Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The BBC reports that Pope Palpatine Benedict has angered many in Brazil, even some in the Catholic Church, with a ridiculous statement he made there recently:
Indigenous leaders in Brazil have reacted angrily to Pope Benedict's comments that their predecessors had willingly converted to Christianity.One Amazon Indian leader, Jecinaldo Satere Mawe, said the Pope's remarks had been arrogant and disrespectful.
Pope Benedict XVI told Latin American bishops in Brazil that American Indians had been "silently longing" to become Christians 500 years ago...
Our correspondent said Pope Benedict also made no mention of the violent history that followed or the documented decimation of native cultures in favour of the Christian model Conquistadores and other Europeans colonisers.
He said the comments had even been criticised by the Catholic Church's Indian advocacy group in Brazil, which described the Pope's statement as wrong and indefensible.
Very nice.
Comments
At least the Pope doesn't consider indigenous people to be "Lamanites" cursed by God with a dark skin centuries ago and waiting to become Mormons so they can be "white and delightsome" again.
I mean, stupid religious ideas are a dime a dozen.
Posted by: Eveningsun | May 19, 2007 11:17 AM
I love it, it took the church (at the time the only one) 20 years to decide that Native Americans had souls and therefore "Indian hunts," lopping off hands and feet as a "example to others" became nominally "illegal," and then they go and claim that native peoples were longing to become Christian? I suppose what comes next is the BS that they worshipped the conquistadors as gods, etc. eh?
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 19, 2007 12:04 PM
Oh, yes, just ask Bartolomo de Las Casas, who recorded the following exchange between a Spanish friar and Hatuey y Guarina in Cuba as the friar invited Hatuey to convert (while he was tied to a stake to be burned):
(See A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies, 1552)
Posted by: Anuminous | May 19, 2007 12:38 PM
Thanks Ed, I was hoping that somebody at SciBlogs would comment on this piece of mega-shit from Bennie the Rottwieler after I stumbled over it in German television a few days ago. I think the only explanation is dementia in an advance form.
Posted by: Thony C. | May 19, 2007 1:33 PM
I suspect that for church people it is not difficult sincerely to believe that people have wanted to adopt their religion because there are many cases in which, superficially, people have adopted a new religion voluntarily. In many such cases, however, if you look more carefully, they felt under some sort of pressure to change, even if it was not direct coercion. For example, where I live in northern British Columbia, it is undisputed that the indigenous Carrier people sent a delegation to Williams Lake in 1865 demanding a priest and they subsequently went along with the nasty system of internal colonization known as the Durieu system, which the Europeans were not in a position to impose by force. So on the surface the adoption of Catholicism looks voluntary. What seems actually to have happened is that European diseases like smallpox had proven so devastating and the ability of native shamans to cure them inadequate, that they adopted Catholicism because they thought that the church controlled the diseases. They were making a deal with the devil, so to speak.
Posted by: Bill Poser | May 19, 2007 2:51 PM
Ed,
I like the majority of your posts, especially those that show church/state separation issues that end up protecting the church from excessive statism.
But I have to say, I really dislike the comments format in this (and all other) blog sites. Real discussion is not very well supported by these kinds of web pages: The columns are too narrow. There's really only room to tell the blogger or the most recent commentor how great/what an asshat his/her comment is.
Do you, or your readers, have a suggestion for a well-moderated, wide-ranging internet political forum, primarily populated by rational people who want to really try to understand the other poster's points and comment accordingly?
To me, "well-moderated" means keeping trolls at bay and minimizing flame wars. The rest is wide open.
Not trying to thread-jack.
Thanks
Posted by: Michael E | May 19, 2007 3:30 PM
Apparently Hugo Chavez has demanded a public apology from Bennie the Rottweiler and accused him of ignoring the "Holocaust" that followed the Spanish discovery of America.
Posted by: Thony C. | May 19, 2007 3:54 PM
Ed wrote:
LOL!
Who doesn't love a good pope/emporer joke? I imagine there are a lot of traumatized children out there who were unfortunate enough to see the horrific visage of this pasty ghoul in person, and then be forced to kiss it or hug it or something. Nevermind the trauma of being Catholic...
...
So Brazil is a pretty Catholic place, isn't it? What an sad dichotomy if you're both Catholic and of indigenous ancestry. I don't know what I would do with that.
Posted by: Leni | May 19, 2007 4:29 PM
When I first read Ed's post, I thought he was falling in line with the pointless little insults (like the phrase darwinist, EVILutionist, christianist or IDiots, etc) that get thrown about by just about everyone else here on scienceblogs.
But then I clicked on the link and saw the picture of the Pope... Damn that guy really does resemble Palpatine with those dead looking eyes of his. Kinda creepy!
Posted by: doctorgoo | May 19, 2007 4:58 PM
Posted by: Baratos | May 19, 2007 6:05 PM
Yes, it seems trite until you actually behold the ghastly papal terror first-hand.
Then it's just really scary.
Posted by: Leni | May 19, 2007 6:06 PM
Pope Nazinger, a supposed scholar, has been spouting some really crazy stuff his predecessor would never say (at least in public).
Posted by: Heathen Dan | May 19, 2007 7:00 PM
I just call him Dirk.
Posted by: tacitus | May 19, 2007 7:49 PM
Joey the Rat.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 19, 2007 8:00 PM
The eyes are definitely the emperor. His mouth is set with the Dick Cheney sneer.
And his comment is typical of those in power talking about those who have been used by power. They wanted it. They deserved it. They asked for it.
Same old self-serving crap. I hope his pope-mobile gets a flat.
Posted by: eewolf | May 19, 2007 8:05 PM
@ Michael E:
Obsidian Wings has the most civil, rational, and substantive comment threads I've seen on any blog.
Posted by: Tom | May 19, 2007 8:09 PM
Thony C. said: I think the only explanation is dementia in an advance form.
I think that Benny has seenthe success of the american megachurches and decided to lob off more crap than did his predecessor, to see if he can get more people to pitch into the collection plate all over Europe.
Posted by: valhar2000 | May 19, 2007 10:04 PM
Michael E said
"To me, "well-moderated" means keeping trolls at bay and minimizing flame wars. The rest is wide open."
Well, Michael, this site and others that are linked to from here seem to fill your bill admirably.
After all, there is no way to continually and successfully "moderate" any discussion unless the debaters are in agreement from the beginning. At some point all hell breaks loose and get out of the way. After a sufficient passing of time and further conversation, at widely spaced levels of vigor, agreements and or compromises seem to appear.
This is confirmation of the idea that people can indeed address their troubles and find workable solutions without resorting to magic.
The continuation of our species would seem to further confirm this idea.
Key to this success is the notion that it does not take place under a set of rules, or a particular protocol. Rather, the workings out of problems, responding in a timely fashion to novel situations and the ability to rely upon instinct (Yes! Important. We have many.) all presuppose that no two situations and no two observers are identical. There is endless variation and subtlety.
Granted, we do, as a specie, exhibit a deep predisposition to cover over (hide) the contours of our direct apprehension of the world about us with sheets of dogma, much as one leaving a house might cover the furniture. I have long thought this lamentable, mainly because the dogma cut deeply into what I like best in my specie: originality.
I gleefully entertain the suspicion that this episode might be a contributor to the further erosion of the Roman Catholic Church. Not because I find Benedict's comments cajoling or placating; not because of their historical inaccuracy; not because of his overweening confidence. What really gets me is that the pope, the RCC and their followers (not ignoring any other irrational system) are uniformly bland, off white, muted and otherwise unimaginative! Joining them are the legions who have their charms, their altars, their devotionals, their beads and their scriptures. And nothing notable to set them apart from "others".
