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.
This isn't about charity, this is about stopping an organization from harming. An organization that has influence over billions.
So you're not for the free exchange of ideas.
It is not the free exchange of ideas; it is a supposed mandate from on high. It is an organization that claims to be the authority on what "God" commands is right. They can change, distort and pull out of thin air whatever they want as they have done in the past. They indoctrinate people to believing it.
You are for those ideas you agree with.
I am against those that do harm to others.
Any beliefs can be said to "cause harm;" that is a subjective interpretation unless harm is actually verifiable (for example, physical harm).
The CC harbouring rapists and spreading ignorance about condoms and sexuality in general is verifiable.
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.
That's nonsense, this has nothing to do with free speech. This has everything to do with an organization that has influence over billions spreading lies and harbouring criminals that cause harm and death. I would expect the very same treatment of any organization whether it be government, religous, public or otherwise. Do not confuse this with free speech.
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).
The CC shuffles it's rapists around and keeps quiet, thus allowing it to happen. Any other organization would be penalized for these actions.
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.
Again it falls and what I have said before about it being a command from on high.
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.
Well that type of ignorant banter is indeed a lesser evil. That's not what this case is primarily about, if at all.
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.
I know I'm just repeating myself but I feel the need to respond to all your points. Although I am glad you feel something should be done...it's not spreading ideas... organization... yadda yadda yadda lol
It's not really they're fault that they're popular. They shouldn't be expected to hold back for your sake.
They should expect to be held accountable for there crimes.
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.
The consistant principle here is people answer for there crimes and this is not about freedom of speech or the spread of ideas.
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.
True, however we do have a moral obligation to stick up for the downtrodden and oblivious. In this case someone is trying to do just that.
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.
Wow, so according you those who are not educated can be taken advantage of in any way and are not victims. Huh, nice to know where you stand. I feel you have worded that poorly and won't hold it against you.
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.
Why is it offensive? We know they are not on par in education with places such as North America, Europe and Japan. It's not offensive it's the truth. Those whom are not well educated typically are not good at analysis. However this is not about analysis this is about there education and the CC's commands are moslty the only education on sexuality they have. Or they are indoctrinated to only that "God" (being the CC's version) is against contraception. It is not always about force but rather seclusion.
Who's taking advantage of whom?
The CC is taking advantage of it's followers.
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.
Yes they are indefensible.
Topic: German lawyers initiated charges against Pope (Read 12080 times)
