Originally Posted By wendebird >>I liked the videos enough to actually do some research on the The Zeitgeist Movement and the activist organization it spun from, The Venus Project.<< As I was reading this post, I was watching Good Morning America & they had an interview with Jared Laughner's high school friend. This friend claimed the Zeitgeist movie in 2007 had a profound impact on his mindset & how he viewed the world he lived in. I also had to chuckle at the post about the birds & it being God's vengence on the Don't Ask Don't Tell. As soon as I heard about the birds, I jumped to the conclusion it had something to do with the Corexit they used in the BP oil spill.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 To be fair K2M, I'm not wholly convinced that there isn't some small amount of culpability that we all share as members of a group when members of that group misbehave. We all participate in the societies that have lead to some of these problems - shouldn't we share some of the blame? As an American, am I completely free from blame for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just because I don't personally fight in them? My tax dollars go to fund those wars, right? As a Catholic, am I not partially responsible for some of the molestation that has occurred, and probably still occurs, because I have donated and participated in those churches? Though I personally haven't done anything wrong, I still contributed to creating the environment that allowed those events to occur. Don't I then have a moral responsibility to try and keep those things from happening again as a member of that group? There's a difference between saying "All Muslims are responsible for 9/11" and saying that "All rationale Muslims should take a stand against extreme members in their groups", right?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance You know I've always believed in Jesus being real even when I turned atheist, but I'm not at al convnced anymore that even Jesus was real. Baseed on the video , it sounds like he was more like a symbolic representation of the sun, in a long line of past ''son's of god'' that were also symbolic for the sun. After watching those videos a while back it hit me! Jesus is the sun! lol
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Good questions, plpeters. In terms of Catholics, I don't think the average rank and file church member is "supporting" pedophilia by donating money to the church. Surely the little old lady playing bingo Thursday nights is not knowingly contributing money so that a priest can molest children. I just can't point the blame at church goers when priests and higher ups violate the intended charitable goals of the church. >>I still contributed to creating the environment that allowed those events to occur<< I don't think that's so. Unless you knew of such things and looked the other way for some reason, I can separate the wrongdoer from people who are active in the church. >>There's a difference between saying "All Muslims are responsible for 9/11" and saying that "All rationale Muslims should take a stand against extreme members in their groups", right?<< Absolutely. But I honestly don't know what Muslims could do (and again, I'm talking the average American Muslim here) short of forever walking around carrying a picket sign denouncing Osama bin Laden and terrorism that would allow some people to not view Muslims with suspicion. See the hysteria over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (that isn't a mosque and isn't at Ground Zero). >>As an American, am I completely free from blame for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just because I don't personally fight in them? My tax dollars go to fund those wars, right?<< This is stickier. I voted for George Bush the first time around, so I feel much more responsible about that than someone who voted for Gore should feel about it. Yes, we're all Americans, but it's more my fault than it is Gadzuux's fault. But yes, both of our tax payments do support the war and short of going to jail by refusing to pay taxes, there's no way to stop that or be sure our dollars aren't supporting things we don't believe in along the way. >>We all participate in the societies that have lead to some of these problems - shouldn't we share some of the blame?<< I think we have to share what is an appropriate amount. But when someone like O'Reilly starts talking nonsense about how science can't possibly explain how the tides work and it's a mystery from God, then as a Christian it is important to speak up. If I'm going to just be lumped in with dummies no matter what I say anyway, then what would be the point of me or anyone attempting to speak up?