Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Victorumj]

• d101s ???????? ???????? by Victorumj
  [Yesterday at 11:30:10 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? ?????... by Victorcqt
  [Yesterday at 07:56:11 PM]
• ???????? ?????????? ???? by Victorgra
  [April 26, 2024, 11:29:30 PM]
• ? ??????? 2 by Juliyge
  [April 26, 2024, 10:16:52 PM]
• ??????????? ????? ???????... by Juliget
  [April 26, 2024, 08:28:55 AM]
• 2012 Concert Thread by Carmelasew
  [April 25, 2024, 11:19:23 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4939
• Latest: BrianCus

Stats

• Total Posts: 129553
• Total Topics: 7150
• Online Today: 189
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Wunderkind]

I've been surfing the web reading my daily does of news and the pope has been plastered everywhere like he's the next Messiah. I'm reading along and so far they're reporting everything short of what he ate for breakfast this morning and I stumble on this:

Pope says U.S. society can undermine Catholic faith

Pope Benedict tempered his praise for American religious tolerance on Wednesday with a warning that U.S. society can quietly undermine Catholicism by reducing all faiths to a lowest common denominator.

I didn't think much of it at first and kept on reading. Then the little gears in my brain got to turning and I re-read it.

Pope Benedict tempered his praise for American religious tolerance on Wednesday with a warning that U.S. society can quietly undermine Catholicism by reducing all faiths to a lowest common denominator.

I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or be pissed off. I should expect these things to come out of the man's mouth, but it still threw me for a loop. He's at least alluding that religious tolerance is bad. And worse, this is the only snip of this I can find anywhere.

[reimero]

This probably isn't the right forum for this, but We're all reasonably intelligent in here, so I'm going to try to grab this bull by the horns.  Full disclosure: I'm a non-practicing Catholic, whose issues with the Church lie primarily on the human side of things (i.e. I'm not pissed off with God, I'm pissed off with those who claim to be acting on God's behalf.)

Catholicism is not just another Christian religion.  There are certain theological and dogmatic aspects to Catholicism which are not universally accepted by non-Catholic groups.  For instance, with regard to Communion, Catholics believe in transubstantiation, whereas most Protestant faiths believe in consubstantiation (that is, Catholics believe the Communion bread becomes the body of Christ, and Protestants believe Christ is present with the Communion bread.)  It's a subtle yet fairly important difference.

Additionally, the Catholic Church has a rich (and very misunderstood) tradition of honoring saints.  The first thing I absolutely want to make very clear beyond the shadow of a doubt is that Catholics do NOT worship saints, nor do we most of us worship Mary (more on that in a minute).  This is a common misconception.  Theologically, Catholics believe that good people go to heaven, and are aware of what is going on here on Earth.  Saints are in heaven, and are thus closer to god.  Thus, many Catholics ask saints to intercede with God on their behalf.  In office politics, it's akin to asking the person who gets along best with the boss to make a request on that person's behalf.

There are some Catholic sects which do practically worship Mary, even to the point of elevating her above God.  These people are to be admired for their fervent devotion, yet pitied for their misunderstanding of basic theology completely nutso.  The Church does not recognize this extreme devotion.  Actually, I'd rather think it would irk Mary, since her whole schtick is that she's supposed to be the mother of God and not God him/her/itself.

What does all this have to do with the Pope's comments?  My take is this: when all faiths are reduced to a "lowest common denominator" (i.e. "Hey, we all believe in Jesus!  Yay Jesus!"), what sets individual faiths apart becomes lost, and a Catholic identity becomes a mere Christian (or even $religious) identity.  When I was a kid, my family belonged to a cult an "echumenical covenant community", that is, a cross-faith Christian community bound by some fairly serious vows.  It was supposed to be inclusive and sensitive to both Catholic and Protestant needs, but in practice, despite about a 75-25 Catholic-Protestant split, all those features of Catholic faith which were not shared by Protestants fell completely by the wayside.  The Catholicism was stripped out in favour of mere Christianity.

If you're not Catholic and don't understand the intricacies and nuances of Catholicism, you might be inclined to say, "so what?"  If you are Catholic, and embrace your Catholicism as much culturally as doctrinally, this is a bad thing, because it strips away much of that which makes your culture unique.

I think that's what he's getting at.

[Wunderkind]

What baffles me, actually, is the fact that he basically said that religious tolerance is bad for all religions. It... well... it... hell, it just doesn't make any sense. I understand he may have been referring to the Catholic church exclusively and other religions like it, but the way it's worded is 'all religions'. I'm just trying to wrap my mind around that one statement before I dig any deeper into it. I can't past the point where he includes all religions in the sentence.

