Anti-Catholic vitriol

[Stunster]

Anti-Catholic bile and vitriol, and a complacently self-assured contemptuous incomprehension of a Catholic understanding of how God's ways may be a little different from ours, is a phenomenon that seems quite widespread among contributors to DU, I'm sorry to remark.

We Catholics are not all braindead sheep, despite what some people might think. Some of us have thought very deeply about religious and philosophical matters, and come to some different conclusions about it all than other people do. Common decency suggests at a minimum that we agree to disagree about how we look at the world and think about certain issues---maybe even try to engage in more fruitful types of dialogue without engaging in knee-jerk sarcasm and bad jokes.

Even just from a political point of view, I think it's unwise for Democrats to be overly distant from American Catholics. There are many aspects of Catholic social teaching which ought to find a sympathetic political outlet in the Democratic Party. And Catholics also have the advantage of not being Biblical fundamentalists, and being the predominant religious affiliation of the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States (Latinos).

A common theme among critics of Catholicism is that of the Church's sins. But militant atheistic political regimes in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Albania, Romania and elsewhere have been guilty of mass murder, human rights abuses, lies and anti-scientific attitudes (see the Lysenko nonsense under Stalin) on scales that the worst Spanish Inquisitors, medieval Crusaders, and obscurantist clerics could only dream about. Does this license every Catholic to dismiss atheism as a crock of shit and an obvious disaster of world-historical proportions, and to mock all atheists as deluded assholes? As a matter of logic, it does not. These crimes could have been committed by atheists without atheism necessarily being false. But equally, as a matter of logic, the historical sins of Catholics do not license an analogous inference in the other direction.

But what gets me most about this kind of hatred for "the Catholic Church" is that the Catholic Church is not merely the pope, the Vatican bureaucracy, and the episcopacy. No doubt those echelons will attract their portion of ambitious, power-hungry, and even wicked men. Are secular governments really any better? I doubt it, but in any case we shouldn't be too surprised at the follies of Church government. Follies are found in every form of government, political, corporate, academic and even in small social clubs you'll find embezzlers and frauds. That's sin for you. Nobody has a monopoly on it.

If you're looking for a generalized period or social locus of moral perfection in human history, you ain't gonna find it. Sorry to disappoint you. Christianity doesn't abolish sin. When it's being true to Christ, which it sometimes is, it just points out that sin is, er, sinful and calls people to repent, including its own. But only halfwits would take seriously the notion that one can find any large institution or social group in history that hasn't got its share of evildoers and fools.

But there are many other more positive stories that can be told which are just as much or more (I would say far more) about the Catholic Church---millions of them, but are mostly untold. Among the recent 'told' ones, we have Sr Joan Chittester bashing Bush's budget. We have Sr Dorothy Stang martyred for social justice in Brazil. We have activist Sisters challenging the military-industrial complex. We have Catholics prepared to go to prison to challenge the human rights abuse academy formerly known as the School of the Americas. And there are millions of good things happening 'on the ground' with Catholics to the fore.

There's so much more to the Catholic Church than the 0.01% at the top. Nobody listens to them anyway, except the anti-Catholic crowd. :-)

Listen to this man: Fr John Dear SJ---I know him personally:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0215-21.htm

[Warpy]

1. Warning!

I've seen little criticism of Catholics as a whole on these boards. You'd have to go to fundy boards to find that, sorry.

What I have seen is criticism of Church policies, and there is plenty of room to criticise that.

Catholic believers tend, on the whole, to be a lot more liberal than their Protestant counterparts. Nobody on these boards is about to criticise THAT.

If, however, you're feeling thin skinned because the Pope has been criticised, or the church hierarchy has been criticised for making pronouncements on thigs that no celibate male has any businesss pronouncing on, or that they swept pedophilia by priests under the rug for too many decades, then I'd suggest you visit the Bob Jones U. student boards for a dose of what true anti Catholic rhetoric is like.

[Psephos]

4. My experience does not completely parallel yours

There are some threads involving religious/political topics that proceed civilly, and then others where it's like someone set off a can of troll attractant.

I've seen some nasty, personal anti-Catholic remarks more than once, and I've also seen some nasty anti-Jewish slanders. As I read these threads, I get the feeling that the trolls are driven by exactly the same religious impulses they slam.

I really don't see what all the Jesusland-fundie invective does for us, anyway. Always makes me feel...well, small. Intolerant, certainly. Our tent is big enough even for people who make the sign of the cross, or keep the Sabbath. There are far more of them than some DUers realize.

Peace.

[T_i_B]

10. I have seen it on here.

There is a small minority on DU who seem to have the same views of Roman Catholics as Ian Paisley. Only a very small minority admittedly but they are there.

[JerseygirlCT]

87. Well put!

I was raised as a R. Catholic. I know about all the good things -- my family are Catholic. The people of the church are by and large, thoughtful and faithful and truly concerned about issues of social justice.

The obnoxious old men running things, however, are by and large a different story. I had to leave the church I was raised in because the hierarchy's attitude toward women is truly hateful, and backed up with nothing but bigotry and the inertia of "that's how it's always been". I truly pray that enough of these old men will eventually realize the tremendous harm their pride and bigotry has loosed on the world. Meantime, a vast majority of good Catholics struggle on -- more in despite of this sort of "leadership" than because of it.

I've run into many current and former R. Catholics at DU. I don't see a lot of "Catholic bashing" I see a lot of official R. Catholic hierarchy bashing -- and they deserve it. There are some very good people in religious orders, but they don't run things. Let's face it, the conservatives own the Vatican, too.

[immoderate]

2. One of the great Catholic contributions to our civilization...

...is Italians!

Think of a world without Frank Sinatra, Bobby Darin, Tony Bennett, Connie Francis. (Well, I'm kidding about Connie Francis.)

Think of no Brando, or Paccino, or DeNiro, or Mastrianni, or Sopia Loren. (Epecially Sophia Loren.)

Think of no minestrone, no lasgna, no gorgonzola, no spaghetti westerns.

And that is just one of the things that Catholics have given us. (Don't get me started on step dancing.) A fie on the person who doesn't appreciate Catholics.

--IMM

[Igel]

3. I've never said anything bad about Catholics.

I try to avoid saying anything bad about anybody. Apart from an advisor I had in grad school. But if I get going on him I'll still be here spouting expletives until at least, oh, July. 2007.

I rather like Catholics, or at least at the same rates I like non-Catholics.

I don't have much of a problem with the church's teachings. I frequently don't like them, but I doubt the pope or some DUers would like all the teachings of the church I went to. Not my church, not my business. Unless they start doing something illegal.

I did scratch my head once when I asked a friend (this is decades ago) if he was Christian, and he firnly replied, "No. I'm Catholic." His Catholic school education aside, I later concluded he obviously hadn't thought the question through very well. Not that he did a better job thinking through any of the other questions life threw at him.