So narrow and sorrowful a path to walk. More so if one does so on purpose.
Each human brain is unique. Each is well equipped to observe and measure the real world. One does eventually learn to hit one's mouth with a forkful of peas. And yet, it seems that so many of these marvelous devices have been ruined or at least damaged badly. I spend a good portion of my time considering how to deal with such people. Some of them are family members. As a labor of love I do it because it has value to me and, I have seen, may have value to another. I recognize this as a good thing, not because I was taught (here is a close point) but because I learned. The simple act of living and dealing with others has shown me that in the overwhelming number of cases other people enjoy the same sorts of things that I do. So it is a no-brainer vis-a-vis how to treat one's fellow man. One learns how by being treated variously. The treatments that are abhorrent to one are probably the ones that should not be inflicted on others.
At any rate, the advent of Europeans created forty-leven kinds of chaos in the Americas. Any number of sources confirm the changes. Maybe il papa thought that enough time had passed to grease the skids for a whopper. I am warmly reassured that he has been found out and called to task.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 19, 2007 11:04 PM
Oh, so, let me understand this...
...Pope Benedict XVI told Latin American bishops in Brazil that American Indians had been "silently longing" to become Christians 500 years ago...
After having been decimated by the European germs (reference the book Germs, Guns and Steel), the remaining natives did not want to have their hands cut off by the Christian invaders, so that they were "silently longing to become Christians," so that they might keep their hands.
Gotcha, Papa Ratzi.
Of course, since the European invaders, mostly via their germs, killed off most of the indigenous population, they had to import Negro slaves from Africa. And that's why, to GWBush's everlasting surprise, there are a lot of black people in, say, Brazil and elsewhere in Central and South America, as well as the Caribb.
Now I understand it fully.
/sarcasm I'm really tired of the pontifications of the Nazii Feigling, Papa Ratzii.
Posted by: raj | May 19, 2007 11:09 PM
The Catholic Church sponsored Inquisition imposed itself on Goa too, and well into the 18the century. In Goa this already abominable office conducted itself with even greater fury than it did in Europe, targeting, primarily Hindus and Jews, and also Muslims and non-Catholic Christians. Voltaire is said to have condemned the Inquisition in Goa. Among the many terrible things that the Inquisition put into place were the perversion of popular Hindu festivals into occasions for license, and the substitution of the Hindu festive calendar with a Catholic one. It is true that we who live today and those that lived in those terrible days are different peoples. But institutions such as the Catholic Church whose leades at one time ran these offices of infamy would do well to dissociate themselves from the actions of the past. Neither Paul VI nor John Paul II, both of whom have visited India, have ever apologised for the deeds of their predecessor Popes, Cardinals, and Bishops.
Posted by: mullai | May 20, 2007 8:18 AM
Talking about the good guys in the vatican, look at this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3237027119714361315&q=crimen
Here in Italy the newspaper "L'Avvenire" (the official voice of the CEI) went crazy for it.
Posted by: diego | May 20, 2007 1:47 PM
Sorry, everyone, but you're all missing the point of Benedict's comments, as are the media reporting the story, whose out of control spin on this has the smell of a typically cynical attempt to sell a story rather than report on events with accuracy and insight. The main thrust of this pontificate has been to bolster the Church's awareness of its mission to proclaim the unique significance of Jesus Christ, without which theology, morality and charity are reduced to mere psychology, politics and social work respectively.
Benedict's comments draw on the ancient Christian teaching regarding the "logos spermatokoi" i.e. the "seeds of the Word" understood to be scattered throughout creation and perceptible in nature to the rational human mind. This is the notion that Christ is present to all people and all cultures, including those who do not know him by name, as the source and ultimate goal of all truth and goodness that said cultures have discovered. Christ is said to be the origin as well as the fulfillment and completeness of the insight contained in all religious tradition and in all truth and is understood to be anonymously present and active in this way on behalf of such peoples, until such time as they are ready to receive to meet him openly in the fullness of divine revelation. This principle applies equally to all pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures, including those of European origin not excluding classical Greco-Roman civilization, and was a bridge between Biblical revelation and non-Biblical thought through which the ancient Church opened its doors to the non-Christian Hellenistic philosophical heritage, and eventually to other non-Christian movements. As such, it is a compliment to pre-Christian and non-Christian cultures that constitutes part of a larger theological reflection on how non-Christians are saved by the merciful love of Christ, even though they may be unwilling or unable to acknowledge him as their saviour. In short, it explains how non-Christians, when acting in good faith, are saved.
Benedict is simply saying that in discovering the person of Christ, the native peoples discovered the one in whom all that they had known of truth and value had originated, and by whose anonymous help these values had come to them, and in whom the beauty and strength of all of this would find its fullest significance and completeness. He is in no way justifying the imperialistic behaviour of the European empires or the inorganic imposition of a "foreign" religion on them. Any impression to the contrary results from the religous and theological illiteracy of the media reporting the Pope's comments and of the other commenters on this thread.
Anyone open-minded enough to read what he actually said, in context, can find it here.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070513_conference-aparecida_en.html
Posted by: tom | May 20, 2007 4:39 PM
Tom-
That is an absurd defense of what the Pope said. The whole notion that they were unconsciously seeking the Christian faith is patently absurd, especially in light of the barbarism with which Christianity was spread throughout the Americas.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2007 6:38 PM
tom --
From what I can see, I think you're right about your basic point, that there is nothing unusual in the Pope's remarks, and they are fully in keeping with the Church's traditions. (Catholics of course may correct me here). He was not specifically intending to justify the ravages of imperialism, which were not really relevant to the occasion.
In fact I would think that most people who do mission work must have to think a bit like the Pope -- that the unsaved masses must somehow be wanting and waiting to be rescued. If the object is spiritual salvation, how could it be otherwise?
That said, I personally have no sympathy for the sentiments expressed. They seem a bit like delusions of grandeur to me. Thoughts of the historic injustices certainly highlight this problem, even if they aren't salient to it. And I'm trying to be open minded, as you suggested!!
Posted by: countlurkula | May 20, 2007 6:38 PM
CountLurkula:
The point of the Pope's remarks, and of my earlier comments, is not that the natives were seeking Christianity. Of course they weren't. And certainly there was terrible violence associated with the conquest, which appears at times to have included varying degrees of religious coercion. The pope, as one would expect, is making the case - in terms of reference that are familiar and well developed in Christian missiology - that the transition to Christianity also had a basis in the native culture as part of the latter's natural development which the growth of the faith in the region has been able to build upon, that it has produced some mature fruit of its own that represent a unique and distinctive achievement for these cultures, and that neither of these propositions could be true if the conversion of the native peoples had been ONLY the result of force and colonization. I think his point probably is that it is best to move on from the painful past and build on what has been accomplished rather than to tear it all down and try to reconstruct the pre-Christian past. A few examples of what he may have in mind in terms of the indigenous foundations and flowerings that he has in mind are some of the easy adaptations to aboriginal culture which were incorporated into Catholic worship and which predated the liturgical reforms prompted by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s (such as services celebrated in open air structures rather than enclosed buildings in some places), a genuine native piety which can be seen in the cult of the Virgin of Guadelupe and the story of the events of that apparition indicated a degree of resonance between native traditions and Catholic doctrine and practice, and the growth of a cult of martyrs and other saints who are venerated for, among other things, their efforts to help the poor and defend the native peoples from the predations of slave traders. Among these, the adaptation of the liturgy and of popular piety would especially be seen as analagous to another famous conversion - that of the Celts of Britain, which is famously cited as a form of Christianity built on pre-existing traditions, and Benedict undoubtedly sees all this as a more or less strong indication that the growth of the faith is, despite its historic blemishes, an organic part of the development of these cultures and something that, on the whole, has brought more good than evil to these peoples. I appreciate the fact that not everyone would agree with his more optimistic view of the matter and for what its worth, not only do I understand the very good reasons people have for this skepticism, but to some extent, I also sympathize. My argument here is simply that it is easy to misread the Pope's message, as has certainly happened here, because he is speaking, as usual, a theological language and using a form of discourse that has its own set of conventions that have been built up over a long history and that need to be appreciated if one wishes to interpret the words and evaluate the message correctly. Understood in this light, his comments do not mean that the natives were looking for Christianity, but only that the adoption of Christianity served, at least in the long run, to elevate them and their culture beyond what it would have otherwise achieved, but this is no different that the claim he would make on behalf of every society that has adopted the Christian faith, including his own people, the Germans. This, I think, is not too far off from what one would typically expect most religious leaders to claim on behalf of their respective traditions.
By the way, I regret the haughty tone that I adopted in my earlier comment. I allowed my indignation to get the better of - which I shouldn't have - because I see this happening a lot in the media and I find it a bit exasperating. My apologies to everyone.
Posted by: tom | May 20, 2007 7:55 PM
Tom said:
> The point of the Pope's remarks, and of my earlier comments, is not that the
> natives were seeking Christianity. Of course they weren't.
The Pope said:
> Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing.
> It also meant that they received, in the waters of Baptism, the divine life that made
> them children of God by adoption...
I say:
Eh?
I wouldn't say that the Pope has been so much misunderstood by critics, as understood only superficially and somewhat out of context. And as I said before, the sentiments that he expressed are nothing new, and surely not confined to him. I stand by what I said before.
Posted by: countlurkula | May 20, 2007 8:19 PM
Ed:
No, they weren't seeking the Christian faith, and for more on that I would refer you to what I said to Count Lukurla.
Yes, Christianity was often spread in the Western Hemisphere by barbarism, and sometimes not. Perhaps, though, a little perspective is in order. I would suspect that the conversion to Christianity of most of the nations in Europe - East and West alike - after the conversion of the Roman emperors, involved varying degrees of coercion which, in at least a few cases, went as far as brute force or pain of death. This was certainly true of the conversion of my own ancestral homeland in Eastern Europe. Nonetheless, I would argue that the adoption of Christianity has produced a far more advance development of that culture than it could possibly have achieved if it retained only its relatively simple pagan religion.
Despite the intolerance inherant in Christendom during Middle Ages and the effects that this initially had in the frustration of scientific advancement over a number of centuries, over the longer run, one sees the greatest flowering of a culture human rights and freedom in a number of the countries where there was once a powerful Christian presence - most notably in several of the nations of Western Europe - and I would argue that that Christian influence is among several factors that have lead to that result because many of our standards of human freedom represent a secularization of religious teaching that impart an ethos of forebearance and making of room for the other, such as "turning the other cheek" and the cultivation of theological virtues such as "prudence", which arguably gives rise to the modern political notions of "tolerance" and "freedom of conscience".
Whether any of this is true or not is perhaps debatable, but social and political conditions in many of the native societies of the Americas were arguably just as grim and oppressive as what the conquistadores brought to these people, including the demand, in some of them, for human sacrifice and the record of many of the peoples of the continent for mutual slaughter and enslavement, so I'm not convinced that the singling out of Christianity or the Pope for particular indignation is warranted. Perhaps the deplorable conditions in these countries is, in part, the remnant of some of these things, as well as a result of the crimes of the conquistadores.
Posted by: tom | May 20, 2007 8:48 PM
Tom:
Explaining Catholic Church doctrine to the folks here is a lost cause. Don't even try.
Not that Benedict is doing a particularly good job himself - but he is a theologian and theologians often assume that every statement they make is going to be read in its full theological context. It seems that his failing as a leader is to not realize that isn't going to happen. In my opinion, he would do well to consider a little more diversity on vetting his public pronouncements- in this case, running it past some Native Americans - but I'm not being asked.
This is especially so when his statements are going to be parsed by Latin American populist politicians looking to score political points, and by anti-Catholics here in the US (oh yes - a lot of Americans still haven't gotten over that facet of the American character).
And just so that I am not misunderstood, I don't think that Ed himself is anti-Catholic, just ill-informed. Can't say the same for some of the other people who post here, however.
Posted by: Poly | May 20, 2007 9:02 PM
Count Lukurla, comparing my words to the words of the Pope, seems to suggest that I am going against the clear sense of what the Pope said. But the whole point of the grandiosity (which the Count had earlier noted) of the words "Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing" is that these words really are theological "code" for the notion that, from the Pope's point of view, the adoption of Christianity really was a development in keeping with the natural progression of their culture, and this, I point out does not mean its progression in historical terms but in moral terms. (In other words: it is self-evident for these peope, as for everyone else, that they should be Christian. Now, this is exactly what one would expect a Pope, especially one like Benedict, to say). Theological language is often grandiose, but it is also very often non-literal, at least from a historical perspective, because it refers to concepts that are transcendent and ahistorical.
I'll certainly agree with the Count, and with other posters in this forum on this much though: if the Pope DID mean his words in literal and historical terms, that is to say that the natives as a group self-consciously and eagerly wanted to become Christians, he is clearly crazy. I just really think that that meaning is unlikely, and that his audience (a group of bishops after all - people thoroughly versed in the conventions of theological language) would have understood his words in another sense, namely that Christianity brought to the native people a higher good, one consistent with what they had already apprehended of the good on their own. This is what Benedict, and the Church, see as the greatest good and the best outcome of ALL human development
Posted by: Tom | May 20, 2007 9:38 PM
Poly:
Perhaps you are right. If so its a shame. After all, the site bills itself as promoting "... the interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture". I would have thought that means dialogue among different perspectives.
Posted by: Tom | May 20, 2007 9:48 PM
tom, that's right, I think that the "code" you propose is not what B16 "actually" meant, and if he did mean that, it was equally absurd (i.e., adoption of Christianity does not necessarily equate to moral or secular or whatever sort of progress).
I'll sign off here. Thanks, it's been fun. But there's no way I have time to match your word count. :)
Posted by: countlurkula | May 20, 2007 9:50 PM
"... there's no way I have time to match your word count. :)
Posted by Count Lurkula
Well, its good thing I'm not writing the Pope's speeches. They're long - and dry - enough as it is.
I do think that he should have them vetted by people with expertise in relevant matters would be helpful.
Posted by: Tom | May 20, 2007 10:13 PM
"I do think that he should have them vetted by people with expertise in relevant matters would be helpful"
Sorry. Forgot to credit Poly for that suggestion. Good idea, Poly
Posted by: Tom | May 20, 2007 10:16 PM
Tom wrote:
This is quite a different argument. Saying that they were "silently longing" to be converted is a very different statement from saying that, as a group, they're now better off because Christianity advanced their culture (that's a bad enough statement as it is, but it's not as bad as saying, in essence, that they secretly wanted it). This is identical to the argument made by some that those blacks descended from slaves should be happy that their ancestors were brought here because they get to have all the advantages of living in America rather than in Africa. That's a bad enough statement. To compound it by claiming that therefore their slave ancestors were "secretly longing" for it is nothing short of appalling.
