Don't be too shocked at the title; my arguments are with Catholicism, not the poor unfortunate victims of that dogma, the Catholics. In this case, one Catholic organization, Catholics for Choice (uh-oh—already, I can tell that one argument against them will be that they aren't True Catholics™) has published a scathing criticism of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League. Here's their summary:
-
From the beginning, the Catholic League was marked by a schizophrenic attitude that
would become its hallmark: It simultaneously argued for the right of conservative
Catholics to impose their values in the public sphere, while arguing against the right
of others in the public sphere to offer legitimate criticism of Catholics or Catholicism. -
The Catholic League tactics are i) manufacture controversy; ii) try to intimidate the
"enemy"; iii) bully the opposition; iv) complain early and often; v) attack popular
culture; and vi) silence the loyal opposition. -
In utilizing these tactics it actively embarrasses, intimidates, bullies and distorts
reality to suppress critics of the Catholic church, the Vatican, and the church's many
controversial policies. -
Catholic League president Bill Donohue is in a constant quest for the next
"controversy" to keep his particular brand of reactionary Catholicism in the media
spotlight. -
Once Donohue has found a "controversy" he uses wildly inflated rhetoric that is sure
to inflame--either in print or in one of his infamous cable TV news appearances--and
then stages a protest or takes out an ad in the New York Timesto attract attention.
Then he waits for the seemingly ever-receptive press to show up. -
When it comes to peddling its special brand of inflammatory rhetoric, the media and
arts have been a special target of the Catholic League since the mid-1990s. -
The number of examples of anti-Catholicism claimed by the Catholic League grew
from 140 in 1995 to 320 in 2006, yet the only thing that seems to have actually
increased is the League's definition of anti-Catholic activity. -
As thin-skinned as Donohue appears to be when it comes to any one else referring to
Catholicism, Jesus or the Virgin Mary, apparently his rules don't apply to himself and
his friends. -
Unable to explain away the Catholic church's embarrassing pedophilia scandal,
Donohue tried to turn it back on progressive Catholic activists, claiming that they
were exaggerating the scandal to try and bring down the church. -
When the media cover the tempests he manages to whip up from time to time, few
ever stop to examine the basis for his objections--they just cover the dog fight. -
Donohue claims that the Catholic League has some 350,000 members and that
number is often used by the media when referencing the organization's supposed
clout. These numbers, however, appear to be a highly inflated picture of the Catholic
League's actual membership.
Right on!
Read the whole thing, all 25 pages of it. It's a very useful takedown.
- Log in to post comments
Well, I guess we know who the next hysterical boycott/protest/New York Times Ad made by the Catholic League is going to be against.
Looks like a very reasonable bunch of people.
But they are sooo not mainstream catholic,its not funny.
Kind of a fringe group within the fringe cult.
But Kudos to them for doing what they are doing.
Wow. Footnotes and everything!
I find it interesting that some catholics oppose the vatican's position on abortion because it contradicts Aquinas' view of the quickening (something the vatican never actually repudiated).
But, obviously, most catholics just shuffle around like mindless sheep, doing what they're told...
clinteas @ #2:
The enemy of my enemy is a useful asset. Remember that.
So, he's a Catholic Jesse Jackson?
-jcr
What do you know? Religious moderates spoke up against fanaticism for once.
Reading through the list- why does the Catholic League sound just like Fox News? Or the GOP??
There are a lot of decent people in the catholic church, it's just a shame that they have so many nutters as teh public face of religion.
Though it doesn't make their beliefs any less silly, but as long as they aren't trying to impose it on others I couldn't care less.
They may be "poor unfortunate victims", but remember, they are willing victims. Nothing stops them from leaving the church, but they stay anyway.
What a happy read.
I hope this thing gets some press.
I'd love to see it on the national news, but I doubt that would happen.
Maybe if old Bill goes daffy about it. That would make it an interesting story.
The catholic wars!
I especially like the part where they fisk the MSM for simply copying and pasting information like the alleged 350,000 membership number. It's often used in the news business where you're just filing column length in the paper and some hack is too overworked or under-concerned with the truth.
And Donohue's response is deliciously anticipated.
Congratulations to the authors of this well researched criticism. They make a point and they make it well.
It's good to know that some of them are willing to speak out in order to clean house. Distancing themselves from that Donohue and co. is a smart move.
This is what we need to see, moderates speaking out against the religious extremists. Sometimes it seems like there are no moderates, because the inflamed loonies are the ones we hear from most of the time.
"Donohue claims that the Catholic League has some 350,000 members and that number is often used by the media when referencing the organization's supposed clout. These numbers, however, appear to be a highly inflated picture of the Catholic League's actual membership."
Oh. My. Lord. Catholics for Free Choice, which has historically been more or less Frances Kissling plus a fax machine, is accusing The Catholic League of inflating its membership?
This may be true. Much as it would be technically true for Pol Pot to call The Hamburgler ethically questionable. But still, the chutzpah makes my brain hurt.
#5
"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, nothing more"
"Seven Successful Habits of Highly Effective Pirates"
It looks like this band of Catholics is on the road to its own modern-day Reformation. Bring it on. Schisms can lay the groundwork for real intellectual freedom (he says over-optimistically). If they could just get rid of the whole God thing. . . .
This makes me happier than I can properly express.
I often despair at how it invariably falls to us atheists to protest Christian nutjobbery, because so often Christians simply will not criticize each other, at least not publicly.
A friend who was hanging out in a group of Christians at the time of Fallwell's death told me how they were all quietly relieved at his passing, as they felt he made all Christians look bad. Why, I agonized, couldn't they have stood up and said, that man does not speak for me and my beliefs? But of course they would never do that, for that would certainly be unchristian. And so it goes.
As an atheist, the last thing I want to do is get muddled up in someone else's religious beliefs. Yet every time these whackjobs try to pass bullshit laws, their fellow Christians stand mutely on the sidelines, and it once again it falls to us to try to preserve religious freedom.
This has to change. Christians need to learn how to criticize their own, or else the loudest and maddest members will continue to speak for all of them. I hope that this little event is a sign that maybe it is changing, at least a little bit.
Dinesh D'Souza sits on the Catholic League's board of directors!? Either I hadn't heard that before, or I managed to forget it, which would be odd.
They forgot one:
Donohue gives catholicism a black eye by repeatedly threatening to give just that to his opponents through violence.
Absolutely lovely. It looks like religious leaders in Maine have a similar idea.
It's a very useful takedown.
I agree. I'm surprised this excellent criticism of the lunatic Bill Donohue came from Catholics. I'd be even more impressed if these Catholics threw out their religion. Why be a member of a religion that exists only to make money from gullible people?
I said that it looks like religious leaders in Maine are doing something similiar. I should have actually read the post. I thought that this was about gay rights when I saw "Catholics for Choice".
Go, non-schizo Catholics!
Glad to see someone within this guy's sphere working on taking him down.
Hm. That's certainly interesting and commendable. Although I don't understand the point in staying in an organization who's hierarchy disagrees with you and is more or less uninterested in what its members have to say (the Catholic Church fits this to the letter). I applaud Catholics for Choice and their work. But honestly, their values simply do not match up to the values of their Church, as has been made abundantly clear time and time again by Bishops' associations and the Magisterium itself.
I would be much more impressed/happy if they left the Roman Catholic Church altogether, so as to reduce its legitimacy by slimming its ranks. They needn't be godless (though that would be ideal), but surely more liberal Christian faiths are better suited for them.
In any case, a take down of Donahue is welcome no matter who issues it, and perhaps this will hit closer to home for the bastard.
"but surely more liberal Christian faiths are better suited for them."
But you see, if they remain under the Catholic banner, then Donohue can't shout that they're a bunch of heretics out to destroy Catholicism. All he can do is wail about them not being True Catholics, which hopefully will be sniffed out as the phony baloney that it is.
I would be much more impressed/happy if they left the Roman Catholic Church altogether
A very difficult thing to do, emotionally, for Catholics. I'm an ex-Catholic - believe me, it is easier to become an atheist than it is to go to another church. Besides, they might feel that their church has left them, and they are trying to take it back.
I have belonged to 5 or 6 different catholic churches in my life. With varying levels of involvement in each one. My mother-in-law practically runs her local church. I went to a catholic school for 7 years, my children attend a catholic school. I have only heard of or seen anything about the catholic league on episodes of hardball. I can't say I have ever even heard another catholic say that such a group existed. Most catholics in this country enjoy seeing their neighbors and eating doughnuts on sunday morning.
Blake @21, Dinesh is mentioned in the Board of Advisors, not the Board of Directors.
Rey Fox,
"Technically", since the Catholic Church, as far doctrine is concerned, is not a democracy of the laity but a top down system for protecting God's word, and since the hierarchy views one's vote as an extension of one's spiritual life, they aren't good Catholics; I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't true Catholics.
Deborah,
You have a point. I attended nine years of Catholic School and I saw how attached some families were to their parish. My mother converted from Catholicism to the Episcopalian Church for similar reasons that I stated in my first post, so it can be done, though I do agree that it is often hard. Catholicism does seem to be a cultural cornerstone as much as a religious one (and yeah, those two things frequently intersect to begin with) for many of it's members, so I can understand the difficulty.
But do the Catholics for Choice dub Donohue as (for whatever reason) not a True Catholic™?
If not, then CfC must themselves not be True Catholics™, because only True Catholics™ actually care whether anyone else is or pretends to be a True Catholic™...
This actually confirms something I've thought for a long time- despite having perhaps the most monolithic religion, Catholics express a surprising diversity of thought - especially when you compare any given catholic parish to any given Evangelical megachurch. This might have something to do with teaching the bible allegorically versus literally.
Anyway, Crackergate and Scalia not withstanding, I prefer dealing with Catholics who can keep their crazy in check most of the time.
spgreenlaw, even if you elect to leave the Catholic Church, you are still technically counted as a member, because baptism is forever. It sucks, I know.
KristinMH,
I know that, but empty pews and emptier collection plates make the Church look a lot less important in the eyes of everyone else. Which would be the point.
The pews are already pretty empty, except at Christmas and Easter. It's just that Bill Donahue and his ilk like to say shit like "There are 3 million Catholics in Canada!!!1!!" and people think that gives what they say some weight.
Shocking news from California:
http://www.nukees.com/comics/nukees20081119.gif
Apparently atheists are still allowed to marry.
Wow, DonaHO, nice going with the sock puppetry.
1) From what I recall, CFFC has never established chapters in any region, because some Catholics who support them fear, or might even risk, excommunication. So it's hard to tell what their numbers may or may not be.
2) Given that, CFFC hasn't made claims about their membership numbers that I've ever seen, so...your point?
2) Whatever CFFC may have been in the past, its new incarnation, CFC is definitely not that way now (and hasn't been that way for many, many years). You do know about the board of directors that consist of over a dozen people, right? You do know that they have a magazine, right, and I'm talking about the kind that one person alone couldn't put together? They also have interns and international coordinators, and I don't know how many other people actively working for their cause.
Really, before opening your mouth, do a little research. I had known of CFFC from my NARAL/Planned Parenthood days, and thought your description of one person + fax seemed off. For such a small organization, they sure made a lot of noise, even back in the 80s. So I looked them up! Imagine that! And it turns out they haven't been the one person + fax operation for a long--LONG--time.
I don't have to agree with their religious beliefs to have a common cause with them. Most of the pro-choice Catholics in my area are like what chris described, enjoying the social community of seeing their neighbors every Sunday, more than adhering to dogma.
