Muslims have shown their displeasure with what Pope Ratzinger (professional name, Benedict XVI) said about Islam, but not many people have noticed what he said about atheists. I guess there are more Muslims than atheists. Too bad. The world would be a lot better off with more atheists and fewer Muslims, Jews and Christians. At least atheists don't fight each other over whose God is the right one. But never mind.
Earlier the same day as the speech that drew the ire of Muslims, this supposedly nuanced and brilliant theologian gave his diagnosis for the cause of atheism:
The [infamous Regensburg] speech was a central moment in Benedict's six-day trip home to visit Bavaria, where he grew up, became a priest, a prominent theologian and, finally, a cardinal. Earlier in the day, at an outdoor Mass here attended by some 250,000 people, he expressed similar concerns as in the speech, urging believers to stand up against the "hatred and fanaticism" that he said were tarnishing the image of God.Again, this critique seemed aimed as much at secular Western society as at any other threat.
"Today, when we have learned to recognize the pathologies and life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason, and the ways that God's image can be destroyed by hatred and fanaticism, it is important to state clearly the God in whom we believe," the pope said.
"Only this can free us from being afraid of God -- which is ultimately at the root of modern atheism," he said. "Only this God saves us from being afraid of the world and from anxiety before the emptiness of life." (New York times via CGGL)
Let me see if I can parse this. There are various pathologies and life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason. I'm with you there, brother. What causes these things, I wonder? Poverty? Racism? Tribalism? Bigotry? No, these are just the pathologies themselves. The problem is we haven't stated clearly the God in whom we believe.
Isn't that just another way of saying . . . errrr . . . wait a minute. What is that another way of saying? Because surely there must be another way to say this, since it doesn't make any sense this way. Maybe something like, "we have these problems because you guys don't understand what kind of God we have to believe in"? That sure sounds ecumenical and dialog inducing to me.
And atheism is caused by fear of God? Like not believing in the Tooth Fairy is caused by fear of the Tooth Fairy? Brilliant. Well, the good news is that it's mildly offensive but I'm not going to get violent over it. People who get violent over religious differences deserve each other. Unfortunately the rest of us don't deserve them.
But for the record, il Papa's pre-Papalhood history doesn't inspire confidence that his remarks construed as anti-ecumenical were so wildly misinterpreted. From the same NYT piece:
In the weeks after John Paul's death in April 2005, Islam and how to confront terrorism seemed key issues in the selection of a new pope. As a candidate, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who took the name Benedict after his election, embodied the more skeptical school inside the Vatican.
Unlike John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger did not approve of joint prayers with Muslims and was skeptical of the value of interreligious dialogue, with a faith of many shadings and few representative leaders to speak with.In 2004, he caused a stir by opposing membership in the European Union for Turkey, saying that it "always represented another continent throughout history, in permanent contrast with Europe." He has not repeated this opinion since he became pope, and he is scheduled to visit there in November.
Once he became pope, Benedict's new approach was apparent quickly: in his first trip outside Italy, he met with Muslim leaders in Cologne, Germany, and politely but clearly told them they had the responsibility to teach their children against terrorism, which he called "the darkness of a new barbarism." He said Catholics and Muslims had the obligation to meet and to overcome differences.
Sounds like "overcome differences" means to agree on the nature of God as understood by Pope Ratzinger.
The Catholic Church has been such a superb role model in not spreading The Faith by the Sword that its moral standing to say this is beyond reproach.
And I believe in the Tooth Fairy. I'd be afraid not to.
- Log in to post comments
Well yeah. She has real teeth.
Now begins the holy month of Ramadan, a time for Muslims around the world to fast from dawn to sunset and look inwards to purify their actions, motives and general conduct in this world. Strictly observing Ramadan enlightens one to what others might suffer when deprived of food and strengthens the ability to have compassion and self control.
Perhaps it would be helpful if Christians and Jews did the same in order to understand what the Palestinian children are feeling with empty bellies caused by the monies being withheld by Israel, the US and Europe resulting in salaries not being paid in over 6 months so that people cannot buy food. Malnutrition was already a problem before Hamas was elected - but now things are immeasureably worse.
