The cult of religion

Religion, all religions are cults and some are far more dangerous cults than others. Fundamentalist Christians are just about the most scary cults around as the claim its god's will and they and only they have the 'divine' right to do as they do.

Hypocrisy reigns supreme with religions, as it is all "do as I say, not as I do."

Tax the churches and put hate mongering preachers in jail.

Fundies are Satanists not Christians

"Christian" is not the best word used to describe the "fundamentalist" cults that have developed in the US and have spread into Canada. These cults promote war, glorify greed, are arrogant and are all round haters. Certainly not the message of Jesus. I suggest that they are actually Satanist cults for greed, violence, arrogance and hate are supposedly the attributes of Satan.

Christians/Satanists

anarcho wrote:

Nope. "Christian" is the right word. Credit where credit is due.

Recycled Catholic apologetics

Nightbloom, if anyone in the "peanut gallery" actually believed what you say we believe, then you'd have a point. You're giving us the same old, tired, defense of the faith. As the Jesuit saying goes, "give me the child and I will deliver the man". They sure got their talons into you.

Booker - I'm actually not

Booker - I'm actually not defending the faith at all. The fact that you're even saying that demonstrates how blinkered the debate has become. Nuance = treason. You guys are every bit as bad as the Bushites (and all the other boobs of the politicized Christian Right). You're just the flipside of the same shitty coin. Politicized fundamentalism comes in all shapes, colours and flavours. And it can be ideological as well as religious.
You nit-wits say Christianity is qualitatively the same as Satanism, and then turn around get all wet & teary as soon as anyone breathes a word of criticism about your own dogmatic ideology and cherished untruths. There's no quality to this debate whatsoever. It's characteristic of an echo chamber.

Orginally....

I was going to mention how nice Stephen Harper looks with mascara... is that how its spelled, Nightbloom? And it seems fitting and all enough of a comment so close to Halloween, that Stephen Harper be allowed to dress up as a politician... but politicians don't paint their faces like that! (not male one's anyways)

So what I'm wondering is why we have a guy wearing mascara running the country. Where's the Christianity in that?

All humor aside, these subjects... sex, politics, religion... are highly charged for a reason. Too many "puritans" and too many "hypocrites". Not even going to open up the can of worms with the largest Christian cult in the world exploiting the poorest countries and going strong with a pinky and the brain mentality, just like back in the day... but I will say this.

As far as "puritan" and "hypocritical" traits go, Stephen Harper has loads and loads of both. Merely seek and ye shall find.

Lorne Mccuaig
Revelstoke, BC

Thanks gaulois - My

Thanks gaulois - My sentiments exactly!

Quote:Both authors seek to

When you juxtapose these sentences, it sure sounds like Rafe is a hypocrite.

Although I don't beleive for a second Rafe would defend anyone's religious rights, that sentenace is just window dressing to excuse hate propaganda.

C'mon, there must be some new group you can call murderers, no need to rehash old drivel.

religion and politics

'...focused on the ideas. The voters will decide."

Nightblooms naive view of Canadian democracy would be amusing if it wasn't so dangerous.

The evangelical movement a while back realized it could seize power by hijacking political parties and aligning its self with big business who brought the media onside.

Kevin Phillip's book American Theocracy shows us how they are doing it in the US. Steven Harper is one majority government away from doing it here.

It would be nice if voters could get Harper's evangelicals to expound at length on their "ideas" but unfortunately Harper has very effectively muzzled all such discussion and the media refuses to pursue it. I'm sure the voters would love to hear their Conservative MP or candidate expounding eloquently on his (widely held) belief that the earth was formed 6000 years ago, that man walked with dinosaurs, or on the coming apocalypse. Would such a man make good decisions on stem cell research, Canada's space program or global warming? Unfortunately, between the incompetent and compliant media and Harper's very effective muzzle, the voters do not hear these "ideas".

I'm sure our Nightbloom friend would think it fair game in politics if my groups of abortionists, drug dealers and lax judges were to show up at political party meetings with hordes of bused in supporters and force the nomination of our homey's but most voters would object.

Remember how easy it was for a group of Sikh fundamentalists to seize Chuck Chadman's 150 or so member Whalley association from him and give him the boot. It is legal to hijack a political party but it is immoral to the point of disgust. So far in our democracy it is only the evangelicals with their apocalyptic vision of a North American theocracy that have decided stealing is only bad if its illegal and are well on their way to stealing our democracy from our sleeping selves.

Osama bin Laden hijacked airplanes in an effort to achieve his Muslim theocracy. Steven bin Harper with his hijack of the Conservative party is well on his way to a Canadian evangelical theocracy.

Superstar

Somehow, I flashed back to Jesus Christ Superstar, that part where Jesus asks Peter "Why are you so absorbed by fighting, stick to fishing from now on."

Stick to the (salmon)fishing Rafe, there might be a chance that you will help push a solution there. No one will ever get anywhere trying to solve religious issues.

There is a difference

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.
John Lennon stated all the values that the liberals want to expound.
No discrimination.
No sense of right or wrong.
No values are any more important than some other values.
George Bush can be declared equal to Hitler because there is no difference between the holocaust and Abu Grabe.
There is no difference between good and evil.
We apparently have no right to have any values.
Values are judgemental.
Are terrorists freedom fighters?
How can they be when they don't offer freedom?
I am not ever going to be bullied in to the position that rape is simply a different approach to having sex. No problem. No values are permitted.
Why have any laws?
Why not allow the criminal to sort it out in his own way, regardless of the harm that is inflicted upon us?
You liberals ( LIBERALS ) are mad.
And you are toast.
The jig is up, in spite of the fact that you have been brainwashing an entire generation of people, we are still here, working hard to live in our value system.
Bring on the fight, that's right, fight.
Something you libs cannot stomach, due to your lack of values.

Light blue eyes too close together

The picture of Harper reminds me of the huskey I attempt to look after. There ain't much happening behind the eyes beyond immediate grats. Most action will be instinctive.

Now Harper is a slightly more complex organism than an Husky but he is in the process of risking all on a whim: General election.

Rafe blames sucking up to the religious right for the votes. I blame narrowness of capabilty.
People like Harper, Bush and Cheney are not by qualification "world leaders". They have ascended to pinicles of power through happenstance and a durth of alternatives. We are being led into "armmagedon" by a small group of wierdos who were not brought up with decent manners.

