[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-February-14, 13:35, said:

But none of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute, they're all subject to interpretation and compromise for public welfare. Freedom of speech doesn't protect libel, misleading advertising, incitement to violence, "shouting 'fire' when there's no fire", etc. And freedom of religion must be weighed against public policy -- you can't invoke the "eye for an eye" quote from the Bible to get away with revenge violence.

If we believe that maintaining public health is a duty of the state, then we have to decide whether this trumps religious freedom where they conflict.

And here we have one of the fundamental problems in discussing "rights". First we have to establish some basic agreements, and I don't think we (everybody here, not just you and I, Barry) agree on much in this area.

Some questions:

1. What is a "right"?
2. From where do rights come?
3. If rights are "given" to us, presumably they can be taken away. Who can do that?
4. Are rights an individual thing, or do collectives have rights as well?
5. If collectives have rights, do they have rights that individuals don't have? Why or why not?
6. What are these "collective only" rights?
7. What is the moral basis for suggesting that a group ("The State", "the public") has the right to constrain individual rights?
8. Do all groups have such rights, or only some?
9. How do you tell the difference?

I think we have to come up with a theory of rights that doesn't put one group's, or one person's rights at risk just because some other group or person wants something or wants to do something.

[phil_20686]

BunnyGo, on 2012-February-14, 15:31, said:

Based on your last statement, it sounds like if you gave me money to buy my insurance and my insurance covered contraception, this would be ok. Is the fungibility of the situation that disturbing to Catholics? If the answer is yes (which I'm not in a position to dispute), then why does Obama's change to "the insurance companies pay for the contraception, not the employer" not resolve it?

The other question I have (again, my knowledge of Catholic law is more than many Jews having spent lots of time in discussion with Jesuit priests, but it's not my specialty) is do Catholics think it's wrong for Hindus or Jews or others to break Catholic law? I know in Judaism we have a very few rules (basically, don't kill don't steal) for non-Jews to be considered righteous and heaven worthy. We don't think others should keep the sabbath, keep kosher, or most of the other 613 commandments. In fact, we keep non-Jews around on the sabbath just so that they can turn lights on for us. The question being, we wouldn't object to paying for a non-Jew breaking a Jewish law, but it sounds like Catholics would, is this correct?

So the sticking point is what is called "material cooperation". I am allowed to tolerate someone else's sin, but not to "materially aid or cooperate" in it. So if I pay for contraception coverage, and they use it, I am material co-operating in it. If I provide them money for an unrelated service, like an employee relationship, and then they choose to spend it on contraception, I have not materially aided them. At any rate, paying them is materially good/fair/just, and refusing to pay them on the off chance they might spend it on contraception is obviously disproportionate, and material cooperation is sometimes ok if it falls under the principle of double effect. Like if I provide morphine to a doctor and he uses it to kill his patients, I am ok provided I thought he was using it for pain relief. If I knew he was planning to kill his patients I would have committed a sin. . I am trying to think of a good definition of material aid, but its one of those annoyingly obvious things that are hard to define. I know it when I see it . I honestly can not think how to define it in a concise way.

Regarding your other question : I am unclear what you mean by "catholic law", canon law, as such, applies only to priests and other religious orders. If you mean the civil statues the catholic church recommends in a general sense. Then yes, for these are all things which cause clear and material evils. If you mean, those behaviours, like lying, adultery, suicide etc which are sinful but should not necessarily be illegal, then the catholic church believes its still sinful if you are a non catholic, but your guilt can be less if you do not fully appreciate the sinfulness of your actions at the time. There are also obligations laid specifically on Catholics following baptism and confirmation, which are non-binding on non Catholics, while we still beleive it would be better for a non-catholic to do these things, they are not binding in the sense that failing to do them is not an occasion of sin. These include: failing to attend Sunday mass, failing to attend confession at least once a year, giving scandal (i.e. publicly dissenting from church teaching, either by word or action - this can be grounds for excommunication, a serious sanction used only rarely, and only against people whose sins are public as a rule).

[barmar]

mike777, on 2012-February-14, 15:25, said:

It goes a bit further than this. Not only the best way but what if any limits should there be when it comes to govt regulations and mandates.

In this case, assuming the govt has the legal right to force private companies to make birth control free, and lets assume lots of people like free medicine, should the govt force private companies to make free any medicine?