Although the article perturbed me a little (everything about the Catholic faith scares me, please don't be offended), I'm not saying it isn't true in certain cases that faith doesn't get watered down by socializing with other faiths, I'm just flat out confused. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that religious tolerance is bad for "all faiths". It sounds like a huge contradiction.

[TheJudge]

My take is this: when all faiths are reduced to a "lowest common denominator" (i.e. "Hey, we all believe in Jesus!  Yay Jesus!"), what sets individual faiths apart becomes lost, and a Catholic identity becomes a mere Christian (or even $religious) identity. 

And why is that a bad thing? When faith seems to be one of the primary sources of chaos in this world, wouldn't this actually be a good thing? Meaning that if more people can identify with a simpler religious concept, it becomes more inclusive.

[TheJudge]

What baffles me, actually, is the fact that he basically said that religious tolerance is bad for all religions. It... well... it... hell, it just doesn't make any sense.

Maybe it's a translation error. You know, like the bible.

[Wunderkind]

Maybe it's a translation error. You know, like the bible.

Maybe...

What language do you think it was originally in?

[TheJudge]

I couldn't tell you. But what I mean is even if he himself said it in English, it was perhaps a language barrier that made it come out like that. Then again , maybe not. It's just a theory.

[reimero]

And why is that a bad thing? When faith seems to be one of the primary sources of chaos in this world, wouldn't this actually be a good thing? Meaning that if more people can identify with a simpler religious concept, it becomes more inclusive.

It's a double-edged sword, really.  The devil is in the details, and ultimately, those details do come to the forefront.  I say this fully cognizant of the fact that the Pope has a very deep interest in preserving a Catholic identity over a more generic, inclusive version of Christianity.  I mean, that's what he does.  If you disagree, you disagree.  I was mostly trying to put his quote into context.

I realize most people here tend to be atheists and have little use for faith, much less organized religion.  I've had more than my share of issues with the Catholic Church - but for some reason, I still tend to defend the Church.  Crazy, huh?  Anyway, the nature of faith is such that it is a deeply personal thing, and different people need different things.  Some people need to be left to their own devices.  They need to be free to do their own searching and ask their own questions.  Others require a great deal of structure and ritual in order to feel a sense of belonging.  The Catholic Church is really an ideal situation for people who want lots of structure, ritual and tradition.

The bigger issue, I think, is that there's a movement toward an imposition of generic Christianity instead of denominationalism, with all that entails.  And I'm not convinced that's a good thing.  At the end of the day, each of us is responsible for arriving at whatever Truths we hold, and in a way with which we are satisfied.  And if I've learned one thing about faith, it's that one size does not fit all.  The real problems arise when the attitude appears that one size DOES fit all, and the One True Path is $path.

Each religion claims to have a moral authority and obligation to proselytize.  Each religion claims to be the One True Faith.  Many of these religions preach that followers not of the One True Faith must embrace the One True Faith or be destroyed.  This is a huge shortcoming in most religions, and runs fundamentally counter to what I believe.  It's also why I tend to be a fan of the prayer, "Lord protect me from your followers."

[TheJudge]

Each religion claims to have a moral authority and obligation to proselytize.  Each religion claims to be the One True Faith.  Many of these religions preach that followers not of the One True Faith must embrace the One True Faith or be destroyed.  This is a huge shortcoming in most religions, and runs fundamentally counter to what I believe.  It's also why I tend to be a fan of the prayer, "Lord protect me from your followers."

That's the nature of religions, and the fundamental problems with them. They can't just say "Come join us! We're pretty sure we're right! We think..." They have to make those unfounded claims of representing the absolute truth, and they have to hide behind the concept of faith, because they's the only way they can exist.

I think all religions have some concepts and principals that are positive on society and that can bring a sense of persoanl satisfaction in some way. But the opposite is true where all religions have elements that we don't necessarily agree with, that arn't necessarily good for society, and that aren't necessarily good at making us feel good about ourselves individually and collectively. Ultimately, I think the best course of action for a person is to select those "components" that they agree with and feel are positive, and practice them with some flexibility. Drop the "I'm a catholic" or "I'm a protestant" and start calling yourself a moral person instead.

