"We're coming for you, vicar..."

Message boards : Politics : "We're coming for you, vicar..."
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18996
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1637305 - Posted: 4 Feb 2015, 10:46:03 UTC
Last modified: 4 Feb 2015, 10:47:09 UTC

Scientists pledge to increase interference with the Church

UK Church groups have recently been criticised for campaigning against the legalisation of mitochondrial donation. As their efforts failed, a group of emboldened scientists has vowed to turn the tables and interfere with matters of religion


The Catholic Church and Church of England have recently been urging MPs to vote against the introduction of mitochondrial donation, a potentially life-saving procedure with little to no evidence of any serious risks. However, despite many years of study and several regulations, the aforementioned churches have surprisingly decided to intervene and urge MPs to vote against approving the procedure.

This has lead to much criticism, especially from scientists. However, following the eventual failure of these efforts, one group of emboldened scientists has decided to go further and pledge to respond in kind by interfering as much as possible with religious matters.


Some of the objections raised by the Church have come under particular scrutiny from FFS, such as the accusation that mitochondrial donation will result in “three-parent families”.

“Even if that was true, which is isn’t, at no point has it ever been explained why this is an especially bad thing,” Dr Briss pointed out. “Seriously though; why is a three-parent family such a negative? Is it in the Bible? Wasn’t Jesus himself the result of a three-parent family? Or did I get the wrong idea there? I don’t see how you can tell people that two parents is the only thing permissible while insisting they call God “our father”, but maybe it’s just me”.
ID: 1637305 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 18996
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1637350 - Posted: 4 Feb 2015, 13:25:31 UTC - in response to Message 1637306.  

It's reported in the Grauniad .....

Yawnnnnn

From someone who posts links to the Mail, I will treat your comment with contempt it deserves.

Links to other sites, would not work for most because they require subscription.
ID: 1637350 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1637353 - Posted: 4 Feb 2015, 13:32:28 UTC
Last modified: 4 Feb 2015, 13:35:54 UTC

Whats wrong with the Guardian? As far as British newspapers go, its one of the better ones, even if you take their leftish bias into account.

The article itself should not have been written or published though, not by any newspaper. It basically comes down to 'bunch of scientists make snarky comments about religion'. Why is that news?n The snark isn't even good snark, its just the standard overused Dawkins 'look how silly religion is' rhetoric.
ID: 1637353 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1637654 - Posted: 5 Feb 2015, 9:05:01 UTC - in response to Message 1637498.  

The article itself should not have been written or published though, not by any newspaper.

What's wrong with questioning primitive superstitions? If you claim that any god exists, tell the bugger to report to me instantly in person for a public, controlled miracle making test.

By itself, nothing. But this wasn't 'questioning primitive superstitions'. This was just a group of scientist making a bunch of snarky comments about religion. They werent even good comments, these were of the level I usually encounter in internet forums, being shouted by Dawkins adepts.

If the title of that article was 'scientists make lame observations about religion' it would have covered the content of that article. Its not something that should be covered by national newspapers.
ID: 1637654 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1637667 - Posted: 5 Feb 2015, 9:58:07 UTC - in response to Message 1637665.  

Its not something that should be covered by national newspapers.

So you think your opinions form an authority about what should or should not be covered in the free press in a civilised country?

The term newspaper implies you cover news. That wasn't news. That was a select group of peoples opinion laden with sarcasm masquerading as news.

Also, I'm not saying they aren't allowed to cover such things. They are. I'm just saying that it was a trash article, and I deplore the fact that such a trash article was published by an otherwise quality (which means it has certain standards) newspaper.

You are of course wrong. But I try to explain this in your way then. Look, it is written, that mocking is exactly the proper method here:

My way? I don't think you know me well enough if you assume that is 'my way'.
ID: 1637667 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1637763 - Posted: 5 Feb 2015, 15:28:25 UTC - in response to Message 1637701.  

The term newspaper implies you cover news.

Wrong of course, again.

‘Newspaper, publication usually issued daily, weekly, or at other regular times that provides news, views, features, and other information of public interest and that often carries advertising. — —’

http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/413113/newspaper

One can’t say I didn’t try. No avail. Sometimes it is so.

Hmm, I should have looked closer, its under brainflap. Damn website layout. I retract my criticism.

Still think its trash, but good to know the Guardian thinks its trash as well.
ID: 1637763 · Report as offensive
Profile celttooth
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 99
Posts: 26503
Credit: 28,583,098
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1637840 - Posted: 5 Feb 2015, 18:33:29 UTC

Priests are just another example of people
refusing to think for themselves.


ID: 1637840 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Politics : "We're coming for you, vicar..."


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.