Roman catolics...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-03-2011, 01:01 PM
RE: Roman catolics...
(18-03-2011 12:30 PM)Dregs Wrote:  Ok Ok hold on so the question was what is wrong with the moderate Christian's belief. You are saying that they should stand up against religous zealots which is a nice thought, but it says nothing as to why their beliefs are an issue. Not to mention if you turned all the moderate Christians into moderate atheists they still wouldn't speak out against the Zealots. Hell we could be held acountable for the nut case ateists under the same reasoning.

This.



X10



Moderate christians must go beyond speaking out against "bad apples" and take "action"? "just words" are not enough? What then, would you suggest. "forcefully" stop those bad apples? What does "forcefully" mean to you Hotrodmike?
To suggest that moderate christians/muslims/whomever deserve the same ridicule as zealots/terrotists/bad apples just because they are kinda part of the same group is not only absurd, but the epitome of prejudice. I'm a white male. If I don't take action against white male rapists, do I deserve to be treated like a rapist just because I'm a white male?? How much action must I take against rape to be free of this treatment? Apparently words are not enough, so do I have to actively seek out rapists and deliver some sort of punishment? Isn't that called vigilantism?
Sorry to jump on this so harshly, but this is a preposterous idea. And I DO think that speaking out against something that I see as wrong is an appropriate way to deal with it.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 01:02 PM
 
RE: Roman catolics...
(18-03-2011 12:30 PM)Dregs Wrote:  Hell we could be held acountable for the nut case ateists under the same reasoning.

I don't agree with this statement. Religious fundies and terrorists commit atrocities in the name of their religion. And that's all the difference in the world.

Atheists have no dogma with which to attribute the committal of an atrocity. People who don't believe in a god and do bad things are doing them just because they can. Not through any influence of the absence of a god. They are just simply psychopaths or sociopaths.

I think what Hitchens and Harris argue, which I agree with, is that through the elimination of religion, it neutralizes those who would do evil in it's name. Then what's left are people that are not doing things due to a dogmatic influence but who are psychopaths and sociopaths which makes their personal brand of dementia much easier to treat or lock away as opposed to someone who does something in the name of a god they believe not only is telling them to do this and giving them authority to do their evil, but is saving a spot for them in some heavenly amusement park.
(18-03-2011 01:01 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I'm a white male. If I don't take action against white male rapists, do I deserve to be treated like a rapist just because I'm a white male?? How much action must I take against rape to be free of this treatment? Apparently words are not enough, so do I have to actively seek out rapists and deliver some sort of punishment? Isn't that called vigilantism?

I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

A white male rapist is not raping anyone because of his whiteness.

Religious terrorists commit their atrocities because of their religious beliefs.

There's a big difference between the two.

I think I can be a little more lenient in my belief that members of a particular religious group should engage in action against terrorists who commit atrocities in the name of their common religion, and that strong words against would suffice but again, I still feel that if the terrorism perpetuates, it demands an escalation in the resistance of the people of that faith to do something more. Just saying it's not right and shrugging shoulders in futility as members of your religion commit atrocities and wreak havoc toes the line of disingenuousness (if that's a word).
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 01:08 PM
RE: Roman catolics...
SANSD8TY > The big flaw I see in what you said is that the fundies and terrorists do those things in the name of their religion, but moderates don't share that belief that terrorist acts are ok when done in the name of religion. You just can't say that moderates are responsible for zealots just because they have the same religion. This is where religion and belief differ.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 01:10 PM (This post was last modified: 18-03-2011 01:16 PM by daemonowner.)
RE: Roman catolics...
(18-03-2011 12:30 PM)Dregs Wrote:  Ok Ok hold on so the question was what is wrong with the moderate Christian's belief.

They're wrong.

(18-03-2011 12:30 PM)Dregs Wrote:  You are saying that they should stand up against religous zealots which is a nice thought, but it says nothing as to why their beliefs are an issue.

It is a nice thought, but who says that that is something wrong with their beliefs?

(18-03-2011 12:30 PM)Dregs Wrote:  Not to mention if you turned all the moderate Christians into moderate atheists they still wouldn't speak out against the Zealots.

And how did you come by this?

(18-03-2011 12:30 PM)Dregs Wrote:  Hell we could be held acountable for the nut case ateists under the same reasoning.