You know, I've heard this argument a million times. What I've never heard is anyone actually identify anything in the Bible or in Christian theology for the first 15 centuries (at least) of Christianity that supports the notion of tolerance and freedom of conscience or any other political rights advocated from the Enlightenment forward. If those "theological virtues" allegedly "gave rise" to Enlightenment notions of freedom, where were they for 1600 years? The Catholic Church and all of its theologians over the centuries seemed blissfully unaware of such principles for 1800 years or so while they engaged in pogroms, forced conversion programs, torture and burning heretics. No one in the Protestant camp seems to have figured out such a connection either. Martin Luther certainly didn't find any call for human freedom in the Bible or in theology while he was telling his followers to burn down the houses and synagogues of the Jews. John Calvin didn't notice anything even faintly resembling a principle of freedom of conscience while he was having Servetus burned at the stake for heresy.
In reality, the principles of human liberty were an explicit rejection of centuries of oppression by religious authorities with political power, all of which was justified by Christian theologians all the way along. Our founding fathers defended freedom of conscience as an explicit rejection of that long history, like Thomas Jefferson did in his Notes on Virginia:
The only role that Christian theology had in the development of the Enlightenment principles of liberty was as the thesis to freedom's antithesis.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2007 10:18 PM
Theological language is often grandiose, but it is also very often non-literal, at least from a historical perspective, because it refers to concepts that are transcendent and ahistorical.
Yeah, concepts that are transcendent and ahistorical just has to be non-literal. Otherwise, what would be the point of having transcendent and ahistorical concepts? Thanks for explaining why theological language is often grandiose and very often non-literal.
Posted by: 386sx | May 20, 2007 10:44 PM
Our founding fathers defended freedom of conscience as an explicit rejection of that long history, like Thomas Jefferson did in his Notes on Virginia:
Thanks, but you might have better luck getting your point across if you were a little more grandiose and non-literal about it. Good luck!
Posted by: 386sx | May 20, 2007 10:49 PM
Ed:
I simply can not believe that you seriously mean to compare the spread of Christianity - under any circumstances (most of which today, as for the first three Christian centuries, is entirely uncoerced) - to the injustice of slavery. That is not only extreme, but beyond the pale. To be quite concrete and clear, there is a whole range of pro-social values that simply did not exist in the ancient world and would likely never have been received or understood with such clarity as they have been within modern societies, without the Judeo-Christian influence. These include respect and compassion for the poor, the sick, the vulnerable and weak, the desire for peace and an end to violent conflict, a respect for the innate value of human life, and the desire for the good of one's fellow man. I certainly do not say that these values have taken root as they ought to have, but most of these were certainly not values that were appreciated at all in classical Greco-Roman culture. Still, I'd argue that they certainly are values that are innate to human nature and essential to human happiness, and humanity's discernment of them was aided and clarified by divine revelation, which Christianity sees as reaching its complete and perfected form in the person of Jesus Christ. That, with all due thanks to 386sx for correcting my redundant, circular terminology, is what the "secret longing" of which the Pope spoke is about.
These alone are significant contributions to the evolving culture of human rights, but if you want me to be more specific with regard the enlightenment's notions of the consitution of the state and the development of liberal democracy in modern times, I cite as examples such democratic contributions as the early Christian practice of lay election of church leaders, which continued at least in institutes of consecrated life, such as monasteries, even after Bishops began to be appointed by kings and other powerful patrons, the insistence on women's rights in marriage which was defended in Church law despite the contrary views of the Germanic law that replaced Roman law in Western Europe after the 5th century, and the work which medieval theologians and canonists did in defining the nature of the state and the mutual rights and obligations of rulers and subjects as examples.
Its worth remembering that the historical trend throughout the early centuries of the Christian era favoured increasingly authoritarian states against earlier experiments with partial forms of democracy in Greece and Rome, and the Church was coopted into this as the civil power in some areas (mostly Italy), or at least an aid to the civil power, by the collapse of the civil order especially in Europe and the eventual adoption of feudalism that resulted from this. Consider also that the continuing evolution of human rights in our time, with some being enunciated today that were unheard of as little as fifty or even twenty years ago, demonstrates that it takes centuries to flesh these things out. Over the centuries, as well as resistance, the Christian Churches, as well as other religions, have also provided many figures who lead the fight for the recognition of human rights and for the abolition of evils like slavery and poverty, and the enlightenment and other progessive movements all had their share of clergy pushing their faithful as well as the wider community to support reform in the name of a purer faith.
But one can't expect any of this to proceed easily in societies that are without the printing press and mass communication, which were both lacking until recent times.
Finally, I do not say that Christianity alone brought about freedom and enlightenment, or even that it had the leading role. There were many factors that lead to these improvements but a positive contribution from the Western religious heritage, especially after the separate roles of the State and the Church were clarified, was not lacking. And there are values which today are primarily safeguarded by religion which, if they disappear, as the push to eliminate religious voices from public discourse might bring about, will cause the world to become a living hell.
On that note, I'm going to call it a night. I don't know if I've convinced anyone here - probably not I think, but hopefully I've provided some worthwhile food for thought. Good night and thanks everyone for the interesting discussion. I may or may not have the time to answer, but I'll check in the morning to see if I've been rebuffed again.
Posted by: Tom | May 21, 2007 12:57 AM
But one can't expect any of this to proceed easily in societies that are without the printing press and mass communication, which were both lacking until recent times.
What about divine revelation? All this talk about divine revelation, but you guys "secretly" know it's a load of crap.
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2007 5:38 AM
Tom, would you consider it a fair assessment that you are silently longing for Allah?
Posted by: windy | May 21, 2007 6:13 AM
Cut to the chase:
Papa Ratzi can say all the stupid things that he wants. He did so in Regensburg a few months ago during his tour of Bavaria, and he did so in Brazil only a few days ago. The fact that he was reciting RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) theology does not exempt him from being ridiculed for saying stupid things.
I don't know how to put it more succinctly.
Maybe he should be encouraged to remove foot from mouth.
Posted by: raj | May 21, 2007 9:42 AM
I think this statement in particular hits the nail on the head. The Qur'an makes the claim that every culture/religion has had among its ranks an agent of Allah that spread His word into doctrine. You must really be attempting to find Islam, even if you don't really know it.
Hindus have called Jesus an Avatar of Vishnu; you must really be Hindu, even if you don't realize it.
Oh, and I hope that you don't have any Mormon relatives, because if you do, all of your dead relatives are probably now Mormon, at least according to the LDS church.
Posted by: Michael LoPrete | May 21, 2007 11:15 AM
What I've never heard is anyone actually identify anything in the Bible or in Christian theology for the first 15 centuries (at least) of Christianity that supports the notion of tolerance and freedom of conscience or any other political rights advocated from the Enlightenment forward.
Looking at the history of my own country, Ireland...Christianity replaced a relatively sophisticated and enlightened existing culture, consigning women to centuries of inequality. It did nothing to quench internecine warfare; rather, the Norman invasion, which set us up for centirues of English domination, was done with the approval of the Pope. Ireland was then further wracked by post-reformation religious wars and colonization, with most of the indigenous Irish, being of one Christian sect, disenfranchised and oppressed by a minority from another Christian sect. Ireland's very recent intellectual and economic flowering has been accompanied closely by a rapid decline in church attendance and a diminution of the influence of the Chruch.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | May 21, 2007 11:49 AM
Shit is not what Benedict said, but what people in this blog, without ANY idea of history, comment on Benedict remarks. Keep barking, Ed and friends, what else can you do?
Posted by: Josh | May 21, 2007 12:38 PM
Michael LaPrete told me:
"The Qur'an makes the claim that every culture/religion has had among its ranks an agent of Allah that spread His word into doctrine. You must really be attempting to find Islam, even if you don't really know it.
