I ain't no fan of the pope... - Edit 1
Before modification by Bramhodoulos at 28/02/2011 03:30:23 PM
But this is just plain silly.
I will not even try to defend the "cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests".
But that one aside I will make a case for the Roman view on sex and HIV/AIDS. Now first I am not against the use of codoms and such, but the dilemma shown here is just falce.
As far as I can remember "having sex" is not a universal human right. It isn't, it really really isn't and it shouldn't be either. To abstain from sex is not a lot of fun, especially not for people in a romantic relationship, but to claim that the only choice one has as a HIV/AIDS infected person is to have sex with a condom and to have sex without a condom is simply not true.
I'm 25 years old and I havn't had sex. I'm not suffering miserably from that lack of sex and if I triple my current age all without sex, then sure I missed a lot of fun, but life ain't fair. Deal with it.
Secondly the baptism of infants in the Roman (and as far as I'm informed also in the Lutheran) tradition (I'm not well informed in the Orthodox and Anglican rites), is NOT against the infant's will according to doctrine. During the act of baptism questions are asked to the infant (do you believe in God, do you wish to be baptized etc.) and the baby answers. By the mouth of is his or her godfather(s).
Now you may think that such a procedure is absurd (so do I, for I'm an adult-baptist), but concider the claim here. This is an appeal to the supernatural, a miracle is taking place at that time: the infant speaks of his or her faith and will to be baptized. Juridically, how would one weight such an argument? To do so on theological grounds is absurd: judges may or may not know a great deal about theology, but they are bound by international and state-laws, not by religious doctrines.
Is one to involve atheïstic/naturalistic presuppositions one may be convinced that what happens is strange, but then no harm is done whatsoever. Just a bit of water and some words, is that bad if there is nothing essentially happening? A child is registerd as a member of the church against its will (or without it's explicit will). So what? The same child is probably registerd at the local authorities as well, and is presented to the family against its will.
Besides, isn't this the freedom of religion we all hold so dear? And yes, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. In a free and open society we all live in and enjoy the benefits from one cannot escape the existence of relgion. I as a Christian cannot escape the existence of atheïsm, islam, hinduism and the like, but I deal with it. So should atheïsts, even if their encouter with religion began at birth by baptism or some ritual other religions practice on their children.
In short I think this guy is complaining about the fact that he is annoyed by the very existence of the Roman church and tries to justify his annoyance by going to the judge. Very childish and very immature.
I will not even try to defend the "cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests".
But that one aside I will make a case for the Roman view on sex and HIV/AIDS. Now first I am not against the use of codoms and such, but the dilemma shown here is just falce.
As far as I can remember "having sex" is not a universal human right. It isn't, it really really isn't and it shouldn't be either. To abstain from sex is not a lot of fun, especially not for people in a romantic relationship, but to claim that the only choice one has as a HIV/AIDS infected person is to have sex with a condom and to have sex without a condom is simply not true.
I'm 25 years old and I havn't had sex. I'm not suffering miserably from that lack of sex and if I triple my current age all without sex, then sure I missed a lot of fun, but life ain't fair. Deal with it.
Secondly the baptism of infants in the Roman (and as far as I'm informed also in the Lutheran) tradition (I'm not well informed in the Orthodox and Anglican rites), is NOT against the infant's will according to doctrine. During the act of baptism questions are asked to the infant (do you believe in God, do you wish to be baptized etc.) and the baby answers. By the mouth of is his or her godfather(s).
Now you may think that such a procedure is absurd (so do I, for I'm an adult-baptist), but concider the claim here. This is an appeal to the supernatural, a miracle is taking place at that time: the infant speaks of his or her faith and will to be baptized. Juridically, how would one weight such an argument? To do so on theological grounds is absurd: judges may or may not know a great deal about theology, but they are bound by international and state-laws, not by religious doctrines.
Is one to involve atheïstic/naturalistic presuppositions one may be convinced that what happens is strange, but then no harm is done whatsoever. Just a bit of water and some words, is that bad if there is nothing essentially happening? A child is registerd as a member of the church against its will (or without it's explicit will). So what? The same child is probably registerd at the local authorities as well, and is presented to the family against its will.
Besides, isn't this the freedom of religion we all hold so dear? And yes, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. In a free and open society we all live in and enjoy the benefits from one cannot escape the existence of relgion. I as a Christian cannot escape the existence of atheïsm, islam, hinduism and the like, but I deal with it. So should atheïsts, even if their encouter with religion began at birth by baptism or some ritual other religions practice on their children.
In short I think this guy is complaining about the fact that he is annoyed by the very existence of the Roman church and tries to justify his annoyance by going to the judge. Very childish and very immature.