Wait, we aren't? Aren't most atheists willing to call out atheists and theists alike who they think are wrong, especially when they did something immoral. I've heard Matt Dillahunty defending the Westboro Baptist Church for crying out loud. The difference is atheists, for the most part, are willing to criticise other atheists for wrong they did, theists don't.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo

"Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do." - Voltaire
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 01:33 PM
 
RE: Roman catolics...
(18-03-2011 01:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  SANSD8TY > The big flaw I see in what you said is that the fundies and terrorists do those things in the name of their religion, but moderates don't share that belief that terrorist acts are ok when done in the name of religion. You just can't say that moderates are responsible for zealots just because they have the same religion. This is where religion and belief differ.

That's the thing though Stark. You never see The Pope, for instance, directly addressing and holding worldwide press conferences instructing would be abortion clinic bombers that the Catholic Church decrees it a sin and the person would go to hell for violating the sixth commandment. You never see any unified vilification of terrorist acts by the related religions' highest leaders followed by a distinct instruction, delivered via worldwide press release, that such an action is wrong.

That would be a showing of good faith. That would go a long way to implying that a religion does not abide by the warped interpretation of it's tenets by some of it's followers. And a press release clearly laying out the position of the church, and that disobeying church edict is punishable by committing the soul of the perpetrator to hell, would go a long way towards showing that such acts are recognized by the religion, denounced by the religion, and that according to the religion there are consequences to such actions in that religions' version of the hereafter.

But I see no such action being taken. At best, it's usually some random Imam or Priest on CNN in the early afternoon when most of the country is at work, denouncing such actions.
Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 02:10 PM
RE: Roman catolics...
I'm not sure if I get how moderates make ground for extremists, since they don't indoctrinate their kids into taking their holy book literally (by my definition of a moderate). If they then adopt extremist views, it must be because of external infuence, so I wouldn't blame the moderate parent for that. 'Keeping ground for extremists by keeping religious beliefs acceptable in society'? Keeping religious beliefs acceptable, and keeping extremist views, like those of terrorist's and anti-gay people, acceptable aren't the exact same thing, since the moderates who keep religious belief acceptable don't think that the extremist views are acceptable.

Keeping ground for extremists by keeping religious belief acceptable is like saying that people who define nationalities keep ground for nationalists, and therefore are partly resposible for nationalists.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2011, 02:56 PM
RE: Roman catolics...
(18-03-2011 01:33 PM)SANSD8TY Wrote:  
(18-03-2011 01:08 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  SANSD8TY > The big flaw I see in what you said is that the fundies and terrorists do those things in the name of their religion, but moderates don't share that belief that terrorist acts are ok when done in the name of religion. You just can't say that moderates are responsible for zealots just because they have the same religion. This is where religion and belief differ.

That's the thing though Stark. You never see The Pope, for instance, directly addressing and holding worldwide press conferences instructing would be abortion clinic bombers that the Catholic Church decrees it a sin and the person would go to hell for violating the sixth commandment. You never see any unified vilification of terrorist acts by the related religions' highest leaders followed by a distinct instruction, delivered via worldwide press release, that such an action is wrong.

That would be a showing of good faith. That would go a long way to implying that a religion does not abide by the warped interpretation of it's tenets by some of it's followers. And a press release clearly laying out the position of the church, and that disobeying church edict is punishable by committing the soul of the perpetrator to hell, would go a long way towards showing that such acts are recognized by the religion, denounced by the religion, and that according to the religion there are consequences to such actions in that religions' version of the hereafter.

But I see no such action being taken. At best, it's usually some random Imam or Priest on CNN in the early afternoon when most of the country is at work, denouncing such actions.

I hear what you're saying. But my whole point is that I'm not talking about leaders, I'm talking about moderates in general. That's why this concept of "blame the moderates for what the extremists do" bothers me. Blaming a group for what a few do is prejudice.
As for the press releases you call for, you'd have to blame CNN for airing them in the early afternoon. And the pope speaks out plenty against many atrocities. But to me that's not even relevant when it's the masses that are being blamed for things they don't believe in. My whole point was that to discriminate (and yes, that's exactly what this is) against moderates because of what some people who share their religion (though not necessarily their beliefs) do, is atrocious. Let those who commit the acts or support them suffer the consequences. Moderates don't bear the responsibility of shouldering what non-moderates do.

