Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

If the Vatican is against Obama he must be on the right track.

  1. Jan 24, 2009 #1

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7849600.stm

    Speaking of those in power being arrogant, I think maybe the Vatican ought to look at their own agenda through the lens of those in poverty or afflicted with aids, instead of the gold gilded windows of the Vatican?

    The list of what they have been against - Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin - just may be putting Obama on the right side of history.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 24, 2009 #2
    Hmm. Very Reganesk. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
     
  4. Jan 24, 2009 #3

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    As an example of Vatican grace see:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14751-vatican-says-it-does-not-owe-darwin-an-apology.html
     
  5. Jan 24, 2009 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is that a complete list, really? Or are you just cherry-picking things to manufacture a particular viewpoint being used in a flawed argument? (And I don't think these examples were ad hominem things as you suggest)
     
  6. Jan 24, 2009 #5

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I've nothing against the Catholic Church per se. And that really isn't my point. They are neither friend nor foe to me in any absolute sense. But at a certain point it just seems to me their meddling in secular affairs - like reproductive rights - given their own resume - should be a little more restrained.
     
  7. Jan 24, 2009 #6

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Sure they've spoken out about the Holocaust too, but that does rather cut across the breadth all human experience.
     
  8. Jan 24, 2009 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Cherry-picking, got it.

    "Thou shall not kill" is one of the ten commandments. :tongue: Given the premise that a fetus is a human life -- which the Catholic Church appears to adopt -- this is very much an affair in which they should be 'meddling'.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2009
  9. Jan 24, 2009 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As is (approx):

    Thou shall work for only six days in the week and keep the Sabbath on the seventh day.

    Isn't it time the Vatican started getting involved in labor laws?
     
  10. Jan 24, 2009 #9

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm going to assume from the form of your reply that you are implying the argument:
    The third commandment says something about labor. The Catholic Church doesn't meddle in labor laws. Therefore, it is invalid to argue that the sixth commandment justifies the Catholic Church meddling in laws about the killing of human life.​
    (If this isn't what you meant to say, then it's your own fault for not stating it yourself. :tongue:)

    Aside from the fact your argument is formally invalid1, it's based on a false premise2, and a strawman3.

    1: Other responses might be that the Church is content with current labor laws, or maybe that it should be meddling more
    2: The Catholic Church does have things to say about labor laws, e.g. here
    3: The Catholic Church's actual position regarding the Sabbath can be seen here
     
  11. Jan 24, 2009 #10

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Since abortion is not generally accepted by everyone as murder, I'd say their proselytizing on the subject outside their faith, by employing such ad hominem rhetoric against Obama as calling him arrogant is unwarranted, and might ipso facto be seen as arrogance on their part.

    Given their stances against the march of science, their choice of drawing the line even non-intuitively at prohibiting contraception, suggests to me that their dogma and attempts to project infallibility have been more important than the realities and the opportunities presented to humanity by science.
     
  12. Jan 24, 2009 #11
    Sure. If on-the-job-training means anything, they should obstain from comments on wives, husbands, children, girlfriends, lovers, familes, live-ins--just about anything other than coworkers and friends... On the otherhand they claim to be interpreting other authority.

    What does 'right' mean?
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2009
  13. Jan 24, 2009 #12

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hurkyl, while one of the ten commandments claims that "thou shalt not kill," the catholic bible also claims that anyone who labors on the sabbath should be put to death. The church itself doesn't appear to be able to uphold the "designs" of god. Appears as if they are the ones "cherry-picking."
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2009
  14. Jan 24, 2009 #13

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Allow me to refer you to my previous post in this very thread, where I responded to Gokul43201 implying the very same argument.
     
  15. Jan 24, 2009 #14

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Right as used in say "reproductive rights" is founded in secular Law. I'm not suggesting charging it with the property that it is necessarily ethical within all faith. Just that it is a choice that secular society grants to those that would bear children. Hence in my mind not open to repeal by The Church.

    My objection to their statements is that they would cast it in terms of the arrogance of others, as opposed to say appealing in a more positive way to secular leaders to consider their position on the issue. Whatever money the Obama administration frees up is, after all, not the Vatican's to decide about.
     
  16. Jan 24, 2009 #15

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    (Exodus 31:15) - "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death."

    My argument is this: The Vatican does not promote that individuals put another to death for working on the Sabbath regardless of any complaints regarding labor. Though they may complain about labor laws, they do not go to the extreme presented in Exodus - which is seemingly contradictory to the commandment "thou shalt not kill." As they cannot remain consistent within their own system of beliefs, which uses the bible as justification, why should an argument regarding religious scripture be given credibility?
     
  17. Jan 24, 2009 #16

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why not hear their actual statements, before objecting? The BBC article has only picked out a couple quotations from the entire interview. It's not even asserted that these statements were made in an official capacity!

    jgens: again, I refer you to my previous post, including the footnotes.
     
  18. Jan 24, 2009 #17

    lurflurf

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Rember to the catholic church
    suffering=good
     
  19. Jan 24, 2009 #18

    LowlyPion

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Oh come now. There is sufficient context:
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090124/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_obama_2

    I'd say he would be like the Vatican Secretary for Anti-Abortion Affairs.
     
  20. Jan 24, 2009 #19

    jgens

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Having read your second footnote regarding the Vatican's views regarding labor laws, I find nothing that addresses the excerpt from Exodus that I posted; hence, am I to conclude that the Catholic Church does not promote the slaughter of Sunday laborers? (a contradiction of what they should believe as prescribed by the Catholic bible) Or perhaps I missed something?

    Regardless of my arguments formality, why grant credibility to an organization which cannot consistently apply the "rules" set down by its system of justification?
     
  21. Jan 24, 2009 #20

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What about the third footnote, citing their position on the Sabbath?

    As far as I can tell, the topic in this thread was never about credibility.

    (Also, note that it isn't a discussion about the veracity of the Catholic faith, nor a debate about whether abortion should be legal / moral / whatever)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: If the Vatican is against Obama he must be on the right track.
  1. For or against? (Replies: 34)

  2. Obama in India (Replies: 9)

Loading...