Fetuses are people. Unless it costs the church money

[fr0d0]

Don't lawyers have to play in the legal arena? I bet it would be highly amusing to see lawyers arguing theology in court. All they can do is use the law conscientiously.

The guy missed the operation, he didn't refuse to do it. The family sued for bad practice: for the hospital not covering for him.

The story lead doesn't address the case details. The defense aren't arguing that the hospital didn't save a life that they were committed by their own ethos to do.

If the hospital made no defense for the late surgeon, they would be doing him a disservice. Justice would not be done.

[popeyespappy]

Typical Catholic bullshit.

[Gabriel Syme]

Words like "reportedly", "apparently", "seemed to", etc should be a dead giveaway to people.

Not true. The media have to use those terms to stay on the right side of cell bars nowadays.

Is too true.

The reason they would be behind cell bars is because its illegal to defame people / organisations by telling lies about them in the press.

---

Did you know that even when the practically find the blood on the murderer's hands, they still say that the killer allegedly did something until the court case officially decides that?

Hi Darkstar,

Yes - and that is exactly the point I am making.

When something cannot be stated as a fact - either because its not true, or because its uncertain - qualifying words such as "allegedly" have to be used.

So, when people see the media using qualifying words like "allegedly" in news reports, they should be able to recognise that the news report is not reporting established facts.

You made the point so much more succinctly than I, thank you.

Cheers
GS

[Darkstar]

Did you know that even when the practically find the blood on the murderer's hands, they still say that the killer allegedly did something until the court case officially decides that?

Hi Darkstar,

Yes - and that is exactly the point I am making.

When something cannot be stated as a fact - either because its not true, or because its uncertain - qualifying words such as "allegedly" have to be used.

So, when people see the media using qualifying words like "allegedly" in news reports, they should be able to recognise that the news report is not reporting established facts.

Yeah, because the bible is an established fa- ...must...resist...urge.
*Darkstar resists urge*
Yes, they are not reporting things that have been officially proven, but you missed my point. I was saying that even if they caught someone in the act, it would not be "proven". Even if there is a 99.9% chance they are correct, they will say "alleged" or "reported" to avoid liability, so:

Is too true.

The reason they would be behind cell bars is because its illegal to defame people / organisations by telling lies about them in the press.

Ironically you are actually proving my point.

[Gabriel Syme]

I agree that the news media, particularly the less reputable tabloids, can often be criticised for sensationalising a story to shift papers, or printing misleading information to the same end.

Good show stimbo!

This is, of course, not limited to reporting on religion, or any one topic, but can be seen across the spectrum of news. And I would include the liberal media as some of the worst offenders, as well as the tabloid media.

However, words like "reportedly", "apparently", "seemed to", etc, while they may be a "dead giveaway", they also don't automatically equate to outright lying. Or rather, if you are of the opinion that such reportage is less than honest or accurate, yours is the onus of presenting evidence to support the claim.

I absolutely agree.

The qualifier words are only a give away that the information which a news report contains is not established fact, they do not necessarily indicate the presence of lies.

You are right to say that it doesn't automatically equate to lying. Usually by presenting selective facts and alluding to conclusions (leading the reader on, like a donkey lol) is sufficient to achieve the goal of the article.

What the sections of media aim to achieve is a constant drip-drip feed of stories of Catholicism which - by reporting only partial facts, or by presenting facts in a distorted or very selective way (as in this story) -
regularly reinforce a vague but negative impression of Catholicism, such that individuals are more likely to be influenced by the media, celebrity culture, advertising, popular culture, political parties, activists and the like.

[I would not for one minute deny that at times Catholicism deserves negative press articles; the Church is not above criticism and news in recent years about failings to deal properly with abuse in catholic institutions is a good example of deserved criticism.

However its fair to say that the Church rarely receives a fair crack of the whip, in terms of popular media analysis of its stances and activities]

I am quite literally astounded at times by what people will willingly swallow from the media.

Cheers

[Darkstar]

I am quite literally astounded at times by what people will willingly swallow from the media.

Especially Fox News. But then I got used to it, and now I just laugh. (Well, I laugh at Fox, but occasioally the fact that some people actually believe they are "fair and balanced" gives me pause...and then more laughing.)

[Cyberman]

The reason they would be behind cell bars is because its illegal to defame people / organisations by telling lies about them in the press.

A situation which would only arise if the press were guilty of publishing lies. Yes I know it rhymes, please don't spoil it - I wrote it sitting on the Anyway, that's where the courts come into the picture. Just ask Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye.

[Darkstar]

The reason they would be behind cell bars is because its illegal to defame people / organisations by telling lies about them in the press.

A situation which would only arise if the press were guilty of publishing lies. Yes I know it rhymes, please don't spoil it - I wrote it sitting on the Anyway, that's where the courts come into the picture. Just ask Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye.

But Fox News lies all the time...or are they kept out of jail so we can continue to laugh at them? Or do they just put a "fair and balanced" spin on the story?

---

Obvious contradiction is obvious.

---

[Cyberman]

Fox 'news', like all Murdoch rackets, is a law unto itself. Shitloads of money and a total disregard for morality'll do that.

[Gabriel Syme]

Yeah, because the bible is an established fa- ...must...resist...urge.
*Darkstar resists urge*

Hi again,

I don't mind if you regard the bible as a load of rubbish, or a bunch of myths, or whatever - you are entitled to your opinion, I would never claim otherwise!

Without taking the thread too much off topic, the Catholic view of the bible is:

Old Testament
-The Jewish Torah, the original covenant of God with humanity.

-Some of it is historical, other parts allegorical, other parts are clearly to do with contemporary Jewish culture (purity laws etc) and so can seem nonsensical to people in the 21st century. Note that, as a Catholic Christian, in 2013, my faith does not require me to follow ancient jewish purity laws regarding shellfish or whatever.

-Given it is an ancient document, its language is at times brutal and uncivilised compared with our 2st century standards. (I rationalise this by accepting that, if you want to get a message across, it has to be pitched in a way the target audience will understand. And this audience lived in ancient, relatively primitive and barbaric times.).

- The main importance of the Old Testament for Christians is that its writings, over 1,000 years, predict the coming of Jesus Christ.

- Some Christians (a tiny, negligible minority) - usually American or African Protestants - believe the Bible is 100% literal fact, such that they believe (for example) the garden of eden was real, or that we should enthusiastically stone people to death for things. This is obviously a nonsense and only serves to discredit Christianity.

New Testament
- The life and times of Jesus Christ. The new covenant of God with humanity.

- Very important as obviously JCs teachings and example are central to the Christian faith

- The life and martyrdom of Jesus Christ fulfilled the original covenant of God with humanity, such that the new convenant - his teachings of love and compassion - supercede the harsh "stone the bastards" morality of the old testament.

- There is no credible doubt in mainstream academia as to the historicity of the figure of Jesus Christ, (but of course his existence as a man does not automatically mean the remarkable claims associated with him are genuine).

you missed my point. Even if there is a 99.9% chance they are correct, they will say "alleged" or "reported" to avoid liability, so:

Yes - they will also use those words if they know they are wrong!

We are in full agreement as far as I can see!

---

Well, nice talking to you guys. But it is late here and I am off to bed.

Hope to chat again sometime.

Btw - sometimes some of my separate posts (eg to two separate posters) merge into one - why/how does this happen? (no big deal tho)

Goodnight!
GS