Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world

[wanstronian]

Abortions are not only carried out because of severely life-limiting foetal defects…

What are you talking about then? These posts would be much shorter if you would clarify what you do mean, rather than simply state what you don’t.

That belief confirms that in a secular society it is easier for people to ignore morality.

No - that is just an inaccurate theistic worldview that cannot cope without the concept of morality coming from good. It’s not realistic.

What is to stop you doing what you like? Apart from fear of the consequences?

A recognition that it’s ultimately degrading to the society of which I am part. What’s to stop you doing what you like? Apart from fear of the consequences?

We are not if you are correct!

Indeed - my question was why do **you **believe we must be significant?

What happens if there is a conflict between the needs of society and those of the individual? Which is more important?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Unless the few are in some position which they can exploit for their own gain. This happens in both secular and non-secular oragnisations.

What you are using this specific forum for? Expounding your ideas? The only difference is that I ask more civilly…

It’s quite a long answer, but the short version is I stumbled across it looking for some information, and found some of the discussions here fascinating, so I stayed. That’s hardly relevant to this debate though, as I haven’t passed judgement on something I haven’t seen. You have.

It is obvious from the statistics of church-goers. The inconsistency remains.

Firstly I don’t maintain statistics of church-goers. Secondly even if I did, that wouldn’t explain the context of your statement. I don’t know what inconsistency you refer to, other than the one you fabricated when I ignored your emotive and irrelevant rabbit-hole.

I mean that you may be one of the possible victims but you don’t seem to feel lonely, unwanted, miserable and useless!

Er, no. I don’t think I am a victim of your perceived degradation of society. You’ve lost me a bit here.

In other words you again take refuge in obscurity!

No - instead I again point out that you have made a claim you persistently fail to substantiate! This is not my weakness, my friend, no matter how you try and twist it!

More obscurity! If a man strongly believes he will be punished in an afterlife doesn’t he have a motive for being more careful to avoid serious crime than a man who is sure death is the end?

Woah! If that’s the reason that religious people don’t perpetrate crime then your moral piety has just vanished! And I note that this is another claim you’ve made without substantiation! You theists are a dab-hand at this stuff, aren’t you!

It provides an objective basis for free will, responsibility, fraternity, value and purpose which is lacking in a pointless universe (Weinberg - and that is where the strange freaks of nature come in…)

That’s the whole point - it doesn’t. You just subjectively believe that it does.

Then please explain whether you believe:

1. Death is the end of life
2. Whether we are entitled to commit suicide if we have no wish to live
3. You are the absolute master of your destiny (Who else?!)

Yes, yes, and no. However, these questions do not clarify your supposition that without religion, people have “no obligations to regard others as any more than strangers in a hostile universe,” “justice is merely an illusion,” and, “regardless of the consequences for others.” None of the answer I have just provided lead to these conclusions.

In a predominantly secular society would you expect the voters to vote otherwise? If so why?

Why the change in opinion? I’d expect, all else being equal, the vote at the end to be the same as at the start. But it wasn’t.

You are putting words into my mouth. I did not say anything of the kind!

Oh okay - so what are ‘Moral Education’ classes? What’s the traditional subject name in UK schools for this class? Is it not RE?

Secular means “pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred”. In an amoral universe morality is possible but it cannot be accommodated as easily as in a spiritual dimension.

That’s just your conjecture, your opinion. It proves nothing.

I have only to quote your own words:
“**There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life. **We, as humans, like to think there is, but we’re hardly objective bystanders” and
“Why should we be any more worth or significance than the moss under our feet if there is no reason why we exist?
Why must we be more significant?”

Okay - I didn’t read up sufficiently on Categorical Imperatives! So to re-answer your question in the context of an overarching God authority: Categorical Imperatives are impossible and unnecessary in a secular society, yes. But they’re only subjective opinion in any case.

 

[tonyrey]

Abortions are not only carried out because of severely life-limiting foetal defects…

Over 98% were for “social reasons”.

It is just an inaccurate theistic worldview that cannot cope without the concept of morality coming from good.

Where do you obtain “good”?

What is to stop you doing what you like?

A recognition that it’s ultimately degrading to the society of which I am part.

Why are you bothered?

What’s to stop you doing what you like?

The knowledge that moral corruption destroys the individual and society.

My question was why do you believe we must be significant?

We are significant because we are intended to exist.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Why?

If that’s the reason that religious people don’t perpetrate crime then your moral piety has just vanished!

If you refrain from being selfish and evil because you believe it will alienate you from others does it mean your moral piety has vanished?

It provides an objective basis for free will, responsibility, fraternity, value and purpose which is lacking in a pointless universe

You just subjectively believe that it does.

A pointless universe does not provide a rational basis for value and purpose whereas a purposeful universe does.

None of the answers I have just provided lead to these conclusions.

If death is the end and we are entitled to commit suicide aren’t we absolute masters of our destiny?

I’d expect, all else being equal, the vote at the end to be the same as at the start.

At the outset most people’s sense of fair play inclines them to be non-committal because they regard a debate as a contest and they suspend judgment until they have heard the speakers. The secularists appealed to prejudice and highlighted the evils committed by individuals.

Oh okay - so what are ‘Moral Education’ classes? What’s the traditional subject name in UK schools for this class? Is it not RE?

The point is that children were taught about the need for integrity, unselfishness, honesty, kindness and consideration for others.

In an amoral universe morality is possible but it cannot be accommodated as easily as in a spiritual dimension.

That’s just your conjecture.

You’ve demonstrated it with your own words!
“There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life.”

Categorical Imperatives are impossible and unnecessary in a secular society, yes. But they’re only subjective opinion in any case.

If morality is merely subjective opinion it has no objective basis or binding force whatsoever.

Why do you think there is a lack of discipline in schools and a shortage of teachers?

Anecdotally, because teachers are no longer allowed to discipline the children other than with words, and the kids know this. I went to a secular school, discipline and moral standards were high, religion was not required.

The decline in moral standards did not occur overnight. The absence of corporal punishment is an inadequate explanation.

Religion is not the only source of morals. In fact, it’s not the source at all, it’s just a claimant.

What are the alternatives?

