formally:
- The quality or state of being unrelated to a matter being considered.
- Something unrelated to a matter being considered.
Roman Catholic Church
Late last week, Bishop Henry weighs in on same-sex marriage with a tirade of illogical discourse rooted primarily in fear-mongering and demonization.
Then, a few days later, the ArchBishop in Toronto opens his flap, and more or less echoes Bishop Henry.
Fast forward, and the Church in Spain comes out with what seemed to be a surprisingly enlightened ruling, only to fold like a deck of cards after (no doubt) receiving significant pressure from the Vatican.
For reasons that I can only describe as brain-damaged, the Roman Catholic Church has always proscribed contraceptives. However, in an era where AIDS is wiping out an entire generation (or more) in Africa, and condoms are known to _stop_ the spread of AIDS, I simply cannot accept the morality of the Church's position. When the majority of STDs were treatable and controllable via conventional medicine, I could get by with simple disgust at the suffering that the Church is indirectly inflicting upon its followers. AIDS is unlike other STD's - it is only marginally treatable, and it is inevitably lethal.
Yes, I know that the Church's official position is abstinence until married, and monogamously married for life. However, human beings are not so perfect as the Church would like to believe - they have multiple partners over their lifespans, and it is necessary to be realistic about this.
I don't object to the Church adopting whatever dogma they wish - however, when they turn around and attempt to impose that same dogma upon me and mine, I get very, very annoyed. The same Charter freedoms that guarantee that you are free to practice whatever faith you wish leave me equally free to _not_ practice that same religion.
The more that I see, the more convinced I become that Churches object to things like birth control, gay marriage, divorce and lord knows what else for no better reason than to propogate their control over people's lives.
It's not about morals, or doing "the right thing(tm)" - no, it's about power and control. No more, no less. How is letting an entire generation die "the right thing"? When Churches (any organized religion actually) have instigated wars, self-justified child-abuse on the part of their clergy, fought against other churches for no better reason than differences of opinion, they quickly lose their right to assert that they hold some moral high ground.
They are human institutions, run by human beings, and flawed like all of us. It's time that their teachings started to reflect reality, rather than dogma that is thousands of years old.
2 comments:
I think it all gets tied up in sex.
The church has no problem with us avoiding eating tainted meat. No problem with Diabetics using Insulin, or individuals with Cancer undergoing rather invasive surgical procedures or Chemotherapy. Or limiting risk of cold/flu/other nasties germ transmission through regular hand sanitation. Or, for that matter, the avoidance of illness spread by bodily fluids through doctor/paramedic use of latex gloves. Now, then, what is the difference if the glove is worn on the hand rather than a different, dangly bit of the anatomy?
Seems rather silly doesn't it?
Ah, Religion.
It's stupid because the RC church wasn't even celibate until something like the eighth century. Weren't they trying to prevent a hereditary priesthood?
However, saner heads are prevailing. On one side, the state (or rather, part of the state) wants to keep the religion separate.
On the other side, there is at least one religion that wants to keep the state separate.
Separation of church and state, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
Oh, and check this out (Be warned, it's not work friendly) for one man's opinion on how the separation of church and state should work in the USA.
Quixote
http://www.livejournal.com/users/quixote317/
Post a Comment