Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The BBC reports:
Pope Benedict XVI has criticised US bishops for their handling of child sex scandals, saying their response to the crisis had sometimes been very poor.He laid part of the blame for the crisis, of which he feels "deeply ashamed", on a breakdown in US values.
Okay, while my blood is still boiling let me get this on the record: fuck you, you lying piece of shit. The sheer chutzpah it takes for Ratzinger, of all people, to point the finger at anyone but himself for the long history of priests abusing children is beyond all reason. This is the man who, before he allegedly became infallible, sent a letter to every Catholic bishop ordering them to keep all accusations of priestly abuse within the church and not to turn over any evidence to the police.
This man is traveling the world in luxury when he should be in prison for obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting the commission and accessory after the fact for one of the worst crimes imaginable. So should every single bishop and cardinal who transferred a priest who had molested a child from one parish to another rather than turning them over to the police. A breakdown in US values? Fuck you, Benedict. It's your barbaric values that caused thousands of children to be molested, not ours.
Comments
Thats why we call him Joe the Rat.
Posted by: SLC | April 18, 2008 9:26 AM
Amen.
Posted by: c-serpent | April 18, 2008 9:29 AM
I actually read an article or was watching the news when they quoted him. However they didn't point out the fact which you just pointed out. Thanks for saying it, I don't know why people won't confront him about it.
Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2008 9:32 AM
Pope Palpatine also perpetrated this Orwellian quote the other day:
Freedom is slavery...
Posted by: Wes | April 18, 2008 9:33 AM
I don't know why people won't confront him about it.
Aside from the reluctance of many in the media to actually fact check, it seems pretty clear that there are a lot of Bill Donahues in the world who will do their best to destroy anyone who takes issues with the Catholic Church or its leaders, no matter how well justified is one's gripe with the church.
Posted by: Evil Bender | April 18, 2008 10:18 AM
I while I forget the name of the comedian, I have heard a song that has the line
"We used to know him as little Cardinal Ratzinger, but now he's just Bededict to all of us."
(Speak it aloud if the pun initially escapes you).
Posted by: statdad | April 18, 2008 10:39 AM
AMEN!
And lest we forget, this is the same man who gave a Vatican position to Bernard Law, the Boston bishop who was in office for many of the worst abuses - a job that comes complete with a Vatican-issued diplomatic passport. The SOB is ensuring that law enforcement can't do sh*t to another co-conspirator in the fraud, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | April 18, 2008 10:42 AM
I guess the breakdown of American values is the reason that Papa Ratzi (or the Prada Pope as I often hear him called) defended and sheltered the pedophile priests. Since he is the one who has sheltered the worst offenders (and even promoted some), his statements destroyed my irony meter. I agree - lying sack of feces (and not just any, let's go with orange-smelly-baby-feces).
Posted by: Badger3k | April 18, 2008 10:55 AM
And contrary to the new norms of the US Bishops for dealing with clergy abuse and the now standard American practice of requiring an in depth psychological evaluation for admission to seminary, the Vatican insists that any prospective seminarian or priest can refuse an evaluation without consequence to their application or standing, respectively.
So much for identifying even a hint of pedophilia.
Posted by: Dr X | April 18, 2008 11:03 AM
Little bit of both (consider all the kids raped in Protestant/Mormon/etc churches, too), alas...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 18, 2008 11:25 AM
Ed: Can you give a reference for that Ratzinger order? I'd love to have it when I do my own post on this Pope.
Oh, and speaking of confronting the Pope, someoen needs to ask him what role, exactly, the child-rape-enabling Cardinal Law played in the conclave that elected him Pope. Did Law vote for Ratz? IF so, why?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 18, 2008 11:39 AM
I do find it unseemly that the government raided a FLDS "compound" to protect kids from sexual abuse (and rightly so), but never prosecuted the Great Catholic Conspiracy to protect the diddlers of children.
I don't know whether to close with "a cult is a religion with no political power" or "some pigs are more equal than others."
Posted by: Scott | April 18, 2008 11:44 AM
Cardinal Ratzinger never directed cardinals and bishops to retain abusing priests or to transfer them to different parishes around the world.
The letter of May 18, 2001, did not direct any Churchmen to "cover up" anything:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/SacramentorumAndNormaeEnglish.htm
The letter reminded all recipients that confessors are bound by God's law to refrain from revealing the secrets shared with them during Sacramental Confession. Notwithstanding the evil delays used by Cardinal Mahoney's legal team in Los Angeles to use "confession" as a cover-up for purely secular archdiocesan documents and records, Cardinal Ratzinger and the Vatican never authorized such cover ups.
In fact, as I read it, the letter appears to streamline the process by which dishonored clergy are removed from the ranks of the Church. This would seem very much in keeping with Pope Benedict's horror at the "filth" that has invaded parts of Christ's Church.
Posted by: Paul S. | April 18, 2008 11:48 AM
Pedophilia, the attraction to prepubescent children, has nothing to do with values. It has everything to do with psycho-sexual and social maturation. You will find pedophiles across cultures, among liberals, conservatives, religious and non-religious people. Pedophiles have tended to "collect" in certain occupations or activities, not because of values, but because of opportunities to be near children that certain occupations and activities afford. If you're not sexually attracted to 8-year-olds, you're not going to stalk 8-year-olds for sex, regardless of your values.
I haven't heard that the Texas Mormon fundamentalists are pedophiles. They're suspected of raping adolescent minors. Their behavior probably has much more to do with values and moral scruples than values have anything to do with pedophilia.
So, the pope can blame it on values until the cows come home, but it won't stop a pedophile priest from raping or molesting a prepubescent child unless the pope is talking about a value system within the church hierarchy that demands a rigorous priest selection process and an insistence that leadership not look the other way when suspicions arise.
Posted by: Dr X | April 18, 2008 11:52 AM
>>>someoen needs to ask him what role, exactly, the child-rape-enabling Cardinal Law played in the conclave that elected him Pope. Did Law vote for Ratz? IF so, why?
I remember press accounts saying that he even received votes in a some sick show of support from other cardinals.
Posted by: Greg | April 18, 2008 11:57 AM
I notice you didn't link to any actual quote by the pope saying that, just a BBC interpretation of his remarks with no quotes that seemed to corroborate the claim. There's a quote criticizing the culture, but I don't see one that claims that is to blame for the scandal.
Posted by: tonyl | April 18, 2008 12:01 PM
I am not sure of the specifics of the accusation of the cover up and maybe some of the things that Paul S. linked debunk that, but in general over time, Popes have declared themselves above the law of any land. Any brief read of the history of state imposed religion in Europe over the last 500 years will show this.
I read a good article weeks back that made the hypotheses that the EU and The Vatican are becoming one in the same as far as foreign policy and both recruit from the same leading families in Europe. Ed's piece on Iran yesterday speaks of the Dulles brothers and their effect on the Middle East. I think it was right on as far as Iran and Middle East policy. One Dulles brother chose throne and the other chose altar. I think we could make a good case that they are being combinded again in the West. Another article about Bush being the first "Catholic" President in the Washington Post last week should lead us to wonder who is running the "war on terror" and installing leaders in the Middle East, Muslim World, and the rest of Asia?
