High morals (rant)

I don't have high morals, I don't automatically know right from wrong... I have to think about it. I don't get my morals from some book. More importantly, I don't tell others what their morals should be.

The golden rule tells us to 'treat others as one would like others to treat oneself'.

This article is about child abuse. I'm not an expert; I've never suffered it, I've never inflicted it, and I'm really not interested in it... But, when Spanish Cardinals and Bishops speak about child abuse, it's something to respond to.

If we apply the golden rule to child abuse, it seems clear to me that it's wrong. I would not have liked to suffer it, and I guess most people would agree with me on that.

Some Spanish Catholic Church leaders have another take on child abuse. One Bishop says (2007) that some children want to be abused. One Cardinal says (2009) 'abortion is worse than child abuse'. Update: One Mexican archbishop (2013) says 'abortion is worse than child abuse'!

Let me take on the Cardinal first (the article mentions a very similar reaction by the Spanish health secretary).

The bible, hardly mentions abortion at all, but Jesus, apparently, did mention something about children. Matthew 18:6 "
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Without looking at the bible, child abuse is illegal and prosecuted by the law, while abortion is legal and practised openly.

Abortion - isn't mentioned in the bible, is legal.
Child abuse - is condemned in the bible by Jesus, is illegal.

How is 'abortion worse than child abuse'?

The Bishop, apparently, thinks that adults can interpret the feelings of the child correctly. The law says otherwise.

Now all of that is old news, but the Catholic Church has been actively helping child molesters. Which is the main focus of this rant.

The fact that a priest abuses of a child, is bad enough. But he (all Catholic priests are male), is just a human being and the temptations of the flesh are the temptations of the flesh. He should be prosecuted and sent to jail.

When the Catholic Church helps these perverts, it's something completely different. It's a 2.000 year old organisation (respected by some) that establishes mechanisms to protect their priests from prosecution, allowing the paedophiles to keep on hurting children!

The worst of all is that the Bishop and the Cardinal can say these things in Spain, without (legal) consequences.

The thing about high morals is that some people take the moral high ground and dictate what is right and wrong based on some iron age book. In the meantime, they do whatever they want because they didn't even read their own iron age book. A book that condemns shaving and endorses slavery.

Update: neither of these fine males deny the fact that priests have raped children... they are justifying the actions of their colleagues!

But let's end this rant.

Comments

  1. Unknown26 March 2014 at 13:30

    So if some individual has a predisposition to sexual deviancy and views it as normal, because he or she has had no moral upbringing. Would it then be right or wrong for that individual to impose their sexual behaviour on others, because it is something they like to do? ["treat others as one would like others to treat oneself"] The Golden rule?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elholandesdelacasa26 March 2014 at 18:43

    Wrong.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Kalam Cosmological Fallacies

I didn't think I would need to continue writing about atheism, but circumstances force me. Noblesse oblige, and all that shite. In other words, I ran into somebody who thinks you can prove god logically... in the twenty-first century, using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Well, let's rip that one apart, shall we? I'll focus on the formal logic here. Others have more practical objections to Kalam. The form of the argument is as follows. Premise A: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise B: The universe began to exist. Conclusion C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. If premises A & B are true, conclusion C must be true. While it can be argued that premise A may not be true, let's just accept this argument. “The universe has a cause” So far, so good, nobody got hurt in this exercise? Now, Kalam makes magic happen... [see the update below] Let's do a “non-sequitur” logical fallacy “therefore cause of the univer...
Read more

Fallacies 'R Us

Image
After debating with religious people on Twitter for a number of months (mostly Christians, some Muslims and a few... stray bullets), I thought to myself that all arguments for gods are based on flawed logic. A short convo confirmed that, indeed, my fellow atheists on Twitter believe the same. This is a short list with the most common logical fallacies I've encountered. This post will be updated to incorporate new fallacies when they present themselves. The Fallacy Fallacy Warning: Using flawed logic doesn't mean that your conclusion is necessarily wrong, it just means that you cannot base your conclusion on that logic. Let's think about an example to clarify this. Suppose you are going to visit your family, and they ask you at what time you'll arrive. You take into account the inevitable traffic jam and estimate an hour. Then, you step into your car and lo and behold, there is no traffic jam... but you get a flat tire. You arrive at the estimat...
Read more

Guts

I've had a long convo with -a person who wants to remain anonymous-, a former Young Earth Creationist (YEC) about evolution (and religion, and abiogenesis, and morality...). This convo is ongoing with the exact same result; -S- returning to her default position of denial (of evolution) and affirmation (of creation). The latest development is that -S- is now a believer of Intelligent Design (ID); her beliefs have evolved (changed over time). She's not a Christian any more. I'm not sure if she's gone from YEC to Old Earth Creationism. It seems nearly impossible to convince -S- that evolution is possible, probable and, in fact, a scientific fact. Still, one can only try :-) and try, and try, and try again. The thing is that -S- needs to look at evolution from a different angle because she has been bombarded with creationist' propaganda that she chooses to believe over the biologists' evidence. How can you convince someone who believes the ea...
Read more