Originally Posted By Dabob2 Dang, you 2oony! I thought "vision" was going to be #100, and my visions was going to be "believing and non-believing dalmatians getting along and barking in harmony" or something like that. Now I just hate all ya'll. Hmph.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yet among their most ardent parishoners, none of it matters.<< I don't think that's true, even among their most ardent parishoners. Other than perhaps some clergy trying to cover their own backsides in this scandal, the reaction has been one of universal disgust, anger, disappointment.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Apparently you've latched on to the 'delusional' comment, so let me clarify it a bit. First, let's go back to what I actually posted a week ago in #48 ... >> The bigger picture is that these people believe (to varying degrees) that they have a "personal" relationship with the almighty and that every event in their meager existence is ordained by god himself. This is borderline delusional and not much different from Elvis talking to them. << This provides some context. I'm not stating that all people of faith are delusional. I'm saying that people who believe that god himself is overseeing the entirety of their lives and thoughts and actions, and pass off every disappointment or setback as "god's will", and that they can change their circumstance just through the power of prayer, and sit around waiting for miracles because of their faith alone - well yeah - they would qualify as what I called "borderline delusional". Despite what some may think, I'm not trying to deliberately insult people over their faith. The author of the column I linked to tried the same stunt - alleging that Maher insulted him, his mother and even Martin Luther King. What K2M seems to be saying is that it would be more effective to speak sweetly to the devout. Except I don't have an agenda to change anybody's views - I really don't care what they think or believe. I'm only trying to convey what my thinking is on the subject. This way I don't have any motivation to dance around people's delicate sensibilities.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What K2M seems to be saying is that it would be more effective to speak sweetly to the devout.<< I didn't say anything about "talking sweetly" so that's mischaracterizing what I have been saying here. I'm talking about a basic level of manners here, that's all. Do it or don't do it, it's just my 2ยข. I don't want to name names, but you'll know who I mean. I'm thinking of a certain LPer here who is clearly very religious, and who has struggled through tough times. I have seen you, Gadzuux, leap to that person's defense when some folks new to the boards mock them or make belittling comments, and that's what I'm talking about. You don't agree with that person's religious views, and yet you won't tolerate anyone picking on them, either. And I admire that when it happens, and it's really what I am getting at (or trying to). So, perhaps we agree more on this, at least when the rubber hits the road, than this conversation illustrates. >>I'm not stating that all people of faith are delusional. I'm saying that people who believe that god himself is overseeing the entirety of their lives and thoughts and actions, and pass off every disappointment or setback as "god's will", and that they can change their circumstance just through the power of prayer, and sit around waiting for miracles because of their faith alone - well yeah - they would qualify as what I called "borderline delusional".<< Fair enough. But sometimes people pray simply for the strength to carry on through difficult times and deal with challenges rather than praying for God to actively intercede and change things.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I get that, and I'd say it was a recognition that not every poster is equally able to mount their own vigorous defense. Piling on would have been ugly and just sad. But does this mean that they don't qualify as the "D" word? It would be hard to make the case that it's not true - at least a little bit. So your example here supports both of our positions - these people can be charming and friendly, and still be crazy as a loon. And either way, they're still deserving of basic respect.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So your example here supports both of our positions - these people can be charming and friendly, and still be crazy as a loon. And either way, they're still deserving of basic respect.<< Agreed.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Yet among their most ardent parishoners, none of it matters.<< YMMV. I know plenty of folks who are devout and who are withholding at the collection plate because of what has happened.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I don't think that's true, even among their most ardent parishoners. Other than perhaps some clergy trying to cover their own backsides in this scandal, the reaction has been one of universal disgust, anger, disappointment.<< This is what I have observed as well.
Originally Posted By DAR I haven't given in quite sometime. Of course I'm on the once a month schedule.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And I'm saying that if logic and reason are truly on one's side, stick to that. Going around calling people delusional, when you know that only provokes and insults and hurts people, is juvenile.<< Not if you actually think they are delusional. Again, it's important to step back and look at the motivation of the Mahers, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. They're not just a bunch of jerks who say, "People believe stuff we don't like, and that's bad!" They could care less what people believe or how crazy it is. What has given rise to the new Atheist movement is the intrusion of religion into the public sphere in a negative way. Religion often is dangerous because it's often taken literally, leading to everything from female castration, to Prop 8, to discrimination. If you want Dawkins, et al to treat religion with respect, then make it respectable. It's galling to hear the constant refrain of, "Well there's lots of good religious people too!" as if to say child rape, murder, and discrimination are just part of the price we pay, the collateral damage if you will, of having good religious people and good works. If, as we're frequently told, the bad is such a minority, it shouldn't be too tough for the majority of good people to do something about it. After all, most Catholics are good people, right? Certainly most can't approve of the abuse and the cover up? So why does it continue? Why, after years of knowing about it, are we still talking about it? Yes, there is complicity in participation. Enough is enough. The inability of an organization to stop covering up child molestation is a giant failing, and they and their members deserve all the criticism and scorn that is heaped upon them.