If the answer is yes the govt can force private companies to do it then why stop at birth control?

They don't. Obamacare already mandates that they provide health insurance. They're just quibbling over the details of what has to be included in the coverage. It's just that the RCC isn't bothered that they're also required to provide free heart surgery, prenatal exams, mental health treatment, etc.

BTW, churches were already exempt from the requirement before the compromise. The issue was with church-affiliated organizations, such as hospitals.

[BunnyGo]

phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 16:15, said:

So the sticking point is what is called "material cooperation". I am allowed to tolerate someone else's sin, but not to "materially aid or cooperate" in it. So if I pay for contraception coverage, and they use it, I am material co-operating in it. If I provide them money for an unrelated service, like an employee relationship, and then they choose to spend it on contraception, I have not materially aided them. At any rate, paying them is materially good/fair/just, and refusing to pay them on the off chance they might spend it on contraception is obviously disproportionate, and material cooperation is sometimes ok if it falls under the principle of double effect. Like if I provide morphine to a doctor and he uses it to kill his patients, I am ok provided I thought he was using it for pain relief. If I knew he was planning to kill his patients I would have committed a sin. . I am trying to think of a good definition of material aid, but its one of those annoyingly obvious things that are hard to define. I know it when I see it . I honestly can not think how to define it in a concise way.

Regarding your other question : I am unclear what you mean by "catholic law", canon law, as such, applies only to priests and other religious orders. If you mean the civil statues the catholic church recommends in a general sense. Then yes, for these are all things which cause clear and material evils. If you mean, those behaviours, like lying, adultery, suicide etc which are sinful but should not necessarily be illegal, then the catholic church believes its still sinful if you are a non catholic, but your guilt can be less if you do not fully appreciate the sinfulness of your actions at the time. There are also obligations laid specifically on Catholics following baptism and confirmation, which are non-binding on non Catholics, while we still beleive it would be better for a non-catholic to do these things, they are not binding in the sense that failing to do them is not an occasion of sin. These include: failing to attend Sunday mass, failing to attend confession at least once a year, giving scandal (i.e. publicly dissenting from church teaching, either by word or action - this can be grounds for excommunication, a serious sanction used only rarely, and only against people whose sins are public as a rule).

And paying for my medical care (which covers lots of things) is good, but if there's the possibility of me using said medical care to get contraception, that's too close? This seems to be just as close to me as paying a salary that I use to buy condoms (as it's all just fungible anyways).

As for the second part, yes I meant dogma, and "good" vs "sinful" actions. Judaism is a legal religion (there are beliefs, but if you think of everything in legal terms that's pretty close to what judaism has been for the last 2000 years), so I'm just used to phrasing everything in that manner. So you answered my question about what the church believes my obligations as a non-catholic are to not sin in the eyes of the church.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The whole purpose of freedom of religion is to protect the fact that people do not agree

I would say this is not quite accurate - the purpose of freedom of religion is to prevent a single religious viewpoint being mandated by the government.

[Winstonm]

Quote

It is for this very reason that the federal dollars argument of hrothgar is spurious: If you refuse to give federal dollars to a group for no other reason than its religious affiliation, which is basically what you are suggesting, then the federal government would be engaged in discrimination

Sorry, but this is a sideways looks with eyes closed and nose held tight. No one is refusing to give federal dollars to a group - it is only being said that if these federal dollars are to be used, then federal rules must be followed.

What you are suggesting is a religion's right to federal money and then to use it to disciminate against anyone not upholding the religious belief system.

It really gets down to separating church and state. Want to be a church? Fine, don't take federal money. Want federal money? Fine, then don't act as if you are a church.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-14, 16:06, said:

And here we have one of the fundamental problems in discussing "rights". First we have to establish some basic agreements, and I don't think we (everybody here, not just you and I, Barry) agree on much in this area.

Some questions:

1. What is a "right"?
2. From where do rights come?
3. If rights are "given" to us, presumably they can be taken away. Who can do that?
4. Are rights an individual thing, or do collectives have rights as well?
5. If collectives have rights, do they have rights that individuals don't have? Why or why not?
6. What are these "collective only" rights?
7. What is the moral basis for suggesting that a group ("The State", "the public") has the right to constrain individual rights?
8. Do all groups have such rights, or only some?
9. How do you tell the difference?

