no maternity wards. No one was born there. If you have a Vatican passport then you also have another passport and it is trivial to leave. In fact, I think no private person one even owns property in the Vatican.
Basically, if you don't like the rules, you simply need to find another job.
In a secular state, government is compulsory and freedom comes from Constitutional rights and from democracy; in a religious organization, participation is voluntary and freedom comes from the right to get out, or refrain from getting in.
Lastly: wanting religious dogma to be subject to a majority vote is just bizarre.
Well, from the largely American audience on Slashdot I've learned that women are just biologically not good at science and engineering, and computers and stuff, and are instead naturally drawn to girly things like stickers and glitter and being schoolmarms or stuff like that.
That particular kind of misogyny happens, but is not universal, on Slashdot.
And SO WHAT some basement nerds think like that? In the real world, women dominate HR departments, so it is hard to believe the feminist claims that they are systematically, unfairly and gravely discriminated against by employers.
Second, there is a difference between acknowledging the reality that women and men are different, and actually discriminating against women based on real or perceived differences.
Women and men have equal _dignity_, but it doesn't mean that their talents and dreams are the same. Of course, women should be _allowed_ to study and choose their careers, and be judged fairly by their employers, but it just happens that they usually prefer being a psychologist or a nurse or a teacher than being a combat soldier. This is, in fact, (partially) natural. Even if unfair misogyny is completely eliminated, there will still be more male than female soldiers, due to natural differences.
In short: If you see a woman being unfairly discriminated against when she wants to pursue her chosen career, and you complain, then you are a common-sense person. If you complain and scream bloody murder because the gender distribution is not 50%/50% in all professions, then you are a crackpot feminist.
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"
Separation of Church and state was preached by Jesus, and it is no coincidence that it emerged in Christian Europe, even if Europe took centuries to start following that teaching.
People who complain of the medieval European theocracies are guilty of anachronism. The whole world was theocratic then, and it took centuries for someone to think "outside the box".
Italy is way better than Iran, because Italy is not a theocracy. They have a majority religion there, but it is okay to have a different religion or no religion at all. And they're a democracy too . . .
Therefore, Italy shows that a religious people can form a Constitutional democracy without infringing freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
In fact, the USA is one of the most religious countries in the developed world, and is also the most radically pro-speech country I know. In America there is no criminalization of "hate speech", for example.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
It looks like the Iran government is directly and intentionally infringing human rights. This is unacceptable.
Hard to fault a system that runs on "majority rule".
It is hard to describe Iran as a democratic country, given that women can't vote (AFAIK) and the "Supreme Leader" is unelected.
Constitutional democratic countries, when the Constitution is good (such as in the USA) are not like Iran.
Although even Constitutional democratic countries can become evil if the population is not virtuous. It is not like the Constitution will grow fangs and defend itself... we need virtuous people who care about natural law to defend the rights spelled in the Constitution.
Are they oblivious to the fact that their region as once the "mecca" of science and math?...and maybe could be again if they tried?
That region was good at science and Math when the _governments_ were Islamist, but a significant percentage of the population was still Christian (much of the region was Christian before Mohamed took over).
The Iranian people are historically a fairly progressive bunch. Cutting off women who have become wage earners, those on their way, and the modernization of that country is going to seriously piss of the population. I see another revolution in their very near future.
Let's hope so. The "Arab Spring" has, so far, made things worse. Secular dictators who made life bearable for religious minorities were replaced by the "tyranny of the majority", which is Muslim, and Christians/Jews are now getting a _very_ raw deal.
But Iran is already a constitutionally theocratic Islamist dictatorship, so it can't get worse. A revolution there would probably be a very good thing.
In these cases, I think the person has a tendency to cling to their beliefs. Because changing the beliefs entails coming to terms with what they did (in this case, causing many deaths).
Huffington Post has been classified as the n. 10 worst anti-science website due to its promotion of crack-pot medicine, including the alleged vaccine-autism link.
There's absolutely no reason any child today has to be born with Huntingtons, an incredibly miserable way to die as a chile. I'd say that screening for Huntingtons is such a serious moral obligation, that failing to do so should be criminal.