It's certainly true that Bill and Co. use the Church's trumped up numbers to scrabble for extra legitimacy, but I think that illusion becomes harder and harder to keep up when the churches, one by one, start going out of business. Eventually people would catch on.
Also, think of what would happen if the legions of pro-choice Catholics actually joined churches that wouldn't mark their political ideas as sins, and that actually voiced the opinions of its community rather than silently poo-pooed it. The liberal choir would swell, and their cultural currency would wax as the Roman Church's wanes. I know that I would rather have someone like Cornel West on TV panels than Bill Donahue.
Yes. That's right. Attack the messenger rather than the message like a good, little, intellectually-dishonest idiot.
Tell me, how do the membership numbers of the Catholics for Free Choice nullify what they are saying when they criticize Donohue's lies about the numbers in his mob?
I mean, I can criticize Donohue for lying about this, and I am but one person.
You really came off particularly dense on that comment, sd. But, please, answer my question.
KristinMH,
There is a way to escape the Catholic Church officially, even if you were baptized, through the process of apostasy. It can be messy, but it is doable. The certificate of apostasy signed by my (ex)-archbishop proves that it is doable.
Wow. That seems like a whole heap of pointless busywork to get out of something which you can just as easily walk away from without any effort.
John Morales (#31):
Yes, I noticed that after I posted my comment. I had read up to p. 13, which under the heading "Playing Politics" says,
The source for this statement is, however, the CL website, which lists all of these individuals under the "Board of Advisors". Copy-edit on aisle 5!
Cult politics. In these cases (denial of reality) the audience is the faithful, not the condemned. One solidifies support by painting enemies, existent or not. Gossiping on a grand scale.
It's kind of sad when you look at it this way. Bill is just an office sharptongue writ large. His New York Times ads just passive-aggressive notes by the water cooler about washing your coffee cups. Bids to hedge political power by appealing to an us-versus-them mentality and painting chaos to come if events spiral out of control.
Yes, the original prophecy of the apocalypse was a post-it proclaiming "limit yourself to two sugars only."
Capital Dan:
Work on your reading comprehension. I acknowledged that CFC's criticism of The Catholic League's membership numbers may very well be accurate. But CFC itself is a skeleton organization with almost no grassroots support among Catholics.
For years CFC has been quoted in news story after news story to illustrate the "controversy" within Catholicsm about this or that subject. But the media, in its unthinking quest for "balance" has almost never noted a simple fact: that CFC speaks for nobody except its tiny staff. Its a press release factory play-acting as a movement.
That's why I used the word chutzpah. Their statements are not neccessarily wrong. But they take a lot of nerve, given that CFC itself thrives on mis-representing its influence.
Thesk @34 wrote:
Indeed. Consider for a moment that Joe Biden, Bill O'Reilly, Ken Miller, and Michael Behe are all Catholics.
James F: how true. Just look into the history of their saints, scholars etc. It's a real melting pot of ideas. Just reading a few lines of Clement (re. justification) gave me food for thought!
Captian Mike #7 - well said. It makes you wonder, doesn't it.
sd@46 wrote:
Could you provide some detail please? I've been all over their website, and I don't see any claims for membership numbers or claims of influence.
What I do see is a detailed description of what issues they are involved in, and the stance taken on them.
The Foobarians are arguing with the Barfooians about The Magic Xyzzyism. Yawn...
*sigh* So, you would rather they stay silent? Or, are you impressed by their "courage?" Or, do you assert that they are wrong?
Shorter Catholics for Choice. Bill Donohue is a self serving, brain dead, lying, psychotic kook.
While true, this is so self evident as to be trite.
Donohue is a clown or comedian, funny in a spooky, "I am fruitbat crazy", Michelle Bachmann sort of way.
Catholics in the USA usually reflect that national stats on most things. At 23% of the population, they are large enough to heavily influence the national stats, this is not an accident.
There is a huge and growing gulf between the priests and the members. They can't even get priests anymore among other things, no one wants to be a lifelong celibate these days for no real reason.
So it is don't ask, don't tell. If the priests actually tossed all Catholics for violating one thing or another, virtually all their members would be gone. No memebers=no money=no religion. A recipe for religious suicide.
The birth rate of Catholics is identical to the national average. 53% of USAians voted for Obama. 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. See a trend here?
Read the whole thing, all 25 pages of it. It's a very useful takedown.
Yep I think they nailed it pretty good.
Yep I think they nailed it pretty good.
I meant Bill Donohue, I wasn't referring to Jesus.
Catholics wouldn't nail Jesus, because they think that was a bad thing to do. Unless somebody else did it for them, in which case it was a good thing. Or something!
Yes, that is absolutely true. My organization, The Galactic Catholic League for Truth and Justice is far more important.
1. We span the galaxy. With members scattered througout the known universe as well.
2. Our title is much more grandiose and important.
3. Our membership is much larger and more influential than Donohue's. It consists of me and 2 cats. Not only are our numbers larger than the Catholic League's, but none of us have been diagnosed as either retarded or psychotic. Several of our members, in fact, are avid and proficient hunters.
Donohue pshhttt!!! I would call him a mouse but that would wake up the other 2/3 of TGCLFT&J and Donohue would be in serious trouble.
Sorry, but WRONG
The catholic church has ALWAYS been a dictatorship, with the pope in charge. If you are a catholic, you ALREADY KNOW THIS.
Protest is basically, futile, because those are the operating rules of the organisation. Schisms have only arisen in the psat, bacuse of disagreements among the "higher" echelons of the party church.
If you disagree - YOU ARE NO LONGER A CATHOLIC, by definition.
You are a PROTEST-ANT.
Religion, stupidity, feh.
Capital Dan, it looks like all sd has done is pointed out that the Catholic for Choice also implicitly overstate their importance. That's it. You can take your straw man elsewhere, thanks.
Well "protestant" originally meant "one who protests", and the RC church certainly is structured as a dictatorship, bit you are wrong on a stack of other stuff. Being a protestant in the etymological sense doesn't automatically make you not a Catholic. Being a Protestant in the modern sense of following Luther's reformation does, but they are distinct meanings of the word. Being a(n etymological) protestant may make someone a bad Catholic or a heretic, but the church will keep defining them as a Catholic regardless (they really don't like letting people go). If that person also self-identifies as a Catholic then they surely are (the fact that WE think they shouldn't be so classed is hardly relevent).
There's actually a fairly rich tradition of dissent within the RCC. If it's done by properly licensed theologians who promise not stir up the masses, it's even encouraged by hierarchs.
OT, but yesterday was the first time I ever encountered actual Chick Tracts in the wild. There were some piles of them on the benches in front of a hospital I was visiting, so I picked one up for a laugh, but instead I feel ripped off. Instead of a classic like "Big Daddy" or that one about Dungeons & Dragons, I got "He Never Told Us!"
It's a Chick Tract whose sole purpose is advertising Chick Tracts! From the plot the title should've been "He Never Gave Us Chick Tracts!" The target audience, judging by the main character Charlie, are Christians who are already going to Heaven, but who've neglected to give Jack Chick money. What the hell?
This was a military hospital they were left at, so maybe the person who left them just assumed that everyone there was a Christian, what with the Christian take-over of the military. I was expecting the tract to contain things to insult my sensibilities, but not in that sort of meta way.
yep, i had the shittiest drama teacher back in High School. Doesn't mean she wasn't a teacher, and the school certainly wasn't gonna let her go (the other English teacher had much more intelligence and left as soon as his contract was up the end of that year). Perfectly good example of the principle, right Heath?
And a fairly rich tradition of torturing heretics until they recant.
You've read the whole thing???
I don't believe it!
This dispute in the catholic church is similar to the recent fuss arising from comments by the Bishop of Lancaster (UK) who accused 'educated' catholics of diluting catholic dogma.
Catholic dogma, and its dominance by the pope and his cardinals is as about a restrictive a worldview as any religion has. Virtually any person in that church who hasn't a 15th century outlook has to modify that dogma for their daily life - how many catholics in the western world really do not use some form of contracption, for example?
So it doesn't surprise me, an ex-catholic, that there's continual tensions between believers with a medieval outlook and those who have some knowledge of modern life.
Disagree with whom ? The vatican, or the Catholic League ?
Don't confuse the two !
In response to G. Tingey at #57:
Although the Catholic Church does teach that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine, this power has only actually been exercised once since its proclamation in 1870; in 1950, the Assumption of Mary was defined by Pope Pius XIII as an article of faith for Catholics.
Ordinary papal encyclicals (such as those on abortion or contraception) are, therefore, not claimed to be infallible. They are considered to be part of the "ordinary magisterium" - the normal teaching authority of the Church - and believers are required to give "religious submission of intellect and will", but not to treat them as an article of faith. Thus it is possible to disagree with the Church's stance on contraception, for instance, and still remain a practising Catholic.
But yes, the Catholic Church is, of course, an authoritarian structure - which is something that I dislike. Religious views should, fundamentally, be individual; and acceptance (or non-acceptance) of religious doctrine should be from the mind and the heart, not simply because of blind submission to an organised authority. All human beings are imperfect, corruptible and prone to error; therefore there is no justification for any person having authority over the religious views of another.
The catholics have always been against independent thought, hence the refusal to translate the bible from Latin into any regional languages - one of the factors contributing to the reformation.
The bible, of course, is down on it from the start with that whole Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge thing. Moral of the story: don't think for yourself; do as you're told and everything will work out okay and no-one has to get kicked out of anywhere.
Perhaps, if they're lucky, these catholics who've decided to cast a discerning eye on the politics of their brothers-and-sisters-in-faith will continue to scrutinise and eventually reach the point where the realise it's all a sham and revert to atheism.
Yep. Not denying that or arguing in support of catholicism. Just fact checking G. Tingey. We don't want to be collectively lying for (NOT Jebus) after all.
@Walton
"Thus it is possible to disagree with the Church's stance on contraception, for instance, and still remain a practising Catholic."
But if you do disagree with the standard dogma of the church they do take action against you. My uncle, an old fashioned Irish Catholic in the UK, divorced and wanted to marry again. When he did in a civil ceremony (wasn't possible in the church) he was excluded from taking holy communion thereafterm- the essential part of attending church as a catholic.
OK - an atheist couldn't care less about this superstitious nonsense but it was hurtful of them to do this to an old man who was so committed to them. He still went to mass but as a 'second class catholic'. And bishops in the UK have stated that people such as Blair (a recent convert) should be denied communion because they are indifferent on abortion - somehow they don't seem to have had the nerve to do that yet.
So they can be a spiteful lot when they are defied....
"It simultaneously argued for the right of conservative Catholics to impose their values in the public sphere, while arguing against the right of others in the public sphere to offer legitimate criticism of Catholics or Catholicism."
You can insert the name of any sect or cult in place of "Catholic," or simply supply the generic term "religion/religious," and be equally accurate. This is because they allegedly speak for some "god," and no one is allowed to criticize "God."
Oogedy-boogedy!
You know what? I don't care if these folks are catholic.... I like them. They're right on the damn money!
That's the kind of religious people I like. They aren't fanatics, they're level-headed people. Sure, I think they believe in a tooth fairy, but they don't seem set on poisoning everyone with it unlike Donohue.
Didn't Bill Donohue (aka Archie Bunker on amphetamines) recently claim that the Gay community has moved to an anti-abortion stance as the direct result of the finding of the "gay gene", and the reason for this political shift was because gays feared that parents would start screening their fetus for this gene and abort it if found?
