1. Comment #434816 by glid on November 25, 2009 at 12:14 pm

I hope the future generations in a better, dogma-free world will look back at us and with laughter and pity understand how hard life was back in the old days, when all attempts for progress had to be squeezed through layers and layers of religious doctrine instead of just, i don't know, make the world better?

Other Comments by glid

2. Comment #434818 by the4thNeutralNuclide on November 25, 2009 at 12:28 pm

Outstanding piece of interviewing by Chris Matthews. There is hope that the rising tide of religious hypocrisy can be stemmed in the USA if this kind of courageous and carefully thought out debate can be had. Writing the law is is different to teaching religious beliefs. The two must be kept separate (as JF Kennedy said in the opening clip) . As Chris Matthews clearly states he agrees with the Bishop's RC moral position but is opposed to the RC church being involved in making the law. This is an excellent example of critical thinking and keeping an open mind. It was also done with respect to the bishop's position. A tough debate but not a slanging match. Tom

Other Comments by the4thNeutralNuclide

3. Comment #434819 by chalkers on November 25, 2009 at 12:28 pm

They call it hardball for a reason!

Other Comments by chalkers

4. Comment #434822 by Mango on November 25, 2009 at 12:35 pm

MSNBC is the only 24-hour news station I can bear to watch anymore.

Other Comments by Mango

5. Comment #434830 by fossil-fish on November 25, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Wow! Great stuff. That guy was really passionate about keeping his country a secular state, in spite of his own religious views. A terrific piece of television.

Other Comments by fossil-fish

6. Comment #434831 by rod-the-farmer on November 25, 2009 at 1:04 pm

My understanding of the separation of church and state in the U.S. is that the government will not establish a state religion, and the church(es) will not interfere in the operation of the government. In this case the bishop threatens to impose a penalty on an elected official, regarding his vote on the subject of abortion. Anyone with any brains understands there are a range of opinions on this subject, and people hold passionate views on both sides. Those who are pro-choice understand the passion of the opposing side, and do not want to force anyone into actions they personally do not support. Yet many on the anti-abortion side wish to force their opponents into actions they do not personally support, even unto direct control of their own body, regardless of their personal passion on the subject.

I was waiting for the interviewer to ask if the bishop felt his actions, interfering as they do with the actions taken by a politician, do not cause his church to be placed in the category of a political action group, and therefore now subject to taxation. And if not, when would that line be crossed ?

The interviewer certainly gave the bishop a hard time. Too bad he got into his standard TV news mode of interrupting the guest before he has had a chance to articulate a response to the question. When you live in a world of sound bites, you can only think of the world as composed of sound bites.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

7. Comment #434832 by keddaw on November 25, 2009 at 1:04 pm

No commitment is more important than your faith.

Well, that's not the pledge you take as president or as a member of the armed forces.

Does this guy know anything about the Constitution?

And what's a "you-man life" anyway?

Other Comments by keddaw

8. Comment #434833 by fossil-fish on November 25, 2009 at 1:06 pm

I know as atheists we probably shouldn't admit it, but did anyone think that the interviewers own claim of religious belifs added weight to his argument, perhaps in this case. Passion certainly wasn't lacking, you really knew that he believed in what he was saying.

Other Comments by fossil-fish

9. Comment #434835 by moniz on November 25, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Chris Matthews was stunning! Bravo! Very excellent questioning, never letting him off the hook. But more importantly, very pragmatic of Chris in his not letting him off the hook, unlike a Bill O'Reilly who just won't let go based on crazy conjecture, as he is oft to do.

Other Comments by moniz

10. Comment #434837 by clatz on November 25, 2009 at 1:15 pm

Superb.

You might disagree with the interviewer talking over the Bishop, but to me he outlined the problem and directed the Bishop to answer a very specific charge. If the conversation was more back and forth the Bishop would have more room to disseminate and avoid.

Other Comments by clatz

11. Comment #434839 by Sigmund on November 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm

Great piece of interviewing. If only all political interviewing and religious discussions were done in such a manner. As for whether Chris Mattews own religious belief added to the argument I doubt it. Do you think Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris would have been less effective in the same role?