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 Great responses, K2M - you always give me something to think about! <<I just can't point the blame at church goers when priests and higher ups violate the intended charitable goals of the church.>> Perhaps "blame" is to strong a word in this case, but I do think that I share some of the fault for allowing this environment to continue. Not only things like child molestation, but in the other areas that I think the church does harm, such as gay rights, sex education, etc. As a gay man, I am very torn about having anything to do with the Catholic Church, especially when many members of it's upper echelons are working so hard against other members of "my group". Am I helping to continue this "hate" by going to mass? <<But I honestly don't know what Muslims could do>> <<both of our tax payments do support the war and short of going to jail by refusing to pay taxes, there's no way to stop that or be sure our dollars aren't supporting things we don't believe in along the way.>> This is where I struggle too - what can an "ordinary" person do to counter those that would use your group as a platform for evil acts? Do we have a responsibility to speak out, or perform acts that could be considered illegal, to protest some of these things? I honestly don't have a good answer to this question, but I know that I do feel some guilt for not "acting out" more in protest to some of these things.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>In terms of Catholics, I don't think the average rank and file church member is "supporting" pedophilia by donating money to the church. Surely the little old lady playing bingo Thursday nights is not knowingly contributing money so that a priest can molest children. I just can't point the blame at church goers when priests and higher ups violate the intended charitable goals of the church.<< I don't disagree with much of what you said, but this one I sure do. If we're in a time machine and talking about a little old lady playing bingo in the 70s, sure. But today, with everything we know about how widespread the abuse was, about how high up the cover-up went, about how church funds were used to protect their own rear-end instead of help the victims or stop the abusers? I really do get the emotional and spiritual attachment people have to their churches. Honestly. And I get that churches aren't perfect. But really, the "Don't molest children" bar is too high?!? I mean, if a member of a church can't even get outraged about that, what on earth is left? What in their god's name will convince people that maybe, just maybe, there's a better way to worship and a better way to serve your fellow man? f you want respect for religion, you need to pick another battle, because it does not bode well for the religious when there's such a blatant example of turning a blind-eye to such evil, sickening behavior. Defending people because they believe in Noah's Ark? Okay.... Defending them because they continue to donate and participate in a church that, for all effective purposes, sanctioned child molestation? You lose me there.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I mean, if a member of a church can't even get outraged about that, what on earth is left?<< You're assuming that the member isn't outraged though. I would think that millions of people were quite outraged and saddened by it. One response for a member of the church is to say to hell with the Catholic church, it's hopelessly corrupt, they'll never get another dime of my money (that's my approach). Another is to attempt (as much as any lone member can) from within, to demand some accountability and change. I have had conversations with other Catholics about that and I don't know which way is better in the long run. I just can't connect or blame the average parisioner, who believes they are supporting charitable works provided by the church, participating in various things like soup kitchens and social services. Here's another sort of example: eating meat. I like to eat meat. But I don't like to see animals suffer and I have no interest in hunting. Am I culpable if some cattle ranch is torturing their animals? Nothing is easy or black and white with these questions. I mean, how far do we take culpability? If you watch your neighbor's house while they are away so it doesn't get robbed, and your neighbor is Catholic, are you helping to in effect support the Catholic church because you are allowing him to still have funds available to donate to the church?