Our farmers are already getting subsidies and price supports — paid to keep fields fallow to reduce the supply and keep crop prices at a reasonable level. We don’t need increased yields. Food supply is not a problem, getting the food to where it needs to go without being intercepted by warlords is the problem.
You are partially correct. But remember biofuels. The demand for biofuels could be met sustainably if their productivity increased, and if the food productivity also increased so less area would be occupied by food crops and biofuels could expand.
Whoops - you kinda showed your cards there, Jorge. Turns out that you are trying to justify your religious beliefs to yourself.
False. It is not because I have Faith that everything I do is an attempt to justify my Faith.
Nothing wrong with that... but if you think you've found internal coherency with the church's teachings, you just haven't looked closely enough. Hell, entire orders have been started just to find that consistency.
What?
And if you're trying to avoid "hypocrites" by following the church, well, disappointment awaits you there as well. Hypocrisy is just part of the human condition. Note that some cases are worse than others - you should read up on this guy named Ratzinger, and how he conspired to cover up some pretty awful crimes.
There is no good evidence of that.
You seem to like rigid, almost binary answers, but when your dealing with humans, there really isn't such a thing. wierd_w has already shown you an example where even a simple rule (infanticide is bad) may have exceptions.
False; he simply pointed that some people disagree with that. This does not mean it ceases to be wrong.
And no, not everyone that disagrees with you is a hypocrite.
suppose it was a rich CEO posting something about making 'disruptive technology' and how he's going to start a war with him competitors. "heads will roll!" the ceo, exclaims.
and if that happened, he'd probably be offered a VP position in a government-level job.
aggression in business: to be rewarded
else, they may just come for you...
That is loony cynicism. In your hypothetic example, "heads will roll" does not mean violence.
Unless you are gunnying for +3 Funny and I didn't get it.
Theocracy is rule by clerics, like happens in Iran. The people of Iran have no choice but to obey the Supreme Leader.
In America, however, as long as the Constitution is respected, theocracy is impossible. However, this does not mean that religious people cannot (or should not) influence law. Religious people are first-class citizens and have a right to influence politics, through democratic means, respecting the Constitution. If religious people think prostitution is wrong and harms society, they have a right to try to pass a law forbidding prostitution.
I fear that this initiative will result in less genetic engineering, due to Luddism. Genetic engineering can greatly increase crop yields and this is good for everyone.
All but the most militant would rather have been sighted. That's accomplished by destroying the blind fetus and giving birth to the sighted one.
Then the blind one would cease to exist, and a completely different individual would be born.
Also: I love existing. Being dead would suck. And killing me in the womb would be at least as bad as killing me now. In fact, it would be worse, because if someone kills me now then I at least enjoyed life for a couple of decades.
Slashdot Mirror
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3070653&cid=41114179
Catholic teaching is quite stable.
It is simply dishonest to call the Holy See a "totalitarian theocracy", when it is a _tiny_ city with no maternity wards. No one was born there. If you have a Vatican passport then you also have another passport and it is trivial to leave. In fact, I think no private person one even owns property in the Vatican.
Basically, if you don't like the rules, you simply need to find another job.
In a secular state, government is compulsory and freedom comes from Constitutional rights and from democracy; in a religious organization, participation is voluntary and freedom comes from the right to get out, or refrain from getting in.
Lastly: wanting religious dogma to be subject to a majority vote is just bizarre.
That particular kind of misogyny happens, but is not universal, on Slashdot.
And SO WHAT some basement nerds think like that? In the real world, women dominate HR departments, so it is hard to believe the feminist claims that they are systematically, unfairly and gravely discriminated against by employers.
Second, there is a difference between acknowledging the reality that women and men are different, and actually discriminating against women based on real or perceived differences.
Women and men have equal _dignity_, but it doesn't mean that their talents and dreams are the same.
Of course, women should be _allowed_ to study and choose their careers, and be judged fairly by their employers, but it just happens that they usually prefer being a psychologist or a nurse or a teacher than being a combat soldier. This is, in fact, (partially) natural. Even if unfair misogyny is completely eliminated, there will still be more male than female soldiers, due to natural differences.
In short:
If you see a woman being unfairly discriminated against when she wants to pursue her chosen career, and you complain, then you are a common-sense person.