Other Comments by Sigmund

12. Comment #434841 by SyDaemon on November 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm

I feel almost bad for "the excellency". Tweety is really aggressive.

Other Comments by SyDaemon

13. Comment #434844 by Peej on November 25, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Favourite video ever!

Other Comments by Peej

14. Comment #434849 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2009 at 1:29 pm

"Your Excellency"

Exactly what is this chap excellent at?

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

15. Comment #434851 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 1:35 pm

He looks like one of the modern generation of interviewers who thinks he is more important than his guests. He's a bully. He should speak to his guests as equal human beings. I was actually embarrassed for him. (I'm not a Catholic.)

Interestingly, he doesn't think people have the 'authority' to influence lawmakers.

That's 12:28 minutes I'll never get back!

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

16. Comment #434852 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 1:40 pm

"Any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith. Not just Catholic but to any religious community. No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith... and if your faith somehow interferes with your job... you need to quit your job, and save your soul. Nothing can become more important than your relationship with God" - Bishop of Providence, RI, Thomas Tobin

Yeah, good luck with that in the real world.

And kudos to Chris Matthews for not letting him off the hook!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

17. Comment #434854 by Inside centre on November 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm

A catholic bishop being evasive when asked a question relating to legality of conduct. I'm sure I've seen this before in another context...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Cardinal_Mahony

Also, in my school RE lessons I used to say to people, admittedly in a shameless attempt to wind them up, that, according to their world view god was responsible for more abortions (ie: miscarriages) than humans.

Other Comments by Inside centre

18. Comment #434855 by jeggers on November 25, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I was genuinely impressed with that interview.

Didn't articulate what the punishment should be. Which clearly was unsatisfactory. However, half the burks I work with could easily be convinced that his views are spot on without reflecting on how that would manifest itself 'in law'. So broadly without really understanding the questions being posed they would say 'but his excellency is right you baby killer.'

Other Comments by jeggers

19. Comment #434857 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Comment #434851 by Stewart Cowan

Have you never watched Hardball before? I watch it everyday, Matthews is very fair with all his guests (and is also a Catholic).

Stewart, you obviously missed the point of the entire interview.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

20. Comment #434858 by irate_atheist on November 25, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Perhaps Tweety should have concentrated on the association of the good Bishop with a group of child-rapists and their aiders and abbetters.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

21. Comment #434860 by moniz on November 25, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Stewart Cowan

Wow! You completely missed the argument, didn't you? People do have authority to influence. The Church wants to IMPOSE, it's own authority over everyone, not just Catholics. In a secular society that includes many faiths(or lack thereof) the laws should be written in the secular model, that still allows many faiths to still follow there belief structure, without penalizing the rest of us, who do not subscribe to their belief/moral structure. Perfect example aside from the abortion issue; gay marriage. Where gay marriage(where as legal marriage) should be legally recognized, no where would/should any law, dictate that any religion/faith/church have to endorse or perform it.

As far as bullying is concerned, what you call bullying, the rest of us call keeping the guest on point, which "His Excellency" was avoiding at all costs!

Other Comments by moniz

22. Comment #434861 by Nunbeliever on November 25, 2009 at 1:48 pm

A slip of toungue??

"The first commitment to any catholic in public office should be his faith. No commitment is more important than the commitment to your faith"

At LAST an honest catholic who actually admits secularism should be abolished. Thank you for that. Now we know what we are dealing with here. People who are trying to establish a theocracy. Quite scary when you think about it.


OM (non-existing)G, this man really is scary.

Other Comments by Nunbeliever

23. Comment #434865 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Hi Tyler,

Actually, this is my first encounter with the show, what with not being American.

"Stewart, you obviously missed the point of the entire interview."

Tell me what it was and I'll tell you if I did!

@Moniz,

There is more to it than you say. Take Roe vs Wade which changed the lives - and deaths - of millions of Americans. Was it a 'democratic' decision? Like "His Excellency" said, we make laws out of morals. If it is not moral to kill unborn human beings, then why should there be laws making it legal?

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

24. Comment #434866 by Logicel on November 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Bish's reference to the importance of moral law (when pinned to the board regarding the separation of state and church) was the point where one had to interject to say, that all the so-called moral laws on the books (murder, theft, etc.) are not based on any divine concept of the dictating of morality, including the existence of souls.

More Catholics like Matthews (he was not a bully, he was making an very important point, and he showed significant respect to the Bish), please. Less Catholics like the Bish.

Other Comments by Logicel

25. Comment #434867 by bendigeidfran on November 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm

His infantile black and white morality whispered on the ether is exposed as vaccuous nonsense inapplicable to the real world. He just hadn't even thought about it. Even his 'prevent human suffering' pitch was too complicated for him to mumble through to it's conclusions. I believe there's a word for this type of person, but it escapes me. I wonder if Irate can help me?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

26. Comment #434868 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Hi Stewart,

I'm Irish, I watch Hardball online :)

The Bishop wants his morality to rule the law of the land. But keeps repeating that he is not in a position to do that. But we should listen to him anyway. Really?

And if you read his quote which I posted above - "if your faith somehow interferes with your job... you need to quit your job, and save your soul" - you will see that kind of action is simply unworkable.

Just out of interest, considering the Bishop never answered the question: what penalty would you impose on a woman (or girl) who had an abortion?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

27. Comment #434869 by irate_atheist on November 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm

23. Comment #434865 by Stewart Cowan -

Was it a 'democratic' decision? Like "His Excellency" said, we make laws out of morals. If it is not moral to kill unborn human beings, then why should there be laws making it legal?

Classic circular argument from a theist.

Still trying to work out if evolution is true, Stewart?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

28. Comment #434871 by Logicel on November 25, 2009 at 2:10 pm

Cowan: If it is not moral to kill unborn human beings, then why should there be laws making it legal?

_______


It was once considered moral to kill slaves, women, and children. It was once considered moral to deny voting to women and other groups. Laws are passed to ensure that human rights are broad-based, and not just available for the dominant group. It is called progress to have such laws on the books.

A woman has the right to choose to terminate or continue the pregnancy (within legal parameters). No one has the right to force her to continue a pregnancy. And, an gestating form is not the final product, and unless the Bish can prove the existence of a god or souls, he is a pontificating, cruel, unthinking piece of merde with his false concept of absolute morality for which he is willing to destroy the barrier between church and state to fulfill his theocratic and unethical vision.

Other Comments by Logicel

29. Comment #434875 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Tyler,

I guess you have your fair? share of unbelievers in the Emerald Isle as well, these days.

Tobin's morality re. abortion is/was the morality shared by the vast majority not so long ago. You have to ask yourself what changed.

Unfortunately, the world is going down the plug hole so quickly that "if your faith somehow interferes with your job... you need to quit your job, and save your soul" is a fair comment.

You might think I'm nuts for saying that, but what's more important than peace for your soul?

What penalty would I impose on a woman (or girl) who had an abortion?

Who is performing the abortion?

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

30. Comment #434876 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 2:15 pm

"Keep in mind what we believe about abortion. Everytime an abortion takes place a baby dies." - Bishop Tobin

More ignorance from the Bishop. Babies do not die, a blastocyst, a foetus or an embryo is aborted, not a "baby" - get the terminology right. A baby is what is born thru childbirth so the Bishop is being overly emotional is his rhetoric!

Yes, you may believe that but the facts say otherwise.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

31. Comment #434877 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 2:19 pm

Hi Irate,

Still irate? Dear me.

"Classic circular argument from a theist."

I don't think it is circular reasoning (which is more the 'atheist's' method than mine :-)

The Almighty gave us a conscience, so if we make laws while ignoring this fact, what sort of laws are we getting?

"Still trying to work out if evolution is true, Stewart?"

Still trying to work out how so many folks can believe that we evolved from pond slime. You must have more faith than me.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

32. Comment #434878 by ev-love on November 25, 2009 at 2:19 pm

When there weren't any immoral modern doctors, and the good Lord had the care of pregnant women pretty much to himself, how many 'little babies' would you say he killed every second?

ev-love

Other Comments by ev-love

33. Comment #434879 by toomanytribbles on November 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm

instant flashback to the libertyville abortion demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

34. Comment #434880 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 2:23 pm

Comment #434875 by Stewart Cowan

I guess you have your fair? share of unbelievers in the Emerald Isle as well, these days.

Aye, might have something to do with priests raping young boys, who knows.