Let's not kid ourselves: Religions were very powerful organisations that interfered in governement activities. In fact, they still do today sometimes. But there was a time when religious organisations had more power then many governments. There was a time when religion had significant influence on individuals, and it wasn't too long ago. When a religious organasation can decide to end a person's life without consequence, that is power. Power than can be abused (and has).

A catholic priest could knock at your door and request an explanation as to why you didn't have a child during the last year. And people were pressured to do acts that they didn't necessarily agree with, like having 15 kids. But think of the political context back a few hundre years ago when europeans came to America. One of the driving motivator for having large families was colonization, which was a political goal acheived under the pretext of religion. Then, the tradition keept on going for a long time. 2 or 3 generations ago, you still found priest visiting homes and pressuring people to have kids, because that is what God wants.

When will people realize that organized religions = puppet master + you dancing like an idiot. When will people realize that they can freely choose how to live their lives by their own rules, and not by some code others have set for them. When will people realize that many of them they were raised in an environement that enforced certain beleif without ever having the opportunity to choose for themselves. They just practice what they've been taught, and feel guilty about asking questions, and will do the same to their children. I remember attending mass where a priest was essentially telling his audience that it was the parent's responsibility to teach their kids the religion, and that giving them a choice was WRONG. He went on about a story of a family who had given their son the choice of which religion he would practice when he was 16 years old. He came to them and annouced that he had picked a religion: Satanism. He then went own about how the kdi ended up taking is own life and BLAMED THE PARENTS for this event. It was all attributed the letting the kid make a choice. How fucked up is that? Seriously? I almost got up and challenged him right then in there. It was very insulting I found.

I rememeber when I was a teenager, I wanted to go to a mass of another religion, just for the heck of it. Just to see what was different about it. I asked a friend if he'd come with me, and he was scared to do it, and eventually backed out. That's how powerful religion can be on a person who was raised with some concepts without ever having the opportunity to challenge them, or determine by their own will if they made sense or not. And what I notice frequently in many religions is that fear is the primary driver of behaviors, not rewards. Fear.

I think the world would be a better place without organized religion, and I only wish that people would snap out of it and see it for what it really is.

[reimero]

You know, my parents are hardcore true-believer dyed-in-the-wool ultra-orthodox Catholics.  And we were raised to be that way.  The irony is that not one of the 4 of us kids is a practicing Catholic any more.  But I digress.

My parents are both very intelligent people.  Dad has a doctorate in philosophy.  Mom owned her own business for awhile.  For both of them, using your noggin has been extremely important, and they (Dad especially) really impressed on us kids the importance of knowledge, education, thought and reason.  Dad taught me how to reason stuff out.  He taught me the basics of logic, and taught me how to approach difficult questions.  That's really the purpose of those 100-level philosophy courses in college.

Many of you are probably wondering how someone can be reasonable and logical and so fervently religious, and I think I have an answer to that.  Basically, he presumes certain things to be true because he has arrived at these truths on his own, and these truths now serve as his starting point.  So when he makes a statement, his faith in God and the correctness of the Catholic Church have to be presumed.  His "mistake", if you will, was that in learning to reason, us kids asked the same questions but arrived at very different answers.  It's caused some tensions, but he and Mom are also somewhat placated by the fact that we arrived where we did not due to laziness, but because of genuine soul-searching and reason.

I remain fervently of the belief that faith and reason need not be enemies.  Conflicts really only arise when they tread on each other's territories... which, sadly, happens far too often.

[xolik]

Pope Benedict tempered his praise for American religious tolerance on Wednesday with a warning that U.S. society can quietly undermine Catholicism by reducing all faiths to a lowest common denominator.

"hay guys I think it's great that you tolerate each other's religious views, but don't forget who the top dog is around here, mkay?"

[TheJudge]

Conflicts really only arise when they tread on each other's territories.

But how is that possible? Let's replace the word "territories" with the word "topics", because I think it means the same thing in the end. Then you are sayiong that in order for reaosn and faith to coexist, you can only look at one particular topic form one particular perspective? (faith or reason).

Because everytime you do that comparison, you'll always end up with different results, and always will the results be opposed simply because reason critizises the analysis approach used by faith, and faith does the same to reason.

Faith itself is a very logical process that requires assuming unverifiable conditions. In that sense, they are the same. The difference however, is that conditions set by faith cannot be confirmed, whereas conditions set by logic can. For example, I can logically conclude that because I can lunge my hand in water, I will not be able to walk on water. But faith will tell you, that while this is true, Jesus was able to walk on water because he is the son of God and thus has powers we do not posses which he uses to create "miracles". The belief that Jesus can walk on water is conditional to the belief that he has powers (which is conditional to the beleif that he is the son of God), which no one can prove or disprove. The guy has been dead for 2000 years. But if you beleive that he had unusual powers, then it is only logical to concluded that he was perhaps able to walk on water.