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///It was abundently clear she was talking about Christians and teh bible. You are not of the christian faith so why did you take offense/// Could it be that SPP is not 'gay' but yet takes offense to those who give a hard time to those who are attracted to their same gender???? .....just a guess
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "As I was reading this post, I was watching Good Morning America & they had an interview with Jared Laughner's high school friend. This friend claimed the Zeitgeist movie in 2007 had a profound impact on his mindset & how he viewed the world he lived in." Frankly I'm not surprised.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Gadzuux made a comment earlier about Christians "aligning themselves" with extremist Christians simply by the fact that they share a belief in some areas. I flat reject that. << My earlier statements were within the context of the more fervent religious types - of any faith - who deny science and facts and logic and reason in favor of the teachings of their faith, which all too often run directly counter to facts and science. In my opinion, this creates real and measurable harm to our society. It fosters ignorance and fear and division. Yet there's no accountability for these damages, largely because the same people who facilitate this kind of denial of reality don't actually subscribe to it themselves. Dabob also took exception, saying his church was different, and not contributory to the excesses we often see associated with more hard right churches. And I'm sure he's right about that. Of course people have the full right to associate with whatever group they feel best reflects their values and beliefs. But the other side of that is exactly what I was grousing about in my earlier post - in an indirect way, they're helping to further the agendas of people and churches that hold views and policies directly opposite of their own. They both profess to serve the same function - to exalt in the glory of god, to use their collective strength to perform good works, and to assure themselves of a better afterlife in the great beyond. Yet each group ends up working at cross purposes to the other, and that dichotomy just continues on for generations with no accountability. The result is text books in school that reflect improbable religious dogma, acceptance of myths like noah's ark, and flat out denial of facts concerning earth science, evolution, and basic physics. All of this is legitimized by the imprimatur of it being "christian". It even gets supported with tax dollars. As much as this state of affairs is galling to me, it's also annoying that these self identified christians seek to duck responsibility for that.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I just can't connect or blame the average parisioner, who believes they are supporting charitable works provided by the church, participating in various things like soup kitchens and social services." Perhaps these individual’s beliefs are so entrenched in their being that it would be almost impossible them to distinguish who they are from their faith. They are well aware that corruption in the Catholic Church is nothing new, still they find comfort in their belief and it frightens and upsets them to challenge their religious dogma. Despite the wonderful work the folks that you describe are doing, their inability to disassociate themselves from a corrupt entity seems incredibly counterintuitive to me.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Nothing is easy or black and white with these questions. I mean, how far do we take culpability?<< I completely agree, and I'm not arguing for a black and white situation. But the reverse question is, "What exactly WOULD be too much for a member of a church?" At what point do people finally say, "Wow, okay, if God's church on earth is capable of this, then maybe it's not God's church after all and maybe it's time for me to find another way to worship." When I talk about outrage, I mean outrage that translates into action. Outrage is easy. Anyone can get outraged. But does it translate into something meaningful, beyond lip service. The attitude of otherwise decent Catholics who have watched the highest levels of their church, including the Pope, cover-up child sexual abuse (at the hands of the most trusted authority figures they have) seems to be "It's awful, but what can I do?" as if their hands are tied and they have no recourse whatsoever. Of course they have recourse. They could join a church that - and I know this is asking an awful lot - doesn't rape children or then cover it up when someone does rape a child. No one is saying, "Don't believe in God." No one is saying, "Fire bomb your church." There does come a time when there's enough information available that, yes, someone does become culpable. In your meat eating example, if you ate at a restaurant where you later learned that they were torturing animals or purchased meat from companies that tortured animals, and then you said, "Oh well, what can I do," and continued to eat there instead of choosing another restaurant or grocery store, then yes, you would be culpable because you have a choice. And the fact that Catholics feel like they have no choice because another church wouldn't cut it because it isn't true enough, and they have to stick with the one that is a-okay with raping children - that's a pretty strong indictment of the failures of religious people to think critically and trust their own brains and their own judgment instead of that of authority figures.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>these self identified christians<< Who are you talking about? I have read the post a couple of times and there's a lot of "thems" and theys" and I'm not 100% sure who exactly you mean with that statement. Any self identified Christian, or some specific type of Christian?