I suspect most of the anti-Catholic vitriol is actually just individual tokens of the pervasive anti-Xian or anti-religion vitriol that DU is usually steeped in. It's a point of honor and pride of many DUers, so ... well ... get used to it.

[Selteri]

5. I think you are mistaking something.

Namely that most things lodged against those who are republicans is due to the kind of religioun they espouse.

This is not to say that I personally agree with the Catholic Church and it's many flaws, merely that I am dubious of your claim that those here attack your religion, though this complaint seems to surface about once a month, almost every time with the same complaint and argument that the Christian based religions are not, in and of themselves, wrong.

Few here disagree with the good that religion can do. Yet few can argue that those who have siezed control of the Republican party are those who are the worst of the lot for religious zealotry and do not espouse a single Christian value yet act more like antichristians. As the saying goes, the devil is most dangerous with the words of the gospel on his lips.

Sadly though it is a human failing to lump a broad group as these are the visable Christians who control the media and claim to be under constant assault against carefully chosen and sculpted snippets of the bible that are very similar to the actions of those who argued God wanted us to keep slaves.

Sadly though,you are wrong to call them the the .001 .01 .1 1 or even 10% that is visable, even statistics can trace the number of people who go to church and the number of people who vote republican to having a direct correlation. The problem with any religion is that when there is a leader who 'preaches' to the people they have an incredible power with God behind them making them difficult to argue against as any priest could theoretically be called a biblical scholar, even when they don't get the single, overriding message that the teachings should cover.

Be good to yourself and each other!

[Stunster]

8. Sr Dorothy's shack

Sadly though,you are wrong to call them the the .001 .01 .1 1 or even 10% that is visable, even statistics can trace the number of people who go to church and the number of people who vote republican to having a direct correlation.

Actually, the clergy, professional religious and highly committed lay members of the Catholic Church are considerably to the left of the Catholic lay people generally, in terms of foreign and domestic policy issues. You vastly overestimate the influence of the clergy in terms of getting their parishioners to vote a certain way.

Sure, the conservatives among the bishops get echoed by the rightwing echo chamber known as the 'liberal media'. But they are not even representative of the US Bishops Conference as a whole. That conference is way to the left of Congressional Democrats on a host of social, economic and foreign policy issues.

If anything, it is Catholic lay people who've been pushing the clerical leadership of the Church in a more conservative direction of late. In other words, it's their Republicanism that shapes (and distorts) their Catholicism, not their Catholicism causing them to be Republicans. So in fact, you've got it backwards. Catholic leadership is, on the whole, mostly to the left of where ordinary Catholics are. And that's just in this country. Elsewhere, that would be even more true.

Oh sure, they'll trot out the abortion issue as the reason they voted for Bush. But how many of them would vote for the GOP anyway because they like tax cuts and hate 'big government'? A helluva lot, let me tell you---and that's actually in conflict with Catholicism, which has historically always opposed unfettered free market capitalism and its concomitant gross imbalances of wealth.

Meantime, take a look at Sr Dorothy's shack:

You can see a photo of it in the photo slideshow at this link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050219/ap_on_re_\la_am_ca/brazil_missionary_killed

It's number 5 in the series.

That's the heart of the Catholic Church, and it's not right wing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[YankeyMCC]

7. I was raised catholic

I haven't seen anti-catholic vitriol, not to say it isn't here but it isn't frequent enough for someone like myself who visits DU every day but not for hours at a time to have seen it.

And most of the anger I have seen in my very heavily catholic populated town and state towards the church has been just that - towards the church and it's policies not catholics.

And the catholic church unlike many US protestant denominations is very hierarchical and very strict about the pecking order. So critisism of the leadership and it's policies is going to be tied up into the whole of the organization to some extent at least.

[UrbScotty]

9. Remember that Wesley Clark, Dennis Kucinich, & John Kerry are Catholics

;-)

[aneerkoinos]

11. Whatever, man

Catholics are cool people.

But what about cool people being honest about the origin of the Catholic Church? Power hungry "christians" making pact with Roman Emperor at Nicea, creating dogma that had little to do with what Jesus taught, and then starting a rampage of murdering gnostics and other "heretics" and pagans like Hypatia and massive book burning campaign, first and foremost destroying the library of Alexandria.

And thus putting end to the spiritual revolution of 1st and 2nd centuries and creating age of darkness we still have not come out of.

[shrike]

13. Not entirely true

Church dogma evolved over the centuries -- Constantine didn't pull it out of a hat at Nicea. (contrary to what the DaVinci code says) The person with the most influence on Christianity was probably Paul.

And BTW, the library of Alexandria was sacked not once, but three times.

[aneerkoinos]

20. True

But I haven't read DaVinci code.

There really wasn't church and dogma before marriage of new religion and state at Nicea. Lot of difference of opinion, lots of rambling church fathers. Especially Augustine, who's inner demons together with Paul's to great extent gave Church it's misogynist slant.

>>>And BTW, the library of Alexandria was sacked not once, but three times.<<<

Depends on the definition of "sacking". But anyways you're right, it wasn't one event but long process, where the tooth of time and changing from papyrus to pergament also did their part. However the handiwork of Theophilus (destruction of Serapeum c. 395 etc) and bit later Cyril (murder of Hypatia and the pillage and plunder that went along) were the decisive blows.

[shrike]

24. It was a great, great loss

to civilization no matter how you define it. One of the worst things that happened during the Crusades, IMO

You're right, I neglected to mention Augustine. A linchpin of the DaVinci Code was Constantine and company suddenly declaring that Christ was divine, among other proclamations. People who don't know much about the history of the church tend to take it as gospel when reality was much more complicated.

[aneerkoinos]

32. Crusades?

The final nail was around 400 by the Xian zealots on war-path against all things pagan and heretical, Crusades took place 600 years later.

[tjwmason]

12. Thanks for posting

A very good article and worthy of discussion.

[Modem Butterfly]

14. I think many Catholics on DU are over-sensitive

I've seen people scream about anti-Catholic vitriol in any post that is in the slightest way critical of the Catholic church. I think there's more over-senistivity to this issue than a lack of sensitivity.

[Stunster]

15. It's as nothing compared to

atheist over-sensitivity.

Yesterday was a case in point. Mention the indisputable fact that atheistic regimes slaughtered millions of people in the 20th century, and some folks go apeshit.

Yes, atheists have murdered, stolen, lied, distorted, been unscientific, irrational, illogical, hateful, nasty, spiteful, stupid, evil and silly. But they seem to think that the rules should be as follows:

1) They should be permitted to rant and rave at will about religious believers murdering, stealing, lying, distorting, being unscientific, being irrational, being illogical, being hateful, being nasty, being spiteful, being stupid, being evil, and being silly.

2) Nobody should be permitted to point out the same about atheists, even though the worst mass murders and most disastrous social experiments in modern times have frequently been presided over by atheists.

[Modem Butterfly]

16. Translation: "I know you are but what am I?"

Sheesh, Stunster, what do atheists have to do with it? Can't you defend your arguments on their own merits without having to drag someone else into them?