But I guess the Muslims, Christians and Jews don't believe in the Tooth Fairy so we can't expect any miracles just as yet.
Pope Rottweiler (apologies to dog owners) has been one of my least favorite people on the planet since the 1980s when he silenced Liberation theologians because their theology could be too easily confused with aetheistic communism. This man too easily confuses theology and ideology, but he is consistent. Communism is no longer playing in the big theaters, so he has switched to Islamism.
However, I can see a sense in which the notion that fear of God is a cause for aetheism. Fundamentalist religious people have appropriated God and identified their own image of God (a bit of anthropomorphism going on here) with their own ideology. If you look at the image of the God they have created you will see a God who is harsh, rigid, bigoted and all the other negative characteristics we attribute to these fundamentalists themselves. Couple that with their notion that their ideology (it's not theology) is the only correct one, and their desire to remake the entire world in thier image, and I can see why someone could shun that image of God, and even run from it in sheer terror.
But, I am reminded of the many faithful, including those in helping and healing professions, who's deep faith in a God of healing is what propels them into the important and compassionate work they do. I identify with this God who heals and, consequently, I am not afraid to believe.
I don't have a fear of god, I have a dread of the people who believe in he, she, it to the point of hysteria and madness. Those who follow the words of Jesus et al, and have compassion for their fellow humans are okay in my book. I don't ascribe to their beliefs, but I do respect their rights to believe how they see fit.
Hi - This sounds similar to the discussion from a month or so ago about what separated humans from animals and that being nothing. It thereupon turned into a discussion of the merits of atheism. But anyway, here goes, "At least atheists don't fight each other over whose God is the right one." That may be true but, as noted in the prior discussion, that did not prevent atheistic regimes in China, the old Soviet Union, and Cambodia from committing genocide. It was noted (not by me) at that time their atheim did not cause them to commit genocide. However, it did not prevent them from doing such either. I would argue that atheists as a group have human foibles in the same quantities as non-atheists. Likewise for the tirelessly repeated alleged sins of the Crusdaes and institutionalized religions generally there are also any number of Mother Teresa's and women like the Somali nun who forgave her muslim murders as she lay dying after having spent her life helping the Somali people. Anyway, whatever the sins, real or imagined, among religious it appears that atheists do no better (of course that presumes a reference for "better")
carl: If we remove religious affiliation from human "features" its one less reason to distinguish yourself from someone else. Of course if an atheist says that a believer of any kind is one of the "others" then that doesn't help. Atheism would then be just another tribalism (not a religion, but a tribalism). But most atheists don't do that because most of us don't care about religious affiliations, all things being equal. A decent person who is a Catholic is no different to us than a decent person who is a Jew or a Muslim; and an asshole who is an atheist is still an asshole. For too many believers, however, that isn't true. So as not to be prejudicial to others, let me take my own family as an example.
My mother was (well she's still alive but not doing a lot of abstract thinking I'm afraid) one of the nicest, least prejudiced people you can hope for. She had a great sense of humor but was deeply repelled by any kind of ethnic joke -- and I mean ANY kind. I'm not as virtuous. I find a lot of them funny. She taught us all that a person of another religion was not worse because of that. So that's the good side.
But she was also an observant Jew and very much a cultural Jew as well. And I learned, in many subtle ways, that if there were two identical doctors, let's call them Dr. Jones and Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Jones wasn't a worse doctor than Dr. Schwartz but, well, somehow Dr. Schwartz was a better doctor than Dr. Jones. It's nothing but Jewish tribalism and we all suffer from it in various ways. The world doesn't need this, any more than it needs nationalism, which historically had its place but is now immensely destructive in a globally connected world.
Let me take another example. I am a person of the Left. For a long time. And for the Left, trade unions were sacrosanct. Never mind that many were corrupt and reactionary. That happens, but they did protect the rights of workers, as I have good cause to know in my own family. But the arguments that American workers should be protected from foreign workers appears, I depart from supporting them. Why would the life and job of a Japanese autoworker be worth less than that of an American autoworker.