Another outstanding post. I think it would give us some help if you detailed your proof of the sex abuse cover up though Ed. Maybe you did in another post. I believe you. I also wonder why the mainstream media wants to make this guy out to be a saint? Those who do not read their history are doomed to repeat it. Looks like throne and altar with be united soon in Europe hopefully our laws that seperate church and state here will withstand the onslaught. If not God help us all! Yes this is a born-again Christian writing this.
One last thing that I noticed in his speech was the "secularlization" of American being blamed for our ills. This is what I have been saying about not giving food for the fodder with extreme and assinine stances. The hate crime laws will be used against everyone not just Christians. Good job Ed!
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 18, 2008 12:21 PM
I would think that Joe the Antirat would be more appropriate, given the circumstances.
Posted by: tacitus | April 18, 2008 12:22 PM
I notice you didn't link to any actual quote by the pope saying that, just a BBC interpretation of his remarks with no quotes that seemed to corroborate the claim.
From another article on this topic:
"What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?" the pontiff said on the first full day of his US visit.
Posted by: Lynn | April 18, 2008 12:56 PM
Well, here's the text of the speach discussed in the BBC article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/nationalspecial2/17popetext.html
No honest reading of this could draw the conclusion that the Pope is placing the blame on US culture.
Posted by: tonyl | April 18, 2008 1:02 PM
Lynn,
How does that quote corroborate the claim? While you can claim that he's using the scandal as a platform to expound upon aspects of society that are at odds with the teachings of the church, which some may find to be in bad form, claiming that he's blaming society at large for the sins of the priests is a bit of a stretch.
Heck, here's the full paragraph from which the quote was taken:
"If they are to achieve their full purpose, however, the policies and programs you have adopted need to be placed in a wider context. Children deserve to grow up with a healthy understanding of sexuality and its proper place in human relationships. They should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today. They have a right to be educated in authentic moral values rooted in the dignity of the human person. This brings us back to our consideration of the centrality of the family and the need to promote the Gospel of life. What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. All have a part to play in this task -- not only parents, religious leaders, teachers and catechists, but the media and entertainment industries as well. Indeed, every member of society can contribute to this moral renewal and benefit from it. Truly caring about young people and the future of our civilization means recognizing our responsibility to promote and live by the authentic moral values which alone enable the human person to flourish. It falls to you, as pastors modelled upon Christ, the Good Shepherd, to proclaim this message loud and clear, and thus to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores. Moreover, by acknowledging and confronting the problem when it occurs in an ecclesial setting, you can give a lead to others, since this scourge is found not only within your Dioceses, but in every sector of society. It calls for a determined, collective response."
Posted by: tonyl | April 18, 2008 1:21 PM
We have a nazi in a pointed hat wearing a bathrobe visiting this country perpetuating a myth which has been going on for the last 2000 years and we are supposed to repect that, I don't think so, he is here to check out the latest crop of alter boys to play with.My cats are more infaliable than he is and probably more intellegent
Posted by: Ex Partiate | April 18, 2008 1:41 PM
"A breakdown in US values?" I'd say that is was the widening and realization of those values (e.g., acceptance of homosexuals) that opened up society sufficiently that those priestly abuses could finally come to light and be stopped.
So, I guess in one way he is right. It was the breakdown in the old US values of misogyny and homophobia that is to blame for the "crisis." Otherwise we would never have heard of the abuses.
Posted by: Ahcuah | April 18, 2008 1:55 PM
What's most telling is that by all accounts the scandal was well underway in the 50s and early 60s, supposedly the Good Old Days of Values.
Dr. X: Many of the allegations of sexual misconduct involved adolescents, so we're talking about plain power tripping and lack of self-control rather than any psychopathology on the part of the priests. Note that there were also some scandals involving priests abusing nuns.
Posted by: ebohlman | April 18, 2008 2:56 PM
Haha! Doubleplusgood find Wes.
Posted by: Lurky | April 18, 2008 3:52 PM
Decline of US culture and pornography? Wasn't there a story? Let's see...
***** By William J. Kole, Associated Press | July 13, 2004
VIENNA -- A vast cache of child pornography and photos of young priests having sex has been discovered at a Roman Catholic seminary, officials said yesterday, leading politicians and church leaders to demand a criminal probe and the resignation of the bishop in charge.
Bishop Kurt Krenn, who oversees the diocese, refused to step down, dismissing the images as a "childish prank." *****
Read more at: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/07/13/catholic_diocese_in_austria_stung_by_porn_found_at_seminary/
Posted by: dubiquiabs | April 18, 2008 6:46 PM
"He laid part of the blame for the crisis, of which he feels "deeply ashamed", on a breakdown in US values."
Damn right, why didn't you people teach your kids the basic Catholic value of shutting the fuck up and taking it?
Posted by: Ian Gould | April 18, 2008 7:18 PM
tonyl,
None of these articles are saying that the Pope assigned 100 percent blame to American culture. In fact, didn't the Catholic Church even reserve a percentage of blame for the children themselves, "who should've known better"? I think so. Of course, if it were me pointing fingers, I'd save some blame for the complicit. The enablers and devotees of these monsters. Maybe a smidge for a religion that teaches blind, cradle-to-grave obedience to Church authority.
re: (the Pope's pronouncements) "which some may find to be in bad form..." Some? Bad form? That's kind of an understatement, don't you think?
Posted by: Lynn | April 18, 2008 8:04 PM
The BBC published excerpts from the Vatican's 1962 cover-up edict here, in 2003:
Panzerkardinal Ratzinger reiterated this edict in 2001, according to the (UK) Observer:
There's more at Talk2Action.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 18, 2008 9:56 PM
"What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely viewed today?"
The pope as a moral relativist. Unbelievable.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 18, 2008 10:09 PM
None of these articles are saying that the Pope assigned 100 percent blame to American culture.
I have yet to see any evidence that he placed any blame on US culture in this speech. If you had actually read the section of the speech, you would have seen that he simply states that this is a problem that exists both inside and outside the church and that the bishops should address the issue both inside and outside the church.
In fact, didn't the Catholic Church even reserve a percentage of blame for the children themselves, "who should've known better"? I think so.
Really? Excuse me if I'm hesitant to take your word for that given your track record on this thread.
re: (the Pope's pronouncements) "which some may find to be in bad form..." Some? Bad form? That's kind of an understatement, don't you think?
Did you actually read and understand my post? 'cause your little mashup right there bears little resemblance to what I said. Did you go to the creationist debating academy or something? Sure, I get it already, you hate the pope and you hate organized religion. But is a little basic honesty too much to expect from you?
Anyway, with respect to what I actually said, no, it's not an understatement to say that some may find using a specific current event as the start of a talk about a broader topic to be in bad form. It's a common rhetorical technique, and I suspect that the percentage of people offended by the Pope's use of it in this instance is pretty darn small; practically non-existent outside of the blogosphere.
Posted by: tonyl | April 18, 2008 10:38 PM
the idea of the former Grand Inquisitor daring to lay the blame for the pedophiliac priest crisis at the feet of American culture is the height of audacity...
especially coming from the man who was well known for sending letters or making phone calls to "liberal" archdioceses to tell them how to run their parishes, being involved in the various reassignments of priests after "therapy and prayer", and basically telling all the big dioceses to shut up, shred their files and whatnot..
ugh.
PJII was bad, but Joey Rats? way worse.