[onager]

17. The "atheistic regimes" BS is getting really tiresome

You're comparing apples to oranges, and you're smart enough to know that.

If I wanted to use an equally specious argument from the non-believers side, I might ask what it is about early religious training that encourages genocide. After all, Hitler was a devout altar boy and Stalin spent 5 years studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary.

As others have repeatedly pointed out: for a valid comparison to the religious massacres of history, you'd have to find a regime that slaughtered people purely in the name of atheism. As in, "Forsake your religion or we will kill you!"

That's certainly happened plenty of times when religiosos were trying to force conversion to another belief: the wars against the so-called Albigensian Heresy, the early spread of Islam, Spain's 70-year war against the Netherlands, the Thirty Years War, early Tudor England, etc. etc.

But I can't think of a single case where an atheistic state has arisen and massacred its citizens strictly because they wanted to remain religious.

In fact, the old Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of religion.

Just like ours does.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stunster]

21. Incredible

Millions of Christians and other religious believers have been persecuted, tortured, murdered, and died in prison camps, under Communist governments precisely because they were believers.

I am frankly astonished that anyone can be ignorant of that fact, or would deny it.

Median estimate of deaths attributable to the Spanish Inquisition at Matthew White's comprehensive site in the years 1478-1834:

MEDIAN: 8,800 under Torquemada.; 32,000 all told.

Source.

The Ottawa Citizen (20 Dec. 1998) citing Paul Marshall, Their Blood Cries Out: circa 400,000 Chinese Christians died as a result of being victimized by the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which lasted just a few years in the late 1960s. Total estimates of deaths from the Cultural Revolution range up to 7 million and above.

[onager]

28. Did you read your own cites?

Gee! Where did those incredibly low figures for deaths during the Inquisition come from?

Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801, estimated that 31,912 were executed, 1480-1808.

Hernando de Pulgar, secretary to Queen Isabella, estimated 2,000 burned before 1490.

An unnamed "Catholic historian" estimated 2,000 burned, 1480-1504, and 2,000 burned, 1504-1758.

Three Catholic authorities, one "unnamed."

They wouldn't try to, like, minimize the Church's responsibility for mass murder or anything, would they? Nah, of course not!

Maybe I should also believe Don Rumsfeld's estimates of how many Iraqi civilians s have been killed.

And I guess that next you'll be telling me Pizarro accidentally ran over a few Peruvians with his horses, and Cortez was welcomed by Mexicans scattering flowers.

[Stunster]

30. Get real

There were 12 estimates.

One was 350,000.

One was 250,000.

The other TEN ESTIMATES ranged from 2000 to 31,000.

But let's go with the highest figure, 350,000 if that's what you want.

That still pales in comparison with the number of Christians done to death by 20th century atheistic regimes, which, as the same site tells us, is in the TENS OF MILLIONS.

I mean, SHEEEEEEEEEESHHHH!

:eyes:

Atheists complaining about the Inquisition are like a Nazi pointing out that some murders have been committed by Jews.

[Az]

31. The point you keep missing

Is that the Communist regiemes killed believers in the name of Communism. Not in the name of atheism. Atheism had as much to do with their killing as the weather.

Meanwhile in the Dark Ages people really did kill in the name of god. They are still doing it. It is hard to find a day that goes by that someone does not kill another in the name of god.

Communist regiems pit their dogma against religious dogma. And like the highlander said there can only be one. Its the standard result of dogma vs dogma conflicts.

[Stunster]

33. The point you keep missing

is that your point is simply not true.

Religious believers were persecuted simply because they were religious believers under Communism. Loads and loads of them. Religious believers were targetted specifically because of their beliefs, and endured tremendous suffering.

And it's still happening in China and Vietnam, if you care to follow these things.

[Az]

35. I thought I said that

Here let me say it again. Communist regiemes persecute competing dogmas. They throw anyone that adheres to a competing belief system into jail. They execute believers.

The issue that is being pointed out to you is that they were not executed in the name of atheism. They were oppressed in the name of Communism. A world of difference. Its like claiming that Buddhists that kill Christians do so in the name of atheism. Buddhists happen to be atheistic but it is not their focus. Atheism is not the focus of Communism. Serving the state is the focus of Communism. Because Christians serve god they will not adhere to the demands of the state.

[aneerkoinos]

36. Hey Stunster

You are pretty intelligent and well read guy, but my problem is this (call me paranoid if you want, but I'm not going to forget the lessons of history):

Nothing even in your posts and what you stay silent about have succeeded convincing me that your brothers and sisters of the Roman Catholic Dogma, together with Evangelical fundies, would not jump the first opportunity, if one should arise, to start again seriously persecuting Gnostics, Gagans, New Agers, Wiccans, Satanists, Buddhists etc. Especially I get this feeling when I read the Catholic Encyclopedia and its macho virilistic bullshit about beating Gnostic and other heresies and effeminate Buddhism.

[kwassa]

23. what a nonsensical argument, and tedious, too

onager:
"But I can't think of a single case where an atheistic state has arisen and massacred its citizens strictly because they wanted to remain religious."

Where has an atheistic state existed, if a communist government didn't qualify?

[onager]

27. Here's what I mean

An example of a nation which proclaimed itself "atheist," strictly forbade religion, and passed the death penalty for anyone believing in a deity. Got one of those for me? I didn't think so.

BTW, here's Article 52 of the old Soviet Constitution:

“Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda.”

[arwalden]

29. You're Now Doing What's Already Been Done A Dozen Times This Week...

... by easily shooting down these spurious claims and absurd comparisons (and quite well too).

The thing is... it's as if each new thread is a "universe" of it's own, and each time these bullshit arguments are made, it's as though the author has NO RECOLLECTION of them ever having been soundly refuted. So... here we are again, the same cast of characters making the same tired old comparisons... and a rotating list of guest-stars to come through and expose the fallacy and to point out the difference between fact and fiction.

To them it's a game. -- Wheeeee! What fun, eh? :eyes:

[onager]

55. Hee! Thanks! Loads of fun! And look who was in China...

Ned Graham, son of that old con man Billy Graham, the closest thing the Protestants have to a Pope.

You'd think an Official Atheist Government would love to arrest a big fish like that, if only as an object lesson to other believers.

In 1998, Ned Graham announced...rather presumptuouosly, IMO, since he hails from a secular nation...that he was "God's Ambassador To China!" As usual, there was no response from God confirming this interesting diplomatic status.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/tc/8r4/8r4022.html

But then...WHOOPS! Only a year later, Christianity Today had this update:

Ned Graham's Woes Shake East Gates Ministries
Resignations follow allegations, divorce

by Tony Carnes, with additional reporting by Art Moore |

The majority of staff and board members of East Gates Ministries International, which supports Bible publishing in China, has resigned in the past year amid controversy involving Nelson "Ned" Graham, East Gates president and the youngest of evangelist Billy Graham's five children.