We ALL have a responsibility to do what we can to stop bad things from happening. I, for one, will happily share that responsibility equally with others with similar morals. Regardless of race, religion, gender, or galaxy of origin.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2011, 01:22 AM
RE: Roman catolics...
The statement I originally responded to was this:


(17-03-2011 08:53 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm confused.

I can understand wanting to challenge Biblical literalists with facts because Biblical literalism is pretty hard to defend in the face of facts and the spread of Biblically literal truths can inhibit the spread of scientific truths. Gotchya. With ya. I grok its fullness.

But what's the problem with people who are not Biblical literalists? They have a belief in God and they follow the teachings of the Bible (which is the vast majority of Christians). What's wrong with that?

How are people that accept modernity and science a problem? (Not that I'm a fan of modernity, but hey.)

Like for real, straight up, I don't see what the problem is.

To put my answer in a nutshell; you cannot pretend religion is not harmful.

That includes all religion. It effects every facet of our society. It retards scientific, social, legal, and political progress. It causes immeasureable harm to each and every one of us. Terrorism is conducted in it's name. So is child abuse. Wars are started because of it. So what is "wrong" with moderates clinging to their religious delusions is that all of the above is a result of the majority of people claiming to believe in their various Gods and giving credence to the religious or political leaders who commit all of these atrocities in the name of religion. If not for the moderates, the zealots would have no power. They would have no money. They would have no political clout. I am not saying they are equally as guilty as the guy who straps on a bomb and walks into a train station; but I am saying the men and women who convince those guys to strap on their bombs would have no influence without the vast numbers of moderate Christians, Jews, and Muslims who give their religions validity. And anyone who understands anything about science, history, and logic, knows those religions have NO validity.

So these people- and they include my family members, who are people I love and I know would wish no harm on anyone, especially in the name of their religion- are unwittingly aiding the goals of the zealots who are using an "acceptable" religious reason to harm humanity and retard our progress in innumerable ways. Would the Bush administration have stopped public funding of stem cell research if not for the support of the Christian lobbyists who had the silent, tacit support of the majority of Christian people, even if those people rarely go to Church and don't really believe everything in the Bible?

That is just one example of hundreds I could give you where the general, everyday acceptance of religion as a credible belief leads to the oppression of human rights and the stalling of scientific progress and the corruption of our political and legal systems. Religion is harmful. Therefore, any amount of support for religion is also harmful. Even people who tick off "Christian" on a census form just because they're afraid not to are part of the problem. It legitimizes delusional fantasies upon which real laws, real violence, and real wars are conducted.

And that is "the problem" with moderate Christians continuing to believe in nonsense- their nonsense costs human lives. That is a very big problem.

The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason. - Ben Franklin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2011, 10:20 AM
RE: Roman catolics...
Hey, Stark, Kikko and Dregs.

Yup.

Hey, Sansd8ty.

My problem with Harris' idea is simple. It's naive, simplistic and it displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how societies function.

The individual members of the population of any society that can be defined by its system of belief (be that religious, political, national, etc) can be plotted on a range. At the centre of the range is the moderate position. The vast majority of people will be plotted near the centre. People will be plotted in decreasing density the further they get from the centre. There will be times, due to the Z effect, that significant numbers will migrate from the centre towards the extreme. But even when these flare ups occur, the lions share still occupy the centre. It should be noted that during these periods it becomes increasingly difficult for the moderates to speak out against the activities of the extreme because as a direct result of the migration to the extreme, the extreme's power grows and the moderates have to contend directly with that power. But even in the most wonderful times, the most perfect conditions, there will ALWAYS be an extreme. It is impossible to plot everyone at the same point on the range. Even if there is the slightest drift from the exact centre by one person, that person represents the extreme. This deviation is an inevitability simply because societies function by creating compromises that benefit the largest segment of the society and or the most powerful segment of society. Society, particularly hierarchical society, is inherently exclusive. It is impossible for everyone to agree because the society is incapable of balancing everyone's best interests. There will always be a marginalised segment and a segment that simply wants to move away from the centre in order to explore. Moderates, no matter what they do, can never, ever, eliminate the extreme. Ever. The extreme does however serve an important purpose. The centre cannot renew itself. The centre is stagnant. The extreme represents a subset of the culture, a subculture. The subculture experiments with what is acceptable and tries the new and after a period of rebellion and experimentation, reinserts what has been proven to be safe back into the matrix of the centre (hair styles, music, universal suffrage, spicy food, interracial marriage, etc). So not only can the moderates not ever hope to eliminate the extreme, they do themselves a disservice in attempting it (rock and roll has got to go!). The final difficulty is that moderates don't recruit. They don’t have to. They represent the status quo; the default position. The extreme is constantly trying to recruit because the power is always, as a default, in the hands of the moderates because of their numbers. So they can marginalise the extreme with impunity. In order to achieve their aims, the extreme must constantly recruit from the centre. Most days, that recruiting is unsuccessful. But when there is a perception of attack or an actual attack, the extreme has an increased ability to recruit (hence the flare up migration during the Z effect). The moderates have one of three options at that point. They can lure people back to the centre; unfortunately, all they have to offer is the status quo that has already been rejected, they can force a return through threat or in some cases, through re-education and deprogramming, or they can kill or imprison the extreme. Again, this is no simple process because the only reason to do any of this is because the extreme is gaining power, creating a volatile situation.