Originally Posted By ecdc Here's a question: If you support the extradition and eventual conviction of Roman Polanski, do you support the arrest and extradition of the Pope? If not, why not?
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 "If you support the extradition and eventual conviction of Roman Polanski, do you support the arrest and extradition of the Pope? If not, why not?" I actually would support that but since Vatican City is a city state with it's own government the Pope is a head of state and you get into the same international law issues you would have in trying to extradite a president. There are Catholics that are very against what is going on and who are trying to get changes made. My Grandfather is devoutly Catholic and is absolutely appalled by the abuses taking place. He joined with members of several of the churches in our area and have been enlisting the help of some of their priests to convince the bishops and other church leaders in the country to not only crack down on anyone that was involved in abuse (both the abusers and anyone who knew about it and did not stop it or tried to protect the abusers) but also in trying to get more protections in place for children in Catholic schools or who have a lot of contact with priests to try to make sure that abuse does not happen in the first place. My problem with Bill Mahr is not that he is atheist or that he vocally opposes religion. My problem is that he routinely makes fun of or talks down to people who are religious. I would have a similar problem with a religious person speaking that way about atheists. It shouldn't matter what someone believes...you should treat people with respect even if you do not believe what they do.
Originally Posted By DAR My problem with Bill Mahr is not that he is atheist or that he vocally opposes religion. My problem is that he routinely makes fun of or talks down to people who are religious. I would have a similar problem with a religious person speaking that way about atheists. It shouldn't matter what someone believes...you should treat people with respect even if you do not believe what they do.>> And BINGO was his NAME-O
Originally Posted By ecdc >>My problem with Bill Mahr is not that he is atheist or that he vocally opposes religion. My problem is that he routinely makes fun of or talks down to people who are religious. I would have a similar problem with a religious person speaking that way about atheists. It shouldn't matter what someone believes...you should treat people with respect even if you do not believe what they do.<< First, Bill Maher is a comedian. Are we really saying religion should be exempt from comedy? Religulous was a funny, funny movie. So it's okay to laugh at the bad singers on American Idol, the people mocked by Borat, but not religion? Second, your comments ignore my whole point. Maher could care less what people believe. His issue is with what follows as a result of that belief. Until religious believers stop acting like the crazies are only a tiny minority and that the good religion does somehow absolved the bad, they don't really have a leg to stand on.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yes, there is complicity in participation.<< So then, as Americans, we are all responsible for whatever happens under any presidential administration. Even if one didn't vote for George Bush and opposed his policies, by continuing to "participate" in the American economy, we're all guilty as charged. I do understand what you're saying. But what I don't understand is why criticism and scorn should be heaped on people who have very little control of the church structure (except, perhaps, by witholding funds until there is a shake-up at the top). It's like getting mad at hot tub manufacturers because Roman Polanski committed his crimes in one. I never, ever, look at these crimes as just "collateral damage" and the price we pay for having churches do good works. And frankly, I know of no one, zero, nada, that feel that way. Again, everyone I have ever heard of is sickened by these things. >>What has given rise to the new Atheist movement is the intrusion of religion into the public sphere in a negative way. Religion often is dangerous because it's often taken literally, leading to everything from female castration, to Prop 8, to discrimination.<< Which I have absolutely no disagreement with. Separation of church and state, and all that. The problem is that they have so much contempt for church that they routinely ignore or gloss over good works and more to the point, they don't truly understand the importance of religion in a majority of people around the world. So it's fine to say they don't care what people believe, but I think the truth is they care a whole lot about what people believe. They think religion is delusion and fairy tales, and they have precious little, if any, respect for anyone who has religious faith. THAT'S what I have a problem with.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>stop acting like the crazies are only a tiny minority<< Do you believe they are a majority?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>First, Bill Maher is a comedian.<< He is, as is Jon Stewart. But still, they do have opinions and commentary within the framework of that comedy. They can't have it both ways -- say they are "just a comedian" in one breath and then make stinging political commentary in the next. This is the new cop out: When Glenn Beck or Lumpball get called on some outrageous statement, they retreat into "well, I'm just an entertainer" so they don't have to answer for it. I have more respect for Maher and Stewart and think they're better than that -- they are comedians, yes, but they also have intelligent points to add to (and steer) the public debate.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Until religious believers stop acting like the crazies are only a tiny minority and that the good religion does somehow absolved the bad, they don't really have a leg to stand on.>> They are a tiny minority, it's just that they're louder than those of us in the majority.