During a lengthy interview with Christianity Today, Ned Graham confirmed that he had abused alcohol and spent an "inappropriate amount of time" with two women on his staff. He denied that either of those relationships involved sexual contact...

Four months ago, a Washington State court completed a divorce between Graham and his wife after 19 years of marriage. In its November 6 issue, World magazine first reported the divorce action, in which Carol Graham alleged that her husband not only abused drugs and alcohol and had inappropriate relations with other women, but also that he engaged in domestic violence and used pornography. Graham denies the latter two charges. Early on, a local judge issued a restraining order against Graham, but the order has since expired.

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/1999/dec6/9te026.html

[Stunster]

34. This was observed

in the breach. It's massively well documented, and it's scarey to me that some people here are as ignorant of what happened to religious believers under Communism as they apparently seem to be.

'Scarey' as in 'Holocaust denial scarey'.

[Stunster]

37. Freedom of conscience in the USSR

A study made by a team of research specialists for the Judiciary Committee of the US House of Representatives and released late in 1964, reported: "The fate of the Catholic Church in the USSR and countries occupied by the Russians from 1917 to 1959 shows the following: (a) the number killed: 55 bishops; 12,800 priests and monks; 2.5 million Catholic believers; (b) Imprisoned or deported: 199 bishops; 32,000 priests and 10 million believers; (c) 15,700 priests were forced to abandon their priesthood and accept other jobs; and (d) 8,334 theological seminaries were dissolved; 1,600 monasteries were nationalized, 31,779 churches were closed, 400 newspapers were prohibited, and all Catholic organizations were dissolved."

[YankeyMCC]

38. still see nothing outlawing belief in god

religious institution does not equal god.

Religious people may have been persecuted but they were persecuted because they belonged to an organization the regime declared evil/outlaw. Yes this is criminal and their methods horrible.

But a person not belonging to the catholic church but professing a belief in god is no where in your statistics.

Not to mention this was done in the name of communism not atheism - there is no atheist dogma.

[kwassa]

39. Another poor argument

YankeyMCC:
"But a person not belonging to the catholic church but professing a belief in god is no where in your statistics."

Because no one collects statistics for this group of people. This does nothing to negate what happened to Catholics and other forms of organized religion.

"Not to mention this was done in the name of communism not atheism - there is no atheist dogma."

Sure there is, a lack of belief in God, the central dogma shared by all atheists.

[YankeyMCC]

42. Again missing the point

Who is negating what happened to catholics?

Apparently there is only selective reading going on because in the same post I said what was done to them was criminal and horrible.

The point is religion does not equal belief in god. These atrocities are committed for the purpose of gaining or keeping power for themselves and their organizations. Communists have that (an organization for which to gain and use power) Atheistsm does not.

Claiming disbelief in god is a dogma is just plain silly. There is a very thin thread to hand together a group of people. The disbelief in god is not what holds together communism and there is no common set of beliefs built around the lack of a god that holds atheists together.


Atheists share only a lack of belife in a god. Their moral codes and worldviews are as diverse from each other as any other group of human beings.



But one more time to try and make the point religion does NOT equal god.

[kwassa]

45. Your point is obvious, just incorrect

YankeyMCC
"Claiming disbelief in god is a dogma is just plain silly."

Sorry, it fits these definitions of dogma. Of course, the "atheists" here seem to like to make up their own definitions of words, so maybe that is the issue.

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

(the second two relate to your dogma)

2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

[YankeyMCC]

46. again ignoring the point

You say my point is obvious and I hope so because I said "The point is religion does not equal belief in god."

I don't know how much more obvious I can get. Yet you say nothing about that, "Incorrect" is not saying anything. As I've said before I was without religion before I was atheists so to say religion = belief in god, is clearly what is incorrect. Someone can belive in god without belonging to a religion and someone can belong to a religion and not believe in god.

Instead of addressing the point, you go on playing word games trying to make atheism a dogma.

And even there you ignore the point that just the lack of a belief is not enough to hold people together. Atheists are as diverse as humanity itself and they all have different values and worldviews. Atheism may have been used by some as a component to a set of beliefs but it there is no "Atheist Dogma".

Calling the lack of a belief a dogma is like saying the lack of belief in aliens is a dogma.

[kwassa]

47. If it walks like a dogma, and barks like a dogma, it's a dogma

It might be a very limited dogma, but it is a dogma, nonetheless.

A lack of belief is, in, and of itself, a belief. There is no way to wriggle out of that, no matter how many semantic games you'd like to play. It is the common unifying belief of atheists. Hence, their dogma.

Yankee:
"You say my point is obvious and I hope so because I said "The point is religion does not equal belief in god."'

To address this point specifically, I say, so what? What is the importance of this point in this discussion?

I agree with this point, by the way, but don't see any relevance.

[YankeyMCC]

50. It's not just the "lack"

It is the fact that it isn't substantial enough to bind people together.

The catholic religion would not be a religion if the only aspect of its dogma was "there is a god". There's a lot more to it than that.

And a common belief in the existence of god certainly hasn't held together all the different religions, not even sects within religions.

The relevance is that we were discussing atheist persecution of people who believe in god. Communists regimes who have persecuted the religion did so on the basis of the religious organization being a threat to their power not because the people believed in god.

[kwassa]

51. You still have a dogma

There is no requirement in the word "dogma" that it bind people together of any belief system. This is an idea that you are imposing on the word itself. So, you still have yourself a dogma.

YankeyMCC
"Communists regimes who have persecuted the religion did so on the basis of the religious organization being a threat to their power not because the people believed in god."

How do you know this? What is your proof? This I would be very interested in seeing.

And assumming that you can find such proof, of what importance is it in this argument?

As I pointed out in the Russian Orthodox post, Soviet university students were required to take a course in "Scientific Atheism".

[YankeyMCC]

54. The insanity continues

My proof? Read some communist manifestos, they talk about religion. Or just read the thread communism = atheism ? .

And again you can't address the point so you claim it as irrelevant. You again want to win "points" on the meaning of a word instead of addressing the context and substance of the argument.

Atheists are not evil just because they don't believe in god and neither are believers in god evil just because they believe in god.

You want to make excuses for the crimes of religious people that's your business I wont. Just like I haven't made excuses for secular or atheists who committed crimes. But I'm not foolish enough to blind myself to the reasons behind those crimes.

And you might want to take a look at what this thread was about.

[kwassa]

58. What substance is in your argument?

There isn't any, really, and I note again that you offered no proof of your contention.

And I have never at any point many excuses for the crimes of religious people. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth. The argument has been made that more people died from religious persecution than any other cause, which is of course, absurd.

As I said elsewhere, the Soviet government promoted atheism, and also persecuted different religious groups. Joseph Stalin also murdered at least 12 million of his own people, religious people among them.

You continue to ignore THAT point.

This thread is about anti-Catholic vitriol. Does it exist here on DU? Absolutely. Is this a tangent? Of course.