I think we have to come up with a theory of rights that doesn't put one group's, or one person's rights at risk just because some other group or person wants something or wants to do something.

It always seems to me that anyone who claims that we have any 'rights' that are independent of the society in which we live is ignorant of basic realities and basic history.

Yes, there are some gloriously written documents and impassioned speeches declaring that we all have certain rights, inalienable or otherwise, but saying it doesn't make it so.

We have 'rights' only to the extent that the ruling elite in our society are prepared to recognize those rights.

Take the US, for example. It has a wonderful constitution, especially once it was amended to recognize that a black person was actually a real person, equal to a white. It got better when it was amended to reflect that a female was a real person as well.

But the founders, who recognized 'inalienable' rights, didn't recognize them for slaves or for women. If the US was founded as the land of the free, it was a somewhat narrow definition of 'free'.

So: if it is now recognized that a woman has an intrinsic 'right' to vote, why wasn't this obvious to the founding fathers?

If a person has a 'right' not to be a slave, why wasn't this in the original constitution or Bill of Rights?

Were these rights hidden at the time? If they come from a 'god', why did it take so long for these rights to be revealed, and why are so many of the rights that we, in the west, perceive to be 'inalienable' considered to be perversions in so much of the world....see the muslim nations, and see how the untouchables are still treated in Hindi India despite legislative reform?

Rights evolve from the societies in which they exist. They are not inalienable. Heck....read the Orwellian Patriot Act to see how readily a 'free' society can be conned into surrendering its rights by the fiat of the ruling elite.

It also seems to me to be a peculiarly american conceit that rights have power yet obligations do not. In most nations, citizens are seen and see themselves as being in a relationship with their neighbours and with their society as a whole that involves not only a recognition by their neighbours and society of their individual rights but also, and critically, their oligations to their neighbours and their society.

Different societies seem to give rise to different balancing between these factors. Japan seems, for example, to be a society where obligations are viewed as powerful. North Korea is apparently one where individual rights are close to non-existent for the average citizen. The US, at least for the wealthy in the US and, to a lesser degree, the shrinking middle class, seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum.

But it seems foolish, as well as either naive or wilfully ignorant, to speak of any particular human as having a 'right' to anything independent of society.

So in an attempt to answer your questions:

1.a 'right' is a recognition by our society of our freedom to act in a certain manner
2. rights come from society. They represent the current state of thinking/feeling within society, altho their formal recognition or observance may be delayed by the inertia of the body politic
3. society can do it. In a modern democracy, this involves decision making by the organs of state rule....be that the legislature, the executive or the courts, or (more commonly) some combination of these. Witness the Patriot Act, witness the internment of US and Canadian citizens of Japanese descent in WWII. Where were the inalienable rights of the Nisei then?
4 Collectives can have rights if the society in which they exist determines that such rights are appropriate. Trade Unions can have 'rights' to bargain collectively. Corporations can be recognized as people, and they are a form of collective. Asking the question 'can collectives have rights' reveals a different understanding of 'rights' than I set forth here.
5. see the above. As to why society might recognize 'rights' for collectives, presumably that arises out of a recognition of the social dynamics within the society. Thus unions were recognized as a response to the perception of the majority of society (or the majority of the ruling elite at the time) that the interests of society were best served by creating a counterweight to the power of the wealthy to exploit the lower social classes. While this might have seemed counter to the interests of the wealthy (see Henry Ford in his later years), any student of history knows that unions were accepted by the elite as a concession to avert unrest and civil disobedience. The ruling elite had got out of touch with the increasingly educated masses and this was a relatively rare incident in which a 'right' arose in response to a mass desire that was not inculcated by the ruling elite
6. whatever society recognizes
7. the essence of morality is the psychological makeup of humans, and the benefit to the species of having adopted, in a limited way, a collaborative means of co-existence. Some ingenious studies have shown that basic elements of morality are universal, independent of language, ethnicity, geography and religious or lack of religious belief. Religious people love to claim that religion, and especially their religion, is the source of morality, but that is demonstrably false. Perhaps a more direct answer is that most societies recognize that individuals have obligations as well as rights, and society has the inherent right to require that those obligations be discharged. When a citizen refuses to acknowledge his or her obligation, it may not be possible (and almost certainly won't be desirable) to allow another citizen to enforce the obligation, not least because the refusal may be justified or may be due to an error...maybe the citizen is innocent, and society will usually generate rules (the justice system) to minimize wrongful sanction.