Let's be clear of the facts here. And are they making false claims to great levels of membership? Like the Catholic League? Who, by the $30 contributions has 83,000 contributions (memberships)?
Are they pretending to speak for all Catholics and the Catholic Church like Donahue? Are they pretending to be "the answer" for all things, all issues Catholic?
There's nothing wrong with being small. Lots of these organizations are very small. And don't pretend otherwise as they continue on in their narrow-range advocacy.
But I also notice that they run a $3,000,000 budget. And have a staff of 20. So your intended put-down quip, when compared the Catholic League's similar circumstance is, oh..., a bit ironic...
Especially as nowhere on their site do they make grandiose claims to membership. So, your stupid quips aside, we're seeing the way the game is played by two groups that are, financially, similar.
Donahue lies drastically about his size and influence. The CFFC doesn't.
In the real world, where truth does matter in the long run, there is something wrong with lying about your size. And pretending you're a mainstream representative group of all Catholicism when, in reality, you're not.
And, for the record, there are over 80 million Catholics in the US and Donahue gets contributions for 83K members. Or, about one of every million Catholics... That's pretty damn pathetic and doesn't give you the right to speak for all Catholics on all issues and brand anyone who doesn't agree with you "a bad Catholic."
This may be somewhat off-topic, but I'm reminded of a controversial work of 'art' that appeared a while back, and stirred up a huge controversy. It came a few years after 'Piss Christ'. It was a combination sculpture/picture, made primarily out of elephant dung, and titled "The Virgin Mary." International (primarily catholic) outrage ensued... people lobbied to discontinue funding for the NEA... the artist's life was threatened (sound familiar?)... demonstrations were held... it went on for weeks. Thankfully, nobody got killed....
... but nobody GOT IT, either.
With respect to the technical and aesthetic aspects of art, it was not very good... it looked like it could have been made by a semi-talented 6th-grader with mud-pie experience. And considering the elephant dung, it certainly could not have been expected to have a very long shelf-life. So... why was it 'art'?
Well, one of the primary objectives of ANY work of art is to emotionally involve the viewer... to make the viewer a participant in the 'art experience'. In that regard, this particular work was one of the most wildly successful art works in history...
... but STILL, nobody gets it.
Well... here's the secret... the 'art' was in the NAME of the work. If it had been named "Mrs. Smith", or something like that, nobody would have gotten emotionally involved, or even CARED very much; it just would have been a sloppily done, smelly, poor excuse for art that would have lasted for a few days, and then vanished from sight and from memory, forever. However, as 'The Virgin Mary', it STILL elicits an emotional response (mainly outrage and sputtering apoplexy) from cathy-licks, to this day... even from people who never even saw it, but just HEARD about it... YEARS after it was consigned to the dumpster.
(The artist ought to be encouraged to make another one, and title it 'The Prophet Mohammed', and see what happens. Now THAT would be 'art'.)
Anyway... I'd like to suggest that from a certain perspective, PZ's 'host desecration' might be considered 'art'... and that designing and creating 'art' projects focused on honking-off catholics (and other flavors of christ-cult delusionists) might be an interesting hobby. And part of the 'art experience' would be the snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy that would be induced in Donohue... which would appear to be a reasonable basis upon which to judge, rank, rate and score such art projects.
It's nice to see other Catholics calling Donohue out as a whackjob. My poor Catholic father will never admit out loud that anyone who claims to "speak for the church" has their head up their ass, even when it's someone like Donohue who just -decided for himself- that he'd be the mouthpiece of the church. I'm glad that at least a few Catholic folk can see through the hollow, persecutorial rhetoric that the Catholic League exists solely to spout.
I just wanted to point out a three-order-of-magnitude problem in the math done here (the "pathetic" point still stands, just not as hyperbolically).
To be a "true catholic", you cannot be a "buffet catholic"--you cannot pick and choose which bits of idiocy you feel comfortable adhering to or you will be EXCOMMUNICATED.
There's a reason many of us refer to ourselves as "recovering"--in my case, at least, it's not meant to be funny. Imagine, for example, being a 9-year old and waking in terror to see a beautiful red sunrise--to you, this means that the predictions of Our Lady of Fatima will come to fruition that day and the world will be destroyed. Or imagine licking the peanut butter and jelly from the knife you used to make your lunch sandwich for school that day, taking the communion wafer at morning mass, and living in horror that you might be hit by a car before you got to confess this mortal sin (eating or drinking ANYTHING but water 12 hours before receiving the host) and would spend eternity in HELL.
I'm so glad my 8 younger brothers and sisters were able to see through this bullshit. I probably helped them by being crazy paranoid. But I'm still recovering and suspect I always will be...
@#70
My father was treated the same way.
He had a short-lived, arranged marriage at age 18 which lasted a few months (and was supposedly anulled). When he remarried at age 40 he had to go to a different church because the RC church refused to do it. Certain elders and members of the catholic women's league used to visit our house when my dad was at work and harangue my mother for being an adulteress. I remember hiding in the basement with my mom so they would think nobody was home and go away. They made it very clear that none of us were welcome at their church as long as my mum & dad were living in sin. A nearby Ukrainian catholic church was more forgiving and allowed us to attend though my parents were not allowed communion.
Finally, when dad was in his late 70s he heard that his first wife had died so he finally got married (by a monsignor) and had communion after almost 40 years.
Fuck. Better trolls please.
The CFC provide clear facts to the issue of choice and reproductive rights from the perspective of the disenfranchised/unheard within the Catholic Church. Something you're sure as hell not going to get from the Catholic hierarchy. They're also a clearing house for solid, unbiased information that, once again, the Catholic Church isn't going to give you.
I'll be blunt, Catholics are not in anyway significantly different on reproductive rights than Protestants as a population. DESPITE the lies and pressure from the Catholic Church and wing-nut Catholic organizations. So the CFC provides information to, and an analog voice for, that group.
That's their mission. That's what they do. And it is perfectly acceptable. Unlike your moronic definition, under which no advocacy group could speak for anything, at all, ever, except for their staffs.
Which is a load of horseshit.
Unlike Donahue, they do not claim to speak for all Catholics and be the final arbiter of what is "good for all Catholics, you must think this way." They don't tell you who is a "good Catholic" or a "bad Catholic." They don't lie about their goals, aims, memberships or anything else. They don't manufacture "anti-Catholic" controversy. All of which Donahue does.
There's a big damn difference between speaking for Catholics on a narrow-range of advocacy issues, for which we can demonstrate a size-able fraction of support and Donahue's lies about actual membership PLUS his clear claim about the right to speak for all Catholics on all issues when in fact, he really doesn't come close to his grandiose claims. Especially when we see his incredibly stupid ranting on non-reproductive-rights issues, like Chocolate Jesus, as he makes Catholics look bad-by-association with his deranged rantings.
I pity the fool who can't see the obvious difference.
KUDOS to Skippy!!! I just took a look at your blog and was delighted to read about why, as an atheist, you still put up a christmas tree, exchange gifts, and enjoy listening to traditional christmas music. (I especially enjoyed your description of the macrocephalic nativity scene.) When my friends and family ask me why, as an atheist, I persist in doing the same things, I will tell them "Because it's what my family did when I was a kid and I enjoy it." Hey, I'm going out to get a nativity scene and I'm not even going to feel conflicted about it!
(See http://skippytheskeptic.blogspot.com for "The War on What Now...?")
Better trolls please.
The CFC didn't state their importance anywhere. They have a mission, and that's what they do. If others feel they are important, so be it.
Which gets us to your strawman, the same strawman as SD. If the CFC makes no claims, why are you attacking these not-made-claims to deflect the legitimate criticism of Donahue.
Donahue, OTOH, routinely lies and puffs his numbers. He lies about little things. He lies about big things. He makes grandiose claims to speak for all Catholics and that any Catholic that doesn't agree with his claims are "Bad Catholics."
None of which is done by CFC.
The actual argument made by SD has been attacked multiple times. SD has deflected, badly, and failed to address it when challenged on his deflections.
For you, I'd suggest a course in reading comprehension. Perhaps a second in logic and fallacies.
@Recovering Catholic #79: Licking peanut butter is a mortal sin???
"Or imagine licking the peanut butter and jelly from the knife you used to make your lunch sandwich for school that day, taking the communion wafer at morning mass, and living in horror that you might be hit by a car before you got to confess this mortal sin (eating or drinking ANYTHING but water 12 hours before receiving the host) and would spend eternity in HELL."
Was someone jerking your chain? Wikipedia says one hour.
Because the Church teaches that Christ is present in the Eucharist, there are strict rules about its celebration and reception. The ingredients of the bread and wine used in the Mass are specified and Catholics must abstain from eating for one hour before receiving Communion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
Maybe the Pope changed this stupid rule at some point?
Depends where you'd put the peanut butter, I'd expect...
And who you'd put it on.
My bad. That'll teach me to do math with the lights off and half-a-cup of coffee in me while not trusting my basic sense that it should be about a 1000-to-1 representation.
Not just in the USA. I think people still become priests in Poland, but elsewhere in Europe there are fewer priests than parishes, and the gap keeps increasing.
Yes and no. If this definition were actually applied, you could take all the zeroes off the number of Catholics in the world. Practically nobody even knows every single dogma!
That's another strange thing about him. His organization is a purely US phenomenon. I had never heard of it before it was mentioned on Pharyngula. Donohue isn't even a priest, is he?
#79, you are not alone! Via Catholic Answers:
Kendy says:
How bad is it to eat before Mass? It's just not realistic for me to not have breakfast before daily mass. If I return home for breakfast I will be late for work.
Pug says:
You could try getting up half an hour earlier, so that you have time to eat and still make the 1 hour rule. Of course, I'd have real problems following my own advice.
I recommend that you don't receive if you have not kept the fast. That doesn't mean you can't go to mass.
Kendy replies:
I wake up at 5:30 a.m. If I at breakfast any earlier. I would be ready for lunch before 10 a.m. This sucks.
Vince says:
I don't know what you have for breakfast, but how about bring food/breakfast that you can eat after mass/before work? Even better if you can make it the previous night. So that, you won't be in a hurry in the morning.
Pug says:
Is there a parish near your work, instead of near your home? I know a number of people who go to daily mass in the noon hour. I realize, though, that this requires you work in a big city.
I'm not the best person for advice on this issue, because the way I make daily mass is to go at 7pm! The morning ones don't work well for me.
Adrift say:
Talk to your priest. I believe he can dispense you from the fast.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=114285
Clearly, Adrift is going to HELL.
You seem to be rejecting the notion of religious Truth, or, at the very least, the responsibility of those who know such Truth to inculcate it in those who have not "heard the good news".
Exactly -- do you want to condemn some people to Hell simply because they cannot come to the truth of Catholicism on their own, due to their imperfect, corruptible, error-prone nature? Are you really that cruel and unfeeling?
Wow, so much for religious education. That sure would have made my school years different...
(And yes, another recovering Catholic here.)
This is true even in Ireland. When my grandfather (a pious Catholic) died, the local curate showed up to the house. He was African. The number of men "receiving Holy Orders" in Ireland is something like one every three years now, so they have to import priests into Ireland from Africa where the "problem" is not so acute.
No. Donahue is the Pope's skinhead: he does the dirty work while the church retains plausible deniability. If he says something completely outrageous, they simply say "the Catholic League does not represent the Church", otherwise, they keep their mouth shut.
