Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control
Business Insider ^ | 8 February 2012, 4:39 PM | Michael Brendan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry

Posted on 02/14/2012 8:49:20 AM PST by Jake from AZ

Painting the Catholic Church as "out of touch" is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches. And nothing makes it easier than the Church's stance against contraception.

Many people (including our editor) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn't just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or "outdated." C'mon! It's the 21st century, they say! Don't they SEE that it's STUPID, they scream.

Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.

So, what's going on?

The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it's probably never been as salient as today.

Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

1. General lowering of moral standards. 2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy. 3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men. 4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholics; contraception; obamacare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Never thought I'd see an article like this in the Business Insider.
1 posted on 02/14/2012 8:49:32 AM PST by Jake from AZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
...

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


2 posted on 02/14/2012 8:55:20 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

I think of the 4, only the last is legitimate. Without contraception, the govt wouldn’t be able to coerce anything about reproduction. The other 3 have very little to do with contraception, as they have been here since before the church or reliable methods of birth control..


3 posted on 02/14/2012 9:01:17 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

The older I get the more I appreciate “Children are an inheritance from the Lord. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.”
Like most women who married in the sixties, I practiced birth control. Still, I birthed four daughters. And, there was always enough love, always enough money. Everything always got done. If I could do it again, I would allow the Lord to fill my quiver with the children of His choice; all of them!


4 posted on 02/14/2012 9:05:06 AM PST by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

As a Protestant, I say that this is an area where the Catholic Church has been right all along.


5 posted on 02/14/2012 9:05:45 AM PST by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.

Well I thank God that he made women as sexual objects to satisfy men...And as disgusting as it may seem to the single, male, clergy class, God also made men as sexual objects to satisfy women...

I have to wonder if the Catholics' practice of pro-creation is with the lights off and the clothes on...

6 posted on 02/14/2012 9:10:13 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ
Requiring health insurers to pay for birth control pills is like mandating that auto insurers pay for tires.
7 posted on 02/14/2012 9:13:47 AM PST by Baynative (Please check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFIcZkEzc8I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

1. General lowering of moral standards
2. A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy
3. The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.
4. Government coercion in reproductive matters.

As for #1, who’s moral standing? Why does Christianity get to determine what moral standards are? Ours are obviously more lax then say fundamental Islam - but even within Christianity morals differ from extreme to non-existent.

The church is the domain of God and men’s souls are the domain of the church — for those willing to acquiesce and believe.

The government is the domain of the people and the laws are the domain of government.

We’ve already tried the Patriarch method of governing and we had the same problem, however they were from the extreme, like it was a sin for a woman to wear a dress above the ankle, wear makeup, dance, sing, celebrate.

Imagine the horror of a woman staining her lips with pomegranate and the thought that that would push civilization over the threshold of moral turpitude.

Each man should look after their own soul and the Church be there, unopposed by the government for those that join the flock. The church should look after itself without imposing its standards on the unwilling.


8 posted on 02/14/2012 9:14:35 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

As a Catholic I can understand why some people would use contraceptives. I can even understand why some would abort their childen. I don’t have to agree with it to understand it.

What I don’t agree with is make me pay for it.

Where does it say in the Constitution that it is right to make me pay for someone elses contraceptives, or abortion.

I dont agree that it is a right to murder a fetus
but it appears that our Government has made it a right, but now they want to make it a right to have me pay for it, and that is a bunch of baloney.

There is no free lunch. You want an abortion pay for it yourself
You want Birth Control pills, Buy them yourself.

It is not a Public Health issue that requires me to pay for it. IT isn’t the flu that you caught. It’s a self induced act.


9 posted on 02/14/2012 9:17:47 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You’re obtuse.


10 posted on 02/14/2012 9:19:07 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“... I thank God that He made women as sexual objects to satisfy men...”

Perhaps I misunderstand your post; however, God did not make women or men as “objects”. An object (IMHO) is something less than human and used for one purpose. Men and women have more purpose than to just have sex. Men and women were created as mates... a coupled pair joined together in Holy Matrimony (hopefully) to become Mothers and Fathers. Do their parts “fit?” Of course, but their view/treatment/reverence of each other is far more significant than seeing each other as an object. Viewing the opposite sex ONLY for sexual gratification is lust (not love). IMHO.