You might think I'm nuts for saying that, but what's more important than peace for your soul?

Please show this "soul" exists first. I'd much prefer to debate issues we know exist rather than hypothetical constructs.

My question regards the woman (or girl) as it is her decision first, so let's start there... what penalty would you impose on the woman (or girl) who had the legal, medical procedure known as an abortion?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

35. Comment #434883 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Tyler,

"Yes, you may believe that but the facts say otherwise."

Sure, there are names for the various stages of human formation: but it's still human development - the forming of a human child. A child is what you get at the end of the process. If you end the process prematurely, you don't get a child.

Net result: you have deprived a child of life.

You can equate this with murder, as I do, or not, but it's depriving a child of life and you surely cannot deny this.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

36. Comment #434885 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm

34 Tyler,

"Please show this "soul" exists first."

Come now. If you know *you* exist, you know your soul exists.

Your question: if it was 'legal' then there wouldn't have been a crime committed acc. to the law of the land, so no action could be taken.

What Tobin and I and millions of others want is for abortion to be against the law. You probably want to know what I would say if this were the situation.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

37. Comment #434886 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Comment #434883 by Stewart Cowan

Stewart,

Do you know what a clinical spontaneous abortion is in medical terms?

Feel free to use the internet in finding out... I'm here all day.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

38. Comment #434888 by bendigeidfran on November 25, 2009 at 2:36 pm

From a single cell to a child? Have you got the intermediate fossils to hand Stewart?

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

39. Comment #434890 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Comment #434885 by Stewart Cowan

Come now. If you know *you* exist, you know your soul exists.

You're avoiding the issue, and making assumptions for which you have no proof - show me *where* exactly this soul exists.

What Tobin and I and millions of others want is for abortion to be against the law.

And millions of others disagree with you. Until you have your theocracy in place, abortion is a legal, medical procedure. (Legal in England and Wales and Scotland since the Abortion Act 1967)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

40. Comment #434891 by squinky on November 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Stewart
I am not comfortable with abortion either and I'm not a Catholic and am an atheist. I would prefer that no woman ever have an abortion because with a little education, pregnancy if so easy to avoid but I wouldn't outlaw abortion.

So answer this: why is the Catholic Church against condoms and birth control£ Surely this is the greatest means of preventing abortion ever conceived (other than abstinence which frankly is something the clergy can barely abide by). There's even the morning after pill that prevents implantation (which is NOT the abortion drug RU-486) but they're dead set against it. Why£ If Catholics are so incensed by "child murder" as they see it then why are they also FOR starting unwanted pregnancies£ It's all about hangups about sex and making more Catholics.

The Catholic Church should just become a sperm bank.

Other Comments by squinky

41. Comment #434892 by Steve Zara on November 25, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Comment #434885 by Stewart Cowan

Come now. If you know *you* exist, you know your soul exists.

No. All you know is that you are having the thought that your soul exists. Why should you be an expert on your self? For most of human history people had very little idea what went on in our bodies. Most people still don't. So why do you think you have any idea what is going on in your mind?

What Tobin and I and millions of others want is for abortion to be against the law.

But as this article shows, that is unacceptable because it attacks the vulnerable, such as young women who desperately don't want to have to bring up a child, or who are frightened of what their communities will think of them. Are you really suggesting that such people and those who help them should be thrown in prison?

If not, then you are trying to use the law to enforce morality. But that is not the way that the law should be used, and is a sign of utter failure of the Church to promote its views by argument - moral views should be taught, not enforced by threats.

You should be free to try and persuade people of your views as much as you wish. But you should not try and change people's minds with laws. That is authoritarian and cowardly.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #434893 by wodewick on November 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm

If the catlick church wants to be consistent shouldn't they refuse to give someone who won't support a health bill because jesus wants them to help the sick, what about senators that supported various wars over the years? But I suppose that migh effect the collection plate.
At leat they have higher standards in the vatican as I'm sure cardinal law doesn't get communion.

Other Comments by wodewick

43. Comment #434894 by irate_atheist on November 25, 2009 at 2:47 pm

35. Comment #434883 by Stewart Cowan -

Sure, there are names for the various stages of human formation: but it's still human development - the forming of a human child. A child is what you get at the end of the process. If you end the process prematurely, you don't get a child.