"The best lack all conviction,while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."
W.B. Yeats: The Second Coming 1920-21
Ken

Nothing learned!

I have been away for a while and am sorry to see that the Clueless One Does he live in Canada? "Liberals" and the obcesion with them is a Yanqui thing, not a Canuck one. We are not liberals - we are social democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists, syndicalists and populists. To be a "liberal" in Canada is to be a member of a center-right party.

oops

that should haver read "the Clueless One has learned nothing..."

Light blue

Imac: what colour are your eyes?
Danged if I don't see some "Passionate Intensity"
Ghad I should not post anything more here, but you have finally got my attention back

Question

Is pomposity a characteristic of religious apologists, or is it unrelated? Most of my extended family are Catholic believers and they are quite humble. Perhaps it's just an individual thing.

Yeah, thanx for the sarcasm

Yeah, thanx for the sarcasm Gwest...oops I mean 'Booker'.

Like I said: Nuance = Treason. Reviewing the historical facts hardly makes me a "religious apologist" as you insinuate. You liberal nihilists are just another brand of fundamentalist in my view. You and the hard-core evangelical fundamentalists totally deserve each other.

Attention David Beers

You see what I mean?
It is not me that starts this nonsense again, and again and again.

FYI

Definition of nihilist from Websters:

"A viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b: a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths".

Not positions that I hold. Perhaps you're thinking of someone else. [OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -TYEE EDITOR.]

I don't intend to pursue it,

I don't intend to pursue it, but I recall that Truman Green got your number the first time around, and now that I see the numbers in action again, I think he got it right the second time around too. Booker's Jesuit reference & the quote has always been a Gwest-ian calling card on these religion threads since way back. Ditto the reference to "humble Catholics" in the family. The other give-away is the tactics - you both try to pull the exact same fast-ones, deliberately miscontruing your opponent and then paraphrasing hyperbolic misconstructions of their arguments to act as straw men. Then when you're cornered you try a bit of low-brow appeal by labelling the arguments "pompous" and labelling any attempt to highlight the factual nuances as "apologetics". Same old, same old.

Gotcha ya big phoney - you gave yourself away.

Slow down

Whoa, nightbloom. I do agree with most of what G West writes, but we are not the same person, as I'm sure the Tyee could check, but then why should they indulge your latest delusion?

Other than that, I'm not going to respond your self-righteous rant.

booker

send me an email, anytime:

Rafe

And one thing ablout Rafe, he doesn't spell check when he's pissed off ... should have read "faithbased"

R

"faith based religions", eh?

"faith based religions", eh? Is there another kind...?

I'm not touchy at all. I just know sloppy history when I see it. You've regurgitated the same story over & over again to uphold a false line of argumentation. The Separation of Church and State is a fundamentally Christian precept that springs directly from the Gospels. Early Christians martyred themselves for that principle. And you also make false linkages. Hard-core American Evangelicals represent a radical break from the history you've glossed over - they're a modern phenomenon. George Bush isn't a Catholic, he's nominally a United Methodist, only one branch of which is considered "evangelical" in the sense we've been discussing. Again, we see this blanket, broad-brush refusal to make these distinctions - that same refusal exhibited by Dawkins and Hitchens, with whom you begin your article (Dawkins' book was totally inept btw - he's obviously totally unprepared and unqualified to engage his chosen subject matter in anything but an extended editorial polemic format. I can see why he appeals to you).

And so you also expect the Pope to peddle latex and abortions in Africa for you? Get real. It's not his job to export our disasterous Sexual Revolution to the developing world. Besides, I'm all for birth control and safer sex (I'll stop there), but I also know that "condom culture" is not the solution to HIV/AIDS (it hasn't been for gay men, it's become part of the problem), and certainly not the answer to Africa's problems. We can certainly disagree on that, but assigning exclusive and unqualified blame for African deaths on Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic faith is totally over the top. Religions have the right to express their viewpoint on these big issues. As I said, there's a lot of condoms being tossed into Africa right now. Is it really all about HIV/AIDS? I'm not so sure.

But let's get back to the rub:

You don't want to be governed by the religious people (if they're duly elected), or you don't want to be governed by their views? Ultimately, it amounts to the same difference. These constituencies are Canadian citizens too. If the woof and waff of electoral and party politics results in a few legitimate policy shifts that please their base of support, isn't that how democracy is supposed to work?

Quote:If the woof and waff

No.

Decisions are supposed to be based upon what's right, fair, and just, not what's popular with a special interest group. If anything, you've highlighted one of the biggest flaws in party politics.

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED.] Everyone

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -TYEE EDITOR.] Everyone has a different conception of what’s right, fair and just. So how do you moderate all the competing interests in an imperfect world? Are liberal nihilist conceptions of justice any more or less legitimate than moderate Christian conceptions of justice? The fact is that you have a lot of different constituencies in Canada that are participating in the political process. You can demonize your neighbours all you want, but in the final analysis you’ve got to meet them with better ideas and better organization. Attacking them in this way is useless, dishonest, and is merely an exercise in rabble-rousing (or as I prefer to call it: constituency consolidation, which seems to be The Tyee’s principal raison d’être). I disagree with politicized Christianity on either the left or the right (we have both), but that phenomenon can only be diffused through the free trade of ideas. You might not like them, but what they're doing is totally legitimate. You have to ask yourself why their policy proposals (which are not overtly religious, irrespective of Rafe's polemic) have so much appeal to the Canadian public.

Confusion

Well, I doubt that anyone's still reading this, but I have to make a comment anyway. There only seems to be one person here who doesn't get what we uppity atheists are saying:

When we criticize religious thinking we aren't saying that all religious people are bad.

When we criticize the Church we are not saying everything they do is bad.

When we criticize the Churche's policy on the distribution of condoms to help slow the spread of AIDS, we are not saying they are solely responsible for the spread of AIDS

When we say that religion is a cause of wars we aren't saying it's the sole cause of wars.

When we say that religion should be kept out of politics we aren't saying that the religious don't have a right to be involved in politics or to try to implement their religious positions; it is precisely this latter point that inspires me criticize religious thinking itself. They have a right to implement their faith, so I attack the faith, not their rights.