11 posted on 02/14/2012 9:23:58 AM PST by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

You’re too kind.


12 posted on 02/14/2012 9:29:05 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

> As for #1, who’s moral standing? Why does Christianity get
> to determine what moral standards are?

Is it wrong to murder?

Why? Where do you get the antiquated notion that murder is wrong?

“Birth Control” is better understood as “preemptive abortion”. The same spirit and reasoning is behind it. Sex without responsibility. Sex without children.

Because the government says it’s “legal” does not make it right.

Even worse when the government wants those of us with this perspective to PAY for it.

> like it was a sin for a woman to wear a dress above the ankle

For those of us, admittedly very few, who believe the accounts in Genesis, clothing was intended to conceal, not to reveal.

You can do whatever you want, you are free to make your own choices.

But I should not be made to pay for your choices nor to pay for the consequences of them.


13 posted on 02/14/2012 9:29:26 AM PST by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Iscool, you little, little man

de profundis! you just never pass up an opportunity to bash the Catholic Church.

Lurking’


14 posted on 02/14/2012 9:31:00 AM PST by LurkingSince'98 (Catholics=John 6:53-58 Everyone else=John 6:60-66)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Silly Usagi...don’t yu know, it’s not the church or it’s people that get to determine moral standards...this comes directly from God. You just don’t listen right.


15 posted on 02/14/2012 9:35:08 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Well I thank God that he made women as sexual objects to satisfy men...And ... God also made men as sexual objects to satisfy women...

Well, that tells us more than we needed to know about your religious beliefs.

TMI

16 posted on 02/14/2012 9:35:09 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ; stuartcr; DuncanWaring
Standing face to face are the ideas of ordered freedom (liberty) and control (tyranny). Age-old ideas are at the fore of the battle in America. Which idea will dominate the minds of citizens? The future of liberty in the world will depend upon the outcome.

"Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? ... the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government, they should watch over it ... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free."

The current population control mechanism, to be administered by government, is not without roots in the ideology which dominates the Administration and so-called "progressive" thought.

Earlier, FR poster "livius" wrote: "What we are now being forced to pay for is essentially a government funded and (as yet) indirectly government administered population control program."

Writers have been exposing socialism's tyrannical principles and goals for over a century.

Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people.

Last week, my post included an excerpt from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay in which he stated that "the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining population."

From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:

"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove."
EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

17 posted on 02/14/2012 9:38:45 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Not sure if serious, but sure, I’ll bite. Being a woman and satisfying your man is not what they are warning against. An object is used for a sole purpose, so they are saying and it is coming to fruition, that women are not repsected as women but instead seen merely as objects for men to sex up, move along and do the same to another. You’re taking our attraction for the opposite sex, and perverting it.


18 posted on 02/14/2012 9:41:34 AM PST by BloodAngel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: loveliberty2; All
Oooops! That first quotation in my previous post is, of course, from James Madison.
19 posted on 02/14/2012 9:42:36 AM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

Yikes. I guess so.


20 posted on 02/14/2012 9:44:45 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I’m trying to be charitable.


21 posted on 02/14/2012 9:51:26 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ
Granted we need to keep birth rates at or above replacement levels; not doing that lays a country open to invasion.

Nonetheless all of the European wars after the middle ages have been fought by third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sons. At some point, if nobody practices birth control of any sort at all, you are basically breeding for war.

Gunnar Heinsohn is a frequent speaker at NATO gatherings precisely because his theories involving population youth bulges predict war and political unrest with near 100% accuracy.

22 posted on 02/14/2012 10:43:44 AM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

Someone from a talk show this morning brought this up: “If Planned “Non-Parent Hood” has been doing such a good job providing birth control as a public service then why the hell do we even need insurance to provide it?”


23 posted on 02/14/2012 11:02:08 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

What planet are you from? The Church and other religions and religious institutes have been setting moral standards [different] as long as they have been in existence. The thing is, you can’t tell me that Islam is wrong about it’s abhorrent medieval practices without undermining yourself and the Church.

You look to the right and you see Islam and you see evil, you look to the left and you see people with lower moral standards then you and you see evil.

What yardstick are you using? One of your own make. You’re not using the bible, that’s for sure.