The fact that human beliefs have changed does not show that the right to life is a human convention…

No. It’s just common sense. And of course, there’s no evidence that it’s an objective right. Rights are concepts, and without somebody to conceptualise them, they don’t exist.

But what are those concepts based on? Do you think animal life was valueless before human beings existed?

Analogously, there are many groups who support the right to life of animals. Do you dispute that this is a human convention?

Yes! All life is valuable and should be respected.

I’ll just point out again that correlation does not imply causation.

It is not a question of logical implication but of probability.

How come your inability to substantiate a claim that you made, is suddenly seen as my dodge?

Not to offer an alternative is to remain in the dark…

If you think about it, one woman in three is a ridiculous suggestion. "The latest Department of Health report on abortion statistics in England and Wales for 2007: “18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44”. Less than 2 percent. The problem is not as big as you think it is.

You are taking only one year into account! One woman in three now has an abortion.
There have been 6.7 million abortions in Great Britain since 1967. According to Government figures given in 2006, of the 5.3 million abortions to residents of England and Wales:
0.4% were because of risk to the mother’s life.
1.3% were because of foetal handicap.3
Over 98% were for social reasons.
**One in five recorded pregnancies in England and Wales ends in abortion.
**
The problem is still not as big as I think it is?

It is directly related to the breakdown in family life and the increase in divorces.

I’ll believe it, when you provide evidence.

What more evidence do you want? Divorce entails children being separated from one of their parents and they are all more likely to finish up living on their own - which is precisely what is happening.

I asked whether you could substantiate your claim, not just repeat it in different words.

**Is it natural for parents to be deprived of the company of their children and grandchildren and compelled to live with strangers? **
If you don’t reply I leave others to decide whether you are being reasonable.
I sincerely hope you never find yourself in that situation…

 

[wanstronian]

Over 98% were for “social reasons”.

Keep on track - we were talking in the context of eugenics.

Where do you obtain “good”?

Sorry - I meant ‘God.’ Lots of typing trouble this thread!

Why are you bothered?

Are you for real? Why am I bothered about the state of the society of which I am part? For the same reason that anybody is - if society degrades towards anarchy then everybody suffers!

The knowledge that moral corruption destroys the individual and society.

So we’re saying exactly the same thing!

We are significant because we are intended to exist.

Says who?

Why?

Because that’s the only way an intelligent, responsible society can behave.

If you refrain from being selfish and evil because you believe it will alienate you from others does it mean your moral piety has vanished?

Loaded words - I don’t have moral piety. I have a moral compass roughly in line with most of the rest of the population, as far as I can tell. However, to answer your question: yes. However, that’s not why I refrain from being selfish and ‘evil’ - whatever you mean by the latter.

A pointless universe does not provide a rational basis for value and purpose whereas a purposeful universe does.

That’s just a rephrasing of your previous subjective belief.

If death is the end and we are entitled to commit suicide aren’t we absolute masters of our destiny?

Only in the context of life and its cessation. Destiny is more than just the date of our death.

At the outset most people’s sense of fair play inclines them to be non-committal because they regard a debate as a contest and they suspend judgment until they have heard the speakers. The secularists appealed to prejudice and highlighted the evils committed by individuals.

You know an awful lot for one who didn’t watch it! However, I don’t dispute this. But it doesn’t change anything.

The point is that children were taught about the need for integrity, unselfishness, honesty, kindness and consideration for others.

In which class? What makes you think they are unschooled in these things today?

You’ve demonstrated it with your own words!
“There is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life.”

Non sequitur. There’s no link between the two.

If morality is merely subjective opinion it has no objective basis or binding force whatsoever.

No - it has a societal (mass subjectivity) basis. Almost certainly adopted by those who penned the bible which then became ‘the word of God!’ Don’t forget - society has been around far longer than the authors of the bible!

The decline in moral standards did not occur overnight. The absence of corporal punishment is an inadequate explanation.

Maybe you’re right - I don’t know. What I do know is that there is no evidence that a reduction in religious belief is to blame.

What are the alternatives?

As I’ve covered before - the evolution of memes that benefit society at large. The documented change in moral standards over time is proof positive that morals are not absolute decrees.

But what are those concepts based on? Do you think animal life was valueless before human beings existed?

There’s evidence that animals also have a social responsibility to their group. To such groups, individual lives would not be valueless. But for human concepts - again they are based on evolved beneficial memes. There is evidence for memes - none for God’s word.

Yes! All life is valuable and should be respected.

But you don’t believe that animal rights are a human convention?

It is not a question of logical implication but of probability.

Probability is not good enough when you are making such definitive claims.

Not to offer an alternative is to remain in the dark…

Another dodge to avoid substantiating your claim.

You are taking only one year into account! One woman in three now has an abortion.

You seem a bit weak on statistics. If the statistic in one year is 2%, and the statistic the following year is also 2%, that doesn’t make the overall figure 4%. You can repeat yourself as much as you like - I gave the credentials for my figure. The Department of Health - a Government body.

There have been 6.7 million abortions in Great Britain since 1967. According to Government figures given in 2006, of the 5.3 million abortions to residents of England and Wales:
0.4% were because of risk to the mother’s life.
1.3% were because of foetal handicap.3
Over 98% were for social reasons.
One in five recorded pregnancies in England and Wales ends in abortion.

I’d be interested to know whether this last figure includes spontaneous abortion. I stand by my official Government figure.

The problem is still not as big as I think it is?

Evidently it isn’t! The figures I provided speak for themselves.

What more evidence do you want? Divorce entails children being separated from one of their parents and they are all more likely to finish up living on their own - which is precisely what is happening.

Yes, I understand what divorce is. But you haven’t provided the evidence I asked for - which is why this leads to moral decline.

**Is it natural for parents to be deprived of the company of their children and grandchildren and compelled to live with strangers? **
If you don’t reply I leave others to decide whether you are being reasonable.

Yes, you do play to the audience somewhat. However, your use of the ‘appeal to emotion’ fallacy doesn’t cover up the fact that you have provided not a jot of evidence for your claims.

I sincerely hope you never find yourself in that situation…

Me too. But that’s irrelevant.

 

[tonyrey]

Over 98% of abortions were for “social reasons”.