Posted by: CanadianChick | April 18, 2008 10:41 PM
ebohlman,
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I was in a hurry this morning and had to keep it short. My point was that "pedophile" priests were not the product of bad values and that America's values have nothing to do with priest pedophilia. I evaluated many priests in the early rounds of cleaning things up -- a time when evaluations were still conducted following an accusation, usually as a prelude to going to one of a handful of facilities with treatment programs for Catholic clergy and religious. Almost all of these priests abused boys, and I would say that at least half were pedophiles. It is misleading to remotely suggest American culture is the cause or even a cause of priest pedophiles.
Posted by: Dr X | April 18, 2008 11:04 PM
Ed:
I agree with Paul S that the BBC is not a reliable source of insight into the Pope's words and I would prefer to read what Benedict has said directly from the text of the speech. That said, I agree that this whole thing is a failure of the ecclesiastical system, not of American culture.
Your criticism of Cardinal Law's apparently priveleged position in Rome is understandable but I would note that this is, nonetheless, a real reduction of rank and prestige for him. It is a longstanding custom in the Church to provide cover for many of those under ecclesiastical censure simply for the sake of conflict management in that it avoids embarrassment to all parties involved - including those responsible for meeting out discipline (given the latter's powerlessness in many cases to stop the offence leading to censure in the first place). This may seem a little insipid or hypocritical, it is sometimes best if te alternative is a debilitating public war of wills. When I was a seminiarian some years ago I recall that at the university where the Theology classes I attended were held there were a number of "canon law students" who were really sent on studies only to get them out of their dioceses or religious orders because of some problem or other. Still, to those who know how to see past this kind of face saving bullshit, it is clear that Law is in the doghouse. It may yet happen though, that even this figleaf will be taken away from him. Remember that it was under John Paul - a Pope who did far less to acknowledge the victims of this scandal and to take aggressive action to end it than Benedict has done - that Law was given his current post. One of Benedict's first actions as Pope was the dismissal of one of the highest profile offenders - Marcial Maciel Degolado - who as a favourite of the last Pope was virtually untouchable before John Paul's death. In time, Law may yet face American justice as he should. I would like to see this as much as you would, and so would a great many American Catholics..
Notwithstanding all of this, I also find myself in agreement with Paul S about the content of the letter you are apparently referring to and the accusation against Ratzinger of conspiring to "cover up" the scandal. Unless you are referring to something else entirely (please enlighten me if so) that letter is meant, like its predecessor "Crimen Solicitationis" to safeguard against religious crimes such as the violation of the confessional in the event of the need for witnesses to be interviewed by a Church tribunal, and it also extended the statute of limitations on these cases so that victims now have a much longer time available to bring their cases forward for investigation. Neither of these documents had anything in the least to do with preventing complaints to the police or investigations by public authorities. Sorry, Ed, but on this you are entirely misinformed and you appear to be, as TonyL has suggested, acting out of reflexive anti-Catholic prejudice.
Posted by: Trinary Code | April 18, 2008 11:44 PM
You want to put me in the "hate all organized religion" category now - go ahead - but I hate not. Rather I am sickened and outraged, and, if truth be told, scared. That is not hate but you defenders of the faith will cast people like me conveniently for your purposes.
Why I am disgusted .. I am disgusted because the child abuse continues every time some religion requires that a child give up reason, logic, freedom, beauty, experiences, and has idiotic myth dictate reverence, respect, and obedience. This is rampant - this happens every minute of every day - this is condoned by churches and governments - this is a conspiracy against freedom, independence, and the will to speak truth to power. Sex abuse ain't nothing but the tip of the iceberg of the abuse.
Oh and BTW the shoes are made by an Italian shoemaker and given to the pope gratis. Heck - he's poor right? But there is not irony in that I guess.
The whole thing disgusts and scares me - that these cleaver weavers of power know how to play the rhetorical strings (aided today by an insipid popular media) so that even good thinking modern people get sucked in. Hitler had an adoring following for a well crafted "reason" - so do the major religions. Let alone that in 2008 when we should know better all of this superstition that gets a free pass does ZERO for us positively speaking, yet alternatively hinders real solutions, real brotherhood, real understanding, real egalitarianism, and real tolerance. But then those things are not what the powerful have in mind as the end game.
And to add - by way of quick statement - anyone who still believes in demonic possession is a what? Huh? - say it - be a man - that's it -- "INsane!!" And these people should be teaching and guiding children? No one sees the danger in giving power to basically insane, dependent, needy, immature, and/or power hungry authoritarians?
"God" help us!
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 19, 2008 6:51 AM
And to add - by way of quick statement - anyone who still believes in demonic possession is a what? Huh? - say it - be a man - that's it -- "INsane!!"
So if I don't agree that demonic possession is an insane out-of-question idea, where does that put me?
Blanket statements require care. (This includes the one immediately preceding this sentence.) I'm sure if you thought long and hard you could find someone sane (and not just relatively, but sane and quite intelligent, to cover the incredible likelihood that you were using hyperbole) who believed in demon possession. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Posted by: KKairos | April 19, 2008 8:05 AM
I ought to add that it does seem to me that the Vatican documents (both the 1962 and the 2001) have been somewhat misinterpreted; I would however be lying if I said I knew enough canon-law language to read them in the utmost clarity. I shall have time soon enough to look over them and see what I can glean of the meaning of the quoted passages in context.
On a theological note, infallibility does not refer to every action taken by the Pontiff. In my understanding it refers solely to declarations of some kind made on matters of faith and morals. For this reason, one of my more staunch Catholic friends sometimes jokes that a bad Pope would do more for the doctrine of infallibility than a good one. That isn't to say anyone I know actually wants that, though.
Posted by: KKairos | April 19, 2008 8:09 AM
Sorry any intelligent, modern schooled (that is aware and understands at least basic scientific concepts and facts) who still believes in demonic possession and exorcism and the like is so seriously delusional that I call that insane. What else would you call it? What would you say about me if I really believed gremlins cause some car malfunctions? I suspect at least most would say "that's insane" or "he's insane." What is the difference? Both beliefs are INsane thus to truly believe requires a degree of insanity. I cannot think long and hard enough to rationalize that FACT away. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 19, 2008 8:42 AM
PS - I know a lot of Catholics or other religious believers go along with things - like transubstantiation - because they rather not (because of indoctrination, laziness, bucking family, etc.) really question or think about it in clinical terms. These people are not insane - they are simply trained to go along and feel good they do. However, if push came to shove these types would retreat to it's a tradition or the like. Or another way of putting it, they'd rationalize something to excuse the silliness like they do for evil in the world or the conflicting religions, or the lack of evidence, or why they take their sick children to doctors instead of JUST praying. True believers -- they are NOT! Under the covers they are atheists just like me -- cuz actions speak louder than words. But insane people actually do believe - and let their loved ones die in jesus's most merciful arms -- but maybe you've never "seen" such a case - or if you did you said they are insane and in self-assured fashion add a real Catholic would not do that! Me, I'd rather just call a spade a spade: if you are not insane you really cannot live your faith.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 19, 2008 9:05 AM
Concerned Joe stated:
"And to add - by way of quick statement - anyone who still believes in demonic possession is a what? Huh? - say it - be a man - that's it -- "INsane!!" And these people should be teaching and guiding children? No one sees the danger in giving power to basically insane, dependent, needy, immature, and/or power hungry authoritarians?"
This is needless rhetoric and is the reason that so many people of faith just label the whole Science community as heretics and tune them out. This is the "arrogant" attitude that I was desribing many posts ago. Part of those comments made it to the post Ed did responding to me.