This criticism hits home for me:
Although I must point out that this behavior is hardly unique to Donahue, the CL and its members... this is one of the basic principals of most mainstream religions and is at the heart of the problem that most secularists have with religion.
If anyone finds out. There seems to be a don't-ask-don't-tell policy. If you're a theologian who writes a book that doubts the dogma of infallibility, you're kicked out (there's a famous case of that happening). If not...
WTF. See, I was never told about that and found out very late about even just the place name Fatima (...when I already knew that was the name of a quite different female religious figure...). Perhaps the reason is the whole of Mark 13, especially verse 32, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, and 2 Peter 3:10.
How old are you? I used to think eating before receiving communion stopped being a sin at the 2nd Vatican Council. Like how not going to church every single sunday stopped being utterly horrible, and like how the host need no longer be put directly on the tongue and you're allowed to bite it.
(In comment 93 there are two different working links to 1 Thess 5 and 2 Peter 3, even though due to some failure on my part they look like a single link.)
Wow. Till today I had never heard of the 1-h rule. My mother goes to church almost every Sunday, dragged me with her till I was, like, 16 or something, and I had Religious Education at school. See what I mean about almost nobody knowing every single dogma? Or are those random Americans on the Internet behind the times, or something, in which case my point still stands?
Austria has been importing priests from Poland and to a lesser degree Nigeria for some time now.
12 years of Catholic school (not to mention kindergarten) and religion just didn't take. I blame the Easter Bunny. 1983 and outside the window of the pale blue room I shared with my sister, I heard a noise outside the windom. The crunching of pebbles, and being the curious sort, I peeked. What was outside was not a rabbit dispensing eggs from a basket, but rather, two people I was more familiar with Unquestioning acceptance died that day, and a skeptic was born.
A doctrine that said that a loving god existed, but women were less important than men to him - rejected. It didn't make sense to mini-feminist me that only men were allowed to be priests. And, at the time - girls weren't permitted to be altar servers, to read scripture at mass, be mass servers. More than anything - I wanted to be like my brother, who was allowed to do all these things. So I sat, knelt, stood with the throng, pretending to have unquestioning devotion to a god who liked me less because I peed sitting down, rather than standing up.
Confession - the sacrament - I was never too keen on. Closeted with a priest, confessing "sins." At 8 years old, I just wasn't too engaged in the process of sinning. Mainly because I feared - not the firey pits of hell - but the equally arbitrary notions of being good, enforced by my father. Beatings kept me from anything that could be classified as disobediant, so my stomach churned trying to think up sins to give the priest.
The priest who drank with my altar boy brother. My brother who escaped our childhood by being to shit-faced to care about it. I guess I always identified more with the "bad" guys in the bible. The fallen angels, Judas. The heretics. Eve. Cain. Lot's wife. I would rather be a pillar of salt than serve with unquestioning devotion - to anything. The fruit of the tree of knowledge - I'm going to keep eating. Until my grey matter is so infused with ideas, and thoughts, and questions, and awe, and wonder at a universe so immense that one lifetime is not enough to figure everything out - but one lifetime is all I have.
Actually, you can write to your bishop to obtain an apostasy from the Vatican. Some artists did this publicly here some time ago to protest against some of the church's doctrines, namely against homosexuality and birth control.
If he means us french-speaking catholics, he's in for quite a surprise when he goes to church, or indeed speaks with people about the church's doctrine. Even those who still believe and somewhat practice are very pro same-sex marriage (we were among the first states to grant it) and pro contraception (the lab where I work has a very hard time finding women who don't take the pill to give blood for instrument calibration).
After the 1960's all this nutjobbery was pretty much evacuated from here. What didn't help was the scandal in which church-run orphanages (where an unmarried woman's baby would inevitably wound up, no matter what she wanted) submitted the children in their care to psychiatric treatment (at that time, electrechocs and lobotomies) to weedle some more money from the government. The mutilated survivors are still seeking justice for this from both government and church (look for Duplessis' children).
sd @ #47:
And how is this any less true with regard to Bill Donohue and the Catholic League? Oh, yeah, Donohue gets more publicity.
This is a totally different viewpoint from what has been offered here so far. Pz mentioned that " his arguments are with catholicism, not with the catholics who are the poor unfortunate victims of that dogma". If it wasn't for the catholics there would be no dogma; the numbers only enhance that dogma and perpetuate it. Speaking as an atheist, and in a wishful thinking manner, would it not be best for all these victims to finally come to their rational senses and slough off their nonsensical religion once and for all? I used to be a catholic but am not anymore, having left that insane crap by the wayside more than half of my life ago. When are they going to come to abject reality and finally figure out that it is all a bunch of nonsense and reject it like a nightmare dream? To have a bunch of these same catholics go off in a different tandem does not invalidate their stance on an imaginary god nor eliminate the pox of religion. There are so many examples of the fallacy of belief in imaginary gods that are observed every day, and yet they are never considered in the light of that blatant observation, from churches being hit by lightning, a church group in a bus outing all going over a cliff with many deaths, or churches that are being slated to close and occupied by parishoners who wonder why their god isn't doing antyhing to have his own house of insanity remain open. These and so many examples of religious irrationality never dawn on those minds so afflicted with religious enslavement. We atheists have managed to slough off all this nonsense and live lives of reason a with no aftereffects from a vengeful imaginary god. I have neither sympathy nor admiration for those unwilling to erase this nonsense from their lives, albeit in a rebellious manner to that slime Donahue and similiar cohorts. Religion is still religion, no matter what form or breakaway sects it chooses to employ, whether by protest or another dogma. Get rid of that insane crap and live your life to it's fullest as it is too short and proscribed by too many inconsequentials.
Brian, #20
If it hasn't been said, the same can be said of Islam fundamentalists. We hear all the time from christians about how moderate muslims aren't speaking out about their extremists. But when the situation is reversed, the moderate christians aren't speaking out about their own extermists. At most they say they're "not really christian" but that does nothing.
I'm glad you got a kick out of it, #82. There's a lot of hand-wringing that goes on at Christmastime among the atheists that I know, especially those of us with religious families, but I honestly don't see why their ought to be.
Diagoras @95
"I would rather be a pillar of salt than serve with unquestioning devotion - to anything. The fruit of the tree of knowledge - I'm going to keep eating. Until my grey matter is so infused with ideas, and thoughts, and questions, and awe, and wonder at a universe so immense that one lifetime is not enough to figure everything out - but one lifetime is all I have."
That's just beautiful
Diagoras @95
"I would rather be a pillar of salt than serve with unquestioning devotion - to anything. The fruit of the tree of knowledge - I'm going to keep eating. Until my grey matter is so infused with ideas, and thoughts, and questions, and awe, and wonder at a universe so immense that one lifetime is not enough to figure everything out - but one lifetime is all I have."
That's just beautiful!
Diagoras in #95 has recounted a lot in common with my own experience with the RC church. I was a bit of a slow learner, though: 16 years of Catholic school--not counting kindergarten because I dropped out of that--and it wasn't until the last two or three that it dawned on me that I'd been massively gamed. Several lines of thought converged and finally struck that old spark, and it all went hollow and tinny.
When I was a kid, we had to fast from everything but plain water from midnight before we took Communion. (I do remember passing out once or twice at 10AM High Mass on hot summer Sundays, when I was a scrawny wheezy kid.) After Vatican II they changed the required fast to three hours before Communion; I don't remember when it was reduced to a mere hour but I suppose I wasn't bothering with the whole deal by then.
In our preparatory classes for First Communion--second grade, when most of us were 7 years old, the official "age of reason" when you become capable of mortal sin--someone asked Sister Eleanor Marie if he'd be sinning if he swallowed the toothpaste when he was brushing his teeth before Mass, and then took Communion.
She answered with a question: "Is toothpaste food?" And that was all the answer he, or we, ever got. Even then I knew there was something wrong with that approach. I just didn't have a name or reason for it.
@Ron Sullivan
I was born to be irreverant, I think. For some reason, the prohibition on eating before mass and swimming were somehow correlated in my developing mind. And, since I was allegic to chlorine and hated swimming - I wondered why I couldn't be equally allergic to religion, because I certainly hated going to mass.
There was also that bit in time - my bad-eighties hair phase - when I got my first perm. The solution etched an upside-down cross in my forehead. I was amused as only a 12-year old atheist attending Catholic school could be. Oh - the derision of fifth grade girls, convinced I was the Antichrist. And who was I to disabuse them of this notion? Especially since I was anti-Christ - in that I didn't think humanity needed to be saved. That humans were part of the world, and what they do in this world and to this world mattered.
I'm sorry, but I have no respect for organizations like this (Catholics for Choice). While I appreciate and applaud their stance against fracktards like Donohue, I continually asked myself while reading their opposition pamphlet, "Why do they remain Catholic?" If they disagree with the Pope on abortion, or any other issue, or unhappy with practices within the church, they LEAVE! They're half-way there, thinking for themselves, what's holding them back? I mean, that's what being a Catholic is all about, isn't it? When the pope says "jump", a Catholic says, how high? If you don't agree with the Pope, you're not a Catholic, so stop pretending. That's what makes a Catholic a Catholic. I don't get it.
Well, there is the Guilt to consider. Some can just toss it all overboard like suddenly realizing there is no Santa. Depends of course how deeply your family was into the church and its practice; for many, it takes a transition period of slowly shedding the beliefs, even holding onto *something* through occult or new age crap. It's difficult for many to separate simply deciding to treat fellow humans with respect from church rules and fear of suffering in some afterlife state. Never experienced fear of a sunrise (!), but there can be a deep, lingering vague fear---I suppose in a Pascal's wager sense. The church in which I grew up was the tradition of the unrelenting strictness of a Tertullian (once you were baptised) combined with the emphasis on sexual purity as in Ambrose and, even more so, as in Jerome. I suppose the church has had to soften its approach of late because of a loss of status and power. When I see Donovan's bluster, I recognize that as a link to the not-too-distant past; it's the face of the bullying and guilt-tripping church which held sway over civilizations. Yikes!
One small, but non-trivial, nitpick with their first complaint: the attitude they're complaining about isn't schizophrenic at all. Schizophrenia refers to abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality, not to split personality disorder.
But more to the point, a better description of their attitude would be "hypocritical".
CaptainKendrick #105
Not all popes are the same. They may simply be hanging on hoping the pope will change his mind or the next one will be better. Historically popes don't have long reigns. It's like the weather in Minnesota, if you don't like it wait 5 minutes.
She answered with a question: "Is toothpaste food?" And that was all the answer he, or we, ever got. Even then I knew there was something wrong with that approach. I just didn't have a name or reason for it.
Huh? That's a Socratic Dialogue and it's got a long and noble history.
It looks like the student dropped the ball, though. He should have said, "Toothpaste is not food, so it seems to me that I can swallow it before Communion. It also seems that I can swallow Robitussin-based cough syrup before Communion, even to the point of chugging the whole bottle. Does it seem so to you also?"
This could go back and forth for several rounds, until somebody either learned something or committed the fallacy of argumentum ad baculum.
Alverant #108
Do you really think a Pope will *ever* come along who will say, "Condoms are ok now." OR "God doesn't have a problem with abortion...he gave you free will, so it's totally up to you. Send your fetus to heaven if you want..."
Just my humble opinion, but I think that's about as likely as a Pope coming around and announcing, "Ok, we admit it: we've been hiding the mummified corpse of one Jesus of Nazareth in our catacombs for the past 2000 years. Feel free to examine..."