“Attitudes towards abortion have changed in the period since 1967 in favour of legal abortion for reasons of preference, so effectively it is now possible for any woman to have a termination if she requests it before 24 weeks gestation, and sometimes after. The reason usually stated is ‘risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman’ which is broadly interpreted by doctors to mean any distress on the part of the patient. In 2006 this accounted for 97% of all the reasons given for having an abortion.”
66.102.9.132/search?cache:WIypH0XrwysJ:www.care.org.uk/
Publisher/File.aspx%3FID%3D18055+reasons+for+abortion+statistics&hl=en&gl=uk

In practice “any distress” on the part of the pregnant woman covers any abnormality of the unborn child. It is a carte blanche for aborting any unborn child who is deemed undesirable…

Why am I bothered about the state of the society of which I am part? For the same reason that anybody is - if society degrades towards anarchy then everybody suffers!

So your moral code is ultimately based on self-interest, the very defect which you attribute to Christians…

The knowledge that moral corruption destroys the individual and society.

So we’re saying exactly the same thing!

With the difference that you regard moral corruption as a concept rather than a fact.

We are significant because we are intended to exist.

Says who?

Theists. The point is that if we believe we are not intended to exist there is good reason to doubt our significance - as you do.

Because that’s the only way an intelligent, responsible society can behave.

Why is there an obligation on the individual to conform to the needs of society if he can use the conformity of others to promote his own interests at their expense?

If you refrain from being selfish and evil because you believe it will alienate you from others does it mean your moral piety has vanished?

… to answer your question: yes.

So, according to you, people who refrain from being selfish because they believe selfishness will alienate them from others no longer have “moral piety”. Why not?

A pointless universe does not provide a rational basis for value and purpose whereas a purposeful universe does.

That’s just a rephrasing of your previous subjective belief.

Can you explain purpose otherwise?

If death is the end and we are entitled to commit suicide aren’t we absolute masters of our destiny?

Only in the context of life and its cessation.

So you agree that we are absolute masters of our destiny… regardless of an afterlife.

The point is that children were taught about the need for integrity, unselfishness, honesty, kindness and consideration for others.

In which class?

In all classes. It was present in the ethos of the school. Every day began with a spiritual reading and prayers.

What makes you think they are unschooled in these things today?

Indiscipline, criminal attacks on teachers, antisocial behaviour and moral ignorance.

Non sequitur. There’s no link between the two.

Morality is concerned with values, particularly the value of life. If, as you have stated, there is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life morality is in a precarious position, i.e. it cannot be accommodated as easily as in a spiritual dimension.

If morality is merely subjective opinion it has no objective basis or binding force whatsoever.

No - it has a societal (mass subjectivity) basis.

A secular societal basis is singularly unsuccessful if we are judge by its current results - as the crime and abortion statistics indicate.

Almost certainly adopted by those who penned the bible which then became ‘the word of God!’ Don’t forget - society has been around far longer than the authors of the bible!

The moral teaching of Jesus can hardly be attributed to a “mass subjectivity” basis…

The decline in moral standards did not occur overnight. The absence of corporal punishment is an inadequate explanation.

What I do know is that there is no evidence that a reduction in religious belief is to blame.

It is obvious to any unbiased person that belief in the objective reality of justice is inevitably a deterrent.

The documented change in moral standards over time is proof positive that morals are not absolute decrees.

On the contrary it merely shows that morality has developed so that human rights are now universally recognised.

There’s evidence that animals also have a social responsibility to their group. To such groups, individual lives would not be valueless.

So unsocial animals are valueless?

But for human concepts - again they are based on evolved beneficial memes. There is evidence for memes - none for God’s word.

The evidence is that human rights are based on the doctrine that we are all created equal in the sight of God and are all members of one family. The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have not arisen from the belief that we are biological machines…

But you don’t believe that animal rights are a human convention?

Of course not. They stem from the intrinsic value of their life which exists regardless of human beliefs. Man is not the measure of all things…

Probability is not good enough when you are making such definitive claims.

Are your claims based on logical certainty?

Another dodge to avoid substantiating your claim.

To offer no explanation is both unreasonable and unscientific.

 

[tonyrey]

You are taking only one year into account! One woman in three now has an abortion.

To avoid further misunderstanding I append the following statistics for England and Wales since the Abortion Act:

Year Live births Abortions Residents Non-Residents Stillbirths Ratio % Abortions

1968 819,272 23,641 22,332 1,309 11,848 27 2.7
1969 797,538 54,819 49,829 4,990 10,654 62 5.9
1970 784,486 86,565 75,962 10,603 10,345 97 8.8
1971 783,155 126,777 94,570 32,207 9,899 121 10.8
1972 725,440 159,884 108,565 51,319 8,799 150 13.0
1973 675,953 167,149 110,568 56,581 7,936 164 14.1
1974 639,885 162,940 109,445 53,495 7,175 171 14.6
1975 603,445 139,702 106,224 33,478 6,295 176 15.0
1976 584,270 129,673 101,912 27,761 5,709 174 14.9
1977 569,259 133,004 102,677 30,327 5,405 180 15.3
1978 596,418 141,558 111,851 29,707 5,108 188 15.8
1979 638,028 149,746 120,611 29,135 5,125 189 15.9
1980 656,234 160,903 128,927 31,976 4,773 196 16.4
1981 634,492 162,480 128,581 33,899 4,207 203 16.9
1982 625,931 163,045 128,553 34,492 3,939 205 17.0
1983 629,134 162,161 127,375 34,786 3,631 202 16.8
1984 636,818 169,993 136,388 33,605 3,643 214 17.6
1985 656,417 171,873 141,101 30,772 3,645 215 17.7
1986 661,018 172,286 147,619 24,667 3,549 223 18.3
1987 681,511 174,276 156,191 18,085 3,423 229 18.6
1988 693,577 183,798 168,298 15,500 3,382 243 19.5
1989 687,725 183,974 170,463 13,511 3,236 248 19.9
1990 706,140 186,912 173,900 13,012 3,256 246 19.8
1991 699,217 179,522 167,376 12,146 3,254 239 19.3
1992 689,656 172,069 160,501 11,568 2,944 233 18.9
1993 673,467 168,714 157,846 10,868 3,855 234 19.0
1994 664,726 166,876 156,539 10,337 3,813 235 19.1
1995 648,138 163,638 154,315 9,323 3,600 238 19.2
1996 649,485 177,495 167,916 9,579 3,539 259 20.5
1997 643,095 179,746 170,145 9,601 3,439 265 20.9
1998 635,901 187,402 177,871 9,531 3,417 280 21.9
1999 621,872 183,250 173,701 9,549 3,305 279 21.8
2000 604,441 185,375 175,542 9,833 3,203 290 22.5
2001 594,634 186,274 176,364 9,910 3,159 297 22.9
2002 596,122 185,385 175,932 9,453 3,372 295 22.8
2003 615,787 190,660 181,582 9,078 3,612 295 22.8
2004 639,721 194,498 185,713 8,785 3,686 290 22.5
2005 645,835 194,353 186,416 7,937 3,483 289 22.4
2006 669,601 201,173 193,737 7,436 3,602 289 22.4
2007 690,013 205,598 198,499 7,099 3,598 288 22.3
2008 708,711 202,158 195,296 6,862 3,617 276 21.6