When you call people that have faith in something bigger than themselves insane you burn the bridge of dialouge. Who can respond to that? How can an intelligent conversation take place? This is the attitude of the vast majority of Science types I have met. It is the your insane why should I bother to talk to you attitude.
It is the attitude of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. It is not you are "misinformed" or I disagree with you and here is why. It is your insane and assume that not only does this disqualify someone from teaching, it would eventually end them up in an mental institute.
This attitude is so far from the spirit that this country was founded on. Yes Ed is right this government was not founded to be a "Christian" nation in the sense that the Religious Right would say anyway. But they certaintly had a respect for faith and non faith. To ensure freedom of conscience they made laws against the establishment of religion and for the free exercise thereof.
Obviously, you do not agree with the second. If people of faith are insane they we need to all be put away. If this is not what you believe then use a different word. I have tried to look past some obvious difference in opinion and worldview that I have with some on this blog and have a dialouge with the idea of exchanging ideas and at least learning where others not like me are coming from. I have actually changed my views on some things as I heard what people were actually saying as opposed to what the Religious Right tells you they were saying.
Rhetoric like this makes that almost impossible and a waste of time. I see the power structures in these systems and the harm they have done: See my comments above. But how can I dialouge with you if I am "insane". Why would you ever listen to me?
Why would the vast majority of people that believe in God in some way in this country listen to anything on "Science Blogs" in general? Statements and attitudes like these and PZ Meyers that labels people in Florida that want to put a cross on their license plate as having the "mark of the baffoon", just cause people to tune everyone else out.
Thus, as Movies like Expelled make it into the Public Discourse, public opinion will change and the very thing that most of you seem to fear the most will happen: Some form of Creationism being taught in Public Schools. I am on record in my non-support of the ID movement. Not because I do not have faith of believe the Bible but because from what little I have read they have no Scientific respone to natural selection and even if they did their stated motives and political affiliations show clearly that this is a clever legal way to win a beach head to bring Creationism in the name of ID.
My views on this may change with more information but they have not convince me of their case. I see it as the Relgious Right and have no support for them at all. The Paleo-Conservative institute that is their main source of support shows us this is politics not Science.
So if you lose people like me you have lost us all. I am willing to listen and respond to truth. I may not always understand all the jargon and concepts but I am willing to hear guys like Ed out. But with others in the background like PZ Meyers being the squeaky wheel that gets the grease it is getting harder to hear.
I suggest the more moderate people on this site begin asking them to quiet down so we can have a dialouge. There are many, many younger more progressive Christians, even Evangelicals, who will listen and would like deal a death blow to the Religious Right. It is hard to get other Christians to listen to us when Concerned Joe leaves comments like this.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 19, 2008 9:16 AM
Concerned Joe stated:
"Sorry any intelligent, modern schooled (that is aware and understands at least basic scientific concepts and facts) who still believes in demonic possession and exorcism and the like is so seriously delusional that I call that insane"
So the vast majority of Americans that believe in angels are insane? Demons are fallen angels. If angels can influence people why can't demons. I will say that many people get so focused on this stuff that is does become weird for sure. Maybe even creepy. But insane is an irresponsible use of language. It is labeling like this that incites needless polarization and in extreme cases can be the catalyst to severe injustice and oppression. What do you do with the tribal people of the world? Or for that matter in this country? Do we go to Navajo Land and just commit all of them? They believe in all kinds of spirits both good and bad.
Come on dude this is bad. Your hurting your own cause.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 19, 2008 9:24 AM
K of I -- thanks for your thoughts -- actually in a sense I mostly agree with you (if I read you right) e.g., re: liberty of free thought, jailing people for thought, etc, . I don't think I can explain in time allotted more of what I mean but I stand by it. Let me try to ask you to think about this: "Do we go to Navajo Land and just commit all of them? They believe in all kinds of spirits both good and bad." Absolutely NOT!!! Would we or would I let's say commit them if they denied there children life saving care because of that. YES! Don't nuance it with liberterian stuff - what I am saying - and I think you'd agree in someway with this "they are just plain NUTS!" -- I would add and we have to do something.
My point about demonic possession belief (where the RCC actually acts on that fairy tail) is just plain nuts. I know what damage the RCC sisters and brothers can inflict given such insane beliefs. And I am not speaking abstractly.
Hope you see I was hitting the extreme to make a point. For what is may be worth.. I could care less what you K of I believe and do NOT thing you insane - because I trust (hope I am right) you'd act sane (not on faith) when the rubber hit the road in secular matters. I may disagree with your decision or reasoning (or not) - but I can respect it.
And what ever floats your boat until one uses such things as leverage to foist their insanity (or to gain control, or take out frustrations, or gain power over) others.
I know I was unsubtle -- I was trying to get people to think. I might not be cleaver enough for that approach. However I trust you to now try to see my point too.
Peace be with you
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 19, 2008 10:18 AM
Obviously the demon of absolutely disconnected typing has me by the privates:
I do know their from there, and fairy tales from fairy tails, etc. On the other hand I haven't proved it yet in stream of thought posts!! Sorry.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 19, 2008 10:23 AM
Yes... Concerned Joe, just like PZ and Dawkins, are the official spokesmen for the whole Science community. (Or maybe they're only speaking for themselves?)
You are guilty of the same type of thinking that's being pointed out in this comic strip here: http://xkcd.com/385/
But that being said, I can see how from your point of view, that you'd be really peeved by that comment (and others like it)... resulting in you going off like you just did.
I just request that you keep things in perspective, and not blame all of Science (since you also keep capitalizing that word for some reason... lol) for the philosophical beliefs of a few outspoken scientists. Ed has called you out on this many times.
People do this quite frequently on scienceblogs all the time. This is basically what all the Framing Wars are all about. If you wanted to see Ed rumble with PZ on similar issues, I suggest reading some of the larger threads in the archive from December 2006.
But I think that Chad at Uncertain Principles had a really good series of posts that you'd appreciate here:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_problem_of_moderation.php
Keep your chin up King... and if you want moderates on this side to speak up against the fundamentalist "screeching monkeys" over at Pharyngula, then I hope that you continue to speak up against the religious right when around those in your sphere of influence.
Posted by: doctorgoo | April 19, 2008 10:32 AM
I suggest the more moderate people on this site begin asking them to quiet down so we can have a dialouge.
Yeah really dude. If they don't quiet down then that means lots of people are going to burn in hell. But if they do quiet down, then that means fewer people in hell. They don't even believe in hell, so what's it to them anyway!
There are many, many younger more progressive Christians, even Evangelicals, who will listen and would like deal a death blow to the Religious Right.
Yeah man deal them the death blow man. They trying to put people in hell! They're probably possessed by demons or something!! Woooooo...
It is hard to get other Christians to listen to us when Concerned Joe leaves comments like this.
Yeah really dude. Shut up Joe!!
Posted by: 386sx | April 19, 2008 11:01 AM
"Keep your chin up King... and if you want moderates on this side to speak up against the fundamentalist "screeching monkeys" over at Pharyngula, then I hope that you continue to speak up against the religious right when around those in your sphere of influence"
I was not aware that Ed had come out against some of this stuff. And yes, I have been kicked out of the most prominent mission organization in the West. Why? I said homeschooling was one of the worst things you could to a kid. That being the Religious Right version of indoctrination that is. I was gone within two weeks. I went from their "boy" who was bringing the kids in to their schools to gone in two weeks. Talk about persecution.
I am now aware that there are many aspects to this debate. The Dawkins crowd gets all the air time on Christian Radio. That is all most Christians ever hear. Ed is very honest and fair I think. I trust what he says for sure. He was right to call me out like you said. I hope others can see much of my confusion came from misinformation from both sides.
Concerned Joe:
I think people who will not take their kids to the doctor are misguided. I was apart of a Pentecostal church for years that floated toward crossing the line into the bizare and I think has crossed over it since I left. Your smaller point is very valid. Your use of words was poor for your point. But I do it all the time so who am I to judge. I think we agree on this subject a lot if you read my comments in whole which it seems you did.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 19, 2008 11:04 AM
"I read a good article weeks back that made the hypotheses that the EU and The Vatican are becoming one in the same as far as foreign policy and both recruit from the same leading families in Europe. Ed's piece on Iran yesterday speaks of the Dulles brothers and their effect on the Middle East. I think it was right on as far as Iran and Middle East policy. One Dulles brother chose throne and the other chose altar. I think we could make a good case that they are being combinded again in the West. Another article about Bush being the first "Catholic" President in the Washington Post last week should lead us to wonder who is running the "war on terror" and installing leaders in the Middle East, Muslim World, and the rest of Asia?"
King of Ireland, you can't be serious! I never cease to be amazed at the kind of straws the old nativist anti-Catholic stream in the U.S. will try grasp at.
The Vatican in bed with the EU or, even more absurd, "one and the same thing"!? A "union of throne and altar"!? Have you read about a little dustup between the Holy See and the EU over the EU constitution? (I'd say its pretty hard to have a state without a constitution! The EU may be an emerging state, but I'd hardly say the Holy See is any part of it!)
And are we talking about the same "War on Terror"? The same one in which the Vatican condemned the lynchpin policy of invading Iraq?
Time for a reality check.
Posted by: Trinary Code | April 19, 2008 12:19 PM
Superstitous and born centuries to late. In all honesty it would be hard to sincerely respect the views or intelligence of someone who actually did believe the same given the piss poor reasons they have accepted for doing so.
I mean can this even be a serious discussion in 2008?
Again who cares? How can a truly sane person ever come to believe a guy is infallible?
No it's not, it's honest straigh forward talk. If you think gremlins are breaking into your car atnight you have issues. Same for the above discussion.
Thats just dumb also.
I always here about anti-catholic rhetoric but really it's just thinking the organization is full of shit. Which it is of course and has been for centuries. The church is dying everywhere except South America(even marginalized there) and Africa.
Andjusthow many of these pedophile priests are in prison? That should bother any catholic.
Posted by: JimC | April 19, 2008 4:08 PM
Trinary Code,
I am dead serious. I did not right the article. I did agree with the article though. Michael Burleigh has a book called "Eartly Powers". Read it and tell me that the Catholic Church has not consistently tried to impose Church control over state in Europe for centuries. Do you really believe that these aspirations just went away over night?
All the old Protestant countries(There church state views were wacked at times too) are now apart of the EU. All the division in Western Europe over religion is over. The only dudes to have killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have been the Popes. They claim all the same powers and we are supposed to believe that all of a sudden things have changed? I am not that naive. State induced religion sucks. It always has and always will. I can find the article I think if you want me to cite it. The one about Bush being the first "Catholic President" was last week.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 19, 2008 4:41 PM
"So if I don't agree that demonic possession is an insane out-of-question idea, where does that put me?"
It puts you into a camp of people who believe in an insane out-of-question idea.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 19, 2008 5:07 PM
"So if I don't agree that demonic possession is an insane out-of-question idea, where does that put me?"
It would make you mistaken. Did that possibility not occur to you?
Posted by: Dr X | April 19, 2008 5:27 PM
Correction, it COULD make you mistaken. I would add that after locating that comment in it's original context, I'd agree with the point about the need for care when making these generalizations.
I don't think that I've ever known a clinician who would assume that belief in demonic possession automatically constitutes a delusion, and insanity hasn't been employed as a clinical term in years. It's ironic that people who claim an enormous respect for science make sweeping clinical claims without any interest in what clinicians, theoreticians and clinical researchers have to say on these matters. The lack of education, training and direct experience doesn't seem to put a damper on their enthusiasm for their own beliefs about these matters.
Posted by: Dr X | April 19, 2008 5:40 PM
King of Ireland:
Thanks for the response. I'll take a look at the book you suggest. However, I have to say that its going to have to present a very strong case indeed with some very convincing documentation and airtight arguments to convince me to even consider the kind of thing you're suggesting here.
As I'm about to go to work, I can't discuss this at any length right now, but I'll post some more detailed thoughts about the matter later, possibly tomorrow, if you want to get a more detailed response.
Posted by: Trinary Code | April 19, 2008 7:00 PM
"So the vast majority of Americans that believe in angels are insane?"
King of Ireland, please cite the poll(s) where it is shown that "the vast majority of Americans" believe in angels.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 19, 2008 7:21 PM
Dr. X -- my use of insane was not in clinical sense of commitable but more as general term. Dictionary supports it: insane - afflicted with or characteristic of mental derangement; "was declared insane"; "insane laughter"
HOWEVER ALSO: irrational - not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals"
unreasonable - not reasonable; not showing good judgment.
And it is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a deranged state of the mind or lack of understanding. Today it is most commonly encountered as an informal term or in the narrow legal context
So a person who thinks gremlins cause engine malfunctions (I mean REALLY believes that) who was educated to know better -- I'd say is insane when it come tho that. Most would agree I suspect -- that something ain't screwed tightly. However doubt such insanity that would allow plea of insanity to prevail to avoid a murder conviction if one said "the gremlins made me do it" if that person was otherwise functional etc. Still lots of people (including those in the business) might say "he's delusional, or insane to believe that"
Don't lawyer me on the term - call it what you want - but to me when one REALLY believes and ACTS on things like demonic possession - like the church and her very intelligent and educated priests do - well that is INSANE!! What other word could possibly apply other than something that really means the same?!?
Posted by: ConceredJoe | April 19, 2008 7:44 PM
Daniel,
From a gallup poll that included a question about belief in angels.
75% believe, 14% don't believe and 11% not sure.
Posted by: Dr X | April 19, 2008 7:49 PM
What ConcernedJoe said above.
Posted by: JimC | April 19, 2008 9:21 PM
King:
"I was not aware that Ed had come out against some of this stuff. And yes, I have been kicked out of the most prominent mission organization in the West. Why? I said homeschooling was one of the worst things you could to a kid. That being the Religious Right version of indoctrination that is. I was gone within two weeks. I went from their "boy" who was bringing the kids in to their schools to gone in two weeks. Talk about persecution."
Just finished up the dishes from our 1 year old's birthday party with friends and came to catch up here. Several of the friends are Christians who send their kids to public school. And another couple who are decidedly non-religious talked some about the home schooling program the're two kids are in here, funded by the state.
I suppose I should have corrected all of them on their choices...
Posted by: Rich | April 19, 2008 11:36 PM
Nice to know there's no middle ground between believing in an idea and believing that an idea is not completely out of the question. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Posted by: Brandon | April 20, 2008 12:05 AM
Concerned Joe,
I'm not lawyering you. You're trying to lawyer me.