[YankeyMCC]

59. So 80 or so years

of communist regimes outstrips all the killing of the previous millenia during with all nations were religious states.

That sounds rather absurd to me.

And I haven't ignored the point that Stalin murdered people or even contended your point about his atheism. Talk about putting words in people's mouths. In fact I have addressed this specifically saying these acts were criminal and horrible. And there's been no similar statement from you on the crimes of religiously motivated people. And if you're not making excuses for them by deflecting the attention solely on the crimes of atheists (and by the way you keep mixing atheists and secular again trying to muddle the point) then I have no idea why you are even posting. Except again maybe it is just that you can't stand it that someone disagrees with you.

The substance of my point is that attacking religion is not the same as attacking a belief in god.

[kwassa]

61. Democide statistics

YankeyMCC:

"So 80 or so yearsof communist regimes outstrips all the killing of the previous millenia during with all nations were religious states.

That sounds rather absurd to me."

Not really. Modern technology has given us the ability to murder mass quantities of people much more easily.

My total were apparently much too low.



According to this site, 61,911,000 people were victims of democide during the years 1917-1987 in the Soviet Union. During the same period, in China 35,236,000 people were killed. Simply totalling those two would bring the death toll to close to 100 million. This chart brings the total to 106,267,000 for all Communist countries.

here is the author's definition of "democide"
"First, however, I should clarify the term democide. It means for governments what murder means for an individual under municipal law. It is the premeditated killing of a person in cold blood, or causing the death of a person through reckless and wanton disregard for their life. Thus, a government incarcerating people in a prison under such deadly conditions that they die in a few years is murder by the state--democide--as would parents letting a child die from malnutrition and exposure be murder. So would government forced labor that kills a person within months or a couple of years be murder. So would government created famines that then are ignored or knowingly aggravated by government action be murder of those who starve to death. And obviously, extrajudicial executions, death by torture, government massacres, and all genocidal killing be murder."

another quote:
"It should not be missed that the mid-value of the full 20th century democide is more than the total world population at the time of Christ; the actual democide from 1900 to 1987 is greater than the estimated world population at the time of Plato, Aristotle, and Confucius."

Back to your quote:
"And there's been no similar statement from you on the crimes of religiously motivated people."

Murder is murder, and none of it is justified.

"And if you're not making excuses for them by deflecting the attention solely on the crimes of atheists (and by the way you keep mixing atheists and secular again trying to muddle the point) then I have no idea why you are even posting. Except again maybe it is just that you can't stand it that someone disagrees with you."

I am posting because I disagree with your posts and think that your logic is very faulty, as I did in the John Brown thread. Does that answer your question?


"The substance of my point is that attacking religion is not the same as attacking a belief in god."

It usually is, though, because religion is ABOUT a belief in god.

another definition:

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

[YankeyMCC]

62. yes

"am posting because I disagree with your posts and think that your logic is very faulty, as I did in the John Brown thread. Does that answer your question?"

It does. You can't stand when someone (or me at least) disagrees with you. Other people here seem perfectly able to disagree without this nonsense, apparently not you.


:shrug: Not my problem.

[kwassa]

63. Au contraire

YankeeMCC:
"You can't stand when someone (or me at least) disagrees with you. Other people here seem perfectly able to disagree without this nonsense, apparently not you."

It isn't whether or not someone disagrees with me, that happens all the time. I also have debated with many different people over the years, most far more formidable than yourself.

I just think your reasoning is poor, and your knowledge very incomplete. This is why I have taken you on.

It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another to have an informed opinion, and I honestly do not see you as someone who is well-informed.

I think also that your writing is unclear and grammatically poor, with frequent misspellings, though you've seem to have put a little more effort into your recent posts. These flaws inhibit the quality of your posts, as well.

Clear enough?

[Stunster]

64. Statistical mass killing comparisons

There is a very large comprehensive website devoted to statistical research on mass killing (from war, tyranny, colonialism, etc):

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

If you start there, it will take you to many additional pages

* Recurring Sources
* Alphabetical Index of Wars and Oppressions
o A-J
o K-Z
* Grouped By Size:
1. The Big Four: World Wars 1 & 2, China and Russia.
2. The body count (probably) exceeds that of the American Civil War (620,000).
3. The body count is below that of the Civil War, but more than five years of murder in America (119,700).
4. Below 5 years of murder in America, but more than the American losses in Vietnam (58,135).
5. Below Vietnam, but greater than a typical recent year of murders in America (21,597).
6. Below that.
* Century Total
* 20th Century Battles
* The 19th Century
* Before the 19th Century
* FAQ

You will find a massive quantity of information on these pages. Ok, what does he conclude, in general?

Somewhere around 180 million people have been killed in one Twentieth Century atrocity or another -- a far larger total than for any other century in human history.

And what does he conclude specifically about religion?

Q: Is religion responsible for more more violent deaths than any other cause?

A: No, of course not -- unless you define religion so broadly as to be meaningless. Just take the four deadliest events of the 20th Century -- Two World Wars, Red China and the Soviet Union -- no religious motivation there, unless you consider every belief system to be a religion.

Q: So, what you're saying is that religion has never killed anyone.

A: Arrgh... You all-or-nothing people drive me crazy. There are many documented examples where members of one religion try to exterminate the members of another religion. Causation is always complex, but if the only difference between two warring groups is religion, then that certainly sounds like a religious conflict to me. Is it the number one cause of mass homicide in human history? No. Of the 22 worst episodes of mass killing, maybe four were primarily religious. Is that a lot? Well, it's more than the number of wars fought over soccer, or sex (The Trojan and Sabine Wars don't even make the list.), but less than the number fought over land, money, glory or prestige.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-faq.htm#religion

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Total

Pitirim Sorokin estimated that Europeans lost some 435,000 men on the battlefield between 900 and 1450 CE:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European

Sorokin, Pitirim, Social and Cultural Dynamics, vol.3 (1937, 1962)

* Any study of war deaths before the 20th Century has to begin with this book. Sorokin realized that in the absence of hard numbers, we could at least arrive at a rough order of magnitude for old wars by multiplying four variables:
o The average size of the armies involved. (e.g. 10,000)
o The intensity of the fighting as shown by whatever statistics on individual battles have been passed down to us. (e.g. an average of 10% casualties x our army of 10,000 = 1,000 losses)
o The number of active theaters of operation. (e.g. 2 fronts x our estimate of 1,000 lost per army = 2,000)
o The length of the war. (e.g. 4 years x our estimate of 2,000 lost per year = 8,000)
* Sure, it's maddeningly imprecise, but at least it gives us a frame of reference and an anchor which keeps our estimates from drifting too far off the mark. After all, it's reasonable to assume that small armies fighting a short war will kill fewer soldiers than large armies fighting a long war.
* NOTES:
o Sorokin calculates "losses" rather than deaths. Usually this means killed+wounded (which means that battle deaths alone would be 1/4 to 1/3 Sorokin's estimate), but sometimes (particularly in the edged-weapon wars of the ancient and medieval eras) it looks like he's only calculating deaths. My guess is that this derives from the fact that <1> in edged-weapon warfare (where you're face-to-face with the enemy and unable to stagger to safety), more wounds would lead to death, and <2> ancient records rarely bothered to count wounds. I would suggest that with modern wars, start with the 1/4 to 1/3 fraction, and as we go farther back in time, scale back to 1/2, and eventually, count all "losses" as deaths.
o Sorokin does not calculate civilian deaths nor military deaths by disease.
o Sorokin often sticks to his methodology, even when there are better statistics available. While this allows him to easily and directly compare all wars to each other (because all his estimates are based on the same criteria), it might not be a good idea to accept his estimates over others which are based directly on aggregate casualty data, such as we find for well-recorded modern wars.