There is a substantial difference between your figure of 2% (for 1968!) and 22% for 2007… This horrific increase is due to the current belief that the survival of the unborn child should be determined to a great extent by the decision of the mother. The Catholic Church has always consistently defended the right to life of the unborn - and all those, young or old, who cannot speak on their own behalf.

Divorce entails children being separated from one of their parents and they are all more likely to finish up living on their own - which is precisely what is happening.

Yes, I understand what divorce is. But you haven’t provided the evidence I asked for - which is why this leads to moral decline.

You are confusing the issue. You asked for evidence that many old people in care homes are unhappy. But I can also provide evidence of the moral decline related to divorce. Once again the Catholic Church has defended the institution of marriage on which the happiness of the family is based. Divorce on demand had led to the current idea that it does not impose moral obligations on either the husband or the wife - with the ensuing misery for so many parents and children. Fathers in particular are the victims of a legal system in which the wife is given custody of the children even though she is often responsible for the divorce. The ultimate responsibility is with those who have downgraded a wedding to a civil contract instead of being a lifelong, spiritual commitment of a man and a woman to each other.

Is it natural for parents to be deprived of the company of their children and grandchildren and compelled to live with strangers?

IHowever, your use of the ‘appeal to emotion’ fallacy doesn’t cover up the fact that you have provided not a jot of evidence for your claims.

If being compelled to live with strangers and isolated from one’s home, friends and family is not evidence then nothing is…

I sincerely hope you never find yourself in that situation…

Me too. But that’s irrelevant.

On the contrary. “Me too” confirms that you, like the vast majority of people, do not want to be compelled to live with strangers.

 

[Greg27]

I think I heard of this debate and there was more heat than light. Hitchens, a staunch atheist, had an axe to grind, and Fry also had issues with the Church’s stance and teachings on the sinfulness of homosexuality. The Bishop on the other hand, is bound by his oaths of fidelity and also by canon law to be faithful and obedient to the teaching authority of the church and he would risk censure (and perhaps even dismissal) from the Vatican if he issued a private view which dissented from the Magesterium.

I think objectively speaking, this question is hard to judge. A lot of people who go out of their way to pass moral judgements on the Catholic Church have an axe to grind and their viewpoints are warped by dislike of the institution they are estranged with. Likewise, Catholic apologists can be too biased and partial in favour of their own cause (basically to defend and vindicate Catholicism) to see the real flaws and failings of the Church as an institution, or perhaps too fearful of ecclesial censure.

I think the church does a lot of good works for the community in education, provision of social support and services, and nourishing the lives of believers. But I also think some aspects of the church’s stance on matters like contraception and its slowness to react to pedophiles in its midst, along with harsh measures to crush internal dissent, and the conservative restorationist mentality of the two recent Popes, has done a lot to harm the church and its standing in the eyes of the wider community.

The church in my view now acts more like the medieval authoritarian institution it was in the Middle Ages with its return to rigid highly centralised church government, the increasing emphasis on Papal Infallibility and Authority, its restorationist mentality under Pope John Paul II and Benedict (when he headed the CDF) and its warm embrace of right wing politics and morality, and its apparent winding back of Vatican II reforms. The church and its leadership seem to be much more on the defensive against the secular world and in the US at least, have become too close to right wing politics and agendas, and has also gone out of its way to emphatically reject in my view positive developments occuring in other churches (such as the recognition women can be called to and take part in, ordained ministries and leadership roles).

Until the church becomes less authoritarian and more progressive and respectful of individual conscience in matters of morality (especially the right of parents to choose how to plan their family) I don’t think it is really a very attractive institution, even though it does do a lot of good for many people.

 

[wanstronian]

“Attitudes towards abortion have changed in the period since 1967 in favour of legal abortion for reasons of preference, so effectively it is now possible for any woman to have a termination if she requests it before 24 weeks gestation, and sometimes after. The reason usually stated is ‘risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman’ which is broadly interpreted by doctors to mean any distress on the part of the patient. In 2006 this accounted for 97% of all the reasons given for having an abortion.”
66.102.9.132/search?cache:WIypH0XrwysJ:www.care.org.uk/
Publisher/File.aspx%3FID%3D18055+reasons+for+abortion+statistics&hl=en&gl=uk

In practice “any distress” on the part of the pregnant woman covers any abnormality of the unborn child. It is a carte blanche for aborting any unborn child who is deemed undesirable…

But this is not eugenics. Can I remind you that you introduced the subject of abortion due to eugenics. Eugenics is “the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species” - you have yet to justify your claim.

So your moral code is ultimately based on self-interest, the very defect which you attribute to Christians…

Where did I do this? The secular moral code is based on societal value which, yes, advantages everybody (on balance), including the individual. The religious moral code is the same, apart from the fact that pious individuals stole the code and made it God’s. It’s an indisputable fact that viable societies existed for thousand of years before the idea of a One True God. It also indisputable that viable societies exist today, without God getting in the way. Morals are clearly evolutionary in origin.

With the difference that you regard moral corruption as a concept rather than a fact.

Inasmuch as morals disappear without somebody to practice them, then both moral purity and moral corruption are concepts. That’s not to say that those concepts cannot be manifested in deeds that would be considered to be at one end or the other, of the moral scale.