You're relying on a weak dictionary construct to defend your use of words to suggest that religious people who hold irrational beliefs are essentially the same as people who suffer from clinical delusions. Your dictionary defense is the sort of transparent, hair-splitting rationalization that racists sometimes employ when they're challenged on their sleazy rhetorical tactics. (What's wrong with using Obama's middle name? Isn't Hussein his middle name? What's wrong with using the word delusional? The dictionary says it's just another word for irrational.)
This sloppy ad hominem argument has become standard in the God debate since the publication of the Dawkins book. It a know-nothing smear and it's a dog that needs to die.
There is a type of clinical symptom called a delusion. Most people know this, even if they don't know to how approach the assessment of delusional beliefs. And, there is a clinical condition called psychosis that probably corresponds most closely to the word "insanity" in the mind of the average person. Belief in demons, angels and God do not automatically mean that a person is delusional or psychotic. In fact, that is rarely the case. But when you use words like delusion and insanity, you evoke spontaneous associations to severe psychopathology.
Networks of associations lie behind our choices of words and our reactions to words. You could have used the word irrational to characterize these beliefs, but you didn't. You used not one but two words that are associated with severe psychopathology in the average person's mind. Because, at some level, these words are associated with severe pathology, they carry much more emotional punch than the word irrational carries -- just like the name Hussein evokes far more powerful emotional and semantic associations than the the name Sidney evokes with almost all Americans. You're kidding yourself if you believe that your choice of words was merely an accidental preference for two clinically loaded words over the more defensible, less inflammatory, word irrational.
But for the sake of argument, let's accept your use of a dictionary to defend your position and let's pretend that the words delusion and insanity have no other definitions and that they don't evoke any affectively-laden, semantic associations. First of all, dictionary definitions are very limited attempts to describe the way people actually use words. Very often they are riddled with problems. As constructs, dictionary definitions aren't necessarily valid ways to describe reality. The word transubstantiation is in the dictionary. It doesn't mean that transubstantiation is a real phenomenon.
The practical problem with simplistically equating the word delusional with the word irrational is that unconscious, irrational processes are intrinsic to the thinking of all human beings. Irrational thoughts, irrational processes and non-rational heuristics constantly influence our beliefs about reality. In a dictionary sense, we're all delusional upon close inspection. So, singling out a particular group of people and calling them delusional because their beliefs are irrational might make for an emotionally satisfying rhetorical flourish, but closer scrutiny reveals it to be an "irrationally" selective application of the word.
All of us have irrational activity occurring all the time. It's an intrinsic property of our thinking that enables very complex, associative processing in elaborate neural networks. It also means that our processing is constantly biased by irrational activity and that we are prone to many errors in our thinking and in our beliefs. Once you appreciate this, you realize the problem with selectively calling some people delusional simply because they harbor irrational beliefs. We are all delusional if we rely on your selective dictionary definition. And practically speaking, this renders your selective charge of delusion moot.
Posted by: Dr X | April 20, 2008 12:15 AM
Did you mean a middle ground between belief in an idea and believing the idea is out of the question?
Let's be serious here we're talking about a belief in beings possessing your body, How serious should anyone take this and then how serious should anyone take anyone who believes such ideas?
Sir, While I agree with your general point that all religious people do not suffer from clinical delusions your defense of people who organize entire groups and rituals around a superstitous belief isn't a strong counter that delusion isn't the correct word. What is an exorcist if not deluded to a large degree? He sees things that simply are not there and patterns an existence around this fantasy world.
This is more than the garden variety irrational superstitios religious belief. Delusion in the common venacular simply means believing in something that isn't there. I agree it's a common human trait but don't find it's usage unfounded in this scenario.
Posted by: GH | April 20, 2008 1:05 AM
Returning to the guy who stole Dorothy's shoes.
The Infallible (or possibly INsane) One is hosting "World Youth Week" here (no non-Catholics need apply). Is it just me or does anyone else find this a leetle creepy?
Dr X - I am sorry but I can't agree. I would expect a psychologist or psychiatrist to use "delusional", "psychotic", "paranoid", "schizophrenic" & etc. since these are scientific terms, but not "insane" since it is a vague word mostly used in a colloquial manner.
eg. "78% of Americans are insane" might be true, but "78% of Americans of delusional" is not (at least I see no evidence from this blog).
Interesting to note however 78% of Americans believe in God (down from 86% in 1999). Here in the 2006 Census 68.89% identified themselves as Christian, 88.8% Relgious, with athiests being the third highest group (just 12,000 or so behind Anglicans, but well behind Catholics). So similar to America, but 19% of believers (in Christianity at least) attend church more frequently than once per month. Hmm a little calculation shows that 13.0891% are devotees of Jesus' dad after all. Perhaps sanity is sweeping the nation :) What's the attendance rates like there? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 20, 2008 2:19 AM
People need to prove that there are such things as "demons" in the first place. Then, we can more rationally talk about "demonic possession." "Demons" can exist without "demonic possession" but the opposite, of course, is not the case.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 20, 2008 3:46 AM
The last sentence of my above post was probably a little confusing, so let me rephrase it: A belief in "demons" can exist without a belief in "demonic possession," but the opposite, of course, is not the case.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 20, 2008 3:51 AM
and he follows up with more
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7356970.stm
nice bits being, with regards to Nazi Germany
"It banished God and thus became impervious to anything true and good."
still on the plus side, from a British perspective, he completely overshadowed Browns visit to the USA which probably wound him up no end.
Posted by: kevinj | April 20, 2008 3:52 AM
Dr. X wrote:
They aren't just irrational, that's the point. They are persistently irrational- usually in the face of contradictory evidence. That's why we use the word "delusional" to describe some of the bat-shit crazy things that people think. Like demon-possession, for instance.
Posted by: Leni | April 20, 2008 4:10 AM
Dr. X -- all I can say is WOW. I think you are shifting the discussion from the core to the veneer. I said: call it what you will. Just you cannot call "real" (I'll explain) belief in magical things SANE..
I stand by my statement - others do also above and explain it even better :-) - that "..if you are not insane you really cannot live your faith." Re-read my posts and forgive some sloppy writing. I am saying belief or faith ain't REAL unless you act on it when the chips are down. So xyz% may claim they believe in guardian angels and really want to believe in angels and have angel statues all over their house .. but if a bugler was in their house at night creeping around "99%" of would call 911 - not yell "St. Michael - ATTACK". Those "99%" are not insane - they are wishful thinkers about traditions they had hammered into them. The "1%" that would yell for St. M REALLY believe - and are INSANE in my book. The RCC who actually ACTS like they really believe with infrastructure to support exorcism, canonization, etc. is probably not insane (just clever manipulators of people to hold on to power) - but the individuals (some individuals) that really ACT on the belief (e.g., ritually try to cast out demons from the mentally ill like the last pope tried to do himself) are INsane - not committable but certainly not trustworthy in this aspect of their thinking and acting. No? What do you call it?
Let's be civil with individuals - and I do not call wishful, or feel good thinking, or the irrational thinking we all do sometimes, insane out of hand. I do call those that will go to the mat, in a real and perhaps dangerous sense, for beliefs, beliefs that are totally recognizable in a modern world as fantasy, INsane.