The issue is whether either human being is getting screwed by the company, i.e., not sharing in the immense added value they produce when they make a car, that value being scarfed up by people who do much less or no work at all (certainly not going to consumers). I don't want to get into an economic argument here about the market because my point is about being Japanese and being an American. No difference as human beings, just like there is no difference between Catholics and Muslims or Muslims and Jews. So why do we insist they are different? Why do we support institutions that promote those differences? And by any measure, religion and nationalism are at the top of the list, followed maybe by race. Some might argue about my ordering, but you get the point.
Atheism didn't cause Stalin to persecute people. He used it as an excuse to persecute people for other purposes, just as Bush is using religion to manipulate people. That's a misuse of atheism but not an inherent one, any more than a failure to believe in the Tooth Fairy is a reason to persecute those who do believe in the Tooth Fairy. But for Believers religion is more than an excuse. It is a reason. It is part of the dynamic of organized religious institutions.
They are not good for the world.
O'Leary: Coincidentally it is also the High Holidays in Judaism, wherein Jews of the world are supposed to look into their souls and atone for the sins of the past year. I rather doubt many will be anguishing over the death of innocents in southern Lebanon caused by Israel (except abstractly "regretting" it) or the ongoing assault on the people of Gaza. Because those aren't "sins." Those are required to defend themselves in their view. Meanwhile, I rather doubt many Muslims will be looking into their souls this Ramadan and regretting the loss of innocent life caused by their co-religionists. After all, that was "required" to redress the wrongs visited upon them by (Israel, the Pope, a cartoonist, Sunnis, Shiites, you fill in the blank).
I guess my feelings on this are summed up by the satire from The Onion I put in this space a couple of weeks ago.
This is all just naked tribalism of the worst sort. If a human being had a condition that made one part of its body kill another part because it was a different tissue, we'd treat it like a disease.
Organized religion is a disease.
Only this can free us from being afraid of God[...]
Wait...I thought being "God-fearing" was supposed to be a GOOD thing.
Another firm statement that boils down to "we must have something that we can be absolutely certain about", and another example of why people need to be raised to be able to cope with natural uncertainty. Certainty makes people act funny ("And once I set off this bomb strapped to my chest, I'll CERTAINLY be going to eternal reward, so I need not hesitate and question what the heck I'm doing...")
Carl: Atheists don't fight each other over which God is the right one. It's very simply true. Atheists don't believe in God.
Those who follow the words of Jesus et al, and have compassion for their fellow humans are okay in my book.
Jesus was a mixed bag. He is reported by the Gospels to have said a number of things which I at least would consider to be highly compassionate.
Yet the same books also record him as saying, calmly and without apparent remorse, that on the Day of Judgement, most of humanity will be cast into eternal hellfire, including, per what Jesus says, a very large number of Christians whose doctrinal adherence will be judged to have been insufficiently strict.
Far from the "Prince of Peace" ideal with which my Christian family inculcated me, I found upon reading the Bible for myself that the allegedly pacific Jesus had said himself that he "came to bring not peace, but a sword". And he is intended in Christian eschatology to feature prominently in the hallucinatory slaughterhouse of Revelation at the end of time.
--
And I believe in the Tooth Fairy. I'd be afraid not to.
Sigh. Even an empirical rationalist like Revere turns out to have his irrational superstitious side. I suppose it was inevitable.
But if anyone makes fun of me for trembling before the wrath of the Great Pumpkin, things will get rough.
--
I'm real glad to hear the Catholic Church has "learned to recognize the pathologies and life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason". They have had plenty of experience, now, with some of these pathologies, among which are pedophilia and child molestation; although it took them an awfully long time to catch on.
To return to the papal ramble for a minute: First he states that there are "pathologies and life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason."