Now, how is that totalitarian? What is "fundamentalist" about that?

As to the "nihilist" label, that's just completely irrational [OFFENISIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -TYEE EDITOR.].

Booker, while I agree with

Booker, while I agree with your post above this in many ways I disagree that you or me or anybody else is necessarily an atheist. I believe in God in the fundalmental messages that are found in almost every faith out there. Be good to your family, community and self. What I don't believe in is organized religion. It breeds intolorance.They all preach that they are the only way to go.That somehow we/you/I are lessor beings if not party to that faith. In my reality its all just window dressings designed to "sell" it to the masses. I do not think that God judges you by the clothes you wear, the food you eat or the building(if any) theat you pray in. Ultimately I believe he judges you by how you treat the world around you. A good day to all.

Oops... that should be

Oops... that should be "...or the building(if any) that you pray in...."

Richard Dawkins

Mr. Dawkins is a molecular biologist who has great insight into the evolutionary processes that fuel the concept we call life. So if you believe that men were created by a designer then Dawkins will not stop your perceptions from indicating that is so. But if you believe something different than mainstream theology, perhaps that life is just a fluke of nature and peculiar to this planet, then Dawkins material provides a great wealth of concepts that never rely on "God" as an explation for reality. The fact that so many evangilist Christians are riding around on Mr Dawkins' back by attacking him with thier own interpretations is quite telling about how powerful his writings are. I have no idea how anyone would consider Dawkins as inept except to presume that person is very misinformed and probably got that idea from someone's blog, and not by actually reading anything written from Dawkins himself.

"Booker" - that's not what's

"Booker" - that's not what's being communicated. Not by a long-shot. Not here, not in Dawkins' screed (which Rafe references), and not in the 2-dimensional uni-directional criticism of Christianity and Western history and institutional development that has so saturated the liberal discourse. And that doesn't even begin to address what is passively insinuated by the simple act of omission. None of the caveats you belatedly express are ever conceded until someone pushes back hard.

Rafe hasn't responded to my request for clarification on what exactly he's proposing here. I'm totally unclear on that. It could be a simple expression of preference on his part, or it could be an argument for the exclusion of religious constituencies and the people they support from the political process. The latter has certainly been done before (Roman Catholics have faced legal restrictions to holding office in the U.K., Germany, and other countries in the not-so-distant past, as well as "unofficial" obstacles in the U.S. and some parts of Canada, not to mention outright persecution and harassment in the non-Western world).

As I said, you're bashing people and constituencies here to get a raw-raw out of your own constituencies and help rally the troops for the next Big Push. Stop bashing your neighbours and fellow Canadians and start trying to win them over with better policies and smarter ideas instead.

Religous parties and electoral success

Isn't the reason we've never had a religious party form a government (perhaps excepting Alberta in the 1930's) is that their ideas were found wanting by the majority?

Perhaps its time for those among us that look to the Bible for ideas pick up a new book. I mean come on, it was 2000 years ago, talk about your same-old, same-old.

No wonder the Cons like to keep the religious right quiet.

GWest = Booker?

As for Truman, not only does he believe that both my wife and I are actually GWest, he also believes that everything that's happened in the world since the Tonkin Gulf is part of a massive conspiracy that moves the world along as the US president of the day wants.

To Truman, "GWest" is just another conspiracy, where everyone who disagrees with him and can spell is part of it.

So by all means join with Truman and declare Booker to be GWest and climate change to be a hoax and 911 to be an "inside job".

If you think that's a issue

If you think that's a issue of Separation of Church and State, then you don't know what that Separation means. The media really pumped that one, but nothing actually changed. Bishops always had that discretion (and it remains at the individual discretion of the individual Bishops). Whoopty-do, ME2. It's the right of all religious organizations to determine their own criteria for membership. This isn't a Stalinist dictatorship (yet). Kerry chose to play the Catholic card to get votes, and enough Catholics called him on it to cause some publicity problems for him (and the Bishops). A lot of Catholics didn't agree with the politicization of the Eucharist (I did not), but them's the breaks. Public figures have to take that kind of heat.

The Separation of Church and State never meant the total elimination of religious faith or God from the public sphere, as the Culture Warriors on the nihilist left often fantasize. Not ever. It means that no one creed shall be held up as the official dogma of the state. That's a far cry from what Rafe and others are suggesting. Sometimes it seems that liberal secular humanists will never be happy until all society is acid-washed of any trace culture, personality, faith and difference, and we all become little nihilist android stepford wives.

So how about it, Rafe - what's your real point in dredging all this up again?

Try reading the headline, Nightbloom

"Harpers party too sure God is on its side"

Makes sense to me... just as I"m sure it makes sense to Rafe.

Tell me, is there anyone out there who condones $18 billion in military spending per year from a peaceful nation of 32 million, who is now, since Harper, conducting military exercises and missions as opposed to actual peace keeping?

There was a time, you know, when we sent peace keepers out there without guns... and it was effective! Passive presence from foreign countries in war torn area's has reasonance!!!! And we didn't lose anyone!!!

Until Harper, that is. Harper deems it necessary to risk life and take it with his stance on Afganistan, a war that was U.S. originated to begin with, and the fixation has been Iran all along. Gots to go where the money is...

Does anyone dare to think that the U.S. would lift a finger in another nation for anything other than money? In case anyone hasn't noticed, the U.S. has never entered a war for anything other than profit... and if the profit couldn't be made in the plunder, it was made in racking up debt to buy weapons made from U.S. corps where politicians get greased... one way or another. And their currency, thank God, is falling because of this latest warring spending spree. And God is on their side? God is on the side of greedy money grubbing politicians who make money from war mongering and ravaged environments that were supposed to substain life?

Really, God is on the side of war mongering, money grubbing Republicans/Conservatives?

I suppose 70 plus dead Canadian soldiers (not counting the friendly fire) is Gods will. Wrecking the environments for oil profits is Gods will. Introducing laws that make one guilty until proven innocent, infringing on civil rights... serving corporations that are wrecking this planet for profit only... this is all Gods will.

Its going to take more than brainwashed puritan "focus on the family" MP's to convince me that Harper's Republican agenda is "God's will".