That's why I say most believers are as ATHEIST as I am; cause when the chips are down they no more rely on the sky-daddy than I do. They ACT as an atheist would - because they are SANE. It's the actions that prove faith and belief in the supernatural. Not professed belief, or tradition following, or the like. And only people that cannot know better, or that are insane, do not act as an atheist but act on faith in the mystical -- and those people and institutions are dangerous.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 20, 2008 5:36 AM
And while I'm rabbling let me add my pet peeve.. WTF do people mean (especially politicians) when they say "I am a person of faith" That is so laughable.
First the word generally means for them a mock version of faith. While it means really: actionable belief in something regardless of clear evidence against or for the truth or accuracy of that something. No the people of faith when pressed will gravitate to statements about belief of things they really do not have to act on directly e.g., "I believe Jesus is God and Savior and if I die with that belief I'll go straight to Heaven." But ask them to say to a homicidal maniac "hey - shoot me dead dude if you need someone to kill - cuz' I cannot wait for the kingdom of heaven" Well - "not so fast" -- I suspect we'd hear in so many apologetic ways. My point: WTF in a practical sense does having faith mean. Does it mean when I am President you can trust that I'll ignore all evidence and act on the little voices in my head? No - they'd say if pressed "I trust god will help me be strong" or something like that. That ain't faith. Faith is belief and then actions contrary to the evidence.
So saying the host is the body and blood of Jesus the Savior is one thing.. but saying -- "I'll put this host over my heart and shoot me point blank in it cuz` Jesus my Savior will take the bullet for me" - well that is faith (and thus INsane). Saying you believe in things without being willing to act on them contrary to reality is not faith. But that lack of REAL faith is not bad - that is SANITY.
People need to be told they will never miss what they really don't have - true belief. What they will miss maybe is the fellowship of the church or a base to ask questions about personal problems etc. This is where atheism becomes a non-starter. It offers no institution to hang the old hat on. Many people need that feeling of belonging and fellowship and tradition, and shared values, and the shared wishful thinking (e.g., I'll see mom again; he's in a better place; etc.). Many people will not give up god because really the brain knows they cannot bring themselves to give up the "social" or comfort aspects. That is very rational and sane. I don't miss that stuff one bit. That others might be devastated without it is not unreasonable to me.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 20, 2008 6:25 AM
Well, some people say the Pope and the Bishops and Cardinals just don't get how damaging their actions are. But almost everyone of them started out as small Parish Priests with lots of access to children. It would make sense that some of those pedophiles would have made their way up through the ranks. Which ones??? Maybe the ones who got away with it??? HHMMMM
Posted by: ozma10 | April 20, 2008 11:27 AM
Also these pedophiles network with each other. They let each other know where the best places are to indulge their sick fantasies. As one victim said "pedophiles become priests - priests don't become pedophiles." So the pedophile structure of the Catholic church will continue until people like Bishop Law and all the others are brought to justice. Praying with the 'POPE' doesn't get it, doesn't heal anything. The Church is still an organization that tolerates and therefore promotes child sexual abuse. If they want to have it otherwise they should clean house. The trouble is it may bring down the rafters!!
Posted by: ozma10 | April 20, 2008 11:52 AM
For those who have a conscience, let's get the bullshit out of the way here. The Catholic church in their self-righteousness have NOT been morally responsible for this event in their history PERIOD!!. They have been hiding molesters not for the last 50 years or so folks. The church has been covering up this culture of pedophilia for over 2000 years!!!!! Where the hell has everybody been?????? Doesn't anybody find it humorous how the church condemns motion pictures like "Deliver US From Evil" and "Magdelene Sisters". God forbid the truth gets out.
Posted by: Pitman | April 20, 2008 12:32 PM
This is how the Catholic Church works
Get some parents to volunteer their kids to be altar boys
The priests bend these kids over from time to time and teach them how to give blowjobs
When caught, move those priests do different churches without telling anyone of the danger.
Come up with a plan to hide these priests from law enforcement.
Get patted on the back for all your good work and get rewarded by being voted pope.
heck of a job holy daddyo
Posted by: Roger from Ohio | April 20, 2008 1:49 PM
I was struck by the Pope's comments because I was returning from Barcelona when he made them.
U.S. Culture? Seriously?
U.S. Culture is certainly violent. No one can dispute that. No objective look at crime rates and our media could deny this.
The pope wasn't speaking of Grand Theft Auto in reference to pedophile priests though.
I'm no prude but compare Europe to the U.S. culture in terms of sexuality (we're an incredibly repressed society which I believe contributes to the aberrant behavior)
In Munich, there's a sex shop IN THE AIRPORT! Seriously. They have dildos and a Penis Pump in the windows. :-)
In Barcelona, we walked by over half a dozen strip clubs (at least one called a "porno club". Granted we walked a lot but the thing that struck they were spread out. There isn't a sleazy neighborhood, they're everywhere. There are a couple on the main tourist drag.. the Rambla.
The advertising.. everywhere.. is extremely sexual. This is in Spain, and incredibly Catholic nation. In fact, the Catholic Church is currently trying to reassert their authority in the Spanish Government.
This is true of all the places in Europe that I've visited. Rome certainly any different, though I don't remember the sex shops. Rome certainly isn't a repressed city. The 50 year old hookers in the shopping/theater district sold me on that.
Pot-Kettle
Posted by: ffakr | April 20, 2008 2:01 PM
So the Pope says, "They (children) should be spared the degrading manifestations and the crude manipulation of sexuality so prevalent today." (parenthesis added)
Agreed, and they'd be spared a good amount of it if they didn't see so many reports on the news about priests molesting kids. Even more if they, themselves, weren't molested by the priests.
So, stop ruining our culture, please.
Posted by: RancidVenison | April 20, 2008 2:54 PM
"While I agree with your general point that all religious people do not suffer from clinical delusions your defense of people who organize entire groups and rituals around a superstitous belief isn't a strong counter that delusion isn't the correct word. -- GH
GH, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I defend organizing rituals around superstitions. I'm just saying that holding religious beliefs isn't an indication that a person is delusional or "insane."
"I do call those that will go to the mat, in a real and perhaps dangerous sense, for beliefs, beliefs that are totally recognizable in a modern world as fantasy, INsane." -- Concerned Joe
Joe, Speaking now based only on personal opinion, I don't think many people go to the mat for many things except maybe their children, if what you mean is willingly risk there lives for everything they have. That said, I would not argue with your characterization if you're confining your observation to dangerous fanatics.
But, going to the mat for dangerous ideas isn't unique to a subset of relgious people. There are dangerous religious people and dangerous people who aren't religous. It isn't religion qua religions that is behind this. It's related to the underlying sociopathy of the few, the narcissism of many and universal tribalistic impulses that can, but need not, take the form of a religious identity. These impulses can be expressed in nationalism, political movements, ethnic or racial alliances to name a few possibilites. Few of us believe that participation in government and politics, or that a racial or ethnic identity are, by definition, insane, because some people go to the mat for these things.
And, in fact, few religious people are dangerous except insofar as all human beings, religious or not, have an archaic limbic mind and a primitive reptilian undermind harboring murderous and aggressive potentials. Moreover, there are religious people who will go to the mat to do the right thing, just as there are atheists who will go to the mat to do the right thing.
But, how often are you willing to credit religion when a religious person goes to the mat to do the right thing? Do you only "credit" religion when the action is bad? Maybe you don't do this, but I've had friends who dismiss it as religious pap when religious people credit their faith for their heroic actions or for acts of stunning kindness or generosity. So, religion is pap when people do the right thing because of it, but it's the all powerful seed of evil when people do terrible things in the name of religion. This is the kind inconsistency that reveals a deep bias in the way some people think about religion -- a demonization bias, if you will.
Posted by: Dr X | April 20, 2008 4:12 PM
I'm not going to respond any more in the thread. I've gone too far afield from Ed's aging post and don't feel right about continuing. I will return to read any additional rebuttals or reactions. If anyone wants to continue with me, feel free to go to my site and use the contact e-mail address. I'd be happy to discuss further off this thread.
Posted by: Dr X | April 20, 2008 4:15 PM
Dr. X - maybe I am not articulate enough to get the point across. So I'll say you failed to understand me, and that if I take what you said out of the context of my point I'll say we mostly agree. But without belaboring - I meant to convey a specific point on delusions and actions. And I know for a fact I'd give an person of any stripe credit for good works and good sense. Even those that I'd disagree with. Hope not everybody missed what I was trying to convey. I think you did. Otherwise let's leave it at agreement that "...there are religious people who will go to the mat to do the right thing, just as there are atheists who will go to the mat to do the right thing."
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 20, 2008 5:01 PM
ConcernedJoe
When I was a child I had an older brother who was taken suddenly and very seriously ill. No one told me he was on his deathbed but I got sense this was going to be really bad. Our family was very religious and just before my brother died, I remember thinking about all the miracles the nuns always told us about and came up with an exciting and lifesaving idea. We could just buy a plane ticket and take him to Lourdes in France and get the special water and he would be totally and instantly cured. The looks on the faces of the adults in the room just let me know that I was talking crazy. Now, I could see if they tried and it didn't work, nothing is perfect. But that they didn't even consider it a possibility told me that it was more or less like Santa Clause, a story that made us feel good. Made us feel happy and safe. A spiritual safety net. But totally and completely not real.
I totally got your point.
Posted by: ozma10 | April 20, 2008 6:00 PM
ozma10 - thanks for the post. I am sorry about your brother and for your family - even though it was long ago I assume. Thanks for sharing.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 20, 2008 6:24 PM
Ed, Ed, Ed! You missed one of the most hypocritical of the hypocriticals: If all life is sacred and begins at conception, is it no longer sacred when prison executioners put a needle in your arm and inject deadly chemicals into your veins to capitally punish you? Here was this "sanctity of life" guy cavorting on his birthday with a man who, as governor of Texas, killed more death row inmates in eight years than all previous Texas governors in over 100 years. I think he should have stayed home. He could have told Bush, "When you stop the executions, I'll have cake and ice cream with you in the Rose Garden."
Posted by: James M. Martin | April 21, 2008 1:38 AM
King of Ireland:
If you're still checking in to this thread, sorry for the delay but I was pretty tired and under a lot of stress over the weekend, and I wanted to produce something with a little bit of substance rather than a mere stream of concsiousness in my response, so here's my more considered response to your contention that the Roman church is attempting to reconstruct its theocratic past. I really can't see why it would want to any longer. You seem to presuppose that there is something that innately and constitutively drives the Roman Church to entangle itself in pursuit of political power. That is simply not the case.
The roots of the medieval Papacy's role in the civil affairs of Europe involve a variety of factors that simply don't exist today, most notably the peculiar power vacuum that existed in Europe after the demise of Rome's empire there. The respect with which the newly settled Germanic peoples of Europe regarded Rome's earlier achievement created a space in which the old Roman aristocratic and senatorial governing class could reassert itself in an independent Roman state in Italy in the 8th century, but given the absence of an Emperor (or an Imperium for one to govern) and the decline of the Roman system of administration, the Papacy was the only institution left that could serve as the nexus of this revival. The pivotal development allowing movement ahead for this objective was the election of Stephen II, the first Roman to be elected after over a hundred years of Greek and Syrian Popes, but its roots go back to the declining years of the western empire and afterwards when, in the absence of any other authority capable of doing so, the Popes had organized the provisioning of the city and surrounding countryside, and the organization of essential services.
The granting of a part of the Italian peninsula to the Papacy in 756 A.D. not only served the interests of the Papacy and Rome's ruling class, but provided the solution to the problem of defining the respective spheres of influence - and the appropriate balance among them - of the new powers emerging on the continent at that time, so it was, for good or ill, a natural development in the political life of that part of the continent, not an imposition brought about by the ruthless ambitions of Churchmen. If there's anything to find fault with in any of this, the blame lies mostly with the Franks, the Lombards and the Romans, but not primarily with the Church (or the Papacy) per se. Political involvement was something that the Church, in the early days of the Papal States (and in the three hundred years prior in which the foundations for this were laid, during which the Popes had to provide for the civil governance of Rome and its environs) did not seek, but had thrust on it. Nonetheless, the reforms which the medieval Papacy brought to the Church in Europe as a result of these developments, even given that some of what ocurred, particularly during the Inquisitions and the Crusades, was contrary to the spiritual message proper to the Church, did serve to maintain and expand literacy, pass on important elements of the classical tradition such as the system of Roman law and administrative science, and help Europe achieve what it likely would not have otherwise - its emergence as a major civilization and a highly successful one.
When the European enlightenment occurred, the Church, apart from Italy (where, under the reality on the ground of the Papal States, the notion of a Christian theocracy was stronger than elsewhere on the continent) gave way to the new reality quite quickly. The initial resistance of the Popes to the secularization of their Italian domains is regrettable, but it is quite understandable in light of the common human fault of seeking to hang on to what one has known. The fear, even among liberal Catholics living in constitutional democracies such as the U.S., was that without a sovereign territory of their own, the Roman Pontiffs would not be able to effectively safeguard the independence of their role in the governance of the Catholic Churches throughout the world in relation to the various states under which these churches existed. With the benefit of hindsight it is clear that this is wrong, at least as far as the retention of the vast Papal States of Italy are concerned, but it is comparable to the doubts that European monarchs had about growing constitutional limitations on their rights of governance in an earlier era. When one is long used to having something, it becomes difficult ever to imagine how one would possibly function without it. All institutions, and the people who run them and work in them, are afflicted by this inertia. I know of no government that has ever willingly surrendered power that it has once acquired. It always happens in some crisis. But the present Italian state has incorporated the lands the Papacy once ruled since 1860. This is an unassailable reality, that no one now wants to change, and it is even less comprehensible to expect that the modern Papacy might try to effect the creation of a newly reconstituted Christendom.
There is nothing farther from the truth than imagining the Pope Benedict as seeking political power for the Church. To the contrary, he has often indicated that he would be happier to have a smaller Church, if it meant having a higher level of commitment to its spiritual values on the part of the remaining faithful. Far from wanting to reintroduce medieval conceptions of Church-State relations, if anything, he may be the Pope who begins moving the Church toward an acceptance, as a matter of principle, rather than merely an accomodation to modern realities in some places, of the official practice of separation of Church and State. Benedict is well known to admire the American model of Church state relations and to see it something to hold up to Europe as an example. All of this weighs in heavily against your thesis. As I said earlier, I will read the book you recommend, if I can find it, but I remain sceptical for now, and I have to suspect that you are influenced in your acceptance of the author's suspicious views in no small measure by the reflexive hatred of religion, or at least of Catholicism, that characterizes many of the other comments in this thread.
Posted by: Trinary Code | April 22, 2008 2:27 AM