Now, from a logical perspective. Is it possible that Jesus did walk on water? Yes, but there had to be a trick to it. Perhaps Jesus was an elaborate illusionist. Some people beleive that David Coperfield can fly, because they saw him levitate out of thin air. But those who "beleive" don't understand how he does it. There are a series of tiny blue wires involved in the trick, which blend in with the blue background of his stage. David wants you to belive he can fly, and if you beleive he can, he's done his job.

See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8qX0ZhzJBU

There is a reason why he's wearing that bagy shirt. And there's a reason why when he first goes trough the loops, he doesn't actually go throught them, it just looks that way. Just keep an eye above him and you will see that no loop completely goes around him.

Anyway, my point is simple: People will beleive what they can't understand if it seems credible. But that doesn't make it true.

[Joe Sixpack]

I think everyone knows my stance on this issue:  The Pope Is A Cocksucker.

And not in a good Las Vegas way.

[Wunderkind]

ALright. I've had some time to sleep on it and mull on it and I've finally decided what bothers me so much about this statement.

Simply put, I'm pagan.

[rant]

I am the oldest target of the militant Catholic church. I also am a target of the Christian church. When I hear a statement that sounds an awful lot like a call to the purification of any religion, I get the heebee-jeebees. When I hear religious tolerance being blamed for the inpurities of a relgion I get nervous. When the religion doing it Catholism or Christianity I start to get sick to my stomach.

That religious tolerance is the only reason I can practice my own beliefs without fear of being hung for being a witch or being burned for just not being a Catholic. I like that it evens the playing field. I like that it allows religions to bleed into other religions. I love that it makes it harder to determine who really is Catholic and who isn't. The loss of definition in more powerful religions like Catholicism means that more passive religions like my own can go about their business with having to look over their shoulder.

I do still have to look over my shoulder. I live in the "Bible Belt" of the United States, where we believe in religious freedom as long as you're a Christian. I have enough to worry about without having to hear the pope pop off a statement like this one calling for the purification of the Catholic faith, because, if you recall, the last time someone called for the purification of a group of people it didn't go so well! The last pope who shunned religious tolerance had an ulterior motive and I'm not saying this one does, but I do learn from history.

When I hear a statement like this being made in a public arena it scares the crap out of me. It troubles me so because the very tolerance he's condemning in order to strengthen his own faith, is the tolerance that allows me to have my faith.

The whole article sounds like a Catholic call to arms. I'm NOT saying it is, I'm saying, from the perspective of a pagan, it sounds like it is. Catholicism still has a good deal of power and a good deal of money, so does Christianity. I have to fight tooth and nail as it is just to legally pratice divination in the state of North Carolina because Catholicism and Christianity are so powerful. Technically, even in this modern age, I can still have my business shut down and be fined, if not imprisoned, for selling wiccan altar items in the state of North Carolina. I could sell a voodoo doll in my county and end up with a completely legal fine smacked on my ass. I don't need Catholics to start screaming about how there's too much religious tolerance in the United States. The next thing I know I'll be having to watch my neighbors closely in case they see me doing something like burning incense in my garden. That might get me arrested.

I'm NOT saying it is going to happen, I'm saying it could happen, and in the state in which I live, I DON'T need a leader of a politically powerful, currency wealthly religion that already has proven that it hates me, encouraging it. I'm having enough trouble with the Christians as it is, I don't need the Catholics to join the party too.

[/rant]

And that is what bothers me about this statement. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying, from the viewpoint of a pagan, is sure as hell sounds like it is, and everyone here should know by now that there are going to be a few who take him way too seriously.

[12AX7]

Hm. I'm not "Christian" or "Catholic" or pagan or whatever; but , uh, this thread seems borderline bigoted? Isn't this just about the same thread - different religion? But in my thread; I'm a bigot or a racist. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

[Wunderkind]

Hey, I'm prejudiced against Christians and Catholics! Get over it!

Joe called the pope a cocksucker first! Why aren't you complaining about his post? 

Actually, V just hasn't gotten to this thread yet. I'm sure she'll rip us all new ones for pointing out that one religion wants to rule them all. I'll probably get the brunt of everyone's hatred for posting that Catholics scare the bejesus out of me. In this case, it's not a matter of extreme versus moderate, all Catholics scare the bejesus out of me. But then so do all Christians. Hell, anyone from a highly organized sect of any path of beliefs, including other pagans scare the bejesus out me.