"Hindus have called Jesus an Avatar of Vishnu; you must really be Hindu, even if you don't realize it".
The best answer to all of these claims is the one by 386sx:
"... it's a load of crap".
Crude, but consistent with scientific methodology and difficult to refute. None of these sorts of claims, including the Pope's/Catholic Church's, can be proven in any convincing way.
And since "Allah" is merely the Arabic word for God (like "Deus" in Latin, "Gott" in German, "Ho Theos" in Greek, "Boh" in Slavonic), to the extent that I do (or do not) practice Catholic Christianity, to that same extent, I certainly do, or do not, seek Allah, just as the Pope does.
Religions make all sorts of claims about their authority both in terms of their respective internal structures of self-governance and vis-a-vis one another, and all of this is meaningless from the perspective of science. The Pope's comments in Brazil about the native religions and Christianity are in this category, and I just find it surprising that they have generated any interest at all in a forum like this.
What may be of a significance that is worthy of discussion in a forum such as this is the fact that these kind of claims do have a geo-political (and even a geo-strategic) consequence in that they can be thought of in terms of supporting access to power/influence, infrastructure and resources on behalf of the religious groups or institutions that make them. But this is true of other cultural institutions besides religion, and the scrutinies applied to these claims ought to focus on the question of whether the religion (or other movement) in question can advance its claims/agenda in a manner that respects enlightened values, peaceful coexistence in a secular and pluralistic society, and the rule of law. The days of the Crusades and the Inquisition are long over and the Pope's statement on the Native peoples is primarily a theological abstraction that will be of little practical consequence in terms of anything a forum such as this would be interested in. Not only that, but as I've tried (unsuccessfully perhaps) to point out, its a benign one, even a compliment from the perspective the Pope represents. If you doubt that, have a look at this.
http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=924
Issues like biotechnology, stem cell research and AIDS prevention are real issues between religion and science; the Pope's comments about native religions are not. If you're going to make a fuss about anthropological claims made in the name of religion perhaps it would be better to tackle ones like the comments made about Jews in the video link I posted above. (Speaking of Islam, even the Pope's Regensberg address, since it was brought up in this thread, was erudite and moderate compared to this, and yet this is typical of what is said by Saudi Imams these days).
Peaceful and sensible religious leaders (which is what I assume most of them generally are these days) whether they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Animist, or any other, who refrain from these types of gratuitous insults against their rivals, ought to be left alone to work out their differences as best they can, so long as they continue to abstain from causing violent disturbances in their communities and the rest of the world. As far as I know, there are few places in the world where Christians are engaged in violence in the name of their religion, the one exception that comes to mind is the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. On the other hand, of all the world's religions, it seems self-evident to me that the one that, at present, is most troubled, and most compromised, by violence is Islam. Yet to say this out loud is to risk the wrath of violent street protests burning the embassies of infidel nations and threatening death to those who insult Mohammed and his followers.
With that reality in mind, I can't help but wonder whether the Pope is targetted here because what he said is really seen as SOOO bad, or because he's an easy (i.e. safe) target for a generalized rage against religion, or worse yet a specific anti-Catholic bias.
If the kind of comments made by Islamic or other non-Christian sources that I have referred to in providing the link I've posted here have been addressed in this forum in other threads, I would appreciate it if someone responding to my comments would post a link (or links) about this so that I can put to rest my suspicion that Catholicism is being selectively, and conveniently, targetted here.
Posted by: Tom | May 21, 2007 1:09 PM
Sorry. Looks like the video file I'd intended to post isn't in the link I provided. None the less, its available by way of a search at http://memritv.org.
Use Saudi Arabia as the country and Basmallah as the keyword.
Posted by: Tom | May 21, 2007 1:24 PM
My argument here is simply that it is easy to misread the Pope's message, as has certainly happened here, because he is speaking, as usual, a theological language and using a form of discourse that has its own set of conventions that have been built up over a long history and that need to be appreciated if one wishes to interpret the words and evaluate the message correctly.
That would have been fine if the Pope had been speaking in the vacuum of outer space. But he wasn't doing that. He was speaking in a particular place on Earth, and that place had its own long history and its own context.
Let's try a secular example. Suppose I'm a politician, and I'm giving my boilerplate speech about how America is the land of opportunity, and how people have come here seeking a better life. That's a perfectly good speech, and if you look at the whole of American history then it's probably more true than false. If I give that speech at Ellis Island, then it'll go over pretty well. But if I give that same speech at the opening of the new Slavery Museum, then people are going to get upset.
I dunno. I think it's breathtakingly sad that the Pope has so little interest in Brazilian history. It comes across as disrespectful, and it's probably doing real damage to the Church there. I hope he apologizes.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | May 21, 2007 5:00 PM
"That would have been fine if the Pope had been speaking in the vacuum of outer space. But he wasn't doing that. He was speaking in a particular place on Earth, and that place had its own long history and its own context".
Posted by Chaos Engineer
This is a criticism that I can accept. I just wish the original posting referencing the BBC article had summarized the matter this way, instead of engaging in petty insults and attributing malice without consideration of relevant facts. This is no different than what Benedict has done. Benedict is arguably naive, having spent too much of his time in a secluded academic environment, particularly as the Church's doctrinal enforcer, but he's not evil. As I've acknowledged above in response to Poly, he ought to have his comments more thoroughly vetted, but perhaps he's reached an age where the saying "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" applies.
By way of information, as the "Tom" above who has tried to defend the Pope in this thread, I've decided to take an online name appropriate to my position here in order to avoid confusion of identities since the "Tom" who posted about "Obsidian Wings" is someone else. Caught between warring sides - religious and secular - looking to both sides and wanting to acknowledge both, the two headed eagle seems appropriate - hence Eagle of Lagash.
Posted by: Eagle of Lagash | May 21, 2007 8:55 PM
Tom aka Eagle of Lagash -
I would appreciate it if someone responding to my comments would post a link (or links) about this so that I can put to rest my suspicion that Catholicism is being selectively, and conveniently, targetted here.
All you need to do is go back a front page or two. Ed is not picky about the faith of religious leaders who say really stupid things. In fact, he is far more critical of fundamentalist Christian, rightwing nuts, than he is of Catholics - probably because findies are far more prolific with the really stupid comments.
I just wish the original posting referencing the BBC article had summarized the matter this way, instead of engaging in petty insults and attributing malice without consideration of relevant facts.
The original post was neither petty nor particularly malicious. Personaly, I would have been far more malicious about it. It was a ridiculous statement to make and ignorant to boot. Only I fear it wasn't ignorant on his part, I just don't think he gives a damn who he offends or pisses off.
Benedict is arguably naive, having spent too much of his time in a secluded academic environment, particularly as the Church's doctrinal enforcer, but he's not evil.
Yes he is. Dogma is not more important than souls. Dogma is all about temporal power, not about spreading the love of Christ and God's grace. The Holy Spirit is the "enforcer," any man taking such liberties is presumtive, arrogant and evil. I dissagreed with a lot that Pope John Paul said, as I disagree with a lot the Catholic church says and does, but he obviously cared a great deal for people. He gave the impression, at least, that bringing people to the grace of God was more important than shoving dogma down everyones throats.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 21, 2007 10:04 PM
The Holy Spirit is the "enforcer," any man taking such liberties is presumtive, arrogant and evil.
Well then the Holy Spirit should do some enforcing instead of having the pope do it. Maybe they're mistaking it for Oprah Winfrey?
