I think, therefore I am not (Catholic)

I can never understand the zealots of the Catholic Church.

Ad  hominems, hasty generalization, association fallacies, red herrings, blaming, playing the victim, twist words and statements, and quoting scripture and playing the infallible faith card among others. Once they start losing a logical argument, they use one of those "strategies".

No need for explanations, just use a logical fallacy. It would be nice if it was only the ignorant masses do this. What's sad is, from the highest position in the land (Archbishop) to the lay leaders, this technique is well used.

What I hate most however, is the thought (or lack of) they put into their replies. You come up with a highly thought out, highly researched topic and all they come up with for a reply is "My god/pope/priest/bishop said so!!!" or "You're attacking my faith!!!" (take note the amount of exclamation points)

Before I learned that there are other ways to look at things, I was a Catholic. The moment I started to think differently and define my own self, I became less and less of a Catholic.

All I want is a sensible argument that leads to the creation of new knowledge and realizations, from those of the Catholic faith.

I will never rejoin your faith, and at the rate I'm going, I'll probably never understand it as well.

But is it really impossible to mix thinking and being Catholic? Are the smart sage-like priests already extinct in this country? Can their followers be more like Christ?

So many questions, and they still won't answer me properly.

On Kit Tatad and Federico D. Pascual Jr's stance on the RH Bill

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=64&articleId=723549

From what I've read, it's either a) He has not read the latest version of the bill b) blindy refuses the bill because it's labelled RH b) He does not approve because the church say so.

I agree with one point though, RH should not be dicated by foreign pressure, we should have this for ourselves.

Birthrate and overpopulation: Yes, we're not over populated, but some areas are already saturated. And the saturation will keep getting worst until a) we do something to prevent further growth or b) we relocate others from saturated areas. Good luck on trying to relocate people.

Availability of contraception/sterilization: Yes they are available, but only to those who have money, and those who know about them. Part of RH Bill is about information, availability to those who are a bit unfortunate should only come as second.

Birth Control: The government can't punish us for having unprotected sex and it cannot force us to practice birth control, it does not say that in the bill, that would be unconstitutional, inhumane, and incredibly awkward.

On Child bearing: Actually, it can, and it should protect or prevent child bearing. Some parents have too many kids and can't take care of more of them, to prevent another child from joining the family is to promote the existing children's right to a good life. Now, which is more important? The actual, living, breathing children, or an imaginary child that has not been concieved yet.

Dropping the bill: Yes, please, do that by all means. Just make sure you have an alternative to protecting women and children's rights to good lives.

To those against Population control: Please watch Soylent Green. I agree that we are far from overpopulation but that does not mean we should be complacent. Prevention is better that cure. I don't want my descendants suffering because their resources are dwindling to quickly.

You may also want to visit slums and try living with the families there. An RH bill is not only for the present, it is for the future.

The country's resources are like a piece of pie. The more the people who share the pie, the less your share becomes. I don't want my descendants becoming hungry because everyone's share of the pie is reduced to a small crumb.