Try reading the article,

Try reading the article, Brain

The writers don't choose the titles.

This isn't about whether God exists or not - this is about Rafe's article and the insinuation that lies at the heart of his argument: that religious minorities (or more precisely: Christian minorities) should somehow be circumscribed in their exercise of their civic enfranshisement and right to political participation. This wasn't a critique of policy, it was a not-so-veiled attack on these Canadian constituenies themselves, replete with ahistorical and counter-factual insinuations. It's a recurring theme in Rafe's contributions to The Tyee. In fact, he's turned into a bit of a broken record.

Frank, I've never been impressed with the way you suddenly materialize after long absences whenever Gwest gets himself into trouble. Ditto James Burns, Gwest's most loyal foil since Alcibiades' "departure". "Alcibiades" had that whole routine down to a 'T'. You don't fool me. If you want to make a contribution to the actual discussion using that handle, I couldn't care less, but don't insult my intelligence and that of the other participants here.

Attention: David Beers

Please note the above from M. Nightbloom, which deals with me.

G West has always been inordinately proud of almost all his postings - whether signed G West or Alcibiades.

All the details are provided here:
http://thetyee.ca/Views/Teacherdiaries/2007/02/27/BoyTrouble/

Which reference I have now posted at least a dozen times for the elucidation of anyone who might possibly still care - remote though that possibility is.

As I mentioned in my last email to you, I have undertaken not to discuss anything further with the gentlemen about this subject, but I did undertake to point out, to your attention, every instance of this behavior that comes to my attention.

I have written to you to ask you to communicate directly with M. Nightbloom to make him aware that his '2-dimensional uni-directional' monomania on this subject has worn extremely thin. It may trouble him that numerous individuals seem to share ideas similar to my own - but his constant refusal to drop this nonsense, after having been asked frequently and privately by you, is strange indeed.

More than this, I cannot do - the ball, as they say, is in M. Nightbloom's court.

In the alternative, if he should wish to communicate directly with me, my email is, as always, entirely available to him - or anyone else.

garthwest@hotmail.com

2000 years and intolerance still reigns

nightbloom,

Your assertion that separation of church and state is a "fundamentally Christian precept" is still lacking any evidence.

You've cited the Roman period before Constantine but as I've already pointed out this is irrelevant. What's more important is what Christian leaders thought of the idea of the separation of religion and politics after they were comfortably ensconced in the corridors of power themselves.

Whether we go back to the time prior to Martin Luther or way back to Charlemagne I don't find many leaders of the Church that say what you say they believed.

I don't find much evidence of tolerance either but that is beside the point.

As to your only reply to my earlier posts, your absences are even longer than mine, for whatever that is worth. And I see you're now claiming that anyone being gone for a week means they're GWest? Fascinating.

I've heard that when people find the world too complicated its natural to believe in conspiracy theories. If this forum is too complicated and its become necessary to believe everyone on it is really just one poster then fine, good luck with that.

Gwest, as I said: post under

Gwest, as I said: post under whatever handle you see fit, I couldn't care less, but don't take me a for a dummy. I simply don't believe you anymore. End of story. You can cry to the editors and every other schoolyard bully on these threads if you want to. Now please leave me alone.

Frank - read the history. Viewed from a certain light, the entire Western historical narrative is the drama of this principle (the Separation) playing itself out, winning some, losing some, and leaving its indelible mark on the development of our civic and religious institutions, as well as our broader culture. And yes, it does start with the Gospels ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"). That was the central question for religious minorities living under Roman rule and a regime which respected no such separation.

No one is addressing the actual thrust of Rafe's article. I submit to you that these Christian constituencies are exercising their democratic rights, the their candidates are duly elected, and that their policies are not overtly Christian in character and are in line with the secular nature of the Canadian state. It's all fair game. Rafe's piece is simply an exercise in prejudiced and mis-informed rabble-rousing in anticipation of the next election.

fair right and just

Well, Christianity seems to get by with ten basic rules. I'd suggest a simple application of the categorical imperative and a similar short list of proscribed behaviours and off we go.

Next?

"Treat your neighbour as

"Treat your neighbour as yourself"

Another radical Christian precept. We take it for granted now, but this was a pretty radical idea at the time.

Another radical Christian precept we now take for granted, to which we owe a massive debt, is the equality of the sexes before God. Christians formally rejected sex-segregated worship from the start. That was radically new, disturbing and anti-establishment at the time as well. Yet that's where gender equality in the West started - 2000 years ago with the birth of Christianity. Ironically, two world wars finished the job. Now it's only a matter of fine-tuning.

Notwithstanding the bloodiness of our history, it's important to ocassionally acknowledge the origins of some of the goodness in Western civilization, rather than always dredging up the shit and trashing the whole shebang for petty political purposes, which Rafe is doing here.

nightbloom

Viewed from a "certain light", perhaps. Or more pointedly, viewed from a particular perspective. In general the entire history of western civilization for the last 2000 years is not about the separation of church and state. That was no more than an idle dream for those opposed to Christianity for most of the last 2 millennia. The fact of the matter is that the church was part and parcel of the power structure for most of the last 2000 years and intervened constantly in the political process to further its own ends. If the church had been genuinely interested in not being political there never would have been a Holy Roman Empire nor a Papal States, for example.

It is no exaggeration to say that that statement is one of, if not the, most quoted passage in the bible. The statement has even been used to question even what Jesus' goals were etc. However, it is not the summation of the history anymore than me saying the concept of "divine right" is proof that the church ignored any idea of separation between church and state the moment it became the dominant religion. After all, the church wasn't above excommunicating "Ceasar" when the mood struck.

Is anyone arguing that? Of course Christians have the right to vote according to what they believe is in line with their religious beliefs.

Its just as fair for opponents to not want a Christian-inspired government that looks to a 2000 year old book for guidance on policy. I see nothing wrong with Rafe's piece when viewed in that context. People want governments that are human and flexible not ones that will brook no opposition when it comes down to basic human rights issues. And when they see modern Christians in the US and in parts of Canada thumping a bible while attacking a policy decision it sends shivers down the spine of anyone wanting policy decisions made based on available evidence and the result of a decent education.