Huh? I think what he may be trying to push is the idea that the diseases that afflict mankind are caused by association with the 'wrong' religion, and likewise that those who rely on "reason" alone are rewarded with illness and pathologies (meaning I guess atheists) (I'm interpreting this from what he says in the next line or two.)
He goes on to say: " it is important to state clearly the God in whom we believe." (Which seems to be saying that if we state our belief in the 'right' God he will stop smacking us around with all these pestilences, but I could be wrong. It's pretty obtuse.) But let's say that's what he means. Okay, from a perspective of faith, it could make sense. There's stuff in the book of revelations about that.
Then he adds: "Only this God saves us from being afraid of the world and from anxiety before the emptiness of life."
Now there is the one I take serious issue with, there is the big ultimate lie which twists the truth 180 degrees to the left of sanity. And the way Pope B states this lie puts a whole new take on things. Religions used to promulgate the fear of death to attract recruits and keep the faithful on track: Okay, so everyone is a little afraid to die, to snuff out and be no more. The idea that you can go on, that your mind and identity don't end with your body, is certainly attractive. Hence cryogenics.
But he is now stating that God is the answer to fear of life, not death. Fear of the world? Of the "emptiness of life"? What is he talking about, what idea is he trying to promote? Life is joy, life is challenge, life is fun. Yes, it has its ups and downs, but the more problems, the more interesting and entertaining it is! We need survival challenges to retain the zest and vigor of life. This is what a healthy philosophy of life, whether religious or otherwise, should be. To push the idea that people should fear the world, should find their lives empty without "god"? It's counter-survival. I don't argue that people's lives might be more fulfilling if they were involved in caring for others, giving to the needy, connecting with and helping one another survive, appreciating and celebrating the world and the life that "god" (or chance) gave us. But we don't really need to believe in god to do that We need to believe in each other, we need to recognize our interconnectedness and interdependence upon each other and on all other parts of the world environment. However that's not what I see coming from the major religions, not at the national or global level, not from those in charge. Quite the opposite: I see avarice, destruction, lies and mass murder excused under religious banners. The pope has shown his true colors, and they are quite black indeed.
" I have been ordered by Allah to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"
The above quote from Muhammad is in the Hadith, used as a supplement and interpretation of the Qur'an for many Muslims.
Something tells me that Christians and Muslims will never agree on the nature of God so long as they claim ownership to an entity which if it even exists could not be owned by any religion created by humans.
Unfortunately, our country is turning it's back on the principles established by our founding fathers, and allowing our government to be turned into a Theocracy dominated by Christian radicals. Religions by nature are intolerant. Christianity brought down Rome due to it's intolerance, and 100 years from now when historians discuss the reasons for the decline and fall of the American empire, 2001 will be the start of the timeline and GWB and his born again, Armageddon believing constituents will be promimently mentioned as one of the reasons for the decline.
Bin Ladin and 9/11 did not just kill 3000 people, destroy airplanes and topple buildings. This event has caused to American people to allow their country to be hijacked by religous extremists (Christian) by using the War on Terror as justification for another Holy War starting in Iraq and then moving on to Iran and Syria. Fear is used as a tool to enhance their power and keep the population at large from asking questions.
Despite the fact that 30,000 people die every year from guns, and 40,000 from car accidents, more effort and money is being spent to prevent a single plane carrying anywhere from 40-400 passengers from being blown up than on eliminating guns or reducing highway fatalities.
If Bin Ladin is alive he must laugh himself to sleep watching videos of Americans having to stand in long lines caused by people having to take off their shoes and surrender their water when they pass security check points, when they do not even screen the commercial cargo being loaded on the same planes!
But in Gods country, people will not give up the right to own guns or drive fast (but ok for the government to look at our email or see what library books we checked out). Since it is unlikely another plane could be hijacked AND used as a missile as they were in 2001 given the public awareness that this is what the hijacking could lead to, what are we so worried about?. Especially when we know that a terrorist could kill more people on a subway or in Times Square with an assault weapon (yes, GWB allowed the law on semi-automatic assault weapons to expire, and even terrorists can get them now, at least if they come to the US).
We have went from being a country known for its tolerance and freedoms and respect for human rights, to a country not much different from China (torture, illegal detentions, spying on its citizens, jailing or threatening to jail journalists for divulging state secrets, breaking treaties, starting wars of convenience).
Our citizens have been reduced to fearful sheep, being herded like cattle at airports, denied even a bottle of water and left at the mercy of the service staff on US airlines to hydrate them (scary). They are fearful of speaking out against the government for being accused as unpatriotic, allowing the government to break laws and invade our privacy, all in the name of security. The main stream media, largely owned by corporations who fund the theocons and dependent on revenue from corporate sponsors who support the theocons in return for deregulation and tax breaks, silence themselves and allow the government to lurch unchecked from one war to the other, all based on lies and deception.
Ben Franklin once said those who would give up freedoms for a little bit of security deserve neither. We certainly are no longer deserving of our freedoms or even the so called security we think we are getting for selling our souls.
The religous rights influence on government is even putting it's spin on science and technology, from evolution, global warming, population planning and control, HIV prevention education, stem cell research, standards for environmental, food and drug safety, etc. Not unlike the Papacy during the Spanish Inquisition when they took action against Galileo for saying the earth revolved around the sun and not vice-versa.
In God we Trust. Famous last words?
Somehow it bothers me that realigious zealots have taken over the concept of "god". I am sure that I know God without having to be part of any formal religion. He/She is really remarkable, look at the skies and the stars and that's easy enough to see. Or to ignore if you so choose, I don't think God cares if you are an atheist as long as you are a kind athiest. It is what so many do in his name that really screws things up...
Sam Harris's recent essay, Letter to a Christian Nation, is an excellent companion piece to Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian. Harris concludes his essay with this observation about child abuse in the tribes of Abraham:
"I will intesify the pangs of your childbearing;
in pain shall you bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall be your master."
"Cursed be the ground because of you!
In toil shall you eat its yield
all the days of your life."
"Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you,
as you eat of the plants of the field."
"By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat,
Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken;
For you are dirt, and to dirt shall you return."
Thus saith the LORD God, in Genesis 3:16-19.
The New American Bible, St Joseph Edition,
copyright 1970 by Catholic Book Publishing Co.
Approved, September 18 1970, by one Paulus PP. VI.
Sounds to me like a Being Who is rather "afraid of the world" Himself, and Who seems determined to replace the "anxiety before the emptiness of life" with anxiety before the harshness of life.
Of course, Roman Church doctrine may have changed since 1970. However, last I heard, a few weeks ago, the Church still embraces "Original Sin" with fervor, still is careful to distinguish "Sacred" from "profane", and still preaches far more about "Sins of the Flesh" and "God's just punishment for the wicked" than about God's Love.
How did this Heretic become Bishop of Rome?
Well If you had attended the same synagogue service (Orthodox)I was at, Revere, then in both sermons delivered by two lay persons (there is no pulpit Rabbi) there was great concern for the losses on both sides in the recent conflicts in Israel and Lebanon. The concern was not "abstract" but rather very much genuine. There was quite a lot of hope and request for one to search one's heart and soul to atone for one's sins of omission and commission which was to include such genuine concerns.
It is a pity that Revere did not take more and learn from his mother that one of the fundamentals of the Jewish faith is the preference of life over death and in this world not the next (if one does exist)
Well If you had attended the same synagogue service (Orthodox)I was at, Revere, then in both sermons delivered by two lay persons (there is no pulpit Rabbi) there was great concern for the losses on both sides in the recent conflicts in Israel and Lebanon. The concern was not "abstract" but rather very much genuine. There was quite a lot of hope and request for one to search one's heart and soul to atone for one's sins of omission and commission which was to include such genuine concerns.
It is a pity that Revere did not take more and learn from his mother that one of the fundamentals of the Jewish faith is the preference of life over death and in this world not the next (if one does exist)
A disgusting speech altogether.
In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.
While it is hard to parse the whole thing, he is not referring to Catholics here...
A neo-con pope!