[YankeyMCC]

66. So they didn't kill as much because they just didn't have the tools

LOL

[Stunster]

67. They didn't have the tools because they weren't as

"enlightened" as 20th century killers.

[YankeyMCC]

69. last word

[Stunster]

71. The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

Respected non-Catholic historian Edward Peters, in his work, Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87), states:

The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealtwith the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.

Ellen Rice comments:

The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, a 1994 BBC/A&E production . . . is a definite must-see for anyone who wishes to know how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition's archives. The special includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated.

In its brief sixty-minute presentation, The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition provides only an overview of the origins and debunking of the myths of torture and genocide. The documentary definitely succeeds in leaving the viewer hungry to know more. The long-held beliefs of the audience are sufficiently weakened by the testimony of experts and the expose of the making of the myth.

. . . In 1567 a fierce propaganda campaign began with the publication of a Protestant leaflet penned by a supposed Inquisition victim named Montanus. This character (Protestant of course) painted Spaniards as barbarians who ravished women and sodomized young boys. The propagandists soon created "hooded fiends" who tortured their victims in horrible devices like the knife-filled Iron Maiden (which never was used in Spain). The BBC/A&E special plainly states a reason for the war of words: the Protestants fought with words because they could not win on the battlefield.

The Inquisition had a secular character, although the crime was heresy. Inquisitors did not have to be clerics, but they did have to be lawyers. The investigation was rule-based and carefully kept in check. And most significantly, historians have declared fraudulent a supposed Inquisition document claiming the genocide of millions of heretics.

What is documented is that 3000 to 5000 people died during the Inquisition's 350 year history . . . As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.

. . . Discrediting the Black Legend brings up the sticky subject of revisionism. Re-investigating history is only invalid if it puts an agenda ahead of reality. The experts - once true believers in the Inquisition myth - were not out to do a feminist canonization of Isabella or claim that Tomas de Torquemada was a Marxist. Henry Kamen of the Higher Council for Scientific Research in Barcelona said on camera that researching the Inquisition's archives "demolished the previous image all of us (historians) had."

Even Henry Charles Lea, the first major American Inquisition historian and no fan of the Catholic Church, says of the calculations of victims:

There is no question that the number of these has been greatly exaggerated in popular belief, an exaggeration to which Llorente has largely contributed by his absurd method of computation....

(A History of the Inquisition of Spain, volume 4, 517)

More here: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ329.HTM

[YankeyMCC]

72. LOL

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist!

[Stunster]

73. I knew some folk wouldn't let pesky things

like FACTS get in the way of their deep-seated prejudices.

[YankeyMCC]

74. ROTFLMAO!

You just can't stop can you, Mr Kettle?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[YankeyMCC]

76. Boo!

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stunster]

78. And, indeed,

...hoo.

:shrug:

[Stunster]

57. Read Lenin

Atheism was central to his political philosophy. Time and time again he railed against any conception of socialism that was not built upon atheistic materialism. He did this before he came to power, and after he came to power. He attacked, and called for the physical destruction, not just of anti-socialists, but also of socialists who were not rigid atheistic materialists. The documentary evidence for this is overwhelming. He repeatedly contrasted his own conception of 'scientific' socialism with any other form on precisely this basis. He was ferociously opposed to any form of socialism that wasn't rooted in materialistic atheism.

"Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific Socialism." V. I. Lenin, INTRODCUTION TO RELIGION.

He was prepared to collaborate politically with non-Communists---but not with non-materialists! On that point, he was uncompromising....

Comrade Trotsky has already said everything necessary, and said it very well, about the general purposes of Pod Znamenem Marksizma in issue No. 1-2 of that journal. I should like to deal with certain questions that more closely define the content and programme of the work which its editors have set forth in the introductory statement in this issue.

This statement says that not all those gathered round the journal Pod Znamenem Marksizma are Communists but that they are all consistent materialists. I think that this alliance of Communists and non-Communists is absolutely essential and correctly defines the purposes of the journal....


At any rate, in Russia we still have — and shall undoubtedly have for a fairly long time to come — materialists from the non-communist camp, and it is our absolute duty to enlist all adherents of consistent and militant materialism in the joint work of combating philosophical reaction and the philosophical prejudices of so-called educated society.

It will be seen from the above that a journal that sets out to be a militant materialist organ must be primarily a militant organ, in the sense of unflinchingly exposing and indicting all modern “graduated flunkeys of clericalism”, irrespective of whether they act as representatives of official science or as free lances calling themselves “democratic Left or ideologically socialist” publicists.

In the second place, such a journal must be a militant atheist organ. We have departments, or at least state institutions, which are in charge of this work. But the work is being carried on with extreme apathy and very unsatisfactorily, and is apparently suffering from the general conditions of our truly Russian (even though Soviet) bureaucratic ways. It is therefore highly essential that in addition to the work of these state institutions, and in order to improve and infuse life into that work, a journal which sets out to propagandise militant materialism must carry on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight....

....It means that to shun an alliance with the representatives of the bourgeoisie of the eighteenth century, i.e., the period when it was revolutionary, would be to betray Marxism and materialism; for an “alliance” with the Drewses, in one form or another and in one degree or another., is essential for our struggle against the predominating religious obscurantists.....

....In addition to the alliance with consistent materialists who do not belong to the Communist Party, of no less and perhaps oven of more importance for the work which militant materialism should perform is an alliance with those modern natural scientists who incline towards materialism and are not afraid to defend and preach it as against the modish philosophical wanderings into idealism and scepticism which are prevalent in so-called educated society.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm
March 12, 1922

See also section I of this piece.

Soviet Communist E. Yaroslavksy, in RELIGION IN THE USSR, wrote:
"The program of the Communist International also clearly states that Communists fight against religion…"

See also "Theomachy of Leninism" here.

In the "Great Purge" of 1937-38, 50% of Russian Orthodox priests were shot. Many more died in slave labor camps. In Cambodia, under Pol Pot, almost 50% of all Roman Catholics were killed.