"Catholics for Choice" is a euphemism for Catholics for Abortion. They should hook up with these guys.
All he has to do is say that god has told him that he's happy with the number of people in the world and that it's now okay to use contraception (abortions mightn't ever be okay; that's a far bigger deal) - sure, he'd have to lie about god speaking to him, but it's not like any pope has ever told the truth, 'cause god doesn't exist.
The woo-addled loons he calls his congregation will believe him, because that's what credulous people do.
Piltdown Man #111
Holy frackin jesus on a 2x4! What the F is that site?????
I'm hoping it's a joke -- can't translate German!
So what's wrong with abortion, Scumbag? Your glorious leader Pope Benny-who-never-was-a-Nazi-no-really has recently announced that unbaptised infants go straight to heaven, so anyone who aborts a fetus is clearly doing it the greatest possible favour.
Piltdown Scumbag shows his class again.
Nick Gotts wrote:
But Nick, don't you know? The Nazis, like the Spanish catholic conquest of the South Americas, weren't really bad - that's just a lie to make catholics - who had key roles in both - feel bad.
PZ praises Catholics so Pilty has to come in this thread and show they aren't all good people.
Oh, my god, REALLY?????????? What other unbelievably obvious euphemisms can you decode for us?
Nobody is "for abortion". Nobody thinks abortions are a great idea and that everyone should have two of them. In this case "Choice" is a euphemism for "the right of women to determine what to do with their own bodies and not have wizened old male virgins in dresses peering up their vaginas".
"Catholics for Choice" is a euphemism for Catholics for Abortion - Piltdown Scumbag
Oh, sort of like "Traditionalist Catholics" is a euphemism for "Catholics for Torture and Burning People Alive" you mean?
Well, they'd like us to think they're virgins. Sadly, a lot of children will tell us otherwise. No doubt Piltdown Scumbag will say that's a lie as well.
I wish to point that there are several Catholics organization around the world that are pro choice:
http://www.catolicasporelderechoadecidir.org/
In the last 10 years they have grow and gain influence in Latin America.
In Mexico, a country where 80% considers themselves Catholics. 91% of the Catholics approve contraceptives, 70% accept to have used contraceptives.
Approbation of abortion in Mexican catholics is:
82% if the life of the woman is in danger
77% if there is danger to the woman´s healt
69% if the woman has HIV
66% if the fetus has defects or hereditary problems
65% if has been a rape.
9% if is the woman's choice
While the last number may feel a disappointment, in general, the statistics shows that 80% of the Catholics do not follow the Catholic church dogmas.
By the way... there is a a common misconception.
Catholic priest and monks, have a vote of celibacy, that is not to marry...
Only Nuns make a vote of chastity.. that is.. of not having sex.
Trivia:
The independence of Mexico was started by two liberal priest. Hidalgo and Jose Maria Morelos. Both had a well documented family
CalGeorge @85--
I'm dating myself here--I'm 58, and yes, 50 years ago the rule was that you could have NOTHING but water pass your lips 12 hours before the cracker. I've often felt sorry for all of those condemned to hell forever for a rule that's since been overturned...and hey, what about all those people being burnt forever for eating meat on Fridays before that rule was changed???
Diagoras @ 95 :
That frighteningly sounds like what my grand-parents went through. In their time, the average person, especially in rural settings, had an education of up to 4th grade, except schoolteachers (most often nuns) and priests. Priests were denouncing city people as bad catholics because of their higher levels of education. Cities were often deemed evil in sermons, because the church rightly guessed that their power on people would be greatly diminished by education and prosperity.
It boggles me that some people still accept today to be sermonized like my uneducated grandma (who actually rebelled a little by having only 4 kids when the average was 10, and who, horrors of horrors, had the gall to uladylikely ride a bike). In my parents time already, a priest who used a fire and brimstone language would see his church empty in favor of the closest village's (each and every village here has its catholic church, often built by hand by former villagers).
Sigh... because it's slightly more complicated than that. For us, catholiscism was very tied in with our national identity. Now language has mostly replaced it, but rejecting the church, at least for my parents' generation, is rejecting our past and our history. The RC church has a long experience of helping these nationalistic associations by meddling into local politics. They nurtured our enmity with the English (whom had higher education, and therefore better positions) by tying them to protestantism.
"If you're one of us, you're a french-speaking catholic, and you won't get no stinkin' education and you won't learn the English invader's language."
On the other hand, they collaborated with the English to insure that we wouldn't rise to take over our own destiny and remain a cheap source of labor. A good catholic, after all, is poor.
You don't get over such a national identity manipulation in a single generation. Until very recently, all public schools here were tied to one religious affiliation, either catholic (french) or protestant (english). When I was young, if you were a french-speaking non-catholic, you publicly left during religion class thereby showing that you were an outsider. Few parents, even if they were spurning the church's doctrine and had almost stopped going to mass, wanted to ostracize their children. With the recent abolition of religion class in schools, the movement away from the church is accelerating.
CaptainKendrick #110
In 1517 Pope Leo X decided that selling indulgences was just hunky-dory and God was good with that and besides the Church needed the money. After the Protestant Reformation, Pope Pius V decided that selling indulgences was nasty and evil and anathema and wasn't going to happen any more.
Popes do change their minds reinterpret doctrine, depending on how the wind's blowing.
"Popes do change their minds reinterpret doctrine, depending on how the wind's blowing."
Which reminds mt that originally the catholic church declared that fetus acquired their souls at 4 months the children and 6 months the girls.
The difference is that some believe women did not have souls.
(and that was not rhetoric for someone wit a broken hearth)
nanahuatzin,
Nowadays they teach that ensoulment takes place at conception. It seems like they wanted some nice, clean, natural event, rather than something as arbitrary as elapsed time.
I'd love to know the details of Catholic Soul Calculus. How exactly does it work? Does God have a soul factory? Are souls disposable, use once things, or does he recycle? If ensoulment takes place at conception, and 2/3 zygotes end up on Maxi Pads, then 2/3 souls are never really used (in the sense that they never become sentient living persons), so what happens to them? It seems like they currently teach that they go to heaven, but isn't heaven going to be an awfully odd place if 2/3 of the souls there have no personality? Maybe they develop personalities in heaven? But then, 2/3 of heaven's denizens have pure-heaven personalities and 1/3 don't. Seems like a recipe for dissent (again). But maybe personality doesn't survive death? Then what's the point of eternal life if you get ECT at the Pearly Gates? Maybe he recycles! If God recycles souls from unused zygotes, why can't he recycle them from aborted foetuses? Enquiring minds want to know.
Really, once you start following where the fantasy nonsense of Church dogma goes, it just gets sillier and sillier. I suppose this is the kind of horseshit that preoccupies theologians.
Once i bought in an bookstore of used books, a manual used by the priest to remember the most common problems associated with their craft.
The most amusing part was the problems associated with the baptism of monsters...(children with multiple body parts)
If the children has two heads, it requires two baptisms.
If it has two bodies and one head, it need only one baptism. Also if he has three legs or three arms.
If it has one full head and one partial head, it need one baptism, and one temporary baptism (i do not remember the name, but it seemed you must not baptized someone unless you are really convinced it has a soul)
If it has a body but no head, the no baptism is required...
Unfortunately I lend the book and never get it back.. but it was a very amusing material.
Nanahuatzin,
Interesting. It seems that, for baptism, they make a connection between a fully-functional brain and a soul. If they carried that to its obvious conclusion, and were consistent, they couldn't have a problem with early abortions.
Nick, if I hadn't already voted you for a molly, this post alone would have swayed me to do so :)
Moses,
#87
I don't think you were wrong actually. You just said 1 in a million Catholics (as against Catholics in the USA) so you probably actually were correct.
Oops
1 in a million is still wrong, but the answer is 1 in 10000 not 1 in a 1000.
Emmet Caulfield @118:
Of course they are, or it wouldn't happen.
You mean, I suppose, that nobody takes pleasure in abortion, that it should be seen as a necessary evil.
Which raises the interesting question of why it is seen as an evil, albeit a necessary one. If no actual human being is killed in the process, why all the angst?
Is it because abortion is, or can be, a painful and traumatic experience for the woman? In which case "nobody takes pleasure in abortions" amounts to no more than "nobody relishes the prospect of major surgery".
Nick Gotts @119:
Well, nobody is actually really for corporal or capital punishment ... it is sometimes a necessary evil, doncha know.
Piltdown @133, first, to not exclude unpalatable things on an ideological basis is not to support such things.
Second, pain and trauma can be psychic, not just physical.
There's a difference between being for abortion and pro-choice.
Nick Gotts # 114
I am an atheist and I don't like the Pope, but I am sick and tired of hearing that a 14- to 18-year-old who was a member of the Hitler Youth (in a time when membership was mandatory) was a "Nazi". By that standard, Angela Merkel, who was a member of the Communist youth organisation in East Germany, was a "Communist".
Ka,
Admittedly, calling Ratzinger a Nazi would be untrue. What is highly questionable is his attitude to his own past - his insistence that he had no choice, that resistance was impossible. He had, and it wasn't. Very difficult and dangerous, yes, but there were many Germans, some as young as him, who did resist and/or refuse to serve. As long as he refuses to face the truth about his own past, he's fair game.
Well, nobody is actually really for corporal or capital punishment ... it is sometimes a necessary evil, doncha know.
The usual barefaced lie from Piltdown Scumbag. He, like many others, clearly revels in them. Nor are they ever necessary.
As for abortion, there is absolutely no moral problem with it, at least until the fetus has a functioning nervous system and so could conceivably suffer. So at this stage, it is not a "necessary evil", but simply a choice the pregnant woman may take. In that sense I'm quite happy to be called "pro-abortion" in the same way as I'm "pro-contraception": it ought to be available to anyone who wants it, and its availability is an unmitigated good.
By the way, Scumbag, you don't seem to have explained why, from your point of view, aborting a fetus is not the greatest possible favour you could do it, since you'll be sending it straight to heaven.
Not to mention the fact that this doctrine seems to make baptism entirely superfluous. If foetuses and newborns go to heaven without being baptised, what's the point of it? When do babies lose their "Get Out of Hell Free" card so that baptism is necessary for them? How old is the youngest person in Hell?
Emmet Caulfield@140,
Of course, Benny Ratfinger was in a bit of a bind. The Catholic church has always had trouble deciding what happens to unbaptised infants. Augustine of Hippo and most of the "theologians" of the early church thought they were damned, but this was a bit much for others, so limbo was invented (possibly by Peter Adelard - it's never been an official doctrine, just one Catholics are at liberty to believe) as a get-out clause. However, many modern Catholic parents aren't satisfied with this second-class ticket to eternity for their stillborn babies, hence Ratfinger's decision to let the idea drop and tell God he's got to let unbaptised infants into heaven. However, he doesn't seem to have thought of the implications for the church's stance on abortion. Really, this is just one of the many areas where, if you try to make sense of Christianity, you end up finding that it is, indeed, a completely unbelievable load of crap.
Probably for the same reason otherwise rational people can still feel guilty and ashamed of their sexuality or sexual orientation - because the bullshit spread by lying scumbags like you and others from your petty, malignant religion (or its bastard offspring) was considered fact for hundreds of years.
Re: #70 "But if you do disagree with the standard dogma of the church they do take action against you. My uncle, an old fashioned Irish Catholic in the UK, divorced and wanted to marry again. When he did in a civil ceremony (wasn't possible in the church) he was excluded from taking holy communion thereafterm- the essential part of attending church as a catholic."
