Thursday, June 26, 2008

Kicking S

Back here I slapped the bishops, so to speak. Rushing to their defence with the motorized goalposts, came S. From the comments we extract his/her attempts to repudiate my commentary.

"I suppose the logic of "progressive thinking" means that you can condemn entire groups for the actions of a few"

Where to begin with this bit of drooling stupidity. Dear S, I am sure it escapes you that disagreeing with what I have written, in one post and a followup comment, does not indict "progressive thinking" as a whole. In fact you are, within the space of a sentence, doing exactly what you are fuming about. And of course you get the extra comedy points for this broad brush response when your initial criticism in the thread had to do with not marching in lock step with CC, regarding the corporate pharmaceutical biz, dubious efficacy of HPV vaccine and Conservative government tie ins.

Unlike our echo drunk friends on the right, we on the left can agree to disagree on details and issues. We can look at a problem from more than one angle, consider a variety of solutions and still, for the most part, get along.

"I also suppose that the consistency of the church's message regarding sex outside of marriage (despite the hypocritical behaviour of a minority of clerics) offends your relativistic sensibilities."

The church has long held an unhealthy attitude toward sexuality, regardless of marriage. HPV vaccine does not lead to premarital sex or adultery or homosexuality or any other form of sexual activity. Hell, it won't even make you a wanker, you've done that all on your own. Again, you of the wandering goalposts, have sidestepped my point. A few aberrant clerics aren't the issue. A systemic and long term cover-up of those deviants of the cloth is at issue. I'm looking at a hierarchy that enabled the criminal child abusers in their midst, that set up, ran and profited by the cultural genocide of native populations through the residential schools. I'm looking at the men in the biggest gowns and the tallest hats holding forth on public health policy because they believe that sexuality is a sin, that your body is dirty and shameful and that you are condemned from conception until you bend your knee at their altar. I'm looking at the men in charge, the ones running this creepy deviant circus.

The "entire groups" you bleat about, well for the most part people regardless of denomination, are just trying to get along. Most folks, regardless of religion or sect or political stripe, are pretty decent folks. That includes the majority of the clergy. That includes worshippers of allah, jehovah, buddha, the flying spaghetti monster or non-worshippers. Of course it would be unkind of me to note the sort of readily accessible and widely celebrated opinions of your pals on the right, when it comes to worshippers of allah. But that's different, isn't it S? ADSCAM? Shiny thing?

"So much so that even when you have a common cause, like the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, you find it necessary to demand that the church shut up.
Well, congratulations. This is the "progressive logic" that is splitting up opposition to the corporatists and letting them succeed."

The shady old bishops aren't talking about the efficacy of vaccines. They're pimping their demented doctrinal, anti-sex crap, the continued demonization of anything that has to do with human sexuality. So yes, they should shut their fucking yaps. They are not holding common cause in opposition to the corporate culture that would profit by the wide spread distribution of a medicine for good or ill. They are not advising their parishioners based on their superstitious fears and mumbo jumbo, they are making public declarations and attempting to influence policy. They are overstepping the bounds and limitations set on them by the tax code, governing religious and charity organizations and political involvement. If you weren't a hypocrite and a dullard, you wouldn't be refuting an argument that I'm not making. I'm not splitting anything, I am quite specifically arguing that the bishops should shut up, sit down and behave.

"And as for having nothing of value to tell us, the church has been around for 2000 years and will be around a lot longer, which wouldn't be possible if it had nothing of value. On the other hand, you guys will be dead and forgotten soon enough. So much for the "value" of what you have to say."

Well isn't that a fancy yardstick! Prostitution has been thriving since long before the church sat ass no. 1 in a pew, therefore prostitution is a valuable social outlet, preventing sperm retention headaches? What were you saying about relativism? But it's okay if you're a conservative, you have the power of dudgeon and squeak behind you. The church has been around for two millennia therefore it has value to offer, satanism has been around exactly the same length of time, as have a variety of pagan belief systems and atheism for that matter. As for my value or the value of us guys, well, we're not claiming to have the key to eternity and all of the mysteries of the superstitious and invisible world of magical ponies. But that wouldn't be a relative comparison you're trying to twist into a ridiculous knot would it S? No, no... you're just above all of that arguing in good faith bother.


Renee said...

The hypocrisy is revealed even when you consider why they're against the vaccine. Why on earth couldn't a woman get married responsibly at 18 and STILL get HPV from her husband? Would the Church be against vaccinating all girls for that event? Yeesh.

Renee said...

(er, rather than hypocrisy - which is rife whichever way you look at it - I meant to say "dislike of women").

Joe said...

Part of the reason I am a lapsed Catholic is that unlike most other Catholics, I've actually studied the doctrine and the history of the Church. Consistent is not the word I would use to describe Catholic doctrine over the last 2000 years.

Most of the doctrines the Church adheres to today, especially concerning abortion, the Immaculate Conception (and most Catholics are just as ignorant of its true meaning as those outside the faith) and papal infallibility, are less than 200 years old. So to say the Church is consistent about anything other than its inherent disgust with human sexuality as a whole and its innate sense of self-preservation is a bit misleading, I think.

LuLu said...


My hero ...

JJ said...

This is one of the reasons I click on the "CC" tab of my bookmarks toolbar several times a day...

toujoursdan said...

In dialoguing with the TBCs (True Blue Catholics) you find that they will repeat the mantra that the church has always been consistent in doctrine with great sincerity. When you produce statements by Bishops, Cardinals and Popes that are out of sync with doctrines and statements made today, the reply is that they weren't made "infallibly". So then when you ask that given the church hasn't made "infallible" pronouncements on women clergy, gay marriage, receiving communion in other denominations, Mary as co-redemptrix, etc., that these are still open to debate and disagreement, the answer is "Of course not".

Methinks the whole "infallibility" clause is just a cover - or a way of hedging its bets. The RCC has actually made many de-facto infallible statements that were contradicted later. It hasn't been consistent on matters of theology or morals. But a TBC is in denial of this.

toujoursdan said...

And 2000 years isn't all that long as far as religions go. If length of service made you right then we should all become Hindus.

Unknown said...

Concerning the Roman Catholic Church, with its vapid notion of infallibility and irreformability, it is outstandingly interesting to note that 'infallibility' was originally condemned in a papal bull (Qui quorundam) by John XXII in AD 1324. In fact, John XXII was so incensed at the notion of papal infallibility that he stated it is a "work of the devil, the father of all lies".

The notion of infallibility was first introduced by a Franciscan priest by the name of Peter Olivi, who was repeatedly accused of heresy. Before John XXII, Pope Nicholas III favoured the Franciscans so he was all for passing Olivi's idea. But he died before it could take hold. John XXII hated the Franciscans, and hated the notion of infallibility because it would've made a mockery of his oppulent lifestyle; he enjoyed luxury ""by duping the poor, by selling livings, indulgences and dispensations" (De Rosa, op. cit., p. 180).

Papal infallibility was never considered prior to the 13th/14th centuries, and was largely ignored until the 19th century when it became expedient to make a decision if the Roman Catholic Church wanted to keep some of its religious clout. That means that everything prior to John XXII condemnation of papal infallibility is not necessarily binding on Catholics, and that everything else pronounced as 'binding' after John XXII is effectively a contradition. Papal infallibility is a sham!

Anyway, I know what I wrote isn't exactly on target with PSA's post, however, I thought it might be interesting to note that whatever 'official' declarations the Roman Catholic Church wants to make on a subject cannot ever be binding on anyone, including their own clergy, because they've already sawed off the branch they were sitting on: infallibility and irreformability of papal decisions.

Thanks. You've been a wonderful audience. I play fortnightly at 1 a.m. on the kazoo.


s said...

Thanks for demonstrating how your mind works, monkey boy. Illogical statements comparing religion with prostitution and schizophrenic opinions (calling the church a “creepy deviant circus,” followed by “most folks, regardless of religion or sect or political stripe, are pretty decent folks. That includes the majority of the clergy”) only prove how fucked up you are. Go get some professional help.

JJ said...

PSA - asssssss doesn't get it. Maybe you should try typing slower, or using only monosyllabic words and grunts.

LuLu said...

Dear "S":

Fuck off twice, you passive-agressive, delusional, mouthbreathing, goalpost-shifting lackwit.

Yours in endless amusement,

liberal supporter said...

That's not very nice, lulu.

The proper greeting would be:

Hi Patrick, nice sock puppet!

LuLu said...

P.S. If anyone requires "professional help", it's not my esteemed colleague. It's someone who refuses to see that the Church and, by extension, organized religion as a whole has some serious issues. And, more importantly, that intelligent people question these issues and feel that they should be dealt with ... now.

Now be a dear and run along ... the grown-ups are talking.

Frank Frink said...

No, I don't think it's a Twatsy sock puppet. More likely that 's' is the even-too-nutty-for-the-nutbars Rev. Don Spitz.

liberal supporter said...

I only got suspicious with this:
Illogical statements comparing religion with prostitution when in fact it was a clear and logical rebuttal to "s"'s appeal to authority based on the age of the church. Completely ignoring that, and simply going with "you compared religion with prostitutes" is classic PR "logic". The "you need a shrink" routine is standard fright wing stuff, not particularly indicative of PR though.

I must admit it was a desperate desire on my part that it was PR, and that we don't now have someone else as fantastically incapable of maintaining an actual discussion.

It's the high functioning loonies that are always the most infuriating because one will spend more time trying to engage them, then they come back with "s" type drivel.

Frank Frink said...

Niether Twatrick nor Spitz. JJ has an ISP. It's in Greater Vancouver.

liberal supporter said...

I think you'll have to rename it "Good Vancouver", it would seem to have lost its former greatness if "s" is there.

Actually, naah. I'm sure the streets of Vancouver get dogs pooping on them from time to time, doesn't make the city less great...

s said...

There is no maintaining an actual discussion here...this place is like a left-leaning SDA, where the flying monkeys swoop in for attack the moment you disagree with the collective opinion.

Frank Frink said...

Actual discussion? With you? Of course not, s. And it's only because we're all smart enough to know that a pompous, addle-pated, limp witted, butt sniffing, reality impaired, assmonkey troll like you isn't interested in 'discussion'. What you are interested is our complete agreement with your POV and supplication to your oh-so-smarmy self-superiority.

Ain't gonna happen.

If you were looking for bobbleheads, they're on aisle 11.

liberal supporter said...

There is no maintaining an actual discussion here
Two comments ago, I spoke of you being "incapable of maintaining an actual discussion". Now you say "there is no maintaining an actual discussion"? Come on. I've seen chat bots do a better job of "conversing". You're not an old model chat bot, are you?

...this place is like a left-leaning SDA,
Yes, mentioning a place that gets skewered here lately. Very good, context sensitive, you are at least a 1998 vintage bot.

where the flying monkeys swoop in for attack the moment you disagree with the collective opinion.
But as usual, the logical fallacy. You are not attacked for disagreeing with the "collective opinion". You are attacked for attacking. Plain and simple. And if you look carefully, it is not actually you that is being attacked, it is your views and especially the way you present them.

Attack bots are at least 2000 vintage, with the Rovization of US political discourse at the time.

Appeals to authority, ad hominem, wilful obtuseness. All have been seen here many times and while amusing, they do not cut it as discussion.