I found an awesome article for teh lawls, in it, the Archbishop of Westminster has a few rather funny points which I shall discuss laud eviscerate below. First, though, is something the author, one Jonathan Wynne-Jones, which strikes me as funny:
Archbishop Nichols is a rare Church leader, equally comfortable talking about the transcendental as the trivial.
This assumes the transcendental isn’t trivial; which could be argued as, since it isn’t part of what we know, then how can we know anything about it? But I digress, he states:
It seems no coincidence then that the pub has declined as an institution at a time when he believes individualism and greed have risen. He fears this is undermining communities and eroding “the common good”, which Pope Benedict XVI referred to in his recent encyclical, warning that its loss would have grave consequences for humanity.
Individuality and competition are bad for humanity? I’m pretty sure that’s part of what makes us human to begin with. How can individuality undermine the community when it’s ALWAYS existed in every part of the world? What does he mean by individuality? How can he possibly think being who you want to be is a bad thing? I would like nothing more than to work in a research institution learning about the way molecules interact within the body, both our own and those of other animals. I’m pretty sure that’s in the interest of society. It is, nevertheless, what I want. He goes on to talk about assisting suicide and euthanasia as if he’s a fucking expert on social psychology:
Assisted suicide seriously weakens the fabric of mutual responsibility within society,
It does so because the person thinks of themselves as an isolated individual or unit, and that their decisions have minimal impact on everybody else.
It does. The death of one individual will, at most, affect ten to twenty other people for a year or two and one or two people for the rest of their lives in most cases. Some socialites will have a much broader scope than this, but those are few and also not at high risk for wanting to commit suicide.
It leads to the idea that people who require a lot of care ought to be moved even further off of the scene.
How does it do that? How does assisting suicide allow for the step to euthanasia? I fail to follow your logic (or lack thereof) here.
Once the principle is that a human life is disposable by age or illness,
Usually, age or illness is what kills people in the first place; that or violence.
then it won’t be the sick person who is making the decision, it will be somebody else who makes it for them.
Depends, is the person who is sick capable of making decisions? If not, then one would expect a close family member to make those decisions. Do they teach “using logical fallacies 101” at the seminary you attended? Next he talks about abortion; something I’ve talked about a few times.
I would hope that we as a society could reflect on some of the enormous damage that’s been done through easy access to abortions,
Easy access? You mean those abortion clinics that are periodically bombed? You mean access to those doctors that are targets for murder? Easy access? By that definition, I have easy access to the highest security military bases on the planet. Yea, I might die in the process, but I can just walk right on in there before I get killed.
particularly on women who are pressurised to have them and carry the consequence of their action for the rest of their lives
Consequences? What consequences? The ability to finish high school or college? The ability to live without an additional child? The ability to go about their lives without the burden of a child? What consequences?
I would dearly hope that the lessons of that corrosion of the protection for the young born is not now repeated in a corrosion of the protection of the elderly
First of all, how would it? These are two very different subjects. One involves an embryo or fetus without any social bonds or cognitive ability and the other involves an individual who IS part of society, IS capable of cognition, IS capable of communication (in most cases). To equate the two is ridiculous.
For a long time, it’s been the finding of research…
…that the breakdown of the family is a huge contributor to social cost.
How? What type of “breakdown of the family.” How, exactly, are families breaking down? Do they need gas (petrol) or maybe the pH of the rain is changing causing it to degrade. What do you mean by that?
I think it would be good if policy-makers could think of ways that they could support the family: give tax breaks and more incentive to people to marry and stay together.
Excuse me, Mr. Celibacy, money won’t keep people who dislike each other together. That’s just not how relationships work. Then he says:
the pragmatic evidence is there that children fare best, grow best, and then eventually contribute most positively to society when they enjoy that stability in childhood
What about deliberately childless couples? What about children that live in hostile houses? Who fares better; the child growing up in a hostile environment or the child growing up with unmarried parents? What about children growing up in a stable household with unmarried parents who remain together?
We want to slow down the rush towards irrevocable decisions, to help people to pause and to ponder a bit more deeply. It’s still perfectly clear that a divorce is a trauma that takes a great deal of getting over
Yea, it is a trauma, but so is catching your significant other with your best friend or having frequent arguments with someone you live with or being verbally abused or….
There’s a worry that excessive use or an almost exclusive use of text and emails means that, as a society, we’re losing some of the social skills needed for building a community.
Wait, excuse me, interacting socially via text based communication (like books, e-mail, etc) means we lose social skills? Wouldn’t we, instead, have to know more about the person to pick up on nuances of dialog which typically go unnoticed? What was normally done by mail or fax is now done by e-mail. What was once done by phone call is now done by video calls. What social skills are lost by use of electronic means of communication rather than watching television or playing video games?
Too much exclusive use of electronic information dehumanises what is a very, very important part of community life and living together.
That’s my final point, he doesn’t explain ANY of his assertions, he just makes them and leaves it up to us to interpret what he was saying; this means that biases come into effect to make us jump up and say “I AGREE” when, in reality, you agree with what YOU thought he said, he didn’t say anything specific, just like a horoscope.