An excellent book to read on what it was actually like for believers, is WITH GOD IN RUSSIA, by American Jesuit priest Fr Walter Cizek, SJ, which recounts his ministry there and his subsequent imprisonment. Solzhenitsyn's THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO is of course a classic work and touches on atheism as a motive for the repression. But Michael Bourdeaux's work with the Keston Institute in England was also key to understanding the persecution of religion in the USSR in the post-Stalin period as well.
http://www.starlightsite.co.uk/keston/lectures/sound/conference.htm

I guess if you can't see the connection between the militant atheism preached by Lenin, between his orders to kill clergy specifically as early as 1919, and the subsequent colossal savagery directed specifically against religious believers throughout the Communist bloc, from China to Cuba to Cambodia to Czechoslovakia, then I doubt I can be of any more help.

[DemBones DemBones]

82. Atheism IS a dogma. Check this out:

Main Entry: dog·ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta /-m&-t&/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church


Atheists are quite authoritative about their dogma that there is no God. I would say that most atheists also have "a code of such tenets" (definition 1 b) related to the central tenet that there is no God.

Just because atheists don't have dogma corresponding to definition 2 doesn't mean atheists are without any dogma.

Agnostics have dogma, too. I doubt there is a human being of normal intelligence who has no dogma.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. How is atheism 'established'? How is it 'authoritative'?

The only country in which it was established was Albania, and that's stopped now. What is the authority that hands out the opinion on atheism?

We individuals are not authorities. "Authoritative" does not mean "firmly held".

[immoderate]

60. A lack of belief is a dogma?

Is a lack of belief in leprechauns or Santa Claus a dogma? Is a lack of belief in nonsense a dogma? Where's you get the definition you use.

--IMM

[kwassa]

65. A lack of belief is a belief in and of itself.

"Is a lack of belief in leprechauns or Santa Claus a dogma?"

A lack of belief in this circumstance would be to believe that there is no leprechauns or Santa Claus. This belief would not be a dogma because it would not touch on a belief about God or religion.

[immoderate]

70. If I had never heard of god, would that be a dogma too?

I have never heard any definition of god that makes sense to me. Is that dogma? Did you look up dogma? If someone is naked does that make him a nudist?

Why do religionists have to ascribe some equivalency to atheism? Is unemployed a job?

On edit: A dogma has to be given to you. People believe in god because they were told to. I was never told to not believe; that;s something I figured out by myself. How can something like that be a dogma. Again, look it up.

--IMM

[kwassa]

41. Oppression of the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest faith group

highlighting one quote:
"Until Perestroika, all Soviet university students were required to take courses in "Scientific Atheism"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church

A longer quote from the same article:

During most of the 20th century, the Russian Orthodox Church had to coexist with deeply atheist government of Soviet Union. Although freedom of religious expression was formally declared by one of the first decrees of revolutionary government in January 1918, both the Church and its followers were deeply disadvantaged and sometimes persecuted. Prior to the Russian Revolution, there were some 54,000 functioning parishes and over 150 bishops. During the 1920-30s, most churches were razed or converted into secular buildings; over 50 thousand priests were either executed or sent to labor camps ( many of these suffered as part of the Great Purge of 1936-37 ). By 1939, there were less than 100 functioning parishes and only four bishops. After the World War II, the religious persecution in Soviet Union gradually became less pronounced. Years 1944-45 saw the reopening of several seminaries that were closed in 1918. Despite that, public expression of religious beliefs - christian or otherwise - was generally frowned upon; known churchgoers would be unlikely to become members of the Communist Party, which, in turn, severely limited their career opportunities. Until Perestroika, all Soviet university students were required to take courses in "Scientific Atheism". Finally, well into 1970-80's many priests of Russian Orthodox Church, as well as other churches in Soviet Union, were secretly employed by KGB.

[kwassa]

40. Like I said, a nonsensical argument, there never has been an "atheist"

nation as you narrowly define it.

Secular nations that oppressed religious practices have been responsible for the greatest death tolls in human history, including Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China. That is historical fact.

And by the way, what the Soviet Constitution says is completely meaningless, because there was no protection for any constitutional rights. Your quoting this Constitution seems to indicated to me how weak your arguments really are.

[YankeyMCC]

43. Wait a minute

NAZI's = atheists now?

:wtf:

[kwassa]

48. Did I call Nazis atheists? You need to read more carefully

[YankeyMCC]

49. No...

You used the word secular all of a sudden when we were talking about atheists.

There is a big difference. America is a secular nation not atheist.

So I assumed it was sloppy writing and you were equating the two terms.

But if not then your entire post is irrelavent.

[kwassa]

52. Secular nations murdered far more than all religious wars in total

That is the relevance.

Any claim about the moral high ground of atheists can only be supposition and fantasy, since by the narrow definition here, there has never been an atheist nation.

To me, the Soviets were athiests, creating their own state religion, and the Nazis were in the process of doing the same thing, though they never entirely reached that point. Both persecuted their citizens for their religious affiliation.

[YankeyMCC]

53. This is getting silly

It was You who claimed irrelavence not I.

And where did I say anything about "moral highground"?.

Religous people have killed and persecuted their fair share of other religous people and atheists.

Claiming that the fact that secular people have also killed excuses the crims of religous people is silly.

[kwassa]

56. I never claimed such an excuse.

Stick to what I actually say.

[YankeyMCC]

25. Your definition of apeshit

apparently is someone simply disagreeing with you.

You seem to want to make excuses for the millions of people persecuted for religious reasons by saying people without a belief in god do this too.

Ok so we're all human and humans will find excuses to kill each other. Usually has to do with getting and keeping power. Though most of recorded history religious institutions have held the dominant power on Earth.

Right now religious extremists are in power in our nation.

Whining about atheists who rail at the failures and crimes of organized religion sounds an awful lot like white people whining about black people who "rant" about the persecution of people of color by pointing out that black people have killed white people too.

It's disingenuous and divisive and does nothing to address the problems or help find a way to move forward.

[Az]

19. So how would you go about changing things?

Do you think your rant is going to be effective? Do you think throwing your anger at those you believe demonize you is going to make them change their mind?

If you believe there are positive aspects to your beliefs then why not represent them to those that are critics. Why give them grist to grind further? I am confused as to what you hope to accomplish with this post. You certainly will gain points with those that already agree with you but your detracters and critics will simply see this as an attack on them and throw up their shields and defenses.

[kwassa]

44. Positive aspects of Catholicism: Charity work, via Catholic Charities

I used to work for Catholic Charities, and I am not Catholic, by the way. I have incredible respect for the massive amount of charitible work that they do. I would point out that while most liberals talk about helping the poor, Catholic Charities actually does the work.

from a FAQ

http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/about/faqs.cfm


The Catholic Charities network is made up of numerous independent, local Catholic Charities agencies and institutions across the nation. Their community-based programs and services provide help and create hope in need each year, regardless of religious, social, or economic backgrounds.

In 2000, Catholic Charities agencies touched the lives of more than nine million people through services such as adoptions, emergency food and shelter, day care, and refugee resettlement.