Quote:Its just as fair for

That's not the message contained in the article. Besides, show me the evidence that this is so. Show me where in Budget 2007 or in Advantage Canada I can find a theocratic policy. Show me which proposal or initiative threatens the Separation of Church and State in Canada. Where's the Christian fundamentalism and biblical literalism? It's not there.

As I said, the article is one big hollow insinuation based on hot-air and an incredibly selective reading of history. It's characteristic of a cultural sociopathy that has emerged in mainstream society regarding Western society's own origins and points of reference. I'm not glorifying the history, I'm only resisting the one-sided vandalism and opportunistic exploitation of it for base political purposes.

nightbloom

Unfortunately there's no way to know unless and until the Conservatives win a majority government. The worry among the centrists who might be inclined to vote Conservative if the conditions were right is whether Harper has turned his back on those who supported him for good or just because he's in a minority. If he got his majority would he continue to ignore them on the basis of the old "where else can they go?" idea? Perhaps.

But history didn't start yesterday, we all know how Reform got started, we know who Preston's dad was, we know what Harper said in public statements before he got elected. ("The Brain" has that list available) None of those things are at issue. Its on the public record as are the statements of those who support Harper (such as our friend IAMC).

Yet, as I've said myself on here, I'm happy with some of what Harper has done with his minority. I'm certainly not happy about his child care policies etc but I feared the worst and it didn't happen. Part of that motivation on my part is perhaps my disgust with the Liberal party and I don't believe in voting Liberal to stop a party that on the surface, isn't any worse.

However, it really comes down to whether you believe the other shoe has yet to drop.

So let me put the question back on you nightbloom, what are your expectations of a Conservative government whose brain trust comes from the Christian Right?

And there's this too Frank

Oh I don’t know, I don’t think this:

(From the Advantage Canada bumpf online)

Jibes very well with this:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/09/harper-veil.html

You don’t actually have to work very hard to see that the current government is motivated by something other than tolerance and fair play. I’d say they’re fundamentalist to the core – and that’s exactly why they’ve been muzzled until pee wee gets a majority.

Rafe is dead on and anyone who has lived in Alberta and listened to a daily diet of this fundamentalist stuff on the radio there knows it.

[COMMENT OFFENSIVE TO ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -TYEE EDITOR.]

So you concede that the

So you concede that the premise of Rafe’s entire article is speculative and suggestive of a hypothetic reality for which no substantive proof exists. So why target Christian constituencies, when most of them vote liberal-left anyways? [Canadian Catholics most certainly do; I suspect a fair chunk of the Anglicans and Lutherans in Canada do too]. Why is it necessary to question their civic participation and trash what they hold dear at each and every opportunity?

[Re. Papal States – good example of what happens when Christian principles are suborned by the state and the mercantile classes. They were the result of a failure to adhere to Christian precepts, not because of them. Quantum distinction. You will recall that this anomaly emerged as a result of politically-motivated fraud and really took off under the Borgia Popes at a time when the Merchant Princes (pirates) of Italy effectively took over the Papacy, the Bishoprics, and the monasteries. The monastic system in particular suffered, as the favourite sons of wealthy families with no spiritual intentions whatsoever were made Abbots and Priors with the express purpose of using the monastic system to plunder and extort. It did great damage to Christianity. In fact, Western monasticism never fully recovered. One Augustinian monk was so exercised about it that he nailed his 95 theses to the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517….and the rest, as they say, is history].

nightbloom

Its speculative, its suggestive of a hypothetical reality sure. But that doesn't mean the new Conservative party with southern Alberta roots doesn't put the fear of God into people.

Now I often hear people speculating on how "scary" an NDP federal government would be. Yet, there is no basis for such a fear according to the same logic.

Regardless, people on the Right fear an NDP federal government in the same way that 2/3 of the population fear a Harper majority.

So I've been in the position you're in and its just not constructive to call people idiots and accuse them of fear mongering and having no basis for their beliefs. Better to talk to people and deal with the fears directly.

If it turns out that the Conservatives never get their majority in the same way that the NDP never has wouldn't you suggest that fear is as big a motivator as reality? Would you even go as far as Jeff Simpson and say that the people are always right and therefore fear of a Harper majority must be correct in the same way he dismisses the NDP?

I'm not trying to say that the close relationship between the ruling classes and the church in Italy happened to the same extent everywhere. It was just an example of church and state not being anywhere near separate. It was a situation where people of the same family were in both realms and like you say

Obviously it isn't the only example of a close relationship between the church and the political classes nor is it the only example of the church entering the realm of politics. Again, my only point was to counter yours that the "give unto Ceasar" quote proves Christianity has been a force for the separation of church and state.

The fact is the church hasn't really been out of politics for that long, even in Canada. And some of us kind of want the trend to continue.

Doesn't mean we can't respect Christians, I have a lot of time for many aspects of Christianity. (Nor am I one to believe that Jesus never existed at all)

But when the rubber hits the road I fear policy making influenced by an interpretation of the bible or by someone claiming a personal relationship with Jesus.

Quote:Whatever satisfaction

Rafe is misusing history to propose a contemporary program of unjustified exclusion, marginalization and (dare I say) persecution. It's pretty clear.

He uses the example of capital punishment, but Christians are overwhelmingly represented in the ranks of anti-capital punishment activism, with Roman Catholics leading the charge every time. Christians (especially Catholics) have also comprised the most vocal, mobilized and effective participants in the anti-war movement, including the Berrigan Brothers to Pope John Paul II's unequivocal (and very early) condemnation of the Iraq invasion. Christian Republicans formed the heart of the anti-slavery movement, citing chapter-&-verse to justify their opposition to a fundamentally evil institution. Is this kind of civic engagement and practical application of Christian precepts such a bad thing? Why do people like Rafe need to be reminded of these historical and present realities? Why not tell the whole story? Who's got the "secret agenda" here?

nightbloom

My apologies to Lincoln, I forgot that one when I mentioned the "running on the record" bit.

Not at all. People that happen to be Christians can do good works, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

Well, common sense is obviously involved. None of us think Rafe is railing against our church-going neighbour. We know the stereotype he's talking about. To you it may seem like he's painting all Christians as evil incarnate but we all know the difference between "regular church-going folk" and the bible-thumpers.

Again, I ask you, what are your expectations of a Conservative government whose brain trust comes from the Christian Right? Would you expect any policy shaped by a nod towards "family values" or "Christian values"?