I dissagreed with a lot that Pope John Paul said, as I disagree with a lot the Catholic church says and does, but he obviously cared a great deal for people. He gave the impression, at least, that bringing people to the grace of God was more important than shoving dogma down everyones throats.
Well then how about God bringing people to the grace of God instead of having the Pope do that one too. It must not be all that important! Doh!
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2007 10:40 PM
386sx -
Well then the Holy Spirit should do some enforcing instead of having the pope do it.
While I don't happen to believe that the bible is divinely inspired and therefor question the notion of the trinity, biblicly speaking, it is not any man's job to enforce religious dogma. That is the perview of the Holy Spirit.
Well then how about God bringing people to the grace of God instead of having the Pope do that one too.
It is the job of Christian leaders, indeed, all Christians, to encourage other people to find God and God's grace. Shoving dogma down peoples throats is not the way to do it. Approacing them in love, with respect and humility, generaly works a lot better.
Again, I don't believe the bible is divinely inspired, nor do I believe that Christians have a monopoly on God. But if one wants to take a biblical perspective, the current pope is a self-righteous, arrogant and obnoxious. I also would add evil, as I do believe that evil exists - even if it is a human construct. He is no more evil than many other religious leaders, of many different religions - but he's no less evil than many of them. Anyone who places dogma ahead of people, is evil, as far as I am concerned.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 21, 2007 11:26 PM
Approacing them in love, with respect and humility, generaly works a lot better.
Well then God should do that then. Oh, it doesn't make sense for God to bring people to God's grace. Why, that would be too crazy!!
Posted by: 386sx | May 21, 2007 11:33 PM
Personaly, I think that's exactly what God did for me.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 21, 2007 11:58 PM
DuWayne advised me:
"All you need to do is go back a front page or two. Ed is not picky about the faith of religious leaders who say really stupid things"
All right. Mea culpa.
"Yes [Benedict] is [evil]. Dogma is not more important than souls. Dogma is all about temporal power, not about spreading the love of Christ and God's grace. The Holy Spirit is the "enforcer," any man taking such liberties is presumtive, arrogant and evil. I dissagreed with a lot that Pope John Paul said, as I disagree with a lot the Catholic church says and does, but he obviously cared a great deal for people"
Although I think, DuWayne, what you really had under the previous Pope was, to a certain extent, a "good cop/bad cop" situation with John Paul as the "good cop" and Ratzinger as the "bad cop". The two men definitely have different styles, but I'd point out that Ratzinger's former activity as head of the Vatican's doctrinal office and the policies that he pursued throughout most of his time there, was all at Woytyla's bidding. Benedict is a much less charismatic man, said to be quite shy actually, but he does try to reach out. Like John Paul, his great fault does appear to be a definite rigidity in terms of controlling the agenda, but he has actually been much more flexible and responsive than John Paul about some significant matters. This has been apparent in the following:
1. He has taken much stronger action against clerical sexual offenders than John Paul did, dismissing at least one high profile offender who had been protected by the old Pope.
2. He was willing to consider allowing changes to the laws on clerical celibacy, but the Synod of Bishops overruled this.
3. He has followed a much more hands off policy toward the governance of the Eastern Catholic Churches, returning Rome's relationship with them to a much more collegial and traditional synodal style that Eastern Christians - the Orthodox in particular - find more acceptable than the heavy-handed control exercised by Woytyla.
4. He was willing to consider moderating the Church's opposition to the use of condoms in certain cases (I believe the Curia or the Cardinals consistory may have talked him out of that one).
5. He was willing to relax the ban against the reception of the sacraments by Catholics who had divorced and remarried (which had been instituted by John Paul II), but the Synod of Bishops weighed in against this idea as well.
6. He had a very cordial meeting with the dissident theologian Hans Kung who had criticized Papal authority and been banned (at the insistence of John Paul II) from teaching in Catholic institutions, held discussions with him and even had him over for dinner.
7. He has changed the format of meetings of the Synod of Bishops, allowing much free discussion and debate, and has demonstrated a willingness that the last Pope never had to consider the advice of this body and incorporate it into the concluding document.
8. He has withheld plans to authorize a return to the old Tridentine Liturgy for those who prefer it to the newer reformed Liturgy because of the objections of the French bishops, even though he is known to have a strong personal preference for the older rite and had celebrated it several times for various groups during the pontificate of Woytyla.
None of this strikes me as the behaviour of someone who places dogma ahead of people. He simply lacks John Paul's acumen for communication and winning a crowd.
I would say that the "blunders" (if one wants to call them that) at Aperecida and at Regensberg (have I overlooked any?) result from a reluctance to part from his former role as an academic, not from malice or indifference to his audience.
I do acknowledge the points you and others have made about the context of his words in Brazil, but I hope what I've said about the tradition he was drawing on in Catholic theology has made some sort of impression. Perhaps I've defended him more vigourously than I should have, but I'd say that he's not as evil as you make him out to be either.
Posted by: Eagle of Lagash | May 22, 2007 12:40 AM
This one will almost certainly change in the next few years. It already has in many(if not most) churches unofficially. There is some financial incentive here so it's not distinctly doctrine which many(again if not most) priests already find incorrect.
In all honesty though isn't this entire thread kind of silly. The Pope is really not taken seriously by many anymore nor is the RCC. It's kind of like an old relic of history that is kind of amusing to observe but that has long since lost any real world validity.
Why bother to defend an obviously ignorant statement or even try to rationalize it? He said something stupid, he's just a dude in a funny hat doing the best he can to corral a bunch of superstitions. It's impossible to be consistent with such a menu.
Posted by: JimC | May 22, 2007 9:50 AM
Personaly, I think that's exactly what God did for me.
Well then maybe God should do that more often with other people too. (But you don't sound too sure about it.)
Posted by: 386sx | May 22, 2007 10:53 PM
(But you don't sound too sure about it.)
Actually, I am fairly certain that is exactly what happened. The likelyhood of my finding God, the way I did and when I did, was not very high. The friend that I reconnected with, out here in Portland, that was an indirect part of it, was one of the least likely people I know to have renewed his own faith. The fact that I was in the least bit open to accepting it, was also highly unlikely. If anyone had told me, just two years ago, that I would re-embrace my faith, much less be leading worship, ever, it would have been a source of great amusment for me and anyone who knew me.
And I believe that God does do that with other people, quite often.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 23, 2007 12:04 AM
Actually, I am fairly certain that is exactly what happened.
You don't sound too sure about it. If you were led to the pope you wouldn't say that you're fairly certain you were led to the the pope. For one thing, the pope wouldn't be invisible. And you wouldn't have to say that you were fairly certain that you were led to the pope because you were the least bit open to being led to the pope. I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges, and you're trying to make it sound as though we're both talking apples.
Posted by: 386sx | May 23, 2007 12:20 AM
386sx -
The reason that I don't sound so sure, is that I refuse to speak in absolutes with very many things. I am as certain that God led me back to him, as I am that I am a cognisent, conscious, mammal - that is to say, pretty damned certain. That does not mean that ignore the possability, however small it might be, that I am wrong.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 23, 2007 1:21 AM
Okay, well I guess I just have to take your word for that. And the Pope's word... and Jerry Falwell's word... Oh wella!
Posted by: 386sx | May 23, 2007 4:57 AM
I thought I was finished with this thread, but I find it necesary to take up a cause other than the Pope's here. Since my given name, Tom, is subject to identity confusion with others as I noted earlier, and the "Eagle of Lagash" moniker I briefly settled on really somehow sounds hoaky and melodramatic, I've come up something I think serves my purposes, and my profile here, better. So, when I comment on this site in future, I'll use a little play on words, reflecting my respect for the discipline of Theology (which does not diminish my respect for the Enlightenment or free thought) and the way I've tried to interpret and apply some of its insights and methods here, and hopefully also imparts a compliment to the Science devotees out there. So from now I'll make myself known as "Trinary Code".