Overall, Catholic Charities agencies have about 51,000 paid staff (51,004) and more than 168,000 (168,548) volunteers-nearly four times as many as paid staff. Another 7,335 individuals serve as volunteer members of local boards.

The collective income for Catholic Charities agencies is $2.69 billion, with expenditures of $2.58 billion.

(jump)

n 2000, about 67 percent of funding for Catholic Charities agencies programs comes from state, local, and federal government grants and contracts to provide services such as day care or welfare-to-work programs. Another 14 percent of Catholic Charities funding comes from private support-the church, donors, United Way, and CFC funds. In addition, program fees (10%), investment income (6%), and in-kind income (3%) support Catholic Charities agency programs.

(jump)

Catholic Charities agencies have seen a marked increase over time in the need for emergency food and shelter. Two decades ago, one out of four people who came to Catholic Charities needed emergency food and shelter. But starting in 1986, the number of people receiving the basics of food and shelter exceeded the number of recipients of social services. Today, more than half of the people helped by Catholic Charities need emergency services.

[DemBones DemBones]

85. I suppose Stunster hopes that the rational atheists, and any rational

posters at all, for that matter, will read his post carefully and think about all the points he made.

He points out that some atheists in positions of power have done evil things, just as some Catholics in positions of power have done evil things. I would add that Protestants in positions of power have done evil things, Jews in positions of power have done evil things, Muslims in positions of power have done evil things, Buddhists in positions of power have done evil things, etc.

The bottom line is that people in positions of power may do evil things. We might also agree that power corrupts.

Realize that and you should be able to conclude that criticizing a group of people because they have had leaders corrupted by power is a foolish waste of time.

Stunster DID talk about positive aspects of Catholicism. Interesting that you didn't notice that, Az. Perhaps you don't like reading about the evil done by atheists in power? If it bothers you at all, perhaps you can understand how we Catholics feel about the constant attacks on Catholicism, the insistence on defining Catholicism using narrow stereotypes, the never-ending references to the Inquisition and pedophilia in the priesthood as if they defined Catholicism instead of showing the weakness, the sin, of human beings.

[Dookus]

22. Are you really surprised

that among liberals, you find condemnation of one of the most powerful conservative organizations in the world?


I have valid reasons for hating the Church's position on women, gays, birth control, condoms, as well as its bloody and violent history. It retarded mankind's progress for two millennia and continues to do so today.

I won't be quiet about it so as to avoid hurting your feelings.

[bloom]

26. The power of the pope

bothers me. And there are other things.

But there are things l like about Catholics as well. Nuns, for instance. Esp. all those kick-ass nuns that go into South America and are seriously fighting for human rights.

I also like Gregorian Chants.

There was a thread in GD today about a Jewish student who was being harassed. Someone posted how when she was in school that as a Catholic, she and a Jewish student were friends because they were outcasts from everybody else.

Actually, I could see atheists being outcasts, also, if people knew they were atheists (a lot of people just don't bother to mention it.)

I thought our country was getting past that - and I think it's one of the travesties of our time that we are not.

[YankeyMCC]

68. I don't know about DU...

As I said I haven't seen this alleged vitriol against catholics. But I can say what my experience has been in the real world.

I have lived both sides of the coin. I've been involved in the church, have had times in my life where I believed in god and even the divinity of Jesus. I'm now an atheist.

I've lived in the bible belt, the deep south and in deep blue state territory (which is also deep catholic territory).

I know which lifestyle was the easiest in terms of the biases and prejudices I faced. And it isn't being an atheist.

And if there are people out there persecuting catholics it certainly doesn't improve things to show that you are as adept as them at generalization and prejudice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Maybe it's time for a revolution in the Catholic Church?

"There's so much more to the Catholic Church than the 0.01% at the top. Nobody listens to them anyway, except the anti-Catholic crowd."

Then maybe Catholics should be more vocal in their opposition to the heirarchy. They should be saying, publicly, that the official stance on contraception is wrong, etc., and that they don't believe one man can declare himself infallible. There's so little open criticism of the mistakes of the old farts at the top that it looks to us outsiders that Catholics actually agree with them.

[arwalden]

80. I Look Forward To Reading Any Catholic Responses To Your Post...

... unless they secretly agree with the Vatican and unless they actually consent... then it will be difficult for anyone to make a reasonable argument against what you've just said.


edit: reworded for clarity

[DemBones DemBones]

81. I thought everyone was aware that

the Catholic Church is not a democracy.

We are not a focus group, either. We don't get to redefine dogma for ourselves. Our dogma comes to us from the Bible and the traditions of the early Church.

Catholics do have the option to participate in governing our own parishes but we have no say in selecting our own bishop, much less other bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. We are governed by a well-defined hierarchy that takes care of all the decisions regarding dogma.

Some Catholics are quite vocal about their unhappiness with some Church teachings.
For example, many Catholics have decided for themselves that contraception is not sinful, some even believe abortion is not sinful. Others want women to be ordained or want priests to be able to marry. They are perfectly free to voice their views, though they should not claim to be representing the Catholic view. It's true, for example, that some Catholics think abortion is not sinful but not true to say that this is an acceptable Catholic view.

As for infallibility, this doctrine is widely misunderstood. For starters, it only applies when a pope speaks ex cathedra<'b>, which is very, very rarely done; as far as I know, it's only been done twice in 2000 years. Pope John Paul II has never invoked the doctrine of infallibility.

[Dookus]

83. Yes

you're correct on the doctrine of infallibility.

Is the notion that the Church is not a democracy supposed to be a defense of it's reactionary positions?

My question remains why anybody who would join DU would also be a member of one of the most conservative organizations on Earth. I believe it is impossible for a true liberal to reconcile his/her positions with the Catholic Church.

[JerseygirlCT]

88. It's one of those situations, I think, where

the positions DO fit nicely, most of the time. The RC laity isn't nearly so lock-step conservative as you'd believe. The church does do a great deal of charity. Social justice is crucial and central. Anti-death penalty. There's a reason that RCs have traditionally leaned Democratic.

The RCC just has this big, honking problem with things sexual. Beginning with those evil women, and extending to homosexuality, birth control, and yes, abortion. Married and female priests would likely go a long way toward ameliorating this problem, IMO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. So how many priests tell their parishioners openly to ignore the Pope

on the matter of contraception? I'm unaware of any teaching in the Bible or early church traditions that say you can't use a condom. So any priest or bishop should surely be free to say the men at the top of the church are wrong about that.

[JerseygirlCT]

89. The pastor of the parish I grew up in

may not have preached that exactly, but he spent a career in trouble with his bishop for being an outspoken maverick in just that way. I remember when the word came down that girls were no longer to serve on the altar. He ignored it.

He is a cool guy. Too bad that once he reached retirement age, the bishop forced him out. The parish was his life, his family. He wanted to stay; they wanted him. Sad.

They're there -- but it's getting very hard to be the outspoken one these days. The hierarchy, even in the US, has gotten increasingly conservative.