The Neutrality Myth

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-16 09:43pm

Cyril wrote:
How so? If the country isn't already recieving aid, then preventing others from giving it to them isn't a contradiction - you seem to be including those other countries as part of the system of the country potentially recieving "aid," which they are not.
So, you rather have a country not recieve any aid - no medical supplies, education, etc. - than have the option of changing their cultural beliefs?

The thing is, the RC church is changing their beliefs and not giving aid.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-16 09:44pm

Then, IG, it is not justified.

However, my main beef is with Patkelly's assertation that the United States is somehow to blame for this.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-16 09:45pm

Cyril wrote:So, you rather have a country not recieve any aid - no medical supplies, education, etc. - than have the option of changing their cultural beliefs?

As I said, most of the people in these countries were happier before we started giving them aid - if they're happy then we should leave them that way. Besides, giving them selective aid (food and medical supplies, but only the secular organizations are giving them condoms) is a very good way to destroy a country, especially with AIDS taken into consideration. Not that I believe that the Church is doing this on purpose mind you, but that is what they are doing.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-16 09:46pm

As I said, most of the people in these countries were happier before we started giving them aid - if they're happy then we should leave them that way.

Sooo...it's better to let them be happy and starve to death...?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-16 09:48pm

Cyril wrote:
When you indoctrinate children to believe that they will go to Hell if they use condoms, you can argue that whatever happens to them is their own fault. However, the fact remains that you were not looking out for their objective welfare, and you bear some culpability.
What about their parents? If the parent does not hold this belief, cannot they teach their children differently?

If the parent opposes the church's doctrine, they should leave the church.

If they hold the same view, do they have the right to teach their children what they believe?

Yes. And I have the right to say that they are morons and shitty parents for doing so. Moreover, I can put part of the blame on their church for indoctrinating them in this dogma when they were children.

And, what if they believe that they are acting in their children's welfare by keeping them from Hell? I realize that isn't objective, but do they have a right to do what they feel is necessary to protect their children in the end?

Parents have a right to protect their children. But this is the great danger of religion; when one's faith is so strong that it is used to take actions which are objectively either moronic or immoral. When you deny or disregard objective reality because of your faith, you are delusional. This is the point where religion crosses the boundary between harmless belief system and mental illness.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2002-11-16 09:49pm

An interesting debate that I will enjoy to sit here and watch how it turns out.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-16 09:51pm

Wong: Conceeded on all points. Just wanted to make sure.

However, as stated before, my main problem is with the assertation that the United States is somehow responsible for this.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-16 09:58pm

Cyril wrote:Wong: Conceeded on all points. Just wanted to make sure.

I had the suspicion that we didn't actually have much of a disagreement to begin with. It's not like debating someone like Boyd

However, as stated before, my main problem is with the assertation that the United States is somehow responsible for this.

Fair enough; this was basically a tangent off the main thread subject. Not that you can't find criticisms of US foreign policy (unless you're Azeron), but the RC church's conduct isn't the direct responsibility of the US (although the US did apply pressure to have the Vatican treated as a nation for the purpose of UN membership).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-16 10:00pm

Fair enough; this was basically a tangent off the main thread subject. Not that you can't find criticisms of US foreign policy (unless you're Azeron), but the RC church's conduct isn't the direct responsibility of the US (although the US did apply pressure to have the Vatican treated as a nation for the purpose of UN membership).

Of course.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-11-16 10:04pm

patkelly wrote:The problem occurs when Catholic churches and schools begin opening next to Buddhist Temples or when catering to the needs of western tourists begins to take precedence over local needs.

This is the only part I wish to comment on. Having traveled a little (Turkey, Greece, Amsterdam, London, Bali) I can tell you that this is nothing wrong to cater to the tourist! Why? Because this is a major source of income for this community and they recognise the importance of not making the environment too different from what there clientel would know about.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-16 11:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Cyril wrote:Wong: Conceeded on all points. Just wanted to make sure.
I had the suspicion that we didn't actually have much of a disagreement to begin with. It's not like debating someone like Boyd
However, as stated before, my main problem is with the assertation that the United States is somehow responsible for this.
Fair enough; this was basically a tangent off the main thread subject. Not that you can't find criticisms of US foreign policy (unless you're Azeron), but the RC church's conduct isn't the direct responsibility of the US (although the US did apply pressure to have the Vatican treated as a nation for the purpose of UN membership).

Wow, you mean that Patkelly took a philosophical stance and slowly turned into a political attack against mainstream America?

No, I don't believe it.