Altogether now:

Every sperm is sacred...

The Almighty gave us a conscience, so if we make laws while ignoring this fact, what sort of laws are we getting?

My consience tells me it it wrong to prevent two gay individuals from marrying. What does your conscience say on this?

My conscience says it is wrong to force a 13 year old girl to give birth to a child conceived by rape. What does your conscience say?

Archbishop Desmond Tutu's conscience tells him he wouldn't worship a God that was in any way homophobic. What does your conscience say?

Osama Bin Laden's conscience tells him that unbelievers in Islam are infidel and fit to be killed. What does your conscience say?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

44. Comment #434895 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 2:52 pm

bendigeidfran,

There's probably a macabre abortion-victim collector somewhere on the planet.

@Tyler,

Do you exist? Yes or no? You really want to know if your soul lives after your death, rather than if you have a soul?

"And millions of others disagree with you."

Alas. The growth of feminism and the notion that rights are more important than responsibilities have subverted many minds.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

45. Comment #434896 by Bonzai on November 25, 2009 at 2:53 pm

Squinky

So answer this: why is the Catholic Church against condoms and birth control£ Surely this is the greatest means of preventing abortion ever conceived

You don't get it, do you?

The Catholic Church's agenda is against people having sex other than to make babies. This is the bottom line.

What they fear most is guilt free, fear free sex. Condoms and other means of contraception provide a way to achieve that to a great extent.That's why the Church is against them.

The Church talks about other things such as AIDS and abortion only as a means to instill fear and guilt about sex, the real goal is to control people's sexuality.

BTW, there is no biblical base to equate abortion with murder.

Other Comments by Bonzai

46. Comment #434899 by Quetzalcoatl on November 25, 2009 at 2:56 pm

Stewart Cowan-

What Tobin and I and millions of others want is for abortion to be against the law. You probably want to know what I would say if this were the situation.

Alright then. A few questions.

Would abortion be illegal in all instances, or would exceptions be made? Would an abortion be legal if continuing the pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother: for instance, in the case of ectopic pregnancy, or if the mother was very young?

Suppose that the baby were diagnosed with a condition which would mean that they would die shortly after birth, enduring constant agony until that point? Would you make an exception then?

What if the mother were raped, and was psychologically unable to cope with the pregnancy? What if the mother were mentally ill to the extent that she did not understand what was going on?

Now, onto the penalties.

What kind of punishment should a mother face for aborting her child? Would it be prison time? A fine? Electronic tagging? A criminal record?

Would the severity of her punishment increase if this was not her first abortion?

What would the punishment be for any doctors or nurses that assisted in the abortion? Would they lose their relevant licences?

What if the abortion were carried out by an unlicenced practitioner, what would their punishment be? Would it be more or less severe than that of a doctor?

Suppose the father agreed to the abortion, and drove the mother to the clinic. Would he be charged with aiding and abetting? How would he be punished?

What if others knew about the abortion but did not alert the authorities? Would they be accomplices/conspirators? What would their punishment be?

I look forward to your answers.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

47. Comment #434901 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm

squinky #40,

I think that if you believe Genesis then you believe the instruction to get married and have children, and so contraception contravenes this.

Genuine enquiry: I'm wondering why you are against abortion if humans are just accidents in a backwater. Survival of the fittest and all that. Could it be that you have a soul, like Tyler?

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

48. Comment #434902 by Tyler Durden on November 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Comment #434895 by Stewart Cowan

Alas. The growth of feminism and the notion that rights are more important than responsibilities have subverted many minds.

Stewart,

Why do you hate women?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

49. Comment #434903 by Stewart Cowan on November 25, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Steve #41,

I always think that using vulnerability as a good excuse for abortion is very weak. There is nobody more vulnerable than an unborn human in the modern world.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

50. Comment #434904 by debridement on November 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm

35. Comment #434883 by Stewart Cowan:
"...Net result: you have deprived a child of life. You can equate this with murder, as I do...."

Sorry for the personal info, but: My girlfriend takes birth control to prevent a pregnancy (to deny a child a life). Are you calling my girlfriend a murderer?

Other Comments by debridement