Canada declares war on Catholicism

[Proteus_MST]

As I assume this fits into this thread topic (don´t want to open another one for this) and touches the subject of the catholic church and free speech and RCC vs. secular society...what about this case? (maybe Ben can enlighten us about it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/07/keep-sanal-edamaruku-out-of-jail/

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html

To sum it up:
Sanal is an indian free rationalist, who has a habit to try to find rational answers for things that are perceived as divine miracles.
Well, his last action was, to depose (on TV) the weeping cross in an indian catholic church as mere water leaking from a water pipe.
Well, instead of being true seekers of enlightenment (as we all would expect) and being thankful for helping them distinguishing real divine wonders from fake ones, the catholic church wasn´t too happy about it and demanded that Sanal should retract his statements and apologize.
When he didn´t bow to these demands, the catholic church invoked a paragraph within the indian penalty code regarding blasphemy, accusing him of blasphemy and hurting religious feelings, while certain catholic groups put pressure on the local authorities, to issue a warrant of arrest.

[Ben Kenobi]

Women actually just come up to you and say things like, sex feels better to me when I don't use contraceptives?

It's come up in the discussions on contraception over the years.

I don't believe it

Then don't believe it all you like. What, I have to get affirmation from Rah, who we all know hates me and would never say anything kind to me ever.

So what other misconceptions about my life would you like to get off your chest?

[Ben Kenobi]

See, rah, this is the sort of thing I get for being an outspoken proponent of the Church - I get all kinds of questions just like what proteus did here.

As I assume this fits into this thread topic (don´t want to open another one for this) and touches the subject of the catholic church and free speech and RCC vs. secular society...what about this case? (maybe Ben can enlighten us about it):

Couple things here. One, this is India, the Catholic church in India is around 1 percent or so. That law on the books, is generally used against Christians who try to convert people to their faith, and away from Hinduism, etc. It wasn't the Catholics who put that law into place. Strange the folks running the shrine would use that law for this purpose. They aren't going to get relief from it, I'd be very, very surprised if they did. This is why the skeptic isn't in a Hindu shrine. Even skeptics are pragmatists.

Two, Our Lady of Velankanni, I don't believe is one of the approved apparations of Mary, (along with Our Lady of Guadaloupe, Lourdes, Fatima, etc.) There's only 9 of them worldwide and Velankanni is not one of them. So yes, it's possible that the apparation is not real, and no Catholic is required to believe that it is true. So if he's exposed the apparition as a fake, then he has done the Church a service.

Three, no one is required to believe in any of the apparitions. There are teachings that are required, but this is not one of them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can Roman Catholic schools teach anti-semitism? Isn't there a passsage somewhere that states that all Jews are damned?

Absolutely not. This has came up in our school before, I had some questions asking this in class. I spend a fair amount of time going over the Jewish people and who they are and where they come from. We talk about Romans, which discusses the whole point about ingrafted branches. God is a God of the Jews, not the Gentiles, etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

To answer more fully the question that everyone finds creepy.

You asked me what *exactly* my question was, and I answered honestly. If it bothers you, don't answer it. Simple as that.

Its impossible to say and I think for your friends its much the same.

Speak for yourself only, Flubber, not for my friends whom you have never met and never spoken to. They had very strong opinions on the matter. They conveyed their opinions on the matter quite forcefully. That left a pretty large impression on me, coming from the horses mouth so to speak. Just because you aren't comfortable talking about it doesn't mean that they were uncomfortable.

B Pregnancy sex is some of the best . Its probably not allowed for Catholics in the Benaverse since once she is already pregnant there can be no conception but man I think its hormonal or something but wowsers

Umm, there's a lot you assume about the Catholic church that isn't true. This is one of them. If this were wrong, then why is NFP permitted?

Thank you for your honest answer. I am sorry you found the question uncomfortable, but you did ask what precisely my question was, so I thought it best to ask honestly.

[Ben Kenobi]

That still says nothing about the quality of the sex. She could be an abused wife complying to avoid a beating for all I know

She's quite happy with the quality, and no, she's very much in love with her husband. He's very good to her and the kids.

[Ben Kenobi]

Words cannot describe the breadth of your ignorance.

If the genetic argument for homosexuality rests on a study with Little bo peep and her 10 sheep, then the evidence is extremely flimsy.

[Ben Kenobi]

The morning after pill doesn't terminate a pregnancy.

Only if you define 'pregnancy' as implantation and not conception. The MAP hardens the endometrium. Rather than preventing contraception, the MAP does nothing to prevent contraception. It's an abortifacient.

[Ming]

If the argument for sex is better for women that don't us contraceptives rests on a few discussion you claim to have had with women , then the evidence is extremely flimsy.

FIXED

[giblets]

Only if you define 'pregnancy' as implantation and not conception. The MAP hardens the endometrium. Rather than preventing contraception, the MAP does nothing to prevent contraception. It's an abortifacient.

I don't think you even bothered to read the link I provided. The entire argument it made was that the description of the morning-after pill you provided is not supported by the scientific evidence.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think you even bothered to read the link I provided. The entire argument it made was that the description of the morning-after pill you provided is not supported by the scientific evidence.

We've had this argument before.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_confirm_abortifacient_potential_of_morningafter_pill/

The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother.

The promoters of the drug in Latin America, where most countries have laws against abortion, have argued that the there is no scientific basis for the “third effect,” and that therefore the drug should be legalized. Dr. Horacio Croxatto, professor at the Chilean Institute of Reproductive Medicine, said in 2006 that the morning-after pill “is not abortifacient because it only prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation.”

Nevertheless, the most recent study (2007) by Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the pill’s “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.

Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, the study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.

So there you have it. And that's the way we saw the world today.

[giblets]

By 2007, scientific consensus was building that morning-after pills did not block implantation. In one study using fertilized eggs that would have been discarded from fertility clinics, Dr. Gemzell-Danielsson found that adding Plan B in a dish did not prevent them from attaching to cells that line the uterus.

Later, in 2007, 2009 and 2010, researchers in Australia and Chile gave Plan B to women after determining with hormone tests which women had ovulated and which had not.

None who took the drug before ovulation became pregnant, underscoring how Plan B delays ovulation. Women who had ovulated became pregnant at the same rate as if they had taken no drug at all. In those cases, there were no difficulties with implantation, said one of the researchers, Gabriela Noé, at the Instituto Chileno de Medicina Reproductiva in Santiago. Dr. Blithe of the N.I.H., said, “No one can say that it works to inhibit implantation based on these data.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=3

Just keep denying reality

[Ben Kenobi]

Just keep denying reality

Take it up with:

Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany).

Scientific consensus does not say what you believe it says. Far from it. Seems the study you cited did everything except test on actual ovulating women. Odd that.

[giblets]

Seems the study you cited did everything except test on actual ovulating women. Odd that.

Women who had ovulated became pregnant at the same rate as if they had taken no drug at all.

I shouldn't waste my time arguing with an illiterate. Sorry, but the studies I cited actually looked at the direct effects of the pill instead of saying "well it works a majority of the time so it must be causing abortions".

[Ben Kenobi]

I shouldn't waste my time arguing with an illiterate. Sorry, but the studies I cited actually looked at the direct effects of the pill instead of saying "well it works a majority of the time so it must be causing abortions".

So you concede that the scientific 'consensus' that you claimed existed, does not in fact exist. Thanks Gribbler!