Theists.

Yes. Theists. It’s a self-serving philosophy to have. It’s just another theistic circular argument.

The point is that if we believe we are not intended to exist there is good reason to doubt our significance - as you do.

Quite true. There is no objective reason to assume we have significance. There is only a subjective reason, which cuts no ice from a rational pov.

Why is there an obligation on the individual to conform to the needs of society if he can use the conformity of others to promote his own interests at their expense?

Do you really need me to answer that? Can you not see what would happen if everybody thought that?

So, according to you, people who refrain from being selfish because they believe selfishness will alienate them from others no longer have “moral piety”. Why not?

Due to the meaning of the word ‘piety,’ mainly!

Can you explain purpose otherwise?

In the context of ‘ultimate’ or ‘higher’ purpose, I don’t believe there is such a thing. I see no evidence of it. Individual purpose should need no explaining.

So you agree that we are absolute masters of our destiny… regardless of an afterlife.

Clearly not, because destiny is not just about when we die. I made this point already.

In all classes. It was present in the ethos of the school. Every day began with a spiritual reading and prayers.

Why has it gone from all classes now? What’s your evidence for this? Or are you just doing some speculative a posteriori reasoning based on your belief that morals ain’t what they used to be? What do spiritual reading and prayers have to do with those characteristics? Do you really think they can only be gained from religion? Really? Despite all the evidence to the contrary?

Indiscipline, criminal attacks on teachers, antisocial behaviour and moral ignorance.

And you think a re-establishment of spiritual readings and prayers will abolish this behaviour? On what rationale?

Morality is concerned with values, particularly the value of life. If, as you have stated, there is no evidence that there is an objective value of human life morality is in a precarious position, i.e. it cannot be accommodated as easily as in a spiritual dimension.

Of course it can, it’s just that the origin of morality is understood to be different. There is value in human life - societal value.

A secular societal basis is singularly unsuccessful if we are judge by its current results - as the crime and abortion statistics indicate.

Again you are making inferences without evidence, to support your belief. You’re just repeating yourself, you’ve still provided no hard evidence.

The moral teaching of Jesus can hardly be attributed to a “mass subjectivity” basis…

Why not? Are you suggesting that morals didn’t exist before Jesus taught them? What’s your evidence?

It is obvious to any unbiased person that belief in the objective reality of justice is inevitably a deterrent.

There is no objective reality of justice. It’s demonstrably a human concept. But yes, belief in the human concept of justice, as enforced by its elected governments, is a deterrent. No doubt.

On the contrary it merely shows that morality has developed so that human rights are now universally recognised.

Exactly. Social and moral conscience has evolved to that point

 

[wanstronian]

So unsocial animals are valueless?

As an example, the life of an eagle is valueless to other eagles. Eagles are solitary animals.

The evidence is that human rights are based on the doctrine that we are all created equal in the sight of God and are all members of one family.

No they’re not. That’s just one perspective, that is held by Christians. It’s demonstrably not evidence - as you say, it’s just doctrine.

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have not arisen from the belief that we are biological machines…

No - the fact that we are biological machines is irrelevant to those principles. The fact that we are proven biological machines has no bearing on our ability to love, feel, reason etc.

Of course not. They stem from the intrinsic value of their life which exists regardless of human beliefs. Man is not the measure of all things…

Man is the only animal we are aware of, that has the ability to conceptualise to such an advanced degree. There is no evidence that these rights are afforded by God.

Are your claims based on logical certainty?

My claims are based on rational thought. I shouldn’t need to provide evidence that ‘probably’ is not the same as ‘is.’

To offer no explanation is both unreasonable and unscientific.

Not if there isn’t an explanation to offer. But please don’t change the subject - can you substantiate your claim or not?

To avoid further misunderstanding I append the following statistics for England and Wales since the Abortion Act:

Year Live births Abortions Residents Non-Residents Stillbirths Ratio % Abortions

1968 819,272 23,641 22,332 1,309 11,848 27 2.7
…
2007 690,013 205,598 198,499 7,099 3,598 288 22.3
2008 708,711 202,158 195,296 6,862 3,617 276 21.6

There is a substantial difference between your figure of 2% (for 1968!) and 22% for 2007… This horrific increase is due to the current belief that the survival of the unborn child should be determined to a great extent by the decision of the mother. The Catholic Church has always consistently defended the right to life of the unborn - and all those, young or old, who cannot speak on their own behalf.

I don’t know why your statistics differ from mine. Yours seem genuine, and so are mine. I suggest we leave this, as there seems to be no clear evidence either way.

You are confusing the issue. You asked for evidence that many old people in care homes are unhappy. But I can also provide evidence of the moral decline related to divorce. Once again the Catholic Church has defended the institution of marriage on which the happiness of the family is based. Divorce on demand had led to the current idea that it does not impose moral obligations on either the husband or the wife - with the ensuing misery for so many parents and children. Fathers in particular are the victims of a legal system in which the wife is given custody of the children even though she is often responsible for the divorce. The ultimate responsibility is with those who have downgraded a wedding to a civil contract instead of being a lifelong, spiritual commitment of a man and a woman to each other.

Actually, I asked for evidence that the number of people in care homes are linked to some objective measure of morality in the UK. But your divorce comments are equally interesting - where is your evidence that divorce rate is linked to morality? And do you really think that being married means that you’re likely to have a happier married life?

If being compelled to live with strangers and isolated from one’s home, friends and family is not evidence then nothing is…

Yes - it’s that this alleged ‘compulsion’ is linked to the moral state of society that you have failed to provide evidence for.

On the contrary. “Me too” confirms that you, like the vast majority of people, do not want to be compelled to live with strangers.

Agreed - but it’s only relevant to your subjective opinion on what’s wrong with the world, not to any hard facts or objective data.

 

[Tybourne]

Eugenics is “the study and practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species” - you have yet to justify your claim.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in the U.S. (the largest provider of abortions in that country) was a noted eugenicist and pictures exist of her addressing Ku Klux Klan meetings:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

However, let’s shift to more recent times. The black population of the U.S. in 1990 was approximately 12.1% yet the percentage of abortions in the same year carried out on black children was 31.8%. What do you make of this? It’s particularly striking given that African-Americans tend to have more ‘conservative’ views on abortion.