Says 386sx (rather presumptuously, I have to add):
"Okay, well I guess I just have to take your word for that. And the Pope's word... and Jerry Falwell's word... Oh wella!"
I think you probably should take his word on that, 386, unless you can cite evidence in what he's said that he's some sort of sheister or charlatan making outrageous claims over others about what his experience should mean, and that are unsustainable on the strength of any physical or moral evidence. He's not imposing anything on anyone else, unlike Falwell, and arguably even the Pope (who in any event does so far more subtly and far less outrageously than a guy like Falwell, all sweeping generalizations aside).
It is reasonably argued by many/most posting in this thread that the Pope attempted to sugarcoat, or even whitewash altogether, a series of major historical crimes by his words in Aperacida. Recalling what I've said in my various posts above, it's clear that the way I see it, the situation is not quite that black and white. However, DuWayne's comments on his own experience of God, unlike the Pope's assessment of Latin America's conversion, cannot be said in any way to impose any dogma or law on anyone else in the name of his experience, so it seems there's no practical need to refute him.
Not only that but throughout history, with the possible exception of the modern "scientific" age, peoples of all sorts, including the native peoples whose rights are defended by the writers in this thread, have accepted as evidentiary forms of knowledge things like intuition, perceived miracles, dreams, visions and apparitions, as well as statements from credible authorities calling upon such methods of discernment such as priests, prophets, sages and shamans, especially when they were corroborated by the edification (moral betterment) of the people who accept the resulting "knowledge" as true.
None of the knowledge that emerges from the activity of these sources is as concrete and definitive as that from science, relying, as the latter does, on evidence arising from the senses and therefore seemingly verifiable. It's more nebulous than the work that the scientific method does, but that does not mean that it means nothing. A wide consensus emerges from these sources and from authorities who sift through the "evidence" they provide us about questions like the "purpose" and "end" of the universe - "why" it exists, and what should be regarded as "the good" to which to aspire. Different religions and philosophies do have differing stories, myths, reflections, dogmas, etc, but these generally consitute different emphases in relation to the questions that such traditions inquire into and try to answer, and more importantly, they also arrive, in the end, at a remarkable degree of convergence that can also be taken as a strong indication, if not outright "proof" that there is something greater and more worthy to be sought after than anything we can know from the "obervable" world alone, especially when one considers the betterment of life that can arise when people are moved by this "knowledge"/reflection to rise above the dictates of base animality in their behaviour and strive for higher things - assuming, as DuWayne points out that when they do so they avoid the corrosive effects of a rigid fixation on dogma. For example, Islam emphasizes the Unicity and uniqueness of the Uncreated One, as does Judaism (somewhat less emphatically, I think) while Christianity emphasises the communitarian nature of reality by seeing it as a reflection of the presence of a presumed community of mutual love within the Godhead, whose transcendence is so beautifully emphasized by the notion of "three", a number which symbolically overcomes dualities and points to the discovery of an ultimate unity and reconciliation underlying their relationship. Both of these insights are important.
I'll take the Christian perspective in more detail, since I'm more familiar with it than the Islamic, Jewish or any of the others. In terms of its consequences in the field of what the Church calls "Moral Theology", Christianity's notion of the God of triune love ultimately serves to emphasize God's wish that human beings should build a civilization of love, where each person loves all others and aspires to serve their ultimate good. Would you really want to live in a world in which nobody engages in that kind of reflection? Can science define what is good and why? Did the science available to the Nazis provide the answer to why six million Jews shoudl not have been murdered to provide the "final solution" to what the Nazi's, like the numerous promoters of Eugenics around the world, supported by what seemed to them like solid "science" insisted was a major demographic and genetic problem - namely encroaching feebleness, weakness and resulting social breakdown?
The notion of "God" - the name thought to have come, incidentally, from an Indo-European word (perhaps a verb something like "gawah", which likely meant something like "to call upon" or "to call out to") reminds us that there is reason to hope that at the root and foundation of the existence of the universe is a goodness, compassion and wisdom that means to bring it, and us, along to a state of ultimate freedom and happiness.
I don't see what interest anyone has in dismissing, on the basis of science, or anything else, this type of inquiry into the nature of reality (as represented by religion) except as a personal choice that, like DuWayne's personal belief in his "experience" of God, has no social consequences in the wider culture. The suggestion that a general sense of belief in "God" (however we might define what that means) or in the possibility, at least, that "God" or some transcendent reality might exist, has no place or value in society strikes me as ultimately being as dehumanizing as any form of religious fanaticism or fundamentalism.
Besides that, I have to point out that a great deal of the authority of science rests on a leap of faith - faith in the reliability of the persons who undertake it, and the reliability of their methods. Here too the ground can shift and move (remember that the senses tell us that the Sun rises and, at one time, people actually believed that!), and matters of personal integrity can compromise the work. Remember Ponds and Fleischman - the latest "inventors"/"discoverers" of Cold Fusion?
Unlike them, DuWayne is not trying to "sell" you anything. So I think you should let him have the final word.
Posted by: Trinary_Code | May 23, 2007 8:19 PM
Dude... Pardon my dyslexia, but hurry up pick a dogdamn name and stick with it for a while!
;-)
Posted by: doctorgoo | May 23, 2007 8:41 PM
Yeah, sorry for making everyone's head spin. Don't worry, though. This one will stick.
Posted by: Trinary_Code | May 23, 2007 8:47 PM
By the way, DoctorGoo, are that dyslexic, insomniac agnostic I heard about, who lost sleep lying awake at night wondering if there really IS a Dog?
Thanks for the chuckle.
Posted by: Trinary_Code | May 23, 2007 8:50 PM
"are you", I should say
Posted by: Trinary_Code | May 23, 2007 8:54 PM
386sx -
Okay, well I guess I just have to take your word for that. And the Pope's word... and Jerry Falwell's word... Oh wella!
Honestly, you don't. You are more than welcome to think what you will about the naure of my belief and the strength of it. It really does nothing to effect the reality of said belief.
I cannot vouch for the Pope or Falwell, though, I really doubt either of them ever heard of me - even if they had, I doubt they could vouch for the strength of my faith.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 23, 2007 9:26 PM
Honestly, you don't. You are more than welcome to think what you will about the naure of my belief and the strength of it. It really does nothing to effect the reality of said belief.
You got that right!
I cannot vouch for the Pope or Falwell, though, I really doubt either of them ever heard of me - even if they had, I doubt they could vouch for the strength of my faith.
Doesn't matter. I was talking about their "faith." They are sure they are cognisant, conscious, mammals too. I don't know if they refuse to speak in absolutes with very many things, but there's a reason why they call some things "faith" and other things not "faith." Apples and oranges. But you try to make them both out to be apples. That's why you're full of baloney, and you're probably just trolling me anyways. Cheerio.
Posted by: 386sx | May 24, 2007 11:44 AM
386sx -
I really don't get where you are getting this apples and oranges analogy. Other than the fact that I believe that the Pope and Falwell are/were probably quite sincere about what they believe, as I am, there are very few similarities between us. I find it incomprehensible that you seem to think that I don't honestly believe what I believe.
