[tie]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

100% Pretentiously silly.... Which is why I say PRETENTIOUS.

Jeez, Zimph, stop calling names. Fine, you disagree. He said he relies on a scientific definition which he looked up in some book. You are relying on the definition you found in a standard dictionary. He's pretentious for being a scientist. We get it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie

Jeez, Zimph, stop calling names. Fine, you disagree. He said he relies on a scientific definition which he looked up in some book. You are relying on the definition you found in a standard dictionary. He's pretentious for being a scientist. We get it.

My whole point was, he chastised the other guy for using the word poorly.

When he did not.

I was just showing him how annoying that was.

Obviously he didn't get the picture.

[stwain2003]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

No, funny how those 10 commandments weren't opposing anything on anyone for Decades.

The place wasn't being ran by the 10 commandments.

It wasn't till the secularists start opposing their beliefs on us.

That was such a PETTY move on their part.

And they are just now seeing the backlash such things cause.

I really care less that the 10 commandments was removed.

It just goes to further my point.

Why are you so eager to jump on every religious person's ass?? We havent done anything to you. And how the HELL do you know what the Ten Commandments do or what they have done in the past? Check your facts, buddy.

(And by the way, an embyro is different from an unborn human baby)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

Why are you so eager to jump on every religious person's ass??

I am eager to jump on religious people's ass? I'm religious have been for awhile now.

We havent done anything to you. And how the HELL do you know what the Ten Commandments do or what they have done in the past? Check your facts, buddy.

On that note, how do you know what I do or don't know about the 10 commandments? Obviously you don't.

I think you just made an ass out of yourself.

(And by the way, an embyro is different from an unborn human baby)

In your opinion.

I've shown where it says otherwise as well. So it certainly isn't a fact.

So are you right in having said opinion? Sure.

But please, don't chastise others that don't agree, especially when backed too.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by stwain2003

(And by the way, an embyro is different from an unborn human baby)

Only in the sense that a child is different to a grown adult.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Only in the sense that a child is different to a grown adult.

Thing is, it is human.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Thing is, it is human.

It has potential to be a human. None of its organs are developed and there is no brain activity (since there is no brain yet)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

It has potential to be a human. None of its organs are developed and there is no brain activity (since there is no brain yet)

Well if that is YOUR definition of human fine.

But please, in the future, don't correct people because they don't share your opinion.

Rule #9 and all.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Busemann

It has potential to be a human. None of its organs are developed and there is no brain activity (since there is no brain yet)

No, you mean, the potential of becoming a fully developped human. Big difference, and still human.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Well if that is YOUR definition of human fine.

But please, in the future, don't correct people because they don't share your opinion.

Just the way the religious right is correcting the pro-choicer's, eh?

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

No, you mean, the potential of becoming a fully developped human. Big difference, and still human.

human embryo ≠ human being. Fact

Now whether or not an embryo should have equal rights as a human being is a different discussion altogether. And clearly one without a definitive answer.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Busemann

human embryo ≠ human being. Fact

I see. The human embryo is another species.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I see. The human embryo is another species.

Now you're just being cheeky

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Now you're just being cheeky

Well, no. Let's call things by their names shall we?

It is human from the day the ova is feconded. The difference is in the development; an embryo is not a fully grown adult. Other difference is that an embryo is not a person with who you can interact with, which would put value to its existence. During pregnancy, nodody sees anything, so it is easy to discard it, because it is not fully developped and not a person.

I support responsible abortion, leaving the responsibility to the woman who carries the human being in her belly. I believe men can influence the decision, but the woman should have her way.

But let's put aside the games about the wording and the definitions; it is making us all hypocrits and devalues the act of the abortion and its consequences.

Denying humanity to the embryo is just too easy; abortion is not a "birth control" technique and certainly not a preservative. It is the act of interrupting pregnancy which is a phase of human development.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Denying humanity to the embryo is just too easy; abortion is not a "birth control" technique and certainly not a preservative. It is the act of interrupting pregnancy which is a phase of human development.