 

[Leela]

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in the U.S. (the largest provider of abortions in that country) was a noted eugenicist and pictures exist of her addressing Ku Klux Klan meetings:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8qRRG_WD2...ABD8/mOcvUgZkK8s/s400/margaret+sanger+kkk.jpg

However, let’s shift to more recent times. The black population of the U.S. in 1990 was approximately 12.1% yet the percentage of abortions in the same year carried out on black children was 31.8%. What do you make of this? It’s particularly striking given that African-Americans tend to have more ‘conservative’ views on abortion.

This is strange. Why would Sanger be speaking to a Christian organization such as the KKK?

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

The debate was a attempt at a staged ambush – pure and simple.

The debate participants:

Archbishop Onaiyekan who first language is not English (no racism here: I wonder if Fry and Hitchens would have been as “effective” in Nigerian).

Ann Widdecombe a former UK politician with an irritating voice (my opinion) but still a devout Catholic.

Steven Fry, an actor, writer, comedian who knows how to “work a crowd” and has a pleasing voice.

Christopher Hitchens, writer, debater. Lots of experience speaking.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Onaiyekan and Ms. Widdecombe took the bait. Neither is skilled at apologetics or debating and probably didn’t know what they were heading into.

Since both Catholic representatives seem to have been unskilled debaters, what Archbishop Onaiyekan and Ms. Widdecombe should have done was start reading a list of charitable acts by The Catholic Church, worldwide, throughout history and do it non-stop and fairly quickly. Name some living individuals amongst the acts if the recipients gave permission – it puts a face to it all. At the end, acknowledge that these acts were done of free will by the guidance of Christ through His Catholic Church. Not only would Fry and Hitchens run out of bad things to say, they couldn’t say anything bad or sarcastic about the charitable acts or they would look like brutes. Fry and Hitchens covered no new criticisms but just worded general, well-known criticisms (“hot buttons”) with smart alec responses guaranteed to get a laugh from the unwary. No doubt Fry and Hitchens would cry foul and indicate that it wasn’t a debate. They’d be right – who can debate against acts of true Charity and Good? Only the force for bad.

Intelligence Squared did not make a mockery of The Catholic Church, it revealed how deceived the audience, Fry and Hitchens are. Satan, The Liar, The Deceiver, Murderer From The Beginning was the one “working the crowd” and the deceived didn’t know it.

 

[tonyrey]

As an example, the life of an eagle is valueless to other eagles.

So an eagle is valueless - regardless of other eagles or anything else…
Your concept of value seems entirely utilitarian, e.g. to serve as food for some one else!
A very weak foundation for the right to life…

The evidence is that human rights are based on the doctrine that we are all created equal in the sight of God and are all members of one family.

No they’re not. That’s just one perspective, that is held by Christians. It’s demonstrably not evidence - as you say, it’s just doctrine.

It is the best explanation. What is the secular basis for liberty, equality and fraternity? Why should a belief in secular morality based on a subjective concept be regarded as superior to a belief based on an objective fact?
The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have not arisen from the belief that we are biological machines…
No - the fact that we are biological machines is irrelevant to those principles.
The fact that we are proven biological machines has no bearing on our ability to love, feel, reason etc.
How is it proven that we are biological machines? How have such principles emerged in a mechanistic world? And why would being biological machines have no bearing on our ability to love, feel, choose and reason?

Of course not. They stem from the intrinsic value of their life which exists regardless of human beliefs. Man is not the measure of all things…
Man is the only animal we are aware of, that has the ability to conceptualise to such an advanced degree.
The fact that man has an advanced does not prove

So you believe animal life was valueless before man existed? And that their value exists only in human minds?

I shouldn’t need to provide evidence that ‘probably’ is not the same as ‘is.’

Your use of “proven” does not imply probability…

Not if there isn’t an explanation to offer.

Are you saying there are no reasons why there has been an increase in crime, indiscipline and divorce?!

Can you substantiate your claim or not?

I have but you have rejected my explanation - without offering any alternative.

To avoid further misunderstanding I append the following statistics for England and Wales since the Abortion Act:

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508
The age-standardised abortion rate was 18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.3 in 2006. It is the percentage of abortions related to all resident women, not the percentage related to live births - which has risen from 2% in 1968 to 21.6% in 2007 - a horrific increase in abortions, i.e. executions, for convenience rather than necessity. How do you explain that if it is not the result of moral decadence?

Do you really think that being married means that you’re likely to have a happier married life?

Yes. People were far more careful whom they chose as a life partner when marriage was accepted as a commitment for life. A registry office certificate is regarded as no more than a piece of paper which has no moral significance whatsoever.

If being compelled to live with strangers and isolated from one’s home, friends and family is not evidence then nothing is

…
Yes - it’s that this alleged ‘compulsion’ is linked to the moral state of society that you have failed to provide evidence for.

Old people are compelled - whether you recognise the fact or not - compelled by the circumstances brought about by the breakdown of family life which is due to the increase in promiscuity, infidelity and sexual “liberation”. The term “illegitimate” is no longer used because it is not only unfair to the child but because in 2006 49.4% of babies of British-born mothers were born outside marriage.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034254/Most-British-babies-born-wedlock-migrants-tiny-minority.html#ixzz0fAzSeiWy

“Me too” confirms that you, like the vast majority of people, do not want to be compelled to live with strangers.

Agreed - but it’s only relevant to your subjective opinion on what’s wrong with the world, not to any hard facts or objective data.

Being compelled to live with strangers rather than with your family is a hard fact in both senses of the word. So is the cause of that compulsion: the breakdown of normal family life and the ensuing misery, particularly for the children who live with a step-parent and miss being with their father or mother. To what do you attribute these tragedies?

 

[tonyrey]

As an example, the life of an eagle is valueless to other eagles.

So an eagle is valueless - regardless of other eagles or anything else…
Your concept of value seems entirely utilitarian, e.g. to serve as food for some one else!
A very weak foundation for the right to life…

The evidence is that human rights are based on the doctrine that we are all created equal in the sight of God and are all members of one family.

No they’re not. That’s just one perspective, that is held by Christians. It’s demonstrably not evidence - as you say, it’s just doctrine.

It is the best explanation. What is the secular basis for liberty, equality and fraternity? Why should a belief in secular morality based on a subjective concept be regarded as superior to a belief based on an objective fact?

The principles of liberty, equality and fraternity have not arisen from the belief that we are biological machines…

No - the fact that we are biological machines is irrelevant to those principles.

How have such principles emerged in a mechanistic world?

The fact that we are proven biological machines has no bearing on our ability to love, feel, reason etc.

How is it

proven

that we are biological machines? And why would being biological machines have no bearing on our ability to love, feel, choose and reason? The vast majority of people would laugh at you or look at you with incomprehension. It doesn’t follow that you are wrong but the onus is on you to explain why…

Man is the only animal we are aware of, that has the ability to conceptualise to such an advanced degree.

It does not follow that man has a conscience or the power of choice, neither of which are associated with machines.

I shouldn’t need to provide evidence that ‘probably’ is not the same as ‘is.’

Your use of “proven” does not imply probability…

Not if there isn’t an explanation to offer.

Are you saying there are no reasons why there has been an increase in crime, indiscipline and divorce?!

Can you substantiate your claim or not?

I have but you have rejected my explanation - without offering any alternative.

To avoid further misunderstanding I append the following statistics for England and Wales since the Abortion Act:

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508
The age-standardised abortion rate was 18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.3 in 2006. It is the percentage of abortions related to all resident women, not the percentage related to live births - which has risen from 2% in 1968 to 21.6% in 2007 - a horrific increase in abortions, i.e. executions, for convenience rather than necessity. How do you explain that if it is not the result of moral decadence?

Do you really think that being married means that you’re likely to have a happier married life?

Yes. People were far more careful whom they chose as a life partner when marriage was accepted as a commitment for life. A registry office certificate is regarded as no more than a piece of paper which has no moral significance whatsoever.

If being compelled to live with strangers and isolated from one’s home, friends and family is not evidence then nothing is

…
Yes - it’s that this alleged ‘compulsion’ is linked to the moral state of society that you have failed to provide evidence for.

Old people are compelled - whether you recognise the fact or not - compelled by the circumstances brought about by the breakdown of family life which is due to the increase in promiscuity, infidelity and sexual “liberation”. The term “illegitimate” is no longer used because it is not only unfair to the child but because in 2006 49.4% of babies of British-born mothers were born outside marriage.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034254/Most-British-babies-born-wedlock-migrants-tiny-minority.html#ixzz0fAzSeiWy

“Me too” confirms that you, like the vast majority of people, do not want to be compelled to live with strangers.

Agreed - but it’s only relevant to your subjective opinion on what’s wrong with the world, not to any hard facts or objective data.

Being compelled to live with strangers rather than with your family is a hard fact in both senses of the word. So is the cause of that compulsion: the breakdown of normal family life and the ensuing misery, particularly for the children who live with a step-parent and miss being with their father or mother. To what do you attribute these tragedies?

 

[wanstronian]

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in the U.S. (the largest provider of abortions in that country) was a noted eugenicist and pictures exist of her addressing Ku Klux Klan meetings:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8qRRG_WD2...ABD8/mOcvUgZkK8s/s400/margaret+sanger+kkk.jpg

What’s that got to do with anything?

However, let’s shift to more recent times. The black population of the U.S. in 1990 was approximately 12.1% yet the percentage of abortions in the same year carried out on black children was 31.8%. What do you make of this? It’s particularly striking given that African-Americans tend to have more ‘conservative’ views on abortion.

I don’t make anything of it - it’s beside the point.

 

[wanstronian]

So an eagle is valueless - regardless of other eagles or anything else…
Your concept of value seems entirely utilitarian, e.g. to serve as food for some one else!
A very weak foundation for the right to life…

You asked about animals. Now you’re trying to apply my response to humans. Bad form.

It is the best explanation.

It’s not the best explanation, because it relies on belief in a deity for which no evidence exists. It’s just your preferred explanation.

What is the secular basis for liberty, equality and fraternity? Why should a belief in secular morality based on a subjective concept be regarded as superior to a belief based on an objective fact?

But there are no objective facts involved - just your belief that morals are objectively decreed by God.

How have such principles emerged in a mechanistic world?

Oh, here we go again - the atheist can’t describe every aspect of human sentience in minute detail, therefore Goddidit. Have you still not realised the vacuity of this argument?

How is it [proven] that we are biological machines?

Medical science, Biology, Embryology, Paleontology, Homology…for a start.

And why would being biological machines have no bearing on our ability to love, feel, choose and reason?

I was just pointing out that those characteristics have not evolved as a result of such a belief/knowledge.

The vast majority of people would laugh at you or look at you with incomprehension.

Why?

It doesn’t follow that you are wrong but the onus is on you to explain why…

No more than it is on me to explain why grass is green and the sky is blue. It’s established fact and well understood. The onus is actually on those who dispute the vast amounts of scientific evidence that prove, beyond doubt, that we are biological organisms.

It does not follow that man has a conscience or the power of choice, neither of which are associated with machines.

You are presumably reading ‘machine’ as ‘mindless automoton.’ You have made this error in discussion with me before - I’m surprised you’re making it again. If it helps, read it as ‘organism.’

Your use of “proven” does not imply probability…

I don’t know what you’re talking about here. Your comment doesn’t seem to relate to mine.

Are you saying there are no reasons why there has been an increase in crime, indiscipline and divorce?!

Of course not - why would you infer such a sentiment? I’m just pointing out that your given reasons are unsubstantiated… still.

I have but you have rejected my explanation - without offering any alternative.

No - you’ve just offered a further assertion as your basis. You don’t seem to realise that supporting one bare assertion with another isn’t substantiation. I guess it’s a theist thing…

To avoid further misunderstanding I append the following statistics for England and Wales since the Abortion Act:

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_085508
The age-standardised abortion rate was 18.6 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, compared with 18.3 in 2006. It is the percentage of abortions related to all resident women, not the percentage related to live births - which has risen from 2% in 1968 to 21.6% in 2007 - a horrific increase in abortions, i.e. executions, for convenience rather than necessity. How do you explain that if it is not the result of moral decadence?