8. This question reflects a different view of rights...see above
9. see above

Btw, i am not a marxist or anything of the sort. When I refer to a ruling elite, I don't mean to suggest that, for example, the top 1% of the US population, in socio-economic terms, is a monolithic element of society nor that there is a secret cabal ruling the US or the world. I mean only that the bulk of those in positions of power come from relatively empowered levels of society. This is as true in the US today as it was in the UK of 150 years ago, and of Rome 2000 years ago, and so on.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2012-February-14, 19:08, said:

Religious people love to claim that religion, and especially their religion, is the source of morality, but that is demonstrably false.

This seems like a category error. Most religions claim that God is the author and source of morality. If man have universal moral values, and God created man, then God must be the author of those morals. Thus it cannot be demonstrably false unless it is demonstrably false that man had a creator, which is obviously impossible to demonstrate.

[Flem72]

hrothgar, on 2012-February-13, 07:10, said:

2. (Approximately) 28 states have the precise same set of restrictions at the state level. This requirement is neither new, nor controversial.

I'd like to see the Obama administration shouting this from the highest rooftops. (FWIW, I consider the whole "Hawaii Lite" compromise a ridiculous cave) On the bright side, the Catholic Bishops seem poised to reject even this compromise which is doing a pretty good job showing how extreme their demands are...

Just couldn't let this pass. Here's one recitation of the facts: http://www.theblaze....-contraception/

When even Chris Matthews is moved to contradict The One it becomes painfully clear that there is so much purposeful misinformation coming out of this White House....

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2012-February-14, 19:08, said:

But it seems foolish, as well as either naive or wilfully ignorant, to speak of any particular human as having a 'right' to anything independent of society.

This seems somewhat narrow. I would say that we have two God-given, or inalienable rights: Freedom of Thought, and Freedom of will (choice). These are inalienable because they are a part of us, and cannot be constrained by men (which is not to say they are limitless - we still have the limits of our nature, there are thoughts I cannot conceive etc). God upholds these rights beyond the reach of men by the simple expedient of creating us in such a way that it is impossible for us to interfere in these things in other people. You could easily view `human rights' as the attempt to integrate these two fundamental rights into a human society, so as to give people as much freedom as possible to express their fundamental rights. Freedom of thought leads to freedom of speech, religion, belief. Freedom of Will leads to liberty.

But I prefer the human rights as agreements/social contracts theory when it comes to it. For one thing, it seems applicable even if I believe the human rights I wish to have in the social contract are authored by God, I like a philosophy of government that provides common ground. The weakness however is somewhat glaring - should a man not have the right to remove himself from the social contract if he pleases? Foregoing the taxes, rights and duties of civilisation for a more primitive existence?

[mgoetze]

phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 19:39, said:

Thus it cannot be demonstrably false unless it is demonstrably false that man had a creator, which is obviously impossible to demonstrate.

It follows immediately that it is also impossible to demonstrate that man did have a "creator", and thus claiming that said "creator" has anything to do with morality is obviously unfounded.

[phil_20686]

mgoetze, on 2012-February-14, 19:53, said:

It follows immediately that it is also impossible to demonstrate that man did have a "creator", and thus claiming that I can prove that said "creator" has anything to do with morality is obviously unfounded.

FYP

One is perfectly allowed to discuss things that cannot be proven. Particularly in the realm of philosophy. Ignoring theories because they cannot be or have not been proven/demonstrated is silly.

Besides which, saying that "X is false" cannot be proven, does not imply that "X is true".

And thirdly - it is impossible to prove that a creator does not exist on the general logical grounds that you cannot prove the non existence of something, other than by contradiction. Since an all powerful deity can do roughly anything, its hard to imagine such a contradiction. It is not hard to imagine that we could one day discover convincing proof of the existence of God. Some would say we have already.

[mikeh]

phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 19:39, said:

This seems like a category error. Most religions claim that God is the author and source of morality. If man have universal moral values, and God created man, then God must be the author of those morals. Thus it cannot be demonstrably false unless it is demonstrably false that man had a creator, which is obviously impossible to demonstrate.