If you complain and scream bloody murder because the gender distribution is not 50%/50% in all professions, then you are a crackpot feminist.
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"
Separation of Church and state was preached by Jesus, and it is no coincidence that it emerged in Christian Europe, even if Europe took centuries to start following that teaching.
People who complain of the medieval European theocracies are guilty of anachronism. The whole world was theocratic then, and it took centuries for someone to think "outside the box".
See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
Therefore, Italy shows that a religious people can form a Constitutional democracy without infringing freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
In fact, the USA is one of the most religious countries in the developed world, and is also the most radically pro-speech country I know. In America there is no criminalization of "hate speech", for example.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
It looks like the Iran government is directly and intentionally infringing human rights. This is unacceptable.
It is hard to describe Iran as a democratic country, given that women can't vote (AFAIK) and the "Supreme Leader" is unelected.
Constitutional democratic countries, when the Constitution is good (such as in the USA) are not like Iran.
Although even Constitutional democratic countries can become evil if the population is not virtuous. It is not like the Constitution will grow fangs and defend itself... we need virtuous people who care about natural law to defend the rights spelled in the Constitution.
What is exactly wrong about USA and women?
That region was good at science and Math when the _governments_ were Islamist, but a significant percentage of the population was still Christian (much of the region was Christian before Mohamed took over).
Let's hope so. The "Arab Spring" has, so far, made things worse. Secular dictators who made life bearable for religious minorities were replaced by the "tyranny of the majority", which is Muslim, and Christians/Jews are now getting a _very_ raw deal.
But Iran is already a constitutionally theocratic Islamist dictatorship, so it can't get worse. A revolution there would probably be a very good thing.
Which is why Italy is such an awful place to live, right?
Equating Christianity with theocratic Islam is simply intellectually dishonest.
It is mind-blowing to blame Christians for what Muslims do.
With a brush of the same breadth, I can point to the 100,000,000 deaths caused by Marxism and say "this is what you get when you don't believe in God"
If you want to know what Christians actually believe, you should hear them.
www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
The link above does not deal with female education, but it deals with totalitarian theocracy, which is one of the underlying problems in Iran.
Fans are cheaper and waste less electricity.
WHAT? You mean that a country with a huge pornography addiction, widespread promiscuity, high STD infection rates, is "puritanical"?
In these cases, I think the person has a tendency to cling to their beliefs. Because changing the beliefs entails coming to terms with what they did (in this case, causing many deaths).
See:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283
Huffington Post has been classified as the n. 10 worst anti-science website due to its promotion of crack-pot medicine, including the alleged vaccine-autism link.
Totalitarian.
You are partially correct. But remember biofuels. The demand for biofuels could be met sustainably if their productivity increased, and if the food productivity also increased so less area would be occupied by food crops and biofuels could expand.
False. It is not because I have Faith that everything I do is an attempt to justify my Faith.
What?
There is no good evidence of that.
False; he simply pointed that some people disagree with that. This does not mean it ceases to be wrong.
Gratuitous straw man.
You went from "people disagree about morality" to "there is no absolute morality" with zero justification, zero argument.
You simply presented the premise, then your "conclusion", and expect me to accept it.
That is loony cynicism. In your hypothetic example, "heads will roll" does not mean violence.
Unless you are gunnying for +3 Funny and I didn't get it.
Theocracy is rule by clerics, like happens in Iran. The people of Iran have no choice but to obey the Supreme Leader.
In America, however, as long as the Constitution is respected, theocracy is impossible. However, this does not mean that religious people cannot (or should not) influence law. Religious people are first-class citizens and have a right to influence politics, through democratic means, respecting the Constitution. If religious people think prostitution is wrong and harms society, they have a right to try to pass a law forbidding prostitution.
See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
The state is supposed to be _neutral_, not antitheist.
I fear that this initiative will result in less genetic engineering, due to Luddism.
Genetic engineering can greatly increase crop yields and this is good for everyone.
Then the blind one would cease to exist, and a completely different individual would be born.
Also: I love existing. Being dead would suck. And killing me in the womb would be at least as bad as killing me now. In fact, it would be worse, because if someone kills me now then I at least enjoyed life for a couple of decades.