I'm not by any right saying they're wrong in believing what they believe and they're more than welcome to start burning bodies again, I'll just have to re-evaluate my choice of country. I am saying they scare the bejesus out of me.

You'll have to ask V personally what the difference between the threads is when you see her next. That is, of course, assuming she doesn't smite me for posting this then post another scathing review here talking about how this thread is also bigoted.

[Joe Sixpack]

I'm not saying anything about the Catholic faith.  I'm not saying all Catholics are douchebags.  I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker.  Nothing "bigoted" about that.

[sociald1077]

Hm. I'm not "Christian" or "Catholic" or pagan or whatever; but , uh, this thread seems borderline bigoted? Isn't this just about the same thread - different religion? But in my thread; I'm a bigot or a racist. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

I think over all, you were misunderstood in your thread. The lack of a clearly defined topic at the start kind of derailed it.

[12AX7]

The lack of a clearly defined topic at the start kind of derailed it.

Yep. I coulda had a better title and spelled out my thoughts in the first post; not the second.
 However; it's still hard to misunderstand what I typed. What I intended for the thread to be; yes, but what I typed; no. Somehow it was assumed by nearly everyone posting that I'm talking about "all Muslims are radical". Even after I posted several posts specifying my thoughts. All I ask is that my posts are read before I'm hammered for something.

[12AX7]

I'm not saying anything about the Catholic faith.  I'm not saying all Catholics are douchebags.  I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker.  Nothing "bigoted" about that.

Just like I wasn't opinionating about Islam, and wasn't calling all Muslims radicals. I was saying the fact that the moderates aren't making much of a difference to, and seem to be really quiet about the extremists scares me. Specifically and ONLY because they(<--- this "they" indicates only radicals) say -over and again- their goal is killing me/us/our culture - and have already acted on that. They are to be taken seriously. Nothing bigoted about that, either. No?

[Joe Sixpack]

When you say "where are all the moderate Muslims", you are implying that there aren't m(any).

[Wunderkind]

I'm not saying anything about the Catholic faith.  I'm not saying all Catholics are douchebags.  I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker.  Nothing "bigoted" about that.

Aw, shit. I keep forgetting to use my sarcasm flag that Bizb gave me. Here, this was supposed to be at the end of that sentence about your post.

-- |>

[reimero]

I'm saying The Pope, personally, is a cocksucker.

As a Catholic, I found that statement offensive.  As an American who believes it is the basic right of the individual to express their opinions in open forums, and with the understanding that this forum exists in no small part for this purpose, I support your right to express that opinion.  Therefore, I held my tongue.

Part of the freedom of religion is the responsibility to accept that there are other people out there who do not recognize freedom of religion and do not recognize the beneficial nature of a pluralistic society.  However, that does not mean that those who disagree with religion/Christianity/Catholicism should feel free to run roughshod over the faiths of those who do believe in a higher power.

Wunderkind is a pagan.  I'm fine with that (no, really, I am.)  Demosthenes is an atheist, and I'm fine with that.  He and I have had some very interesting and insightful discussions about faith.  What I'm not fine with is the general attitude I'm seeing more and more that "I don't believe in God, and anyone who does is a moron."  We all have our reasons for believing (or not) as we do (or don't.)  In my case, my faith is not unexamined.  I know what I believe, and I have a pretty firm grasp on why I believe it.

Don't get me wrong: I have my issues with the Catholic Church and the Pope (particularly when he starts talking in terms of the One True Path.)  At the same time, though, I am quite loyal to my faith as it is.

An inclusive and pluralistic society has to begin with you.  Years ago I figured out that faith is a very deep and very personal thing.  I have no more right to impose my faith on others than others have the right to impose their faith - or lack thereof - on me.  I understand the whole "I'm tired of hearing about it" thing.  Because I'm also there - just on the other side.

[Wunderkind]

I am very tired and cranky, so I will continue this when I wake up. I'm not ignoring it.

I just sincerely hope you get that I'm not calling Catholics wrong (scary maybe, but whatever floats your boat), I'm saying this sentence about religious tolerance being bad for religion sounded dangerously. Too dangerously. If it was a pagan saying this I would be just as bothered by it, and I would have a brand new rant to post in here.

[reimero]

That's fine.  My initial post was mostly an effort to provide some context to his statement.