Quote:We know the stereotype

Whoa! There's a whole lot of assumptions contained in that little paragraph. So you concede it's all about exploiting a stereotype for political points - i.e. a hyperbolic fictional representation that misrepresents the nature and intent of real Christians and lumps them all under one malicious cartoon representation (as Dawkins' more or less does). So in other words it's pure journalistic hucksterism on Rafe's part.

Can I really safely assume that anyone reading Rafe's Catholic-bashing makes those distinctions? Read again. Whatever his intent, he's cutting close to a very fine line. It's crystal clear that all believing Christians are being lumped into a single category, a category which (according to a critical reading of Rafe) should have its civic participation circumscribed, its churches targeted, and its members (of all creeds) subjected to public ridicule and condemnation....Oh but he respects "their" right to believe whatever "they" want. Thanx Rafe. Even I, as a fairly secularized Roman Catholic, am being held to account for everything from the Death Camps to the Thirty Year's War. That's a pretty tall order. Get real, guys.

Again, [COMMENT OFFENSIVE TO THE AUTHOR OF THIS STORY REMOVED. -TYEE EDITOR.] Rafe Mair should focus on the ideas and policies and stop attacking Canadian constituencies and religious minorities who may or may not vote his way.

"Billious windbag" is merely

"Billious windbag" is merely comically descriptive, and is not nearly as offensive as the stereotype the author is peddling. Gee, sorry I hurt your feelings Rafe. I guess your feelings count a lot more than the uncounted Christians you're maligning with your stereotypes, historical obfuscations, and anti-Catholic mongering.

nightbloom

Are you saying that you actually feel "outraged" by that? nightbloom, you do it all the time, you claim "the Left" is this or that almost every time an article gets you vexed enough to post. I think above you refer to us all as "nihlists" or something do you not?

Are you claiming that Rafe's article on why he would be very uncomfortable with the Conservatives in power (due to their relationship with the Christian Right) is an attack on Christians and that he wants churches targeted etc? Do you really believe that?

Your very similar attacks on the Left you always characterize as the truth and we're just defensive. And yet we don't have any "Crusades" or the "selling of indulgences" or "Holy Roman Empires or Papal States" in our closet.

Perhaps a re-reading of the Golden Rule is in order?

Again, I ask you, what are your expectations of a Conservative government whose brain trust comes from the Christian Right? Would you expect any policy shaped by a nod towards "family values" or "Christian values"?

Quote:The Catholic Church

This is a pretty evil statement, and totally untrue and invalid. To Catholics, "the Church" is the People. I dare him to say something similar about the Muslim Umma. Most Catholics would see this as hate-mongering. It's kinda like saying the Jews kill Christian babies, except this time it's Catholics killing black African babies. And Rafe's feelings are hurt?? Gimme a freakin' break.

There's a world of difference between the ongoing political critique and exchange of ideas between left & right over policy issues, culture, society, etc, and the broad-brush targeting of an entire religious community using stereotypes, historical distortions, misrepresentations, and outright demagoguery.

String it all together, and what Rafe is saying doesn't even make any sense. None of his historical points actually hold up, and none of the caveats put forward by his defenders on this thread are actually hinted at in the article itself. His line of argumentation isunreasonable, and (in my opinion) malicious.

He says he never said Catholics are literalists, but string it all together: Evangelicals weren't even around during the Thirty Year's War, so why even mix it all up together? He knows his readers won't know the difference, and he supplies us with his own tendentious reason why: "The Roman Catholic Church...having killed millions in the name of its particular Jesus..." So all the wars only had just one side? All the genocides had only one reason for happening (the Catholic Jesus)? Again, he knows his readers won't know the difference.

Ditto the point about biblical literalism - he knows Catholics aren't literalists, but look how everything is thrown into the pot with George Bush, the fundies and all the other stinkers.

Rafe is being a big clumsy bullying mean-spirited disaster of a journalist in this instance. These things have to be done right, and that means nuance, balance, historical verity, some measure of generosity all 'round, and an honest approach to the subject matter. In this instance, Rafe is totally lacking all of these. After what he's written, I simply can't take him at face value anymore.

nightbloom

Where did this come from?

Terry Glavin's pieces, and in many cases yours, are broad brush attacks on the things the Left have either not condemned or not condemned enough or whatever. You guys go on about how pretty much every evil thing in the world, whether it be in Iran or Burma or wherever, is the fault of Canadian NDP supporters.

There is usually no exchange of ideas, its simply a condemnation of "the Left" and anyone who argues back is an idiot apologist or something.

I think you're getting way too defensive on this religion thing. Relax, having someone complain about the Conservatives and their Christian supporters is not the end of the world.

Then you shouldn't read him. I don't read Terry Glavin or CanWest papers any more for the same reason.

Anyway, one more time just for the hell of it, what are your expectations of a Conservative government whose brain trust comes from the Christian Right? Would you expect any policy shaped by a nod towards "family values" or "Christian values"?

I'm not a journalist and

I'm not a journalist and political hack with a far-reaching platform who is targeting vulnerable religious minorities and falsifying history for partisan political gain.

My critique stands on its own merits - Rafe's doesn't. I've spent the last 10 feet of discussion thread explaining why.

I think I've pretty much said my peace. Read the history and think for yourselves. There's always more to our history than meets the eye. Don't be suckered in by carpetbaggers, demagogues and fraudulent journalists. There's a whole world of bad out there, but there's also a lot of good. It just takes more work & brains than ever before to see it.

Just when you think it's dead

This thread got a second wind today. Some great comments by Frank.

"nightbloom" continues with his propaganda, and writes

I never said any of the the things you said I did. You use exactly the same tactics that you claim your opponents use -- exaggeration, partial-truths, and revisionist history. And throw in a nutty attack on G West for good measure.

I think the Catholic Church hierarchy should be called on the carpet for it's policy on condoms and contraception, especially since the policy is based on what they think some imaginary being wants. Some Catholic bishops are indeed complaining about the policy, but it hasn't changed. That's criminal, and that should pointed out to them loudly. But you seem constitutionally incapable of admitting that the Catholic Church has any flaws whatsoever. Both the Catholic and the Protestant churches have bloody and tragic histories. So do other religions, of course. And yes, many horrors in history are not about religion -- none of your hated bestselling atheists say otherwise.

I'd still like to challenge you on the "nihilist" label you toss at us, but you don't seem to want to answer that. Perhaps discussing that issue would force you to admit that morality is independent of religion.

nightbloom

Christians are a vulnerable minority in Canada? Look, its your ox being gored, you're defensive on this issue and that's understandable.

No it doesn't, its simply chanting "the Left is to blame". There are no actual arguments, its just statements of belief where challenges are dismissed as beneath contempt. Again, methinks a re-reading of the Golden Rule is in order.

You really should read that Walrus article. Rafe's argument stands up pretty well. Doesn't mean you have to agree with the Walrus and I realize you are apt to dismiss all criticism of Christians in politics as if it was an outrageous personal attack and on a par with Holocaust denial but give it a go anyway.

Gwest/Booker/Frank/et

Gwest/Booker/Frank/et alia:

Humanae Vitae (a teaching, not a dogma, and therefore subject to the individual Catholic's autonomous exercise of conscience), is certainly open to debate (as it has been within the Church ever since it was promulgated). Or the Koran's directive to Muslim men to beat their wives (debatable at least for non-Muslims, since to Muslims this is the actual Word of Allah himself), or the Jewish directive to mutilate their sons' genitals.

All these points are rationally debatable, and there are smart & proper ways to go about that which engages all sides constructively. That's not what Rafe is doing here. He's fomenting hatred of a religious minority for partisan political purposes.

where's the hate speech?

I challenge you to point out where Mr. Mair foments hatred towards religious minorities in this article.

I've spent the entire thread

I've spent the entire thread doing so. Wake up Stump. His whole article is one mendacious insinuation and falsification after another, using stereotypes, untruths, collective guilt, conspiracy theory and slander, and there's no mistaking who his chosen villains are. Show me the theocratic policies; show me the Catholics killing black African babies; show me these Canadian Christian constituencies who are such an imminent threat to the Separation of Church and State in Canada that they must be condemned and circumscribed; show me the mythic Evangelical Albertans who somehow elected Conservatives in Quebec and the Maritimes. Show me, show me, show me.

He's written a dumb-ass hit-job of an article that does nothing to enhance political debate in Canada.

Outta here.

Wake up?

You must be kidding. Whether the article is good or bad... it's certainly not what you've inferred it is based upon your beliefs and the insecurities that surround them.

It would take a miracle for you to find hate speech in that article. Better get praying. Or, better yet, provide some specific examples.

You don't find that bit about condoms

You don't find the bit about condoms pretty incredible?

This bit:

To which Benedict clearly ascribes and which, in my opinion, is far more offensive than anything Rafe wrote above us here.

In the face of the growing AIDS crisis in Africa to call not using condoms anything but a murderous, selfish and nihilistic act would be...quite frankly, incredible.

Rafe didn't engage the

Rafe didn't engage the condom debate at all - he simply pronounced an a priori conclusion that Roman Catholics are responsible for some sort of genocide in Africa. Period. And what that and the Thirty Years' War has to do with the Harper Conservatives I'll never know.

All I can say at this point is that if this is a taste of the kind of retrograde Kulturkampf tactics the liberal-left is going to employ in the coming election, then it's going to be a nasty, nasty campaign that's going to artificially polarize the discourse and alienate a lot of would-be supporters. Keep this big journalistic clutz away from the subject matter - he's a liability. Stop attacking Canadian constituencies and religious minorities, and stay focused on the ideas and the policies.

Rafe didn't engage the

Rafe didn't engage the condom debate at all - he simply pronounced an a priori conclusion that Roman Catholics are responsible for some sort of genocide in Africa. Period. And what that and the Thirty Years' War has to do with the Harper Conservatives I'll never know.

All I can say at this point is that if this is a taste of the kind of retrograde Kulturkampf tactics the liberal-left is going to employ in the coming election, then it's going to be a nasty, nasty campaign that's going to artificially polarize the discourse and alienate a lot of would-be supporters. Keep this big journalistic clutz away from the subject matter - he's a liability. Stop attacking Canadian constituencies and religious minorities, and stay focused on the ideas and the policies.

issues and policies

Fair enough. I think religion should have no more weight in policy issues than astrology.

Rafe doesn't - Rafe thinks

Rafe doesn't - Rafe thinks it should be a criteria for exclusion, condemnation and civic disenfranshisement.

No , nightbloom, that's simply untrue

This is what Rafe wrote on the subject:

He addressed the condom issue directly. You prefer to ignore that, which is your prerogative, but to suggest that you are the only one who deals in ideas and policies and doesn't engage in mindless name calling like this:

Is in real danger of some kind of profound intellectual disconnect. Why can you not see that your own words are far more descriptive of the methodology you decry than are the words of the object of your ire?

I can't imagine why the liberal left, whatever that is, would care for any support from a constituency that is blind to the inconsistencies in its philosophy and the realities of life on the ground anyway.

WOW

No real desire on my side to debate what was never said NB. I thought you wanted to discuss the issue. I gave you a gi-normous opportunity to do just that... and you're still picking nits after you avowed to want a substantive discussion on the issue rather than the article or author (or so I thought).

Persecution

"nightbloom" wrote:

1. Exclusion: at no point does Rafe call for exclusion of Christians from politics. After all, he still goes to the Anglican Church himself.

2. Condemnation: When they're being idiots, damn right. Tough. Hell, you are well acquainted with dishing out condemnation.

3. Disenfranchisement: Get real. Neither Rafe nor anyone else calling for such a ludicrous, and unconstitutional thing.

May I remind you that Christians are a large majority still in this country, not a persecuted minority. It seems though, that to you criticism is synonymous with persecution.

May I also remind you that if Rafe has a "political agenda", it is not likely to be the same as your hated leftist "nihilists", he having been a cabinet member of the small "c" conservative Social Credit government (a government not known for it's antipathy toward the Christian majority).

1. Oh, yes he does. 2.

1. Oh, yes he does.

2. What about when the neo-liberal secular humanist nihilistst fundamentalists indulge their own bigotry...? And why such an ultra-broad brush? Catholics and Evangelicals are apples and oranges. So anyone who doesn't endorse free condoms, crack pipes, and heroine is the enemy now?? You haven't been listening, Booker/Gwest. Or maybe you have, but you want your Tyee premium anyways. Truman was sooooooo right.