Who's been denying humanity to the embryo and seen abortion as a birth control? If an embryo is a human being, then isn't sperm as well? We've all been that as well, you know.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Who's been denying humanity to the embryo and seen abortion as a birth control? If an embryo is a human being, then isn't sperm as well? We've all been that as well, you know.

Oh I know that.
But a spermatozoid is unicellular and nothing comes afterwards unless it meets the ova.

I can't care less about spermatozoids: we lose 350 millions of them daily...

But once it fertilized the ova, you have a human being in the making. It's part of the human species, even if it is at the beginning of its development.

The difference is that it is not a person, and not developped so we cannot all care about it. Those who have great expectations towards the potential of that being and those who do not are the ones who will make the difference leading to an abortion or not. It is the only reason behind the abortions.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Just the way the religious right is correcting the pro-choicer's, eh?

The religious right wasn't doing that. Atleast I wasn't.

When I "corrected" von I was trying to make a point.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Oh I know that.
But a spermatozoid is unicellular and nothing comes afterwards unless it meets the ova.

I can't care less about spermatozoids: we lose 350 millions of them daily...

But once it fertilized the ova, you have a human being in the making. It's part of the human species, even if it is at the beginning of its development.

The difference is that it is not a person, and not developped so we cannot all care about it. Those who have great expectations towards the potential of that being and those who do not are the ones who will make the difference leading to an abortion or not. It is the only reason behind the abortions.

Nice post. I think you summed up well the argument on oth sides. Some people apply personhood status to a human egg as soon as it becomes fertilized whereas some other people apply personhood status to a fertilized human egg after it has become more developed--I think the sticking point among the pro-choice crowd is at what stage that status of personhood gets conferred.

For me, the issue has never been about personhood, it has been always about the rights of a woman to have ultimate say over what goes on in/with her body. So, the personhood status of the thing (zygote, fetus, etc.) is irrelevant to me. If a woman wanted to abort her fetus two days before it was due I would argue for her right to do that. Would this act disgust and sicken me? Yes! Would having the government tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body sicken me more? Yes! It's not an easy intellectual place to be in but I have a belief in individual rights and I stand by it.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

It's not an easy intellectual place to be in but I have a belief in individual rights and I stand by it.

Absolutely! It is quite a dilemma that we should keep in mind always. Abortion is a very serious issue and I do not take kindly the waste of human life. But as you said, this is all going in the woman's body and as much as I want to be able to have a say on such an issue, the woman as an absolute veto unless she is declared insane (which paradoxicaly might be another reason for the abortion... anyway..).

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Only in the sense that a child is different to a grown adult.

Not really, an embryo is a potential self sustained being while a child is a self sustained being. Hay un grande diferencia.

I'm Catholic and in general I agree with the Church on abortion but it bothers me when people mix science and religious policy and then try and plaster some pseudo-science to justify things. The Church does not oppose abortion because an embryo == innocent human life. It opposes abortion on spiritual and philosophical grounds. There is no scientific basis for its stance, and indeed the Church does not rely on science to make its policies.

The Catholic Church does not AFAIK oppose abortion because it is murder, but because abortion is meddling with God's will. Remember the Church opposes contraception as well, and for the same reason.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

On topic:

IMO the European Constitution should refer to God as the ultimate being and it is to his grace that we are creating a united Europe. The EU is a Christian entity, culturally and historically. I agree with His Excellence Pope Benedicto XVI that God should be included in an European Consitution. There is still time to make that change. Europe needs God's blessing and the people of Europe need to find their way back to His embrace.

It is to God that we look for to guidance and always have. From Him we have our basic laws of human rights, property and general guidance. Our societies are based on Christianity. Christendom is God's kingdom on Earth and we are to respect that. We are not to forget who we are, where we came from and to whom we owe our aligience.

The European Union will be strong, with God's guidance even more so. To include Him in our constitution is a good way to remind us of that and that our laws originate from Him. The rest are details to be worked out between the countries involved. At the risk of infuriating the atheists and people of other religion than Chrisitianity: Europe and its Union is a Christian club. That is our past, present and future. That has to be respected and remembered.

cheers

W-Y

[saab95]

Originally Posted by KevinK

No, no, no no. Even BEFORE I was religious I believed this. Why? Because it's a FACT.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Not really, an embryo is a potential self sustained being while a child is a self sustained being. Hay un grande diferencia.

I'm Catholic and in general I agree with the Church on abortion but it bothers me when people mix science and religious policy and then try and plaster some pseudo-science to justify things. The Church does not oppose abortion because an embryo == innocent human life. It opposes abortion on spiritual and philosophical grounds. There is no scientific basis for its stance, and indeed the Church does not rely on science to make its policies.

The Catholic Church does not AFAIK oppose abortion because it is murder, but because abortion is meddling with God's will. Remember the Church opposes contraception as well, and for the same reason.

cheers

W-Y

I'm Catholic too, and I sincerely believe you are misrepresenting the Church's teachings.

There is, however, some element of truth to what you are saying. The Church always opposed abortion from the Church's (pardon the pun) conception. It was true that prior to the 20th century, the Church opposed abortion not because they believed the embryo to be human life, but because, as you said, it seemed to go against the natural law.

However, this day and age the Church now believes that abortion is actually the murder of an innocent child because of the advent of scientific reseearch in the field. To highlight this, to procure or commit an abortion, is now an offence which bears the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae (It's written in canon law, I can show the reference if you want).

The Church's teachings never changed. Abortion was always wrong, and murder of a human being was always wrong. Science however has however, enlightened the Church to the fact that an embryo is also human life and thus to kill one would be murder.

The Church however, will never codify the fact that an embryo is human life. For these judgements are made by the Church's best knowledge in light of contemporary scientific research. If it is decisively proven tomorrow that an embryo is in fact not human at all, the killing of an embryo would no longer be considered murder (but would still be morally wron as abortion is an evil act in itself).

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

On topic:

IMO the European Constitution should refer to God as the ultimate being and it is to his grace that we are creating a united Europe. The EU is a Christian entity, culturally and historically. I agree with His Excellence Pope Benedicto XVI that God should be included in an European Consitution. There is still time to make that change. Europe needs God's blessing and the people of Europe need to find their way back to His embrace.

It is to God that we look for to guidance and always have. From Him we have our basic laws of human rights, property and general guidance. Our societies are based on Christianity. Christendom is God's kingdom on Earth and we are to respect that. We are not to forget who we are, where we came from and to whom we owe our aligience.

The European Union will be strong, with God's guidance even more so. To include Him in our constitution is a good way to remind us of that and that our laws originate from Him. The rest are details to be worked out between the countries involved. At the risk of infuriating the atheists and people of other religion than Chrisitianity: Europe and its Union is a Christian club. That is our past, present and future. That has to be respected and remembered.

cheers

W-Y

But how difficult would it be to get secular countries like France, which by law cannot legislate any religious belief, to agree to such a constitution?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

On topic:

IMO the European Constitution should refer to God as the ultimate being and it is to his grace that we are creating a united Europe. The EU is a Christian entity, culturally and historically. I agree with His Excellence Pope Benedicto XVI that God should be included in an European Consitution. There is still time to make that change. Europe needs God's blessing and the people of Europe need to find their way back to His embrace.

It is to God that we look for to guidance and always have. From Him we have our basic laws of human rights, property and general guidance. Our societies are based on Christianity. Christendom is God's kingdom on Earth and we are to respect that. We are not to forget who we are, where we came from and to whom we owe our aligience.

The European Union will be strong, with God's guidance even more so. To include Him in our constitution is a good way to remind us of that and that our laws originate from Him. The rest are details to be worked out between the countries involved. At the risk of infuriating the atheists and people of other religion than Chrisitianity: Europe and its Union is a Christian club. That is our past, present and future. That has to be respected and remembered.

cheers

W-Y

But Europes history goes back much further than Christianity. We had the Greek Mythologies, the Roman Mythologies, the Norse Mythologies and the list goes on. We shouldn't focus on one religion because we are a multi-cultural modern society that should(especially because of our past) respect all different cultures living inside our borders. God will continue to be an important part of our culture but we have to remember what non-tolerance has brought us before and make everything we possibly can to make sure that doesn't happen again.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But Europes history goes back much further than Christianity. We had the Greek Mythologies, the Roman Mythologies, the Norse Mythologies and the list goes on. We shouldn't focus on one religion because we are a multi-cultural modern society that should(especially because of our past) respect all different cultures living inside our borders. God will continue to be an important part of our culture but we have to remember what non-tolerance has brought us before and make everything we possibly can to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Does tolerance = universial inclusiveness?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Does tolerance = universial inclusiveness?