God talks to me in spirit all the time, the spirit tells me to take care of my own soul and well being, and to help those that are like minded (spiritually) The spirit tells me to drop the old testament and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ who tells us to obey the 10 commandments. The spirit tells me that any church that does any thing other than celebrate, worship, rejoice and share their joy in Him, is corrupt because it is a man made thing filled with man made ideas.

The government job is not to make accommodation for the church, but they should neither impose on the church. The church needs to make accommodations for the government, but not impose on the government.


24 posted on 02/14/2012 11:09:37 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000; Jake from AZ

As a fellow Protestant I concur. Our society’s acceptance of abortions and marriage redefinition would never have happened without it.

Protestants on Birth Control:

http://catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2007/08/protestants-on-birth-control.html

‘Martin Luther once proclaimed that “the purpose of marriage is not pleasure and ease but the procreation and education of children and the support of a family.... People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage” (Christian History, Issue 39, p. 24). Luther also said that birth control was the equivalent of sodomy (probably because of the likeness between homosexual wickedness and impotent sex). John Calvin declared that birth control was the murder of future persons and the Synod of Dort issued a Bible commentary which stated that contraception was the same as abortion. If you are shocked, by the strong statements from these Godly men, that really is not too surprising, because Protestant opposition to birth control has largely been forgotten in our decadent 21th century.’

and the Washington Post of all sources on the evil of contraception back in 1931!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2613278/posts


25 posted on 02/14/2012 11:12:33 AM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

So much ignorance is displayed in your post that one is wondering if you are a troll.

It is an historic fact that a culture with a moral standard that approves of indiscriminate sexual couplings is not the best template building a civil society consisting of a prudent people who are capable of upholding any ideals beyond the satisfaction of libidos.

Self occupied in the childish pursuit of pleasure at all costs they really don’t give a fig if the world collapses around them while their freedoms are absconded one by one.

There is no domain from which exclusion of morality has resulted in more prosperity, more liberty, more charity, more happiness and more cooperation. The absence of morality has certainly sowed the seeds of destruction in many domains.

Whenever somebody blathers on about Patriarchy I have a wonderful clue that they do not bother to let facts get in the way of their utterances. You give an example of a very, very narrow time period of history or I should say an imagined history since at no time was it considered sinful for a woman to sing and dance in any and all circumstances. The mores of dress were determined more by what was common to prostitutes making it a common prohibition that godly women not imitate their mode of dress and behavior. Declaring that immodest dress and behavior is wrong is not repressive and narrow minded, it is too have a very good understanding of the workings of the world and how best to encourage and preserve self respect and dignity. What is regarded as immodest will change from culture to culture but the standards applied are usually about protection of privacy, especially of sexual privacy.

If you think the matriarchal method of governing was a kinder, gentler, more tolerant and freedom loving method you are very much mistaken. I’ll sum it up in one word “Moloch”. That is the matriarchal system that the evil patriarchal Hebrews encountered after their long trek across the desert. Butterflies and unicorns it wasn’t. You should also know that “Some anthropologists and authors hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal” though there were exception. It was also the nasty patriarchal system of governance in which concepts such as human rights and personal autonomy developed.

The Church is not imposing anything on the unwilling She is exercising her religion just as the 1st amendment declares She has every right to do so. Those women who want artificial birth control can still lockstep themselves down to PP and get a script or a package of condoms and pay for it themselves or get their own insurance which covers such costs. What they can not do is demand their Catholic employer provide it to them.


26 posted on 02/14/2012 11:14:11 AM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Many Protestants reject artificial means of contraception, and I applaud them.

Humane Vitae said it all, but to summarize the problem with The Pill simply and crudely, it’s the difference between using a woman as a sperm bank, or seeing her as a partner in raising children.

And liberals have the gall to say that induced sterility “liberates” women.


27 posted on 02/14/2012 11:29:09 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas (d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Calm down, I was being sarcastic.


28 posted on 02/14/2012 11:36:56 AM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

I would ask you what on earth you are talking about, but I’m sure you don’t know either.

But just to clarify ....

The Church warns of encroaching government, yet the opposite is more true, the church encroaches on government. This is far better historical fact than what you tried to present as historical fact — which was neither historical nor fact.