This can vary from diocese to diocese, however. My wife has the honour of being excommunicated from the Catholic Church (Lincoln diocese), simply because her name appears on a membership list of a group campaigning for the ordination of women. However, that notice of excommunication only applies to the Lincoln diocese, and she no longer lives there. She has been able to take communion and even have our daughters baptised in the Ontario diocese.
Addressing abortion:
I think, as a woman - I'm perfectly fine with saying, "Yay abortion." In the context of my uterus, and the autonomy to rid myself of an unwanted mass of cells if they somehow ignored the birth control I employ. It's the subdued yay of I have a choice other than unwanted pregnancy or an illegal and unsafe way to deal with this mass of cells - that choice being, either a pill - in the early stages of unwanted growth inside my body, or a minor surgery in the case of said lump of cells slipping past my early detection system. I have a great deal more confidence in saying yay abortion, than I do in saying yay back alley rusty coathanger.
I'm pro-abortion. But it's more accurate to say I'm pro-choice. I find forced sterilization or abortion as repugnant as forced pregnancy. I am pro-choice - because I believe that accurate sexual education is important to make good choices for the body you have autonomy over. Connected to the education aspect - I think access to contraception is vital. Reducing the neccessity for even a minor medical procedure or a pill with potentially heinous side-effects (septic shock) - great plan.
Does that shift me into the anti-life category? I don't think so. I think babies and the children and people they have the capacity to become are pretty nifty. But me - I'm for a generation of children whose parents chose to have them. Parenting is difficult. Forced parenting exponentially more so. Pro-lifers often cite the "angst" that some women who abort a glob of cells feel as a reason to cede all autonomy over what we do with our bodies as women. I would argue that post-partum depression is certainly angst - and even women who want and love their babies experience this. As such, this is no valid argument for illegalizing having children, in the same way that PTSD is not argument for illegalizing abortion.
Nick Gotts @138,
There is always a choice, and resistance is always possible, depending on the sacrifice you are willing to make. Of course, Ratzinger could have protested openly against the Nazi Regime and take the risk to end like Hans and Sophie Scholl. On a lower level of protest, he risked being thrown out of school and not being able to finish his education. His father, a retired policeman, could have lost his pension on which the family lived. To my knowledge, Ratzinger has never claimed that he had no choice in that sense.
Most of these (the so called Edelweiss Pirates) came from a working class background and from the big industrial cities in Western Germany. In rural Bavaria where Ratzinger lived, conditions were different.
Diagoras @144:
So when does this blob become a human being with human rights? At what point do you relinquish this all-important "autonomy"?
Judging by the terminology in the above quote, I guess you'd agree with Nick Gotts @139 and settle for when "the fetus has a functioning nervous system and so could conceivably suffer".
If the ability to suffer pain is indeed your criterion, I should like to ask:
1) Is it OK to slaughter animals?
2) If a human child or adult contracted a hypothetical condition which rendered him incapable of suffering pain, would it still be morally wrong to kill him and, if so, why?
3) Do you "say yay" to late-term abortions?
Surely the fact that an unauthorized and unregulated abortion may be injurious to a woman's physical and psychological health cannot in itself be used as an argument for legalizing abortion, as it has no bearing on the intrinsic morality of abortion. Perhaps we should legalize murder? After all, making murder illegal only drives it underground where it can't be regulated, not to mention putting the murderer himself at considerable risk. No more messy backstreet murders!
Surely the fact that an unauthorized and unregulated abortion may be injurious to a woman's physical and psychological health cannot in itself be used as an argument for legalizing abortion, as it has no bearing on the intrinsic morality of abortion.
Maybe you hadn't noticed, but "intrinsic morality" --whatever that might mean-- has no bearing on legal matters, precisely because it is an ill-defined notion (and therefore subject to diverse interpretation, as much as you'd like to enshrine the Catholic version) and not amenable to the kind of ratiocination legal questions demand in a secular republic.
No more messy backstreet murders!
Indeed, public burnings in the town square are the best way to allay the bloodlust of the populace.
I don't know, Pilty - what do your church's records say about the ages of the people they were torturing and burning during the Inquisition?
Sorry, I forgot. That's just a lie to make catholics feel bad isn't it?
CJO @147:
If that's the case, on what grounds is murder illegal in a secular republic?
on what grounds is murder illegal in a secular republic?
The state's legitimate interest in protecting the lives of its citizens.
Are you pretending not to be aware of centuries of secular jurisprudence?
If that's the case, on what grounds is murder illegal in a secular republic? - Piltdown Scumbag
"Murder" is illegal by definition, moron. It means deliberately and illegally killing a person.
The same way it's illegal under any system. The protection of the people through law.
Ka @145, you're saying that choosing pragmatism over principle is understandable and reasonable; well, sure, I agree - but then, I'm not telling people otherwise, whilst the Pope is.
Can you first identify a secular republic that legalizes murder, or are we to assume that you automatically assume that "secular republics" are all seething hives of godless, unChristian, unremitting evil and baby-eating villainy?
So when does this blob become a human being with human rights? At what point do you relinquish this all-important "autonomy"?
Judging by the terminology in the above quote, I guess you'd agree with Nick Gotts @139 and settle for when "the fetus has a functioning nervous system and so could conceivably suffer". - Piltdown Scumbag
Scumbag, don't misrepresent me. I did not say that at that point the fetus has human rights. I said before that point there is absolutely no conceivable moral problem with abortion whatever. From that ill-defined point to birth, the rights of the mother should still take precedence over those of the fetus, which should be those appropriate to a "sentient" - something capable of suffering or enjoyment - but not those of a person. We should respect the interests of sentients where possible, but they shuold be overruled where they come into serious conflict with those of a person. The rights of personhood should not be granted until birth.
on what grounds is murder illegal in a secular republic?
By definition. Murder is "unlawful killing."
By definition, any killing God approves of, is lawful (under theism).
"When God is invoked by the state, it's all too easy for the state to become God." (Charles Haynes)
Watch out for governments which ground their laws in religion. It is just as easy for them to claim that God demands forced abortions, as forbids them by choice. And you've no other argument left, than "but I understand God better than they do." You can't appeal to God, for the State determined God for you. You threw rational, secular ethics out the window, when you thought you had the power to determine which God is God.
Nick Gotts @138,
I'm no fan of the Pope, but I think it's pretty cheap to declare him "fair game" because he didn't perform an extreme act of courage when he was young.
Nick Gotts @151:
Pedantic bluster.
Kel @152:
And people's lives should be protected because ... ?
Stanton @154:
Pretty much (of course I regard abortion as murder). But that's beside the point - I was just intrigued by CJO's separation of legality and morality.
CJO @150:
But "the state" is an abstraction. It has no real existence apart from the individuals who comprise it. So you're talking about individuals' interest in protecting their own lives, which seems a rather wobbly basis for a legal system.
You might retort that society would collapse into a condition of anarchy if murder were not illegal ... well that's by no means obvious. Society as we know it might disappear only to be replaced by a much crueller but equally structured set-up on Social Darwinist principles. In either case, it's only an argument against legalizing murder on the presupposition that society as we know it and the people who comprise it have some intrinsic value ...
Some locals in Traunstein, like Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, dismiss such suggestions. "It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others," she said. "The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice." (from here)
Nick Gotts@155:
OK, so what's the difference between a "sentient" and a person if it's not the ability to suffer or enjoy? It can't be the ability to reason, as a newborn baby lacks that capacity as much as a late-term foetus. Why does one become the other at the moment of birth?
Scumbag,
The distinction between a "sentient" and a "person" is not an absolute one: the newborn is not a full person, in that it does not have and has never yet had social ties to other people. However, at the point of birth it becomes anatomically and physiologically autonomous. For social and legal reasons we need a dividing line past which a developing member of Homo sapiens is treated as a person, and birth is by far the most obvious, least arbitrary place to draw that line.
Leaving ethics aside, pragmatic self-interest. A society where arbitrary killings are not illegal is a society where no-one is safe.
And people's lives should be protected because ... ?,/I> - Piltdown Scumbag
Well we know you don't think they should be, but normal, non-psychopathic human beings have innate (although by no means absolute) inhibitions against killing other people. People's lives should be protected becasue people want their lives protected. If you need any reason beyond that, you're a psychopath; as indeed I suspect you are.
Sastra @156:
Only if there is no ecclesiastical check on those governments' actions! In which case, they don't even need to invoke God - any substitute will do ... the common good, national security, the will of the people, the will of the leader, the purity of the race, the safeguarding of the revolution, the indisputable findings of peer-reviewed scientific research ...
Which carries no weight if I'm just speaking as "I". But if I can point in my defence to an independent ecclesiastical power, I have a chance.
Only if there is no Church to determine God for the State.
Piltdown Lying Scumbag wrote:
Yet if your god exists, he murders millions every year, since there are many miscarriages. That isn't the mother's choice, so it can't be argued to result from 'free will' - and nothing on this earth is outside god's control, right? He must want those unborn children to die; ergo, abortion is okay since god does it all the time.
Oh, unless miscarriages never happen, and are yet another lie to make catholics feel bad...
From an interview with Professor Richard Dawkins:
Interviewer: Suppose some lads break into an old man's house and kill him. Suppose they say: "Well, we accept the evolutionist worldview. He was old and sick, and he didn't contribute anything to society." How would you show them that what they had done was wrong?
Dawkins: You credit them with rather more rational thought than I suspect the real thugs would have had.
If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose - roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level Social Darwinists did - I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds.
I think it would be more: "This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this."
Interviewer: They'll say, "This is the society we want to live in."
Dawkins: I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, "Well, in this society you can't get away with it" and call the police.
I realise this is very weak ...
But if I can point in my defence to an independent ecclesiastical power, I have a chance. - Piltdown Scumbag
I spit on your "independent ecclesiatical power": a greedy, power-mad, obscurantist, corrupt, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, child-raping and child-castrating, murdering, torturing, persecuting, book-burning, genocidal gang of evil pusbuckets who have battened on suffering humanity for 1700 years.
@166, I hereby rectify the disingenous elision:
Dawkins is of course right that you cannot prove intellectually that virtue is better than vice. Bringing in God, or some other supposed ultimate source of morality, makes absolutely no difference to this. This egotist simply says "Fuck your god. Fuck your ulitmate source of morality."
Of course if you can persuade such a thug that he'll go to hell if he doesn't toe the line, you might change his behaviour - but this is just self-interest, only different from persuading him that the police will catch him and the courts punish him because it is based on the lie that there is a god. Historically, this lie has not been successful in improving behaviour - in fact, rather the opposite. If you want a recent example, consider Rwanda, where many Catholic clergy joined enthusiastically in the genocide.
Piltdown Lying Scumbag wrote:
When such a creature appears, do us a favour and let us know - because nothing even vaguely resembling what you described has ever existed.
And the implication that your church - guilty of some of the most egregious crimes (institutionalised mass murder and rapists protected from justice, for example; sadly, they're only the tip of the vile iceberg) in human history - can ever be considered an authority on anything moral would be laughable if it weren't so nauseating.
In all fairness, Catholicism is these days a bulwark against the ravages of evangelical fundamentalism and superstition; the lesser evil is better than the greater.
If only the Church had the courage and honesty to disown its own past atrocities and admit it's changed, it would gain much credit in my eyes.