The one thing religious people always screw up is the concept of the burden of proof.

They state a proposition for which there is no objective evidence, and then boast that they are right because they can't be proven wrong.

There is no other area of human activity or thought in which absurd 'reasoning' is met with anything other than ridicule....yet the believers, who would often scorn similar statements in other areas of human endeavour, see nothing wrong with the argument. When someone asserts a proposition that is contrary to the rules by which the observable universe operates, then the usual requirement is to expect compelling evidence. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence.

It would be funny were it not for the privileged position that religion holds in our society and the utter waste of so much effort and human ability sucked so futilely into sycophantic worship of an entity that, of it existed, is apparently genocidal, homicidal, racist, sexist, and (by any current psychiatric criteria) a sadist. This description could be applied to virtually any god today...other than the FSM, an entity for which there is exactly as much evidence as for any competitor; whose non-existance cannot be proved; and who mercifully refuses to torture us or to condemn vast numbers of decent law-abiding people to an eternity of torment merely for refusing to cower before him.

The best part of the church of the FSM is that one can worship him while (and by) enjoying a delicious Italian meal, with some red wine that no-one claims is actually his blood....of course, the tomato sauce is another story!

[mgoetze]

phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 20:49, said:

One is perfectly allowed to discuss things that cannot be proven. Particularly in the realm of philosophy. Ignoring theories because they cannot be or have not been proven/demonstrated is silly.

Besides which, saying that "X is false" cannot be proven, does not imply that "X is true".

And thirdly - it is impossible to prove that a creator does not exist on the general logical grounds that you cannot prove the non existence of something, other than by contradiction. Since an all powerful deity can do roughly anything, its hard to imagine such a contradiction. It is not hard to imagine that we could one day discover convincing proof of the existence of God. Some would say we have already.

Oh, sure. If I were going to argue religion with you, my argument would not be "X is false" but rather "X is undefined nonsense". In the (translated) words of my favourite philosopher:

Quote

The correct method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2012-February-14, 19:42, said:

Just couldn't let this pass. Here's one recitation of the facts: http://www.theblaze....-contraception/

When even Chris Matthews is moved to contradict The One it becomes painfully clear that there is so much purposeful misinformation coming out of this White House....

So, lets get this straight... Matthews points out that 28 different states have past subtlety different flavors of the same regulation and this somehow invalidates the comment that 28 states have passed laws that require contraceptive services? Its certainly true that some of those states (eight or so) do provide some form of exception for Catholic hospitals... (The other 20 don't)

And, from what I can tell, the Obama administration has also proposed a workaround for Catholic hospitals (one which is being rejected)

[Codo]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-14, 16:06, said:

And here we have one of the fundamental problems in discussing "rights". First we have to establish some basic agreements, and I don't think we (everybody here, not just you and I, Barry) agree on much in this area.

Some questions:

1. What is a "right"?
2. From where do rights come?
3. If rights are "given" to us, presumably they can be taken away. Who can do that?
4. Are rights an individual thing, or do collectives have rights as well?
5. If collectives have rights, do they have rights that individuals don't have? Why or why not?
6. What are these "collective only" rights?
7. What is the moral basis for suggesting that a group ("The State", "the public") has the right to constrain individual rights?
8. Do all groups have such rights, or only some?
9. How do you tell the difference?

I think we have to come up with a theory of rights that doesn't put one group's, or one person's rights at risk just because some other group or person wants something or wants to do something.

