🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <73om1i$gob@enews1.newsguy.com>,
   Roger Williams <rogerw@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>Also spracht Melissa <Melissa9Z@Zmho.net>:
>
>> In article <F327DK.n02@world.std.com>, pciszek@otherworld.std.com wrote:
>
>> >That the RCC does a certain amount of tangible good for the poor, sick,
>> >orphaned, etc. can be shown.  I have yet to see any evidence that the
>> >RCC's most vocal critics do anything.
>
>> Doing tangible good for a population they encourage to breed beyond the
>> means  to support it, has a net negative effect. 
>
>   Oh, I see now. So your implication here exactly is what?

That by "doing good for the poor" and at the same time encouraging even more 
poor through overpopulation, the net effect is negative.

>   1) By encouraging poor people not to use birth control or have
>      abortions, the Roman Catholic Church is encouraging (or as been
>      hinted at in this thread, *profiting from*) the misery of
>      multitudes of poor people?

I don't know about "profiting from" but they aren't doing the world any good by 
encouraging overpopulation. 

>   2) The Roman Catholic Church may put it's money where it's mouth is
>      regarding helping the sick and poor, but since they encourage
>      breeding amongst those darn poor people, they're encouraging a
>      cycle of misery?

Yes. They're perpetuating a cycle of misery.

>   3) The Roman Catholic Church bears more responsibility for the
>      reproductive habits of it's adherents than, say, other large
>      religions that encourage having a lot of children (Orthodox
>      Judaism, Islam)?

In the case where they keep encouraging people to do things like that, yes.

>> It's like if you had a
>> sister who was  married and had one child, yet was on poverty. 
>
>   "On poverty"? Do you mean, "on welfare", perhaps?

I meant "in poverty". I have a head cold.

>> So you
>> said you'd give her $100  a month for food, but told her; "Go ahead!
>> Have more children!" The net effect  is EVEN MORE people in poverty who
>> can't possibly be supported.
>
>   In some belief systems, there's a thing called free will where this
>hypothetical sister could choose not to have sex (imagine that for a
>moment),

Oh yeah, right, preaching abstinence works, especially in a patriarchy where 
it's an insult not to give the husband what he wants. That's why Catholic 
population has been declining instead of steadily increasing, I suppose. No?

> or would insist that only married couples have children (and put
>whatever children they couldn't care for up for adoption where they could
>be taken care of). 

Oh, I'm sure there are lots of mothers who dig putting their excess children up 
for adoption.

>Did it ever occur to you that just maybe, perhaps,
>things are not quite as cut and dried as you imagine them to be?

Did it ever occur to you that just maybe, perhaps, you're acting as an 
apologist for a theocracy?


That's my opinion  - Melissa

"It's not easy being cute." - The Warner Brothers' sister Dot.

To email me, remove the spam proofing capital letters on each side of the @
in my email address.