I see Pilty is still a lying scumbag, starting with his failure to show evidence of god, but doing a lot of talking and referencing based on god existing. Pilty, show us your physical evidence for god. Otherwise, acknowledge you are a lying scumbag.
Nick Gotts @167:
Cool robes though.
If only the Church had the courage and honesty to disown its own past atrocities and admit it's changed, it would gain much credit in my eyes. - John Morales
Not in mine. It would need to make serious changes: ceasing to lie about condoms letting HIV through - indeed, abandon its opposition to contraception and abortion; distribute most of its vast wealth to the poor; treat women as fully equal to men and homosexuals as fully equal to heterosexuals; and have bishops and higher authorities directly elected by the laity. Once they made those changes, I'd be prepared to move from loathing the Church hierarchy to laughing at them for their silly clothes and sillier ideas.
Piltdown Scumbag,
Well the robes aren't my style - but I'm pleased to see you can find nothing to object to in my description of the Catholic hierarchy.
Good night, all you non-psychopaths! Fuck off and die, Scumbag!
G'night, Nick!
It won't. It can't. To admit they - who claim to speak for (and to) an infallible and omniscient god - had been wrong about what that god wanted would cast doubt into the minds of its followers as to which of the church's teachings were true and which weren't.
And the last thing they want is doubt. They've gained the power they have by avoiding the appearance of any doubt and claiming to know the answers to the unknowable, thanks to god's revelations.
Which is great for lying scumbags like Pilty, who'll just keep on lying along with them rather than face the truth that there is no god, and the realisation the church he so desperately clings to is one of the greatest forces working against the improvement of the human race.
But "the state" is an abstraction. It has no real existence apart from the individuals who comprise it.
And so it differs from "an independent ecclesiastical power" how, exactly? In my view, only in the numbers of individuals who comprise it. I'll take everybody. Your "power"?
So you're talking about individuals' interest in protecting their own lives, which seems a rather wobbly basis for a legal system.
Spoken as a true authoritarian. Your disdain for all things "wobbly" has been amply demonstrated. But the wobble is always there, regardless of whose interests are protected by the law. The more people in that class in a society the harder it is to hide the wobble, that's all.
Please note that not once has Piltie even spared one thought for the mother who is carrying the little snowflake in this discussion.
Hi, Nick, hope you slept well.
@161:
So personhood depends on a) socialization and b) bodily autonomy.
By applying criterion a) to a newborn baby, you draw the conclusion that a newborn baby is subhuman or only potentially human ("not a full person"). The corollary would seem to be that an infant is of less value than an older child or mature adult. The spectre of Professor Singer looms.
From criterion b) it would follow that a severely disabled adult, incapable of surviving without a battery of technological aids and an army of human helpers - such as Professor Hawking - is closer to the 'sentient' end of the humanity scale than the 'person' end.
John Morales @162:
No-one? Or just the weak? Why should they get to lay down the ground rules of society? Concern for the weak is just an unacknowledged relic of the Christian slave-morality. Let the strong survive!
Nick Gotts @163:
I would say history suggests quite the opposite. Human beings seem addicted to devising ever more ingenious and devastating methods of killing each other.
Piltdown Scumbag,
You speak as if the value of a human being were an objective fact. It isn't: it's a decision we make. Nature does not in general provide us with neat dividing lines; birth is something of an exception in this regard. For social and legal reasons, we often need to draw such lines even where nothing similar exists - as, for example, in the age at which one is entitled to vote (I know, I know, you think voting is a disgusting aberration due to evil Jewish Freemasons). My view is that, since in this case we are fortunate enough to have a clear line drawn for us, we should use it: any human born alive should be treated as "one of us" and accorded full rights.
Wowbagger @165:
Even if that line of reasoning were correct, it wouldn't follow that
Human beings are not gods - that's exactly why we shouldn't try to act as if we were. Bad things happen when we do, enough to move the Creator to sarcasm: "And [God] said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil ...!" (Genesis 3:22)
Nerd of Redhead @ 172:
It's not necessary to prove God's existence in order to have a fruitful discussion on the implications & consequences of the hypothetical existence or non-existence of God.
Concern for the weak is just an unacknowledged relic of the Christian slave-morality. - Piltdown Scumbag
This is a particularly stupid lie. This concern is explicit in a number of pre-Christian religions, and archaeological evidence makes clear that those with disabilities were already being cared for tens of thousands of years ago.
Human beings seem addicted to devising ever more ingenious and devastating methods of killing each other.
As I said, the inhibition on killing is by no means absolute. In particular, it is much more easily overcome where members of "outgroups" are concerned. It is to these that mass-killing is almost entirely confined. t is simple fact that most people never kill anyone else, although they have many opportunities to do so. Armies have to put recruits through a concentrated conditioning process to blunt the innate inhibitions against killing before sending them into battle, even though most killing is now done at a distance, which makes it easier to avoid the factors which trigger the inhibition. Religion, of course, is one of the most useful tools in the dehumanising process; and historically, the Catholic Church has been particularly good at it.
One of us.
% of human beings "addicted" to devising methods of killing other human beings ?
I don't have the displeasure of knowing any personally, but maybe Piltdown Man belongs to an association of psychopatic killers, this probably explains his alternate vision of reality.
"maybe Piltdown Man belongs to an association of psychopatic killers" - negentropyeater
I suspect an education by sadistic monks/nuns - that would explain his twisted psychology and hatred for humanity.
Wrong idiot. If god doesn't exist, it is all mental masturbation. Your little secret is out. You are committing a mortal sin.
Now show some proof for your god or shut up.
Nick Gotts @183:
Well, that's candid but seems rather helpless in the face of this. Suppose that attitude became the norm? If human personhood and the value we assign to it are purely human creations, they are no more than expressions of whatever the prevailing moral zeitgeist happens to be at that time. And "whoever marries the zeitgeist will soon be a widower" ...
(BTW I've nothing against voting , just the notion that ultimate sovereignty is invested in the people.)
@169:
Good point, but I'm not arguing that belief in God and the afterlife makes it easier to enforce the law, just that it provides the law with a firm foundation for distinguishing right from wrong.
When he was asked how he reconciled his obnoxious behaviour with his professed Christianity, Evelyn Waugh replied that he would be even more of a bastard if he weren't a Christian.
It would need to make serious changes: ceasing to lie about condoms letting HIV through - indeed, abandon its opposition to contraception and abortion; distribute most of its vast wealth to the poor; treat women as fully equal to men and homosexuals as fully equal to heterosexuals; and have bishops and higher authorities directly elected by the laity.
Sounds like the average liberal Protestant denomination (the Metropolitan Community Church maybe?).
Yes, good thing their Christianity has kept members of the clergy only to being enthusiastic participants in genocide. One can only imagine what kind of obnoxious jerks they'd be if not restrained by religion.
We're bordering on Groppitory here.
No, it just allows for people to appeal to authority instead of looking at the ethics behind a principle. Any dogmatism does this, when certainty overrules knowledge the consequences are dire for all those who dare oppose it.Appealing to God for right and wrong would be fine if God was really there and in unambiguous terms laid down the law. But God isn't there and there is nothing but interpretation when it comes to "God's word". People lie, cheat and steal, they pillage and murder. And they do all this in God's name; with God's blessing. If you want to appeal to God, get God to do his own work. Otherwise you are just appealing to the egoism of those who claim they speak for the unknown.
Pilty, I finally get it. You come to what for you is porn site, and you get off by throwing out your idiotic trash. TSK, TSK. Very naughty Pilty.
Time to get serious and quit wanking by showing us physical proof for your alleged god.
How can belief in god(s) provide a firm foundation for the law? There are myriad gods to choose from, each of whose self-appointed representatives make contradictory claims for what his/her imaginary friend wants. Experience seems to show that even in religiously homogeneous societies, such theocracy is a very bad idea indeed: Saudi Arabia and Iran are hardly good examples! Within Christianity, there is a long history of Catholic vs. Protestant slaughter; within Protestantism, it was the Danbury Baptists fear of slaughter by their Congregationalist neighbours that lead to Jefferson's famous letter. It seems that history is not on the side of any religion as the foundation of justice.
The great insight of the American Founding Fathers was that belief in God could not be the foundation of the law since every person's conception of God is different. You cannot have a consistent interpretation of fiction. The law requires a set of foundational axioms that the vast majority agree upon irrespective of their notion of god(s) or lack thereof. In other words, a set of secular axioms or constitution.
I doubt that any moral philosopher would have any difficulty deriving the basic principles of the law without reference to god(s).
Well, that's candid but seems rather helpless in the face of this. Suppose that attitude became the norm? If human personhood and the value we assign to it are purely human creations, they are no more than expressions of whatever the prevailing moral zeitgeist happens to be at that time. - Piltdown Scumbag
You like your irrelevant and offensive links, don't you? That human personhood and value are purely human creations is simply the truth, and the existence of God, as I noted, would provide no absolute standard for morality. I note that in the real world, the most obvious proponents of "Might is right" - the Nazis - lost. Odd, that; maybe it hints that human beings are rather better than your warped picture of them. I note also that your imaginary God is a being of disgusting wickedness, evil far beyond any human capacity - though many of his Catholic followers have tried their best. Hitler, of course, was raised a Catholic, got plenty of Catholic support and a nice concordat with the Vatican, and always apparently believed he was doing "God's work".
I've nothing against voting , just the notion that ultimate sovereignty is invested in the people.
In other words, voting's fine as long as it doesn't affect anything of importance. "Ultimate sovereignty" is just a piece of essentialist crap in any case.
I'm not arguing that belief in God and the afterlife makes it easier to enforce the law, just that it provides the law with a firm foundation for distinguishing right from wrong.
Bilge. Christians spent centuries torturing and murdering each other over what was right and what was wrong. Oh, I know, I know, if only everyone accepted that your version of Christianity is the right one, everything would be just hunky-dory.
When he was asked how he reconciled his obnoxious behaviour with his professed Christianity, Evelyn Waugh replied that he would be even more of a bastard if he weren't a Christian.
You like your pointless quotations as well, don't you? Why would anyone believe a shit like Waugh was telling the truth, even if there were reason to believe he could reliably make such a judgement? The historical record does not suggest that Catholics behave better than other people - if anything, the reverse.
windy # 159
This discussion started when Nick Gotts called Ratzinger a Nazi.
Actually, I didn't. I was mocking his pretensions to having resisted as far as he could. He didn't, and he's not honest about it - I suspect, not even with himself. This isn't some ordinary guy, he claims to be "God's vicar on Earth", entitled to give orders to everyone. If you feel that it's OK for someone in such a position to have a part of his he won't look at honestly, fine; I don't.
Clemens August von Galen was an internal voice of dissent against the Nazis. A sermon he gave, in 1941, was the basis of the White Rose movement - and, in fact - the sermon he gave was the first pamphlet the group published. A Catholic bishop, in Germany. He publicly attacked the tactics used by the Gestapo, disappearances without trials, the euthanasia program, and the fear imposed on all Germans by their government.
He was a Catholic bishop - well-known, with much to lose by dissenting so loudly. But, the protest created by his sermons ended the Action T4 program, which was killing the old, the infirm, the incurably sick. Hitler, himself, was jeered by these protesters. Protest was possible in Nazi Germany - and protest yielded tangible results.