Nice questions:
1. Mikes definition is fine.
2. The rights are given by your social authority and develop in a process between the wishes of this authority and the wishes of the social community. The social authority can be the governement, or a religious leader, or some people in the back who do not show in the public but have a great influence on the current "official" leaders. In smaller communities the social authority could be a teacher, the backyard bully or your mother.
3. Surely. F.E. right now the Hungarians have freely elected a man who takes away the rights of the justice and the free press to protect his governement. Same has been true in Germany some 70 years ago. As far as I know, homosexuality had been a common part in the ancient Athens but turned into a big sin till 1960 (and still is in a big part of the world).
4. Both.
5.6. There are some rights, communities have, individuals do not have. Mike had a nice example.
7. Simply the power? I guess that most rights are given to protect the lead of the "elite".
8. As far as I know it is still not always clear which rights are bigger then others. For example in Germany you have a right of a calm neighbourhood. On the other hand, Kids have the right to play outside, which produces noise. Which right is higher? I have kids and a strong opinion. But why should "my" right be bigger then the right of my neighbour not to be disturbed? Same is true about individual rights compared to collective rights.
The UK case about the hotel is a good example. As a judge you must weight, which right is higher. The right of not being discriminated because of your sexual orientation? Or the right to life according to my personal relgious belives? And if the right of not being discrimated is such a valuable right, why am I not allow to have sex with 16 year old girls? Why is this right even higher? I guess there are two things who makes rights more or less important:1. Tradition and 2. what helps the reigning leaders of your community. Religion obviously is quite often part of the first reason.

9. No idea. I belive that rights are taken away by authorities and that you have to fight as a community for your rights.

[Flem72]

hrothgar, on 2012-February-15, 06:03, said:

So, lets get this straight... Matthews points out that 28 different states have past subtlety different flavors of the same regulation and this somehow invalidates the comment that 28 states have past laws that require contraceptive services? Its certainly true that some of those states (eight or so) do provide some form of exception for Catholic hospitals... (The other 20 don't)

And, from what I can tell, the Obama administration has also proposed a workaround for Catholic hospitals (one which is being rejected)

No, it challenges the unfounded assertion that "28 states have the precise same set of restrictions at the state level. This requirement is neither new, nor controversial." Moving targets....

If the expected 1st Amendment suit is filed, I suppose they might become past laws.

You inverted the numbers: 8 states currently provide no exemption.

The G's workaround appears to be transparently specious, mere accounting skulduggery.

[hrothgar]

Flem72, on 2012-February-15, 07:36, said:

No, it challenges the unfounded assertion that "28 states have the precise same set of restrictions at the state level. This requirement is neither new, nor controversial." Moving targets....

Fair enough. My use of the word "precise" was sloppy and unwarranted

Quote

You inverted the numbers: 8 states currently provide no exemption.

Here's my source:

Quote

But many Catholic institutions are already operating in states that require contraceptive coverage, such as New York and California. Such laws are on the books in 28 states, and only eight of them exempt Catholic hospitals and universities. Nowhere has the Catholic Church shut down in response.

http://www.thedailyb...-misplaced.html

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on 2012-February-14, 19:39, said:

This seems like a category error. Most religions claim that God is the author and source of morality. If man have universal moral values, and God created man, then God must be the author of those morals. Thus it cannot be demonstrably false unless it is demonstrably false that man had a creator, which is obviously impossible to demonstrate.

The religions of the Book aren't the only ones out there.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2012-February-15, 00:17, said:

They state a proposition for which there is no objective evidence, and then boast that they are right because they can't be proven wrong.

There is no other area of human activity or thought in which absurd 'reasoning' is met with anything other than ridicule....yet the believers, who would often scorn similar statements in other areas of human endeavour, see nothing wrong with the argument. When someone asserts a proposition that is contrary to the rules by which the observable universe operates, then the usual requirement is to expect compelling evidence. Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence.

It would be funny were it not for the privileged position that religion holds in our society and the utter waste of so much effort and human ability sucked so futilely into sycophantic worship of an entity that, of it existed, is apparently genocidal, homicidal, racist, sexist, and (by any current psychiatric criteria) a sadist.

You claimed something was demonstrably false, when it was obviously impossible for it to be demonstrably false, yet I am to be castigated for absurd reasoning.

Extraordinary claims do require extra ordinary evidence, but I would argue that such evidence exists: how about http://en.wikipedia....acle_of_the_Sun . It seems hard to see how evidence can be more compelling than an apparent impossibility seen by 50000 odd people, and apparently arranged by three tiny children. Well documented reports of miraculous healings are almost blase. To reason from the starting point that such things are impossible, and attempt ever more absurd rationalisations to avoid the obvious conclusion that God has been breaking (or bending) physical laws for generations.

"Apparently genocidal, racist, sexist...." etc is a straw man. For lots of reasons - but you are a clever guy I'm sure you knew that. - Not going to blame a man for a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric now and again.