3. Not overtly at least, but the insinuation is there in black & white. He's covered himself. But we all got the nudge and the wink.

No he doesn't

1. He expresses a personal opinion, nothing more, saying :
I don't want government by people who, in order to get political support, must pander to the religious right.

Which is precisely what Stephen Harper has done and is doing – ref. changes to the Elections Act - something I mentioned a few days ago – which has now come to pass. Pee wee, reveling in the euphoria the Liberal collapse has engendered, is fairly breathless now at the opportunity to demonstrate to his fundie base exactly what kind of ‘prime minister’ he will be when elected.

Rafe is no more calling for 'exclusion' than someone who says ‘I don't want an NDP government because the NDP are all socialists’ - it's simply an opinion. I hope a lot of Christians, including sensible Catholics agree with Rafe. His statement isn't, on balance, very much different from what John Kennedy said when he was campaigning for election in 1960.

2. Is nonsense - much of what the Christian fundamentalist fringe (among them some Catholics) believes IS loony and not to point it out is as dangerous as it was to ignore the Fascists in the 1930s.

3. Baloney. See 1 above: It's an opinion - and you're the one lighting your hair on fire about it, not Rafe Mair.

You're the only one who's imagining a nudge, or a wink.

Hey, Nightbloom

I support with every fibre of my being the right of people to hold whatever religious views they wish -- I simply don't want to be governed by them. - Rafe

Rafe's quote... the headline... it pretty much says the same thing.

:-)

What is dogma?

You wrote above, Nightbloom:

Humanae Vitae (a teaching, not a dogma, and therefore subject to the individual Catholic's autonomous exercise of conscience), is certainly open to debate (as it has been within the Church ever since it was promulgated).

You need need some touching up on your catechism, Nightbloom. Humanum Vitae is a Papal Encyclical, and when when one is issued, it is held to be ex cathedra, inffallible teaching direct from God, and becomes unchallengeable dogma for RC adherents. The quote below is from the Catholic Ebcyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.)

It will be interesting to see you try to suirm out of this one : - )

Bullshit, ME2. You're wrong

Bullshit, ME2. You're wrong on all counts (Encyclicals, Infallibility, teachings versus core dogma, etc.).

Again, we see this chronic misrepresentation of Christianity and Roman Catholicism in particular. I'm not promoting anything here, but let's get the history and the facts straight. What you're claiming is a gross distortion of the facts.

Humanae Vitae is a teaching, and in rigorous Catholic fashion the right the dissent from it was ennunciated by its critics within the Church from the very start. And it's been the focus of rigorous debate within the Church ever since.

You're totally smokin' your own dope on the subject of Paper Infallibility. It's a modern (1870) innovation instituted by the ultramontanists of the day that has only been used twice. Ever. The whole notion was opposed by Catholic intellectuals at the time (notably Lord Acton, but there were many others), and the current Pope has been critical of it in his writings. That's why it's never used. Having said that, it doesn't function in the sense you insinuate. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra ("from the bishop's chair") it means the Pope and the Magisterium (i.e. all the bishops). It's a bit like when the Consititution refers to the "Governor General-in-Council" when it really means the Prime Minister and entire cabinet. Papal infallibility does not, and was never intended to mean that every casual utterance, writing or speech of the Pontiff contains pronouncements of divine revelation.

Once again: facts, please. Enough fiction.

Totally irrelevant aside:

Totally irrelevant aside: The gay press in Canada just declared the gay marriage campaign a big waste of time, after tying everyone in knots over the issue, labelling all dissenters "bigots', and brow-beating civil society into politically correct submission:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=1&STORY_ID=3758&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=7

Oh well.

You're right about one thing

That is a totally irrelevant aside. Nice to know the gay press is as stupid and inconsistent as the non-gay press from time to time..however, this is only your interpretation
; if it was an important issue to me, I think I'd want to read the actual words myself. I have some difficulty with your analysis of other writings - perhaps anyone who is interested should check for themselves just exactly who is saying what about the subject.

Have a nice day in Ottawa.

I do appreciate that you've finally backed down - or at least your silence on the issue appears to indicate that - on the main thesis you presented above.

Namely that Rafe Mair is calling for some kind of fatwa on Christians.

Impressive

That's quite a spew "nightbloom". Would you care to inform us how one can be a "neo-liberal" and a "secular humanist" and a "fundamentalist" and a "nihilist" at the same time? Did you know that those terms actually have definitions, or have you created new ones?

Anyway, I commend you on your vigourous exposition of the "Christians are persecuted" meme.

I'm off to fight the War on Christmas.

Oh and by the way Booker

Humane Vitae is MOST CERTAINLY an encyclical.

And if clearly specifies the church's policy on procreation and sexual relations:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

As for nightbloom's interpretation of the Magisterium and the Catholic understanding of 'conscience', I fear he's wrong on that file too.

There is one very tiny bit of wiggle room for the intellectually perverse:

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

This requires, of course, an entirely absurd definition of the word 'cure' since the reason, in Africa, to use condoms is clearly preventative. There is little doubt that those Catholic services who are provicing condoms for their patients and families in Africa and still consider themselves observant are relying on this interpretation. Churchmen have always been good at dancing on the heads of pins, haven't they?

As to n/bloom's other objection

The bit about infallibility - I'll say a quick word about that too. I always thought he had been a Carleton student but this kind of nit-picking could really only come out of Université Saint-Paul.

Humanae vitae is not infallible by an ex cathedra definition. However, in every other sense it is theologically infallibilis ex ordinario magisterio, irrevocabilis, irrefomabilis and it is substantially unchangeable.

You are right to say Humanae vitae is a definitive teaching. It absolutely condemns contraception as intrinsically evil in the most unequivocal terms. The authority of the ordinary magisterium is a constant witness to the dogma, the law and the pastoral message of the Church, including the current Pope and his predessors in union and agreement with the bishops. Humanae vitae is a solemn teaching-except to dissidents; dissidents who are, on the basis of the Bishop of Rome’s apostolic authority, by at least some definition, already OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.

Carry on.