Another theist trait - “Prove my claim is false!” Er, no. It’s up to you to prove it’s true. That’s how it works.

Yes. People were far more careful whom they chose as a life partner when marriage was accepted as a commitment for life. A registry office certificate is regarded as no more than a piece of paper which has no moral significance whatsoever

It seems you are wrong again. religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience

Old people are compelled - whether you recognise the fact or not - compelled by the circumstances brought about by the breakdown of family life which is due to the increase in promiscuity, infidelity and sexual “liberation”. The term “illegitimate” is no longer used because it is not only unfair to the child but because in 2006 49.4% of babies of British-born mothers were born outside marriage.
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034254/Most-British-babies-born-wedlock-migrants-tiny-minority.html#ixzz0fAzSeiWy

I knew it! The Daily Mail! The paper of choice for the consumer who simply has to be outraged by something!

Being compelled to live with strangers rather than with your family is a hard fact in both senses of the word. So is the cause of that compulsion: the breakdown of normal family life and the ensuing misery, particularly for the children who live with a step-parent and miss being with their father or mother. To what do you attribute these tragedies?

And again - “Prove I’m not right!” says the theist.

To summarise: We have established:

1. that you haven’t seen the debate in question
2. that you have judged it anyway and used it to sermonise your own views on society
3. that you have comprehensively failed to substantiate any of your claims.

I think I’ll leave it here - I see no further value in this conversation, especially as you have started to repeat sections of debate that we have had in the past, where you also failed to provide any basis for your conjecture.

 

[hellopeople]

If I have a mission so have you - to promote your anti-Christian doctrines zealously…
Correlation need not imply causation but it often does. When the decline in religious belief is accompanied by the increase in moral ignorance and crime it is the most likely explanation. Can you offer a better alternative?

Wow, what an ignorant thing to say. You would get laughed out of a high school stats class for saying something like that.

As for if people are smarter now…I wouldn’t say smarter, but more likely to question tradition. Part of this is how the church teaches as well. One of my Irish great uncles, who is in his 70’s said “Do you remember when we weren’t supposed to read the Bible.” I think back then people didn’t question the church because they were taught from a young age if you question the church you will GO TO HELL. Now it is a bit more relaxed and people are taught that sometimes questioning things is good…thus a lot of people don’t find the stories in the Bible believable and don’t believe it at all.

 

[hellopeople]

The debate was a attempt at a staged ambush – pure and simple.

The debate participants:

Archbishop Onaiyekan who first language is not English (no racism here: I wonder if Fry and Hitchens would have been as “effective” in Nigerian).

Ann Widdecombe a former UK politician with an irritating voice (my opinion) but still a devout Catholic.

Steven Fry, an actor, writer, comedian who knows how to “work a crowd” and has a pleasing voice.

Christopher Hitchens, writer, debater. Lots of experience speaking.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Onaiyekan and Ms. Widdecombe took the bait. Neither is skilled at apologetics or debating and probably didn’t know what they were heading into.

Since both Catholic representatives seem to have been unskilled debaters, what Archbishop Onaiyekan and Ms. Widdecombe should have done was start reading a list of charitable acts by The Catholic Church, worldwide, throughout history and do it non-stop and fairly quickly. Name some living individuals amongst the acts if the recipients gave permission – it puts a face to it all. At the end, acknowledge that these acts were done of free will by the guidance of Christ through His Catholic Church. Not only would Fry and Hitchens run out of bad things to say, they couldn’t say anything bad or sarcastic about the charitable acts or they would look like brutes. Fry and Hitchens covered no new criticisms but just worded general, well-known criticisms (“hot buttons”) with smart alec responses guaranteed to get a laugh from the unwary. No doubt Fry and Hitchens would cry foul and indicate that it wasn’t a debate. They’d be right – who can debate against acts of true Charity and Good? Only the force for bad.

Intelligence Squared did not make a mockery of The Catholic Church, it revealed how deceived the audience, Fry and Hitchens are. Satan, The Liar, The Deceiver, Murderer From The Beginning was the one “working the crowd” and the deceived didn’t know it.

I was following you until the end of your second paragraph…as for debating against acts of true charity and good…it is about as hard as debating against all the evil things the church has done throughout the years.

Anyway, call fry and hitchens satan is hysterical.

 

[Tybourne]

Why would Sanger be speaking to a Christian organization such as the KKK?

Red herring. The putative Christian nature of the KKK is not the point being discussed here. The motion is that the Catholic Church is a force for good. The Church opposes abortion and Tonyrey had raised the issue of the connection between abortion and eugenics. Here’s some more evidence to support that link. Any responses to the evidence presented here from those of you who would oppose the motion?

 

[Leela]

Red herring. The putative Christian nature of the KKK is not the point being discussed here. The motion is that the Catholic Church is a force for good. The Church opposes abortion and Tonyrey had raised the issue of the connection between abortion and eugenics. Here’s some more evidence to support that link. Any responses to the evidence presented here from those of you who would oppose the motion?

I was wonderring what the connection was between abortion and the OP. If you think that abortion is murder, then you are more likely to see the Church as a force for good than if your concern primarily is for the already born. Once we acknowledge that anti-abortionists and pro-choicers will have a different view and no common ground to argue about whether or not the Church is a force for good or not based on the issue of abortion, it seems to me that the thing to do it to move on to issues where all sides of the debate agree on what is good and bad, so we can decide whether the Church is doing more of one or the other.

Here are some possible topics to consider…
Is the Church reducing world poverty?
Is the Church helping to educate the uneducated?
Is the Church helping to heal the sick?

At least on such questions, all sides of the debate will agree about which pursuits are good and bad.

Best,
Leela

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

I was following you until the end of your second paragraph…as for debating against acts of true charity and good…it is about as hard as debating against all the evil things the church has done throughout the years.

Anyway, call fry and hitchens satan is hysterical.

Some people who have been part of The Catholic Church are guilty of whatever crime has been done. Guilty as charged. Do bad things still happen? Probably. The debate isn’t whether or not The Catholic Church as run by humans has made mistakes and done bad (who hasn’t?), the debate is whether or not The Catholic Church is a force for good.

Misrepresentation: I did not call Fry and Hitchens Satan. I indicated they were part of the Deceived, doing Satan’s bidding and not knowing it.