The government wants to allow gay marriage, make available contraception and abortions ... so be it. The government crosses the line when it tells church’s they must hire gay priests, perform abortions and provide contraception in their clinics, providing that that institute does not receive an iota of public funding.

So, if the church sticks it’s nose in the public trough, then they are subject to government rules and regulations.


29 posted on 02/14/2012 12:04:53 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Sex object”too hard got for you to get? What about non-person? What about “sex toy.” The irony of pornography is that a 2-D image if a woman becomes more desirable than a real woman.


30 posted on 02/14/2012 12:21:49 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Sex object”too hard got for you to get? What about non-person? What about “sex toy.” The irony of pornography is that a 2-D image if a woman becomes more desirable than a real woman.


31 posted on 02/14/2012 12:21:49 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

“Sex object”too hard got for you to get? What about non-person? What about “sex toy.” The irony of pornography is that a 2-D image if a woman becomes more desirable than a real woman.


32 posted on 02/14/2012 12:21:49 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I think your example of irony is incorrect. I don’t believe that a picture is more desirable, I believe those that have problems with porn, are unable to get a woman, or do not want the one they have. I doubt there are many users of porn, that want to look at pictures of women that look like their wives.


33 posted on 02/14/2012 1:16:38 PM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

The 1st amendment does not read if a person or religious body receives government monies they are necessarily excluded from exercising their religion without government interference. The mandate also applies broadly to include institutions that do not receive any funding. So your point is moot.

What I presented was fact and it was indeed historical fact. I am not too surprised that you did not recognize this.

Please show where under our Constitutional system of government that the “Church” has encroached into government. Are the clergy another branch of government of which I am unaware? Are there special judicial chambers established by the State to hear complaints dealing solely with matters of faith? Do we have trials for heresy in this country? Is there a faith clamoring to become the official religion of this country? Is Obama going on his knees to show that D.C. is worth the price of a Mass? I thought not.

I am curious what other limits do you want to set on our Constitutional rights based on receiving back our own money paid to the government in the form of taxes and fees? Should freedom of the press be curtailed if a government agency provided a tax incentive to hire local unemployed to work in the printing press? Should we accept being searched without a warrant and without probable cause if we receive Social Security Benefits? Should a preacher not be allowed to preach against gambling if his church receives a portion of local tax dollars to operate a soup kitchen?

Our rights are not doled out by a benevolent government as rewards of fidelity and compliance. They are not a matter of quid pro quo. If people do not understand that they deserve to have tyranny descend on this nation. We are not lackeys and lickspittles. Rights are part of the natural law and the editing of them is an assault on freedom.


34 posted on 02/14/2012 1:21:37 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

There are a lot of guys who don’t want the wives they have, or don’t like something about them. No image talks back, no image finds you inadequate.


35 posted on 02/14/2012 1:24:22 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

As Rush has pointed out many times. “government money” is really YOUR money, your money and your neighbor’s money. Therefore it ought not to travel very far from your pocket before it is spent. Federal money is collected far, far from home, and is spent by people far away from you by people you never got to vote far. The principle of subsidarity should be paramount: You money should go the 1) your family, 2) your church or lodge or local charity 3) your local governments, and only lastly to the Federal government.


36 posted on 02/14/2012 1:31:26 PM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

The only thing you got right there was:

“Our rights are not doled out by a benevolent government as rewards of fidelity and compliance.”

To bad though it had nothing to do with what was said. If you want to start another topic please do so under another topic.

And please, quit torturing history with your distorted views and representing [bad] opinion for fact.


37 posted on 02/14/2012 3:33:47 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

No image feels good either.


38 posted on 02/14/2012 3:43:36 PM PST by stuartcr ("In this election year of 12, how deep into their closets will we delve?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

Show where anything I wrote was not based in fact. This is about the free exercise of religion, so the First Amendment has bearing on this matter.

You are the one who shows a serious want on the subject of history.

You also are the one who asserts that the right of the Church to practice Her religion is dependent on whether she accepts any government funding. That is a false assertion and a practice which would be a threat to liberty.


39 posted on 02/14/2012 4:23:49 PM PST by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

The government simply won’t give churches the money if they don’t participate and toe the government line. That’s the way it works.