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///SPP... you're close to DAR territory in my opinion./// I don't think so
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There does come a time when there's enough information available that, yes, someone does become culpable.<< I agree. But I'm also trying to look at it from the vantage point of someone who has, for perhaps 50 years, faithfully gone to mass every week, done everything they've been told to do by the church and believe strongly in the core values of the church. Suddenly, they learn that for the past 30 years, that the church itself has not held true to those teachings and covered up these crimes. It is no small thing to walk away from a church, as I know you know personally. Some people can't do it, just do not have the strength to do it. For others, they still think the values matter in spite of the fact that "management" ignored and flaunted those values. Most churches are like families for the most religious people. People in churches are encouraged to work out differences rather than divorce, to continue to pray for a sinner's salvation and not give up on them when they do terrible things. So it gets quite complicated and conflicted for someone with deep faith to know what is the right course of action. I finally bailed. Others have chosen to hang in there and look for signs of change. I can't fault them for that, so long as the change is real.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I mean, churches use the image of fathers, mothers, children, families all the time in describing the relationship between the members of the church and the ministers, priests, bishops, elders, etc. Which makes it emotionally upsetting on multiple levels. It's very easy to walk away from a restaurant for another one. It's much harder to do so when you've been raised in a particular church. And I wasn't particularly strong in deciding catholicism wasn't for me. It hadn't "spoken" to me in quite some time, but since it was the most familiar to me, I had an allegiance there and a better understanding of the various traditions, ceremonies, etc. In some ways, the revelations of abuse gave me an easy out, if that makes sense.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "But I'm also trying to look at it from the vantage point of someone who has, for perhaps 50 years, faithfully gone to mass every week, done everything they've been told to do by the church and believe strongly in the core values of the church. Suddenly, they learn that for the past 30 years, that the church itself has not held true to those teachings and covered up these crimes." This isn't meant to be some judgment on the Catholic faithful in this discussion, but I'm wondering how you can be a faithful member of the Roman Catholic Church for 50 years and not be aware of some the scandalous atrocities committed by the Church through the ages.
Originally Posted By andyll Am I unique that I don't really have a view one way or the other? It seems that one would need to either: 1) Believe there is a God 2) Believe there is no God 3) Agnostic You would think agnositic would be the best fit but in reality I don't care if there is a god or not. I don't even think a ignostic agnostic or theological noncognitivism fit me because it is still a single viewpoint. On any given day I can identify with deism or athism or ignostism but it would be fleeting and doesn't really matter since it would not influence any decisions I make. Why then participate on a thread about religion if it has no meaning to me? Because religion has such an influence on society as a whole. A blind faith either way is unhealthy in my opinion. It's concerning to me that blind faith in a political party is becoming the same.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I mean, churches use the image of fathers, mothers, children, families all the time in describing the relationship between the members of the church and the ministers, priests, bishops, elders, etc. Which makes it emotionally upsetting on multiple levels.<< Let's switch then from the restaurant analogy, which I agree only takes us so far, to that of a parent or close loved one. If I found out my father was molesting children, and was arrested and sent to prison, I would visit him in jail. I understand people, and institutions, make mistakes - even grievous, sickening ones. But if my father got out, and continued to do it, and my mother helped cover it up and lie for him or even aided him, then it's time for me to say adieu. I'm not saying it would be easy, but at some point I have to pull myself out of that relationship. I have my own children I need to set an example for. I have to show the victims of my father's abuse that I stand with them. I have a moral obligation here; I can't just turn a blind eye and say "Well, he's my dad, I'm close to him, what can I do." I'm just astounded and overwhelmed at the magnitude of the crime and the length of the coverup in this particular case. I have friends who are Mormon who hated Prop 8. They spoke out - as much as they dared - in church against it. They did what they could to be examples to those around them. They're still Mormon and they still donate to the church. That I understand. But this...wow. It's a genuine question: Is there *anything* a church could do that would make it inexcusable for someone to be a member? I mean, is there anything that would go too far where we wouldn't have people defending those who stay? I'd really like to think there is, and I really think we found it long ago.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm wondering how you can be a faithful member of the Roman Catholic Church for 50 years and not be aware of some the scandalous atrocities<< I think in the same way you can be proud to be an American in spite of the atrocities committed by our forefathers. All of us tend to try to separate the wheat from the chaff in that way. Most of us think Jefferson was a brilliant man with great ideas, but he also owned slaves, which is reprehensible to civilized people. Many of the cases of child rape were localized, downplayed, hidden from the view of locals (and local authorities). So until fairly recently, it hasn't been clear exactly how high up the chain of command the conspiracy to hide these predators had really gone. Beyond that, the Crusades and such happened long ago, and are easier to separate from the church of the here and now, rightly or wrongly.