It was equally possible to be terrified by the Nazi regime into silence. To acceptance that resistance meant death - and death was a scary thing. I get not wanting to be a martyr. But, then, I don't believe in this whole kingdom of god stuff. Ratzinger did and does. So - I don't get someone who equates death by martyrdom to a get into heaven free card being terrified by a totalitarian regime he doesn't agree with, killing him for speaking out against it.
This kid became Pope - the moral authority that Catholics look to. And this kid - was in the Hitler Youth, the military, lived near a concentration camp - as an adult said that resistance was "impossible." It wasn't. It was a moral choice. A choice of my life is worth more than saying anything. My life is worth more than resisting injustice. This person who made a moral choice to passively accept his fate, to do nothing, rather than risk everything in the face of great evil - is now charged with telling the Catholics throughout the world what moral choices are best.
It speaks volumes about the Catholic church that this is the best of them. A person who said that resisting evil is impossible. I guess I would find it less deplorable if he, as an adult, had denounced the actions of his youth. If he has publicly praised those who did resist, who made his country a better place - that'd also be fine. But as it stands - he's just a guy. In a dress. With a funny hat. Telling me from on high how to live a moral life. While his own has been less than exemplary.
Walton@193,
No, they get to keep the pretty dresses for their priests, the Latin Mass and plainsong, the amazing religious kitsch (do visit the Vatican some time if you haven't, and along with the Cistine Chapel, have a good gawp at the gifts the faithful send the "Holy Father"), even the Papacy (after all, the guy is elected, I'm just suggesting broadening the franchise)!
Walton #201,
1. Bishop Graf von Galen would not have escaped persecution if Germany had won the war. After his three sermons, the local Nazi Gauleiter was furious and asked for the immediate arrest of von Galen. However, Joseph Goebbels, Bormann and others preferred to wait until the end of World War II, as not to undermine in the heavily Catholic area the German morale during the ongoing war.
By the way, von Galen never said a word about the deportation of the Jews from Germany which took place at the very time.
2. Joseph Ratzinger has never claimed that resistance was impossible in Nazi Germany. He just said that he himself had no other choice but to do what he did. In fact he has praised von Galen for his resistance; von Galen was one of the first persons to be beatified by him.
3. I do not deny that it was a moral choice whether to resist the Nazis or not. I just question whether it was a moral duty to resist at all costs, including death and torture. And most of all I question whether a person who has never faced such a choice is entitled to condemn someone who has.
@Ka - First, I'm not Walton.
1. The fact that it was so dangerous for him made it more commendable. von Galen, when he made the speeches, certainly was not guaranteed an outcome where Germany lost the war when he spoke out against the regime. Protest was possible. It was dangerous, but possible.
2. Both Joseph and his brother are quoted as saying resistance was "impossible." He had another choice. A choice that a fellow student - Rupert Berger - did make. Berger's father resisted as well - spent 6 monthes in a Dachau as a result. These were people Ratzinger knew - were friends with. Berger became a priest, too - graduated in the same class as Ratzinger. von Galen was approved by John Paul II for beatification, not Ratzinger - and Ratzinger didn't even conduct the beatification mass for the guy. But he did praise him. That's a good step in the right direction. Praising decent people, though, is not enough.
3. I wonder why the Catholic church - with its already murky history with the Nazis and that whole Vatican profiting from the Nazi puppet government bit, supporting the Enabling Act which thrust Hitler into power, the fact that the RCC introduced the idea of cyanide as a cheap measure for killing a vast number of people - would choose someone with an equally murky history. I think that the RCC - to distance itself from this past - needed to chose a different pope. Ratzinger visited a death camp - and asked why God didn't do anything to stop this. Bit hypocritical to question why your imaginary friend didn't stop it, when you - yeah, you with the funny hat - did nothing. While the RCC did nothing to stop it - in fact, enabled it. Profitted from it. Individual RCC members - von Galen for instance, spoke out, but not with the authority of the RCC behind him and even he didn't speak about the deplorable act of genocide happening down the road.
RCC chose a German, Nazi-era Pope. They didn't chose one, like Berger - who resisted the regime, whose father was in Dachau. They chose one who went along, like they did. They could have chosen any priest as the symbol of their church. Their spiritual leader. They chose the inquisitioner, the Panzer Cardinal. Another European - when Latin America is teeming with Catholics. So, I'm not patting the RCC on the back when they made a move that screamed, "We're still Euro-centric! We're not sorry about our inaction during WW2! The Dark Ages were a better time!"
I am condemning Ratzinger as a symbol and for his adult stance that resistance during the war was impossible. (Don't even buy the argument that there was no other choice than to do as he did. There was. He saw others make it.) For his adult stance to suppress knowledge of sex-abuse by RCC priests, and deny justice for the abused. For his ultra-conservative pre-Vatican II positions on many issues. His meddling in the US elections in 2004 - demanding that priests deny those who voted for Kerry the cracker-o'-jesus. His moral choices today - still don't agree with those. I think he is a horrible little person who grew up into a horrible little pope.
Can I say, under the same pressures of his youth that I wouldn't make the same or similar choices? Is that a fair attack? Me - I would rather celebrate the lives of people who did resist, in any way. I would rather celebrate those who weep that they didn't do enough, than those that sneer that they did all they could, when they did nothing at all.
@ Diagoras, yes, you're not Walton, sorry, my mistake.
First, I agree with you on what you call the murky history of the Catholic Church with the Nazis. I am not defending the church in any way.
Second, I am not defending anything Ratzinger did as an adult, his theological views, his attitude towards sex-abuse by priests etc. On the question of who should have been elected Pope, I do not have an opinion, because, as an atheist, I cannot judge the reasons why somebody should be elected Pope. In my opinion, no one should.
Third, I haven't seen any citations of Ratzinger saying that resistance was impossible in Nazi Germany in general. As resistance took place, as we all know (Galen, the White Rose, Stauffenberg, ...) and as Ratzinger is quite an intelligent man who would not deny the obvious, I still interpret his words as meaning that resistance was impossible for him.
And yes, it was not impossible in the sense that he could have taken the choice of being sent to Dachau as his classmate did. To me, it is not a moral failure that he did not, not at his age, not in the face of the consequences, at least not a failure that people who have never been in this situation could reproach him for. As I pointed out before, nothing he did was criminal or harmful for another person.
Yes, it is. Please answer the question. By the way, do you think that U.S. citizens have the moral obligation of resistance against the use of waterboarding on prisoners by the CIA, and do you think resistance is possible?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article382076.ece
I've seen several places where the "impossible" quote has been attributed to the Popish Ratzinger, rather than his brother. Regarding what Pope-guy utters - "any open resistance would have been futile" - this sentiment doesn't go as far as the "impossible" standard, but still conflicts with reality. He saw open resistance, from a friend. Nothing happened to Berger, except that he had to pay full admission to the school instead of the discount HJ kids got. It's this adult "futility of resistance" I have issue with, really. Saying, "I was scared shitless of resisting," I would be completely fine with.
I know, that as an-artist-formerly-known-as-Catholic-but-now-with-the-rejection-of-all-gods, I should care less who they put the silly hat on. But, like the rest of the world was somewhat irked by the second reign of W - although they had no claim to citizenship in the country - I'm irked, as an outsider, that the RCC made such a horrible choice in appointing a world leader. Pope has a voice in what happens in the world, sadly, says atheist me. So, even though I staunchly believe that the only good Christian is a former one - I'd still like the RCC not to revel so enthusiastically in their hypocrisies. A group known for its passiveness and inertia during Nazi Germany (at best) - choses a Pope, who exhibited those very traits in Nazi Germany.
I don't really condemn the boy he was. I completely get not wanting to die for people in a town you just moved to after being chased out of another town. Berger was from there - he could choose not to join the HJ - and feel like he was going to be okay, even so. (Berger's dad, not him, was in Dachau. Nothing happened to Berger.) But for Ratzinger, new to the area - if all I have to do to ensure my parents weren't fired, or chased out of town or put in a work camp, or sentenced to death, or such things were inflicted on me was wear a stupid little uniform, listen to propaganda, and go hiking/camping every so often - I can't really argue with his choice.
I am not judging Ratzinger, the boy, or Ratzinger, the man. I know neither of these people. And I certainly haven't walked in his shoes. So, regarding my question, as to whether it's a fair attack to judge either of these people. I'd say no - it isn't. But the attack on him as a symbol of the RCC, his adult positions as an official moral-authority-slinger - I think that's a fair attack.
If I were in his situation - a 14 year old kid, making tough decisions - I can't say with any certainty that I would have chosen differently. My motivations would have been different, as I would have been 9 years an atheist by my 14th year. Level of scary that was a totalitarian regime, though, would have been the same.
Regarding a modern day application of resistance in the face of injustice - I do think that U.S. citizens have an obligation to speak out against torture. Do I think there are effective ways of resisting this injustice? Yes, I do. Certainly, the filmmaker for "Taxi to the Dark Side" did. I would love for those involved in the implementation of the torture program be prosecuted as the war criminals that they are. Same goes with those involved in the rendition program, and any number of other heinous things the US government is doing. I think what you're asking is it realistic to imagine that the average citizen has any say in the actual stopping of the program - again, the answer is yes. Giving money to the ACLU - who is suing Rumsfeld on behalf of eight men tortured by the US gov. - supporting the ACLU in general, is a good plan for US citizens who like - you know, liberties of the civil sort. Privacy, and a bunch of other stuff ixne'd by the Patriot Act.
DuckPhup #76:
(The artist ought to be encouraged to make another one, and title it 'The Prophet Mohammed', and see what happens. Now THAT would be 'art'.)
yeah... i think it's called Suicide. Familiar with Ayan Hirshi Ali (sp?) Yeah, she was in a film. The director, Van Gogh (yes relation) was stabbed by a fundamentalist, and the knife was wrapped in a death note for Ali.
@ Diagoras
With regard to the Times online article:
Again, I understand Georg Ratzinger as speaking about the impossibility of resistance against conscription. Joseph Ratzingers's statement that open resistance was futile is also referring to his personal situation.
Therefore, I adhere to what I said in my posts above.
I admit that instead of saying "open resistance was futile", it would be more correct for Ratzinger to say something along the lines of: "When I had to choose between not protesting against my compulsory membership in the Hitler Youth and the risk of having to leave school, the risk of my father losing his pension the family lived on, the risk of getting my father who was already in trouble with the Nazi authorities into deeper trouble, with all the consequences that could possibly ensue, etc., I chose the former." (In the New York Times article I linked to in # 199, Ratzinger says that his father could not have afforded to pay for the school without the discount, and I think that's believable.) He might add that this was not the best choice possible.
All I said in this whole discussion I did not say because of sympathy with Ratzinger (I dislike him) or because of sympathy with the Catholic Church (I dislike it). My point is that the millions of people who were in the same situation as Ratzinger and did was he did should not be called Nazis (Nick Gotts wrote at # 114, addressing a Catholic, "your glorious leader Pope Benny-who-never-was-a-Nazi-no-really") and they should not be condemned so easily by people who have never lived under a totalitarian regime.
If the same standards that some people apply on the behaviour of Ratzinger - demanding that he should have accepted serious risks and disadvantages to "resist" the Nazi regime - would be applied on contemporary U.S. Americans with regard to the crimes for which the Bush administration is responsible, just speaking up against torture or giving money to the ACLU would not be enough.
As I said when I entered this discussion (# 137), the present Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, was, as a teenager, a member of the Communist youth organization in East Germany, the FDJ. Nobody calls her a Communist or says that she refuses to "face the truth about her past" (compare Nick Gotts at # 138).