Oh, and it’s separation of Church *AND* State, not Church *OR* State. Just like it’s freedom *OF* religion not freedom *FROM* religion.

Oh and the government is to make no preference over any particular religion, if you don’t believe that and believe that Christianity should be prefered and first in line, go to Israel and talk to the wall.


40 posted on 02/14/2012 6:01:37 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

You gotta be kidding. The morality of today is equivalent to the morality of America in the Eisenhower years? Skyrocketing divorce, STDs out-of-wedlock births, blended families etc. You don’t see this as a decay in the cultural fabric? Really.


41 posted on 02/14/2012 6:27:13 PM PST by TradicalRC (Conservatism is primarily a Christian movement.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jake from AZ

When does ability to abort become duty to abort and then requirement to abort?


42 posted on 02/14/2012 8:34:52 PM PST by TASMANIANRED (We kneel to no prince but the Prince of Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Sure, those problems have been around forever, but they are right that the rise of contraception use, and especially the wide availability and use of “the pill” has made all those problems much worse. You can’t untie the feminist agenda and the sexual revolution, with all their consequences, from the issue of contraception. They won’t allow you to, so why would we let you get away with that?


43 posted on 02/14/2012 11:58:49 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

What exactly are you arguing against? What standards are they imposing on the unwilling? Is the fact that the Catholics comment on their appraisal of the general situation in society, and even express concern about it, some kind of imposition against your rights and freedom?

Sorry if I’m confused, but your arguments, superficially, are sounding like those I hear from the pro-aborts.


44 posted on 02/15/2012 12:03:02 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Well, that is just the rules of nature. Any successful population eventually will outbreed their resources, and then they have to expand and get more territory and resources, or start feeding on each other. Applied to humans, war is attempted expansion, while “population control”, meaning abortion and a post-feminist sexual dynamic, is our new, “polite” equilavent of eating our young.

I don’t think advocating the latter is the preferable of the two options. As you say, we have to keep the birth rates at a certain level, or it’s cultural suicide. Once you institute population control, though, you have divorced sexual relations from breeding, and you can never guarantee that people will choose to breed at the necessary levels. Also, it’s universal that the poorest, and least successful levels of society will end up breeding more in that system, while the more successful will breed less, so you have the problem of reverse eugenics to deal with now. You also have all the other associated increases in social problem that come along with “sexual liberation”, aka sexual licentiousness, which can be as fatally deadly to a society as failing to breed at replacement levels.

Just saying, basically, “it’s birth control or war” is not a good basis for making a judgement. Let’s look honestly at ALL the negative consequences that go along with choosing population control as your strategy, and then see how that stacks up with the horrors of the occasional bloody conflict.


45 posted on 02/15/2012 12:22:48 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Also, since we can bend the rules of nature a bit, we have come up with a third option to address this scenario. We’ve tried, from time to time, to shunt excess males into celibate lifestyles of monks, priests, eunuchs, etc, thus helping to mitigate the problem in another way. I don’t think that option is successful enough to be a permanent solution though.


46 posted on 02/15/2012 12:30:19 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

“No image talks back, no image finds you inadequate.”

Well, unless that is what you’re into. I’m sure they’re willing to cater to that niche market :)


47 posted on 02/15/2012 12:38:29 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

If they want an object that talks back, they can find the nearest brothel. or sex shop.


48 posted on 02/15/2012 1:20:22 AM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

We talk modern medicine for granted, but Hollywood sometimes reminds us that we ought not to. We cannot be sure that nothing like the Black Death or the Spanish flu, or even a resurgence of TB will not overwhelm our defenses. The appearance of AIDS was a cautionary tale, but the male libido managed to get that concern shoved aside. No guarantee, however, that the Four Horsemen will not humble us again.


49 posted on 02/15/2012 1:28:35 AM PST by RobbyS (Christus rex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I am arguing that people using the “Moral” argument take measure with a ruler fashioned by their own self serving hand. It’s a tautological argument.

I argue *against* the Government imposing it’s standards upon the Church — who set their own standards amongst themselves to measure amongst themselves.

I argue *against* the Church accepting government dollars and then not following policy and rules from whence those dollars came.


50 posted on 02/15/2012 4:05:40 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson