Lo, a question for you. You speak of the religious being humble, and it got me thinking. It seems to me that is a contradiction in terms. How can you be humble if you think you are so important that god created the universe for you and has a place in heaven lined up ("you" being people in general, not you personally)? Seems to me that this point of view is not humble at all.
My view is that we are completely insignificant specs on a completely insignificant planet in one of a bazillion star systems in a galaxy that is itself one of a bazillion and when we die, we die. Now that's humbling.
Save us from "Social Justice"
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
I see no value in asserting absolutist positions about the Roman Catholic Church and poverty. It seems to me obvious that the RCC has done and continues to do things which result in more poverty, and it seems to me equally obvious that the RCC has done and continues to do things which result in less poverty. Figuring out which, if either, outweighs the other seems to me to require a very delicate balancing of a huge mass of information, including a careful weighing of conflicting evidence on particular matters. That task is monumental; I for one have neither the resources nor the inclination to attempt it.
On another level, however, the interplay of the RCC and poverty, complex as it is, is itself but one factor in a balancing of good and bad. For example, how does one weigh the combination of the RCC's charitable works (which are manifold and meritorious) and its anti-contraception efforts (which contribute to poverty) against, say, its orchestration of the genocide perpetrated on the native peoples of California? Weighing one complicated basket of good apples against another complicated basket of bad apples is intimidating in itself, so how would we go about weighing the resulting even more complicated basket of good and bad apples against a basket of oranges?
On another level, however, the interplay of the RCC and poverty, complex as it is, is itself but one factor in a balancing of good and bad. For example, how does one weigh the combination of the RCC's charitable works (which are manifold and meritorious) and its anti-contraception efforts (which contribute to poverty) against, say, its orchestration of the genocide perpetrated on the native peoples of California? Weighing one complicated basket of good apples against another complicated basket of bad apples is intimidating in itself, so how would we go about weighing the resulting even more complicated basket of good and bad apples against a basket of oranges?
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
The Great Society initiatives have in no way reduced poverty, nor have they lifted any significant number of individuals out of poverty, other than the poverty pimps who work for government (and in academe).
Even SS has had a neglligible effect on elderly poverty. The fact is that before there was SS, it was presumed that the vast majority of working class retired folks would live with their adult children and grandchildren when they were financially unable to maintain their own households. Most of the children I grew up with had at least one grandparent living in the house, as did I (SS was not enough to live on for the first few decades). The existence of SS has destroyed this cultural "safety net," as adult children no longer feel any need to take care of the old folks, assuming the Gubmint will take care of them. Hence, the number of oldsters living in povertytoday is no better than it was in the late 1920's (before SS and before the Depression).
The Welfare state has perversely destroyed the Black Family and resulted in an increase in poverty, by paying people not to work, and more poignantly, paying single women to have babies - effectively punishing them for being married (AFDC).
There is only one "welfare program" that works, but Libs want nothing to do with it because it does not involve government and it requires that one assume personal responsibility: Take advantage of your free government education, and refrain from reproducing until you are married and employed.
Works 90% of the time, as compared to Gubmint social programs which are intended to be self-perpetuating, and never raise anyone out of poverty.
Saying that the RCC has increased poverty by encouraging responsible reproductive behavior is like saying that Jonas Salk promoted other childhood diseases by saving tens of thousands from dying of polio.
More pointedly, the "Liberal" solution to "over-population" - massive birth control and systemic abortions - have never worked anywhere (except in Western Europe), because third-world cultures favor big families and the women won't use BC even when it's available.
Really, guys, give me an example of a third-world country that has brought its population under control by broad-based use of contraception. Or is the RCC's influence so pervasive around the globe, that it has prevented this from happening?
Even SS has had a neglligible effect on elderly poverty. The fact is that before there was SS, it was presumed that the vast majority of working class retired folks would live with their adult children and grandchildren when they were financially unable to maintain their own households. Most of the children I grew up with had at least one grandparent living in the house, as did I (SS was not enough to live on for the first few decades). The existence of SS has destroyed this cultural "safety net," as adult children no longer feel any need to take care of the old folks, assuming the Gubmint will take care of them. Hence, the number of oldsters living in povertytoday is no better than it was in the late 1920's (before SS and before the Depression).
The Welfare state has perversely destroyed the Black Family and resulted in an increase in poverty, by paying people not to work, and more poignantly, paying single women to have babies - effectively punishing them for being married (AFDC).
There is only one "welfare program" that works, but Libs want nothing to do with it because it does not involve government and it requires that one assume personal responsibility: Take advantage of your free government education, and refrain from reproducing until you are married and employed.
Works 90% of the time, as compared to Gubmint social programs which are intended to be self-perpetuating, and never raise anyone out of poverty.
Saying that the RCC has increased poverty by encouraging responsible reproductive behavior is like saying that Jonas Salk promoted other childhood diseases by saving tens of thousands from dying of polio.
More pointedly, the "Liberal" solution to "over-population" - massive birth control and systemic abortions - have never worked anywhere (except in Western Europe), because third-world cultures favor big families and the women won't use BC even when it's available.
Really, guys, give me an example of a third-world country that has brought its population under control by broad-based use of contraception. Or is the RCC's influence so pervasive around the globe, that it has prevented this from happening?
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
Any policy seriously aimed at reducing reproduction rates necessarily entails the universal or near-universal availability of contraception. Claiming that a policy is aimed at reducing reproductive rates even though it does not include the universal or near-universal availability of contraception is, put most charitably, pure fantasy.
The RCC is resolutely opposed to contraception. (So much so that it is merely considering whether it is morally permissible for a married couple to use condoms if one spouse is HIV-positive and the other is not. Great. The RCC is finally deigning to consider whether the life of one spouse is more important than rampant breeding.)
That means that the RCC is resolutely opposed to reducing reproduction rates. Which is no surprise.
The notion that "refrain[ing] from reproducing until you are married and employed" is a meaningful policy of reducing reproduction rates is a pure canard. Whether people have nine children without being married or have nine children when they are married is simply irrelevant: Either way, they have nine children.
And, of course, "giv[ing] an example of a third-world country that has brought its population under control by broad-based use of contraception" requires that there first be an example of a third-world country in which there is broad-based use of contraception. If the RCC has its way, no such country will ever exist.
The RCC is resolutely opposed to contraception. (So much so that it is merely considering whether it is morally permissible for a married couple to use condoms if one spouse is HIV-positive and the other is not. Great. The RCC is finally deigning to consider whether the life of one spouse is more important than rampant breeding.)
That means that the RCC is resolutely opposed to reducing reproduction rates. Which is no surprise.
The notion that "refrain[ing] from reproducing until you are married and employed" is a meaningful policy of reducing reproduction rates is a pure canard. Whether people have nine children without being married or have nine children when they are married is simply irrelevant: Either way, they have nine children.
And, of course, "giv[ing] an example of a third-world country that has brought its population under control by broad-based use of contraception" requires that there first be an example of a third-world country in which there is broad-based use of contraception. If the RCC has its way, no such country will ever exist.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
Very good, poverty is not the cause nor effect of religion. It (poverty) is accepted by morality/religion as a natural state; nothing to be ashamed of; as man would attest.
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
Lo, I am still not sure why you consider yourself humble?
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
Hmmm, the poverty rate among the elderly appears to have gone down steadily after the start of SS and even more sharply when Medicare was instituted.
Just the facts.
yrs,
rubato
Just the facts.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
The RCC is opposed to artificial birth control, which is to say that it teaches and promotes responsible reproductive behavior.
It is easy to forget that before the widespread availability of artificial birth control, family size was controlled (more or less) by people behaving responsibly. In the sixties and prior, it was relatively unusual for a girl to get pregnant in High School. It happened, but it was considered scandalous and it didn't happen very often. Some people (even people who post here and should know better) believe that abortion was widely available before RvW, but this is simply not the case. People who were well off could fly off somewhere (maybe offshore) and have it done, but when a typical working class girl got knocked up, it was occasion for the so-called "shotgun wedding." (My older brother had this experience in 1964 and remains faithfully married to the same woman). Not surprisingly, young people and people in general behaved much more responsibly than they do now.
Who can fail to observe (Andrew?) that now we have ubiquitous and varied means of birth control available to everyone who wants it (initially, The Pill was informally limited to married women), and we have super-accessible abortion, AND YET THE ILLEGITIMACY RATE DWARFS WHAT IT WAS WHEN SUCH CONTROLS WERE NOT AVAILABLE?
So much for the efficacy of any widespread program that seeks to control population through artificial birth control. It ain't happenin'. The ONLY thing that will curtail the illegitimacy pandemic is behavior modification - a solution which Progressives uniformly pooh pooh, since they apparently believe we are slaves to our sexual urges.
Andrew, you are flying off the reservation when you imply it doesn't matter whether children are born to an intact family or a single woman ("...people have nine children without being married or have nine children when they are married is simply irrelevant..."). Every study that has ever been done on the subject confirms that illegitimacy is a principal causal factor in crime, substance abuse, dropping out of school, incarceration...and bearing or siring even more illegitimate children.
Regarding elder poverty, I suspect the data in the earlier years are "cooked," and I give the following example: There were three "poor" retired people in the household where I grew up: My grandmother, an elderly "spinster" aunt, and a boarder. The total income of the three of them might have been $250 per month. Would the survey you cited have counted them as "poor"? I suspect it would have. But they were only cash poor, having "free" housing and basics provided by the family.
Besides, the reduction in elderly poverty over the past 20 years has more to do with the prosperity of the 50's and 60's than it does with Social Security. But still, as you imply, SS has grown (wrongly in my view) into a stipend on which a married retired couple could conceivably live (if they own their primary residence outright) when it was not originally intended to be that generous.
It is easy to forget that before the widespread availability of artificial birth control, family size was controlled (more or less) by people behaving responsibly. In the sixties and prior, it was relatively unusual for a girl to get pregnant in High School. It happened, but it was considered scandalous and it didn't happen very often. Some people (even people who post here and should know better) believe that abortion was widely available before RvW, but this is simply not the case. People who were well off could fly off somewhere (maybe offshore) and have it done, but when a typical working class girl got knocked up, it was occasion for the so-called "shotgun wedding." (My older brother had this experience in 1964 and remains faithfully married to the same woman). Not surprisingly, young people and people in general behaved much more responsibly than they do now.
Who can fail to observe (Andrew?) that now we have ubiquitous and varied means of birth control available to everyone who wants it (initially, The Pill was informally limited to married women), and we have super-accessible abortion, AND YET THE ILLEGITIMACY RATE DWARFS WHAT IT WAS WHEN SUCH CONTROLS WERE NOT AVAILABLE?
So much for the efficacy of any widespread program that seeks to control population through artificial birth control. It ain't happenin'. The ONLY thing that will curtail the illegitimacy pandemic is behavior modification - a solution which Progressives uniformly pooh pooh, since they apparently believe we are slaves to our sexual urges.
Andrew, you are flying off the reservation when you imply it doesn't matter whether children are born to an intact family or a single woman ("...people have nine children without being married or have nine children when they are married is simply irrelevant..."). Every study that has ever been done on the subject confirms that illegitimacy is a principal causal factor in crime, substance abuse, dropping out of school, incarceration...and bearing or siring even more illegitimate children.
Regarding elder poverty, I suspect the data in the earlier years are "cooked," and I give the following example: There were three "poor" retired people in the household where I grew up: My grandmother, an elderly "spinster" aunt, and a boarder. The total income of the three of them might have been $250 per month. Would the survey you cited have counted them as "poor"? I suspect it would have. But they were only cash poor, having "free" housing and basics provided by the family.
Besides, the reduction in elderly poverty over the past 20 years has more to do with the prosperity of the 50's and 60's than it does with Social Security. But still, as you imply, SS has grown (wrongly in my view) into a stipend on which a married retired couple could conceivably live (if they own their primary residence outright) when it was not originally intended to be that generous.
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
The Mormon church has only existed for a century and a half and they have a very effective social-welfare system. Even with very large family sizes.
Amazing how the church who says god directed them for nearly 2,000 has no effect on poverty and yet Mormons are so successful? Maybe it is because they give to their church until the need is met as opposed to Catholics who give almost the least of all Denominations as a percentage of income.
yrs,
rubato
Amazing how the church who says god directed them for nearly 2,000 has no effect on poverty and yet Mormons are so successful? Maybe it is because they give to their church until the need is met as opposed to Catholics who give almost the least of all Denominations as a percentage of income.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
The claim that birth control (contraception and abortion) are available to anyone who wants them is simply false. For example, as I pointed out to dgs49 less than two months ago, but he evidently failed to register:
But that is precisely the sort of comprehensive, practical, realistic program that the RCC is dead-set against.
Thus, the claim that the RCC "teaches and promotes responsible reproductive behavior" is likewise false. In fact, the RCC opposes almost every form of reproductively responsible sexual behavior. It opposes oral sex, even by married couples. It even opposes masturbation.
The RCC leaves people only three options: (1) marry shortly after the onset of puberty; (2) repress all natural sexual urges during the very years in which they are strongest; (3) sin. All rational people agree that advocating the first option is irresponsible and that advocating the second option is unrealistic. That leaves only the third option -- sin -- which accords perfectly with the RCC's systematic program of imposing psychological slavery through guilt.
If the RCC genuinely wanted to promote reproductively responsible sexual behavior, it would do, at a bare minimum, all of the following:
(1) Provide comprehensive sexual education, including the proper use of various methods of contraception, in all its schools;
(2) Make contraceptives available to all, as an act of charity, through all its schools and churches; and
(3) Recommend oral sex as an alternative to intercourse for couples wishing to avoid pregnancy.
The fact that it does none of those things conclusively demonstrates that it has no interest in promoting reproductively responsible -- or responsible in any other way -- sexual behavior. And the fact that it consistently opposes attempts by secular society to achieve those goals conclusively demonstrates that its principal goal, far from promoting responsible sexual behavior, is promoting guilt by insisting that people psychologically wound themselves by repressing that which is natural, healthy, and good.
The actual facts are well presented in this thoroughly sourced article from Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics:Planned Parenthood is not as ubiquitous as all that. In the entire State of Alabama, there are two Planned Parenthood outposts. The same is true of Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, South Carolina, and South Dakota. In the entire State of Mississippi, there is one Planned Parenthood outpost. The same is true of West Virginia and Wyoming. And in North Dakota, there is no Planned Parenthood outpost at all.
(Emphases added; notes omitted.)In the United States, we have difficulty accepting the fact that adolescents and young adults engage in sex before marriage, despite our high rates of adolescent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection (STI). The median age of onset of puberty is 11.6 years, the mean age of initiation of sexual intercourse is 17 years, and the mean age of first marriage is 26 years.
A major nationally representative survey found that 95% of adult respondents, aged 18–44 years, reported that they had had sex before marriage. Eighty-one percent of those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older had also had premarital sex. Abstinence until marriage is neither the cultural norm nor a functioning value. Yet, we expect adolescents to resist their natural sexuality by abstaining from sex until marriage—something that the vast majority of Americans have not done since at least the 1940s and perhaps have never done.
* * *
The incidence of teen pregnancy, which peaked in 1991, declined by 36% by 2005. Approximately 14% of the well-publicized decline in teen pregnancy between 1995 and 2002 was due to teens' delaying sex or having sex less often, whereas 86% was due to increased or improved contraceptive use among sexually experienced teens. ...
* * *
Europe and other developed countries that choose to send the message of safe sex or no sex do not experience the same devastation of its adolescent population that the United States does. Teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the United States than in many other developed countries—twice as high as in England and Wales or Canada and eight times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan.
The Guttmacher Institute published the first international comparison of adolescent sexuality documenting major differences between the United States and Western Europe. The study showed that, although American and European teenagers initiated sex at about the same age, European teens had longer relationships and fewer sexual partners, were much more likely to use contraceptives, and had startlingly lower rates of pregnancy, births, abortions, and STIs. Societal responses to the reality of adolescent sexuality differed as well. In Europe, teenagers received comprehensive sex education and had ready access to confidential contraceptive services, even as they were given the clear message that they should not get pregnant before they were ready to become parents.
Although the abstinence-only-until-marriage idea is often presented as an American value and a moral imperative, an overwhelming majority of US parents, teachers, and adults agree that children should be given comprehensive, age-appropriate health-care information, including information on sexuality and contraceptives, to protect their health and well-being. It appears that the most widely held American value and moral imperative is that our valued and vulnerable children should be healthy and grow up sexually healthy.
To protect our adolescents, a plan to reduce the adverse consequences that occur with unprotected sex must include the availabilty of contraceptives to adolescents.
Among all women in need of contraceptive services and supplies—i.e., those who were sexually active and able to become pregnant but did not wish to become pregnant—15% (5 million) were younger than 20 years old. Among women who do not use contraception, 40% gave as the reason problems with accessing or using a contraceptive method. The factor most strongly associated with the risk of pregnancy among young women is contraceptive use.
* * *
The ideal contraceptive for adolescents would be inexpensive, readily available, effective, and easy to use effectively, not require an encounter with the medical system, and require minimal planning. At present, there is no ideal contraceptive for adolescents.
* * *
Realistically, contraceptives are available only to those who know about them, have the knowledge to use them effectively, and have the resources and income to purchase the services and supplies. If more adolescents knew that these methods existed and were available to them, the misery of their poverty and infection due to premature pregnancy and lack of protection during sex, affecting millions of adolescents, children, and families across the United States, would be reduced. Unintended pregnancy and infection in adolescents cost billions of dollars each year and lead to untold agony.
Availability of contraceptives alone will not make a difference in the devastating consequences of sexual activity by adolescents unless we empower them with knowledge about sex, sexuality, sexual health, and the various methods of contraception so that they can make good decisions. We must go beyond increasing the availability of products and information by removing barriers such as age and identification restrictions, behind-the-counter limitations, high cost of products, and lack of insurance/Medicaid coverage. We must improve the training of health-care professionals so that they gain the knowledge to provide a wide range of sexual health services. Often adolescents purchase over-the-counter contraceptives in pharmacies, where they would benefit from the advice and guidance of pharmacists. We must promote significant societal change in how we view sex, sexuality, and sexual health.
The best contraceptive in the world is a good education. It is important to have a population that is well educated and informed about sex, sexuality, and sexual health concerns, through age-appropriate, scientifically based universal sexual education across the lifespan. Comprehensive sexuality education for adolescents does not increase promiscuity, hasten sexual initiation, or increase rates of sexual activity. It does reduce the number of partners and increases the likelihood of contraceptive use at initiation of sex.
But that is precisely the sort of comprehensive, practical, realistic program that the RCC is dead-set against.
Thus, the claim that the RCC "teaches and promotes responsible reproductive behavior" is likewise false. In fact, the RCC opposes almost every form of reproductively responsible sexual behavior. It opposes oral sex, even by married couples. It even opposes masturbation.
The RCC leaves people only three options: (1) marry shortly after the onset of puberty; (2) repress all natural sexual urges during the very years in which they are strongest; (3) sin. All rational people agree that advocating the first option is irresponsible and that advocating the second option is unrealistic. That leaves only the third option -- sin -- which accords perfectly with the RCC's systematic program of imposing psychological slavery through guilt.
If the RCC genuinely wanted to promote reproductively responsible sexual behavior, it would do, at a bare minimum, all of the following:
(1) Provide comprehensive sexual education, including the proper use of various methods of contraception, in all its schools;
(2) Make contraceptives available to all, as an act of charity, through all its schools and churches; and
(3) Recommend oral sex as an alternative to intercourse for couples wishing to avoid pregnancy.
The fact that it does none of those things conclusively demonstrates that it has no interest in promoting reproductively responsible -- or responsible in any other way -- sexual behavior. And the fact that it consistently opposes attempts by secular society to achieve those goals conclusively demonstrates that its principal goal, far from promoting responsible sexual behavior, is promoting guilt by insisting that people psychologically wound themselves by repressing that which is natural, healthy, and good.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
thestoat wrote:Lo, I am still not sure why you consider yourself humble?
Good forkin' point, mate -and I say that in emphasis, not profanity.
Thing is: I'm NOT humble (as much as I would like to be), but it's what I aspire to. I just don't see atheism as a means to that.
To think you're off the hook, after your body dies is a cop out: I don't think the universe was created FOR me individually, but that I am a part of it's oneness; it's cyclic functions and have a purpose in it for eternity.
Why? For others, for each other, not just me.
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
FWIW, I do believe Buddhism to be among the better beliefs (from the little I know about it). But I don't think it is a cop out to believe we're off the hook when we die. In some respects it is a harder thing to believe - I'd much rather believe that death was not the end but just the start of something new and wonderful. I just can't. I do believe we are all part of the universes oneness (just an infinitesimally small part) but when our bodies stop twitching in a controlled manner, that's it. The end.
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
To be fair, I'm beginning to think you can choose that at death: end it all, cease to exist, even in spirit.
Or; go on to another plane; it'll take some work, yes, but if that's what you want, there you go.
Or; go on to another plane; it'll take some work, yes, but if that's what you want, there you go.
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
It's not what I'd choose ...
If a man speaks in the forest and there are no women around to hear is he still wrong?
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
Well, our bodies are certainly only small elements of the physical cosmos; and when that corporeal substance ceases to 'live', that matter is recycled into some other useful form, living or not. Like Carl Sagan said, we are all 'Star Stuff'...
...but what animates that 'star stuff'? Why does it reason and imagine; when really that's not necessary for propagation? Physical life could certainly continue without self-awareness, yet it has it. Why does it need to know it's 'alive' or not? Why do we sense the difference between the spiritual or the material if it they have no connection?
Also; if we can envision a technological future; why not a spiritual one?
...but what animates that 'star stuff'? Why does it reason and imagine; when really that's not necessary for propagation? Physical life could certainly continue without self-awareness, yet it has it. Why does it need to know it's 'alive' or not? Why do we sense the difference between the spiritual or the material if it they have no connection?
Also; if we can envision a technological future; why not a spiritual one?
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Save us from "Social Justice"
Catholic Charities put me up (room/board/education) for 8 days so I could get sober, all for free (no charge to insurance either). There were people in there for longer than me. (food was pretty goo too)
I thank them.
Plan on making a nice donation to them when I get back on my feet (aka get a job).
I thank them.
Plan on making a nice donation to them when I get back on my feet (aka get a job).