No they do not have an obligation. This much is evident, considering they can change there stance on any given subject when they are clearly wrong. Belief at this point has nothing to do with it.
Does humanity as a whole have a moral obligation to help those in need? For the good on our species yes.
A moral obligation, yes. Whether this should be mandated by laws is another issue. I believe very strongly in charity (and we've actually seen a lot of that from the Catholic church), but I am not for compulsion or the use of force.
If your parents told you that AIDS is bad but condoms are worse, if they let family memebers rape you and covered it up. Yes they should tried for crimes against you and thrown in jail. I don't give a damn what anyone's belief's are if they cause injustice and harm, they need to answer for it.
So you're not for the free exchange of ideas. You are for those ideas you agree with. Any beliefs can be said to "cause harm;" that is a subjective interpretation unless harm is actually verifiable (for example, physical harm). This is the same standard that was once applied to the dispensation of communist ideas in the United States. Communism was a real threat, with real, observable consequences around the world, so the paranoia was justified. Stifling free speech, however, was not. You are suggesting we stifle free speech when ideas "cause harm," whatever that means.
Secondly, you've collapsed two issues that are very different. In the second case, my family members would be rightly held liable because they were allowing the rape to happen, possibly even causing it. That said, even in this case there would be questions to be asked (use of force against the family members being kept quiet, etc....sometimes, people don't talk because they're afraid for their lives). In the first case, though, they're simply telling me what they think. Regardless of whether it "causes harm" or not, it's a subjective judgment about a subjective issue. Considering that I think they should even be able to say things that are expressly false by observation (stating that macroevolution did not occur, for example), I don't see what's so bad about that.
In the second case, they are permitting or encouraging direct physical harm to my person. In the first case, they are simply sharing their ideas with me. I've already stated that I have disagreements with the Catholic church, and the recent scandal is one of them. I didn't see that that was part of the lawsuit at first. I'm not even going to comment about that, because I do think "something should be done," but I'm not sure what. I'm sticking to the other key element--the spreading of ideas, which seems to be what
most of this lawsuit is about.
Yes I'll get right on writing a book. However if I were too come by a vast amount of money I would speak out against them more then I do.
It's not really they're fault that they're popular. They shouldn't be expected to hold back for your sake.
Obviously this type of scrutiny would have to be well calculated. No democracy is perfect but it is ever evolving to a morally upright society. With every step we take at right wrongs we are taking a step in the right direction. Am I saying that every religion needs court time? No; but those whom wish to spread there corrupted influence to others the do not know any better need to get slapped.
So in other words, you can have your ideas, so long as you don't spread them.
Kind of undermines the point of free speech, doesn't it? Or would you just apply this in special cases, like for the rich or the religious, or ideas that you happen to think are "corrupted?"
Again, I'm looking for a consistent principle here, and you're not really helping me. Unless you really do think that no human being should be allowed to spread their ideas, in which case...well, say farewell to human interaction entirely.
Taking advantage of the uneducated is what they are doing and the lawsuit is not strictly about the indoctrination it is also about the rape cover ups.
Anyone who educates anyone about anything could be arguably "taking advantage of them." Everyone's uneducated at some point. No one's obligated to educate them in accordance with any world standard. Personally, I don't think of "the uneducated" as victims of anything. So long as no one is using direct force against them, they are free to do as they like. It seems rather offensive to conclude that "those poor Africans" don't have analytical powers of their own, or that if they choose to believe in something, they are automatically being forced. Who's taking advantage of whom?
And again, regarding the cover-ups, no comment for now. I think the cover-ups are indefensible. Let's focus on the other stuff, which is what a majority of the comments have been about anyway.
Topic: German lawyers initiated charges against Pope (Read 12081 times)