I find the last sentence very amusing, as I had the notion that you were doing exactly that to me. After all, I have not questioned your honesty or sincerity, indeed I wouldn't unless I saw clear statements from you that were contradictory, in which case, I might question your honesty - though it's more likely I would simply ignore you. I fail to see where I have given any indication that I am dishonest. There are many things I lack in this world, one of the few things that I do have, and value highly, is my integrity. So you accuse me of trolling, when you're the one accusing me of dishonesty without any basis for doing so. That's rich.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 24, 2007 1:14 PM
386sx -
I really don't get where you are getting this apples and oranges analogy. Other than the fact that I believe that the Pope and Falwell are/were probably quite sincere about what they believe, as I am, there are very few similarities between us. I find it incomprehensible that you seem to think that I don't honestly believe what I believe.
I find the last sentence very amusing, as I had the notion that you were doing exactly that to me. After all, I have not questioned your honesty or sincerity, indeed I wouldn't unless I saw clear statements from you that were contradictory, in which case, I might question your honesty - though it's more likely I would simply ignore you. I fail to see where I have given any indication that I am dishonest. There are many things I lack in this world, one of the few things that I do have, and value highly, is my integrity. So you accuse me of trolling, when you're the one accusing me of dishonesty without any basis for doing so. That's rich.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 24, 2007 1:16 PM
386sx -
I really don't get where you are getting this apples and oranges analogy. Other than the fact that I believe that the Pope and Falwell are/were probably quite sincere about what they believe, as I am, there are very few similarities between us. I find it incomprehensible that you seem to think that I don't honestly believe what I believe.
I find the last sentence very amusing, as I had the notion that you were doing exactly that to me. After all, I have not questioned your honesty or sincerity, indeed I wouldn't unless I saw clear statements from you that were contradictory, in which case, I might question your honesty - though it's more likely I would simply ignore you. I fail to see where I have given any indication that I am dishonest. There are many things I lack in this world, one of the few things that I do have, and value highly, is my integrity. So you accuse me of trolling, when you're the one accusing me of dishonesty without any basis for doing so. That's rich.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 24, 2007 1:18 PM
386sx -
I really don't get where you are getting this apples and oranges analogy. Other than the fact that I believe that the Pope and Falwell are/were probably quite sincere about what they believe, as I am, there are very few similarities between us. I find it incomprehensible that you seem to think that I don't honestly believe what I believe.
I find the last sentence very amusing, as I had the notion that you were doing exactly that to me. After all, I have not questioned your honesty or sincerity, indeed I wouldn't unless I saw clear statements from you that were contradictory, in which case, I might question your honesty - though it's more likely I would simply ignore you. I fail to see where I have given any indication that I am dishonest. There are many things I lack in this world, one of the few things that I do have, and value highly, is my integrity. So you accuse me of trolling, when you're the one accusing me of dishonesty without any basis for doing so. That's rich.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 24, 2007 1:19 PM
386sx -
I really don't get where you are getting this apples and oranges analogy. Other than the fact that I believe that the Pope and Falwell are/were probably quite sincere about what they believe, as I am, there are very few similarities between us. I find it incomprehensible that you seem to think that I don't honestly believe what I believe.
I find the last sentence very amusing, as I had the notion that you were doing exactly that to me. After all, I have not questioned your honesty or sincerity, indeed I wouldn't unless I saw clear statements from you that were contradictory, in which case, I might question your honesty - though it's more likely I would simply ignore you. I fail to see where I have given any indication that I am dishonest. There are many things I lack in this world, one of the few things that I do have, and value highly, is my integrity. So you accuse me of trolling, when you're the one accusing me of dishonesty without any basis for doing so. That's rich.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 24, 2007 1:22 PM
386sx -
I really don't get where you are getting this apples and oranges analogy. Other than the fact that I believe that the Pope and Falwell are/were probably quite sincere about what they believe, as I am, there are very few similarities between us. I find it incomprehensible that you seem to think that I don't honestly believe what I believe.
I find the last sentence very amusing, as I had the notion that you were doing exactly that to me. After all, I have not questioned your honesty or sincerity, indeed I wouldn't unless I saw clear statements from you that were contradictory, in which case, I might question your honesty - though it's more likely I would simply ignore you. I fail to see where I have given any indication that I am dishonest. There are many things I lack in this world, one of the few things that I do have, and value highly, is my integrity. So you accuse me of trolling, when you're the one accusing me of dishonesty without any basis for doing so. That's rich.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 24, 2007 1:33 PM
386sx -
I really don't get where you have this apples and oranges bullshit. Faith is faith, that the Pope, Falwell and I, all have very different faiths has nothing to do with anything. While I cannot vouch for either of them, I daresay that both are/were just as genuine in their faith as I am.
I find it very funny that you would think I am trolling you, I was thinking exactly the same about you. Consider, I have, at no time questioned your honesty, while you insist on questioning mine. While in your world, integrity may not mean much, it does in mine. I have very few things to call my own. One of the few things that I do have is my integrity. While you may not put much wieght into honesty, I am one of those old fashioned sorts that does. That means that I generaly assume that people I am engaging with are being honest with me, unless they absolutely prove that wrong. Throwing around accusations of lying, without any reason to assume someone is, shows me that you don't seem to value it. I am very sorry for you, if that is indeed the case.
Anyhow, I have definately had enough of this. I could accept your thinking I might not take my faith very seriously. But accusations of dishonesty are not something I put up with.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 24, 2007 6:40 PM
I really don't get where you have this apples and oranges bullshit.
Simple. I wonder why the "Holy Spirit" doesn't do some "enforcing" like the Pope does, and I wonder why "God" doesn't lead people to "God" like the Pope does, and you go off into fairy tale invisible land with invisible "enforcing" and "leading" and try to make it sound like it's just as real as the Pope. Just like Falwell's pretend imaginary "veil of protection" that God lifted on 911, it's all baloney.
Posted by: 386sx | May 25, 2007 7:22 PM
386sx -
It's simple. I went off into "fairy tale land," as you so eloquently put it, because to me it is as real as the Pope. And from the perspective of the same bible that the Pope reads, it is. While I don't accept the bible as the word of God and don't accept the biblical trinity, I do believe that the God that I worship is very real and active in my life.
While I do not accept the validity of the bible, I am very familiar with it's contents and with a wide range of theological perspectives on the bible. I have read it numerous times, some parts more often than others. I have studied the works of many different biblical scholars and theologians - thus why I ultimately reject it's divine inspiration. Catholic dogma, still credits the bible as being divinely inspired, as such, the notion that it's man's place to be an "enforcer" is arrogant and presumptious.
I am not asking you to believe what I or any other person of faith believes. But if you are unwilling to accept the frame that this dicussion is based on, for the sake of this discussion, it is impossible to explain it to you. It is not apples and oranges, from a Christian perspective and Catholicism is a Christian religion.
To try to be clearer, I am not asking you to give any validity to the frame, I understand and respect that you don't buy it. My point is, that everyone who is being discussed, the Pope, myself, even Falwell, accepts this frame. All of us believe in this "fairy tale land" as you describe it. The differences are in theology - all of us accept the divinity of God and the validity of the spiritual. My apologies for not making that more clear. It explains why I thought you were trolling me and you thought the same of me.
Also, sorry for the multi-posting. For a while nothing was showing up - apparently it all decided to after all.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 25, 2007 8:20 PM
Okay, but I'm still wondering why your God has to be invisible all the time. Come on, even the Pope doesn't have much trouble being visible to everybody. God would have a much easier time leading people to God if people didn't have to wonder whether or not it was their imagination. You do have to admit that looks mighty suspicious. You have yourself a nice day.
Posted by: 386sx | May 25, 2007 9:42 PM