In a constitution for a multi-cultural society you either include all or exclude all(references to religions).

[Weyland-Yutani]

[QUOTE=undotwa]I'm Catholic too, and I sincerely believe you are misrepresenting the Church's teachings.
QUOTE]
The Church has always been opposed to abortion. Advance in natural science and the knowledge we now have in biology has done nothing to change that. Abortion goes against the natural order, on that we and the Church agree but I am not aware that the Church regards abortion as murder. Abortion in the Church's POV is equal to contraception, something it also opposes. Abortion is not murder, but the Church considers it a sin. Misrepresentation? No, en verdad no.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The Church has always been opposed to abortion. Advance in natural science and the knowledge we now have in biology has done nothing to change that. Abortion goes against the natural order, on that we and the Church agree but I am not aware that the Church regards abortion as murder. Abortion in the Church's POV is equal to contraception, something it also opposes. Abortion is not murder, but the Church considers it a sin. Misrepresentation? No, en verdad no.

cheers

W-Y

You are speaking about the Catholic Church. As far as I know, they do indeed see it as murder.

"Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But Europes history goes back much further than Christianity. We had the Greek Mythologies, the Roman Mythologies, the Norse Mythologies and the list goes on. We shouldn't focus on one religion because we are a multi-cultural modern society that should(especially because of our past) respect all different cultures living inside our borders. God will continue to be an important part of our culture but we have to remember what non-tolerance has brought us before and make everything we possibly can to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Good thing you didn't forget the Norse mythologies

Sin embargo, Greek, Roman and Norse mythologies were all abandoned between 1000 and 2000 years ago. There were also pagans in the British isles more than 2000 years ago but that doesn't change that our society today in Europe has solely been built upon a Christian foundation. It was an important advancement in our society and without it we would never have become the most powerful and advanced civilization on the planet. The respect for human life and rights all came with Christianity.

Nobody is talking about forgetting our history, that would be a sad day when we'd forget our past, but rather to remember what brought us here. Religion is tremenously important, not just for individuals but for entire societies. It a fundamental element in unification. For God, King and country - in that order. That is how people think. It is a part of us. The communist states tried their best to abolish religion only to break down and crumble after a short time. History is full of attempts of unification and failed attempts of the same thing and interestingly the most successful unifications have always been under the same religion.

Look at the reconqusta of Spain - successful
Look at Yugoslavia - sundered

for instance.

Look at the unification of the Soviet states under no religion. Sundered. I'm all for tolerance, but tolerance does not mean that everything goes.

Europe is tolerant of other religions than Christianity, indeed it has to be. That does not mean Europe has to or should give the dominant and most important religion up just to be tolerant. One important thing every country's population in Europe has is that they share the same God. I think that has to be remembered, acknowledged and written in a European Consitution.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by KevinK

You are speaking about the Catholic Church. As far as I know, they do indeed see it as murder.

"Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion "is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

Thank you for that quote, and yes I am speaking of the Catholic Church. Killing of a human being, innocent or not is wrong according to the Church. That is indeed unchanged and unchangable. It appears the Church also considers embryos as human beings. That doesn't change my POV on abortion, I still think it is wrong - although for different reasons than His Excellence Pope Juan Pablo II.

It does make the act of abortion much more serious in the eyes of the Church than before. IMO abortion of an embryo is not murder any more than contraception is murder, and thus far that has been in concord with the Church. I am sad to see that the church uses such poor science for making its polices.

There is all the difference in the world between an embryo and a human being. That is the way God made us.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

But Europes history goes back much further than Christianity.

Christianity yes. The religion that Abraham and those that followed it before him?
No one can say how long that religion been around. Which is basically Christianity Part I.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

In a constitution for a multi-cultural society you either include all or exclude all(references to religions).

Europe is a unicultural society, that happens to be under heavy atheist influence.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Does tolerance = universial inclusiveness?

IMO, no absolutely not.

Tolerance is about allowing the practice of other customs within the envelope that is allowed by the society that is expressing tolerance.

Much like how you treat guests in your house. They are welcome and they will be catered for. They will be able to practice all their customs as long as they respect yours and the limitations you set.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by undotwa

But how difficult would it be to get secular countries like France, which by law cannot legislate any religious belief, to agree to such a constitution?

I'm sorry, I do not know. That is a question that ventures too far into the realm of legalese.

Regardless, I do hope it is possible and that it will work out.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

IMO, no absolutely not.

Tolerance is about allowing the practice of other customs within the envelope that is allowed by the society that is expressing tolerance.

Much like how you treat guests in your house. They are welcome and they will be catered for. They will be able to practice all their customs as long as they respect yours and the limitations you set.

cheers

W-Y

Tolerance is basically how you treat people that have a different opinion than you.

That doesn't mean you have to accept their views.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Tolerance is basically how you treat people that have a different opinion than you.

Yes?

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just tried to make it simpler.

Too many people believe for example, if you are against putting beads in your bonnet, you are intolerant. Because they feel everyone should accept putting beads in your bonnet is ok.

That is simply not true.

Now, if I were to be MEAN to people that put beads in their bonnet because of my belief, that would be intolerance.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by KevinK

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just tried to make it simpler.

Too many people believe for example, if you are against putting beads in your bonnet, you are intolerant. Because they feel everyone should accept putting beads in your bonnet is ok.

That is simply not true.

Now, if I were to be MEAN to people that put beads in their bonnet because of my belief, that would be intolerance.

Thank you for clarifying.

cheers

W-Y

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

IMO, no absolutely not.

Tolerance is about allowing the practice of other customs within the envelope that is allowed by the society that is expressing tolerance.

Much like how you treat guests in your house. They are welcome and they will be catered for. They will be able to practice all their customs as long as they respect yours and the limitations you set.

cheers

W-Y

What if the "limitations you set" do not allow individuals to fully experience their religious faith and practices? What then?

I am with von Wrangell on this one. Either the European Constitution should have explicit reference to supporting any and all religious practices--noth specific religions but an acknowledgement that ALL religions are equally honored--or it should not acknolwedge religion at all and leave it in the hands of the religions organizations themselves (where I think it belongs).

[von Wrangell]

I wouldn't say that the reconquista was a "successful" mission as it lead to the massacres of people from different religions.

But other than that you make some good points. I guess it just comes down to us having to disagree on this one and disagree on what part religion should play in Europe.

[saab95]

What part should religion play in politics in Europe?

NONE.

If you want religious freedom, you have to separate it from government. You can't have it both ways.

Give the EU a copy of America's Bill of Rights as a model for their constitution. This multiculturalist stuff that has come up is pure garbage.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by saab95

If you want religious freedom, you have to separate it from government. You can't have it both ways.

I agree. That means that government also shouldn't interfere with the right to practice and support religion.

The Gov should be free of making any rules for or against religion.

Which is actually the original meaning of sep of church and state.

They was didn't want the gov to make an official religion that EVERYONE must be or else it will be punishable by law.

The main reason the puritans left for America in he first place.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What if the "limitations you set" do not allow individuals to fully experience their religious faith and practices? What then?

What then?

Am I missing something or..?

There is no "what then". Tolerance is not about taking anything. Tolerance is about tolerating so much. Tolerance is allowing your neighbors to hold a party every once in a while because they like to do that. Tolerance is allowing people to practice whatever religion they like as long as it does not infringe on the religion that is predominant.

Be a scientologist, be a muslim, be a whateveryoulike but expect to have to abide the envelope of the christian country you live in. Simple as that. That is tolerance.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I wouldn't say that the reconquista was a "successful" mission as it lead to the massacres of people from different religions.

But other than that you make some good points. I guess it just comes down to us having to disagree on this one and disagree on what part religion should play in Europe.

Truth be told I was looking at the unification power of the Reconquista. Looking past the treatment of people of other faith than Christianity it was certainly a successful unification of Spain, a country that had never before been united like that. It is still holding together today

To sum up all my points in this thread it all comes down to one thing. That religion will have to play an important part in a united Europe. IMO that religion has to be and is naturally Christianity. Simple as that.

No country, no society has ever managed to survive as an entity without religion. Many have tried. All have failed. Miserably I might add. Europe would be wise to heed this and give it more than a passing thought. Certainly the countries of this continent are at the forefront of civilization and have been since the 1500s and have managed to achieve amazing cultural advances, but so far no one not even us Europeans have managed to create a society that is not in any way based on religion.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by saab95

What part should religion play in politics in Europe?

NONE.

If you want religious freedom, you have to separate it from government. You can't have it both ways.

Give the EU a copy of America's Bill of Rights as a model for their constitution. This multiculturalist stuff that has come up is pure garbage.

Religion plays a huge part in the United States. In God we trust.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by saab95

Prove otherwise JC.

You can't. No one knows.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

What then?

Am I missing something or..?

There is no "what then". Tolerance is not about taking anything. Tolerance is about tolerating so much. Tolerance is allowing your neighbors to hold a party every once in a while because they like to do that. Tolerance is allowing people to practice whatever religion they like as long as it does not infringe on the religion that is predominant.

Be a scientologist, be a muslim, be a whateveryoulike but expect to have to abide the envelope of the christian country you live in. Simple as that. That is tolerance.

cheers

W-Y

The "what then" was asking (not very clearly) the question of what happens if the beliefs/practices of a minority religion comes into conlfict with the majority religion.

You answered it when you said "as long as it does not infringe on the religion that is predominant". It would seem you are in favor of letting the dominant religion of a country/culture dictate limits to a minority religion in the same country/culture.

Thanks for the answer.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Thank you for that quote, and yes I am speaking of the Catholic Church. Killing of a human being, innocent or not is wrong according to the Church. That is indeed unchanged and unchangable. It appears the Church also considers embryos as human beings. That doesn't change my POV on abortion, I still think it is wrong - although for different reasons than His Excellence Pope Juan Pablo II.

It does make the act of abortion much more serious in the eyes of the Church than before. IMO abortion of an embryo is not murder any more than contraception is murder, and thus far that has been in concord with the Church. I am sad to see that the church uses such poor science for making its polices.

There is all the difference in the world between an embryo and a human being. That is the way God made us.

cheers

W-Y

It's not poor science but logical. God infuses us with a soul at the very first instance of being a human organism (that BTW is infallible Church teaching). It is universally accepted, that an embryo is a distinct organism from its mother since its DNA structure is different. It this same embryo which develops independently into fetus and into a child. Given that at all stages of the development the organism is one and the same, the Church considers each and every stage to be human life as valuable as you or I.

Contraception is wrong but is not considered murderous. For while during contraception you are merely preventing the formation of the human organism (contra - against, conceptio 'gathering'). However, many so called contraceptives can act as abortive agents...

I think as a Catholic, you are not in the position really to disagree with the Church's teaching on the matter. Read up on the issue and try to understand where the Church is coming from.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

The "what then" was asking (not very clearly) the question of what happens if the beliefs/practices of a minority religion comes into conlfict with the majority religion.

You answered it when you said "as long as it does not infringe on the religion that is predominant". It would seem you are in favor of letting the dominant religion of a country/culture dictate limits to a minority religion in the same country/culture.

Thanks for the answer.

No problem

I absoloutly believe that as long as it does not infringe on the dominant culture it should be ok. That is acceptable level of tolerance in my eyes. I do not think anything goes.

Mind you I am not saying one is better than the other, but rather that caution and common sense should rule above absolute freedom. I guess I'm not much of a libertarian eh?

Freedom without discipline is no freedom. I think the best quote on that subject is found in the Dune series by Frank Herbert, if I may: "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty."

In my eyes absolute freedom to do anything is a bad thing.

cheers

W-Y