None of this is to say that the moderates have no role in containing the extreme. It says that Harris' suggestion is naive, simplistic and devoid of understanding. The extreme feeding off of the centre is not a problem of societal living, it's a feature. He is right; however. If you eliminate the moderates, you eliminate the extreme. But that is such a staggeringly stupid suggestion and so utterly impossible to implement, unless one wants to eradicate societal living or the humans that engage in it, that it’s not worth anyone’s time.

The idea that moderates are free to speak out against the extreme without any consequence is naive in the extreme. If you are a Muslim living in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, do you think you can just shave your beard and that everything will be fine? Or if you’re a German in 1941, that you can just denounce the government for its activities? Or that you can stand on a pulpit and inform your comrades of Stalin’s murders? Or speak out against Bush if you’re the Dixie Chicks? Power is just that. Powerful. It’s effects cannot be downplayed. Is that sort of thing, speaking out, necessary? Of course. Should we encourage it? Of course. Do we have the right to demand it and condemn them if they don’t do it on our schedule? No we do not. A fact I was reminded of recently.

Then there are the leaders. Do people really think that the Pope, for example, is above political pressure? He is the leader of a religion with over a billion members. That man gets pulled in every single direction. The idea that he should be able to say things just cuz they're right and just cuz he's the Pope is naive. And if people are truly shocked when they hear about the leaders of powerful organisations abusing their power, then, well, bring me back some suckers from Fantasy Sugarland. I like butterscotch and cherry.

To speak directly to what is being said here; moderate leaders DO speak out against the extreme. All the time. So do regular moderates. I am personal friends with many of the men and women that set policy for the United Church of Canada and I can guarantee you that these people are among the first anywhere to leap on human rights issues and fight for social change. And man o man, nothing pisses them off more than Christians preaching hatred and destruction in Jesus' name.

And as Stark mentioned, there’s a serious discrimination factor here. I grew up hating Americans because of what the American government and American corporations do. Their activities represent a long litany of atrocity. And I hated all Americans for it. But when I met actual Americans, I discovered the very real pressure they are under and I realised that they were humans first and foremost and that when I engaged with them, rather than hated them or denounced them for things being done in their names, that there was a far greater chance to create change. I also discovered that a lot of good has come out of the United States and that in order to get rid of the atrocity, I had to recognise that so that I didn’t throw away the baby with the bathwater.

I'll end with three excerpts from a transcript from the interview between Soledad O'Brien and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam of the proposed Ground Zero mosque. If ever there ever was an Imam in the hot seat about the relationship between moderate Muslims and the extreme, it's this guy. For the record, the interview was conducted on Larry King Live. A primetime CNN show with mega ratings.

Quote:O’BRIEN: Have moderate Muslims been vocal enough against extremists?
RAUF: In the Muslim world, there are many people who have been vocal and we have been very vocal against extremists. But how to win this battle is an on-going battle. And we must continue to wage the battle for peace.

RAUF: ... we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up. And we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation.

[When asked 'why not just move the mosque'?]
RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides — you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa. We have to turn this around.

-Full Transcript

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: Roman catolics...
I have just decided to go check out my first post and my first thread. So here is my first thread on this forum.

[Image: 25297d1309921005-intruder-recall-zombie-thread.jpg]


Big Grin

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: