Originally Posted By ecdc >>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.<< Yes, and we've used this analogy before. If you sit around and whine and complain about Bush, and then don't work for change, yes, you are complicit. And like I said before, even if I didn't vote for Bush and didn't support him, I get why Europeans or others might criticize Americans in general for it, and I'm not going to take it personally. >>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.<< That's not the case at all. Catholics choose to maintain their membership in an organization that has systematically covered-up child sexual abuse. It's really just that simple. Saying, "Oh well, it's a big church, what am I gonna do," doesn't cut it. It's an attempt to absolve oneself of responsibility. To go back to the American analogy, leaving one's country is extremely difficult from a practical standpoint. Unless you want to learn another language, you're very limited in where you can go, it's very costly, takes years to adapt, etc., etc. Leaving your church doesn't take any of that. I'm not saying it's not painful or difficult, but my hell, have the courage of your convictions. Do you think child abuse is wrong? Then what on earth are you doing remaining a member of an organization whose leadership, from the top down, systematically covered it up? Let's be very clear: We're not talking about an isolated case where a few people made a bad decision. Every time, without fail, when a Catholic leader was faced with the choice of moving a priest or reporting to the authorities, they moved the priest and notified the Vatican. They ignored the victims to cover their own church's ass. Every. Single. Time. That's not an aberration; that's a policy. So it feels an awful lot like people want to hold Maher to a very specific standard, while simultaneously muddying the waters for churches. "Oh, gee, it's complicated. It's big. People are raised in them so it's hard to leave." >>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.<< Okay, so help me understand this then. Because it sure seems like the practical result of defending the Catholic church is "it's collateral damage" even if that's not the intent. The most common response to pointing out the ills of religion is, "But it does a lot of good!" How is that not saying, "You take the bad with the good." We know that good can and frequently is done sans religion. So we don't need religion to do good works, take care of people, etc. That's the whole point of Humanism, after all. So when someone says religion does good, it sounds an awful lot like an excuse to me. Just like you don't know anyone who says it's collateral damage, I don't know any atheist who says religion does no good. I know plenty who take exception to the portrayal that somehow good has to come through religion, and argue as I just did, that you can take away religion and still have good works. So from my perspective, the argument that religion does good seems to miss the point entirely.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They think religion is delusion and fairy tales, and they have precious little, if any, respect for anyone who has religious faith.<< So let's go down this path, because it's actually similar to what I've been arguing all along. Would you have respect for an adult who still believed in Santa Claus? Would you have respect for an adult who believed in faeries and unicorns? And lets be clear, we're not talking about people who are clinging to childhood memories; we're talking about full on believers. They donate money to Santa Claus societies, they spend vacations searching high and low for unicorns. You may disagree with Maher that religion is a fairy tale, but if he believes it is, then doesn't it follow that he thinks people who believe it are deluded? This is what I've been trying to get at this whole time. You may disagree, but it's not fair to expect Maher & Co. to assume they same posture towards religion that you do. I believe religion is a fairy tale. I believe it is a myth. I truly, honestly, from the bottom of my heart, do not say that to be a jerk or to be insensitive. I say it because it is the best, easiest, clearest way to express my beliefs. By telling me I can't think that way because it's rude, you're telling me how I need to feel about religion. And perhaps this comes down to a basic understanding of how we respond to peoples' beliefs. I don't believe all beliefs are deserving of my respect. I'm sorry, but some facts you just pick up from being alive. 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. I don't respect that. Just because someone says, "Oh I believe this," doesn't mean I need to be nice and respectful about it. If you believe 9/11 was an inside job, you're wrong. Some opinions are opinions: green is my favorite color, Phil Mickelson is my favorite golfer, salmon tastes good. Some opinions are ignorant and wrong and don't deserve my respect: blacks are inferior, gays don't deserve to be married, and Jay Leno deserved the Tonight Show back If you believe, as nearly 50% of Americans do, that Noah's Ark is a literal story, you are not using your brain correctly. It does not take intensive critical thinking skills to do some basic math about what that would take to fit two of every animal onto an ark. People aren't thinking - I don't need to respect that.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Do you believe they are a majority?<< >>They are a tiny minority, it's just that they're louder than those of us in the majority.<< I don't believe they are a majority, but I don't believe they're a tiny minority, either. They are vocal, powerful, and influential. The entire state of Texas just banned Thomas Jefferson from textbooks because he coined the phrase, "wall of separation" between church and state. This has huge ramifications for American children's education. The practical result of acting like the crazies are just this tiny, vocal group, is to be dismissive of the realities of their influence over all of our lives. Your time would be much better spent speaking out against them than Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, who have impacted your lives exactly zero.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>you can take away religion and still have good works<< Of course you can. No argument from me on that. >>Because it sure seems like the practical result of defending the Catholic church is "it's collateral damage" even if that's not the intent.<< Let's be clear -- I am not defending the Catholic church. They were as wrong as wrong can be in covering up these crimes for years. Heads should roll, charges should be brought, no one is above the law. What I am defending, however, is some little old lady who goes to church every Sunday because it is where she feels closest to God. I am not holding her accountable for the abuses that went on completely unrelated to her in any way. Should she, and other Catholics, boycott the church? Perhaps they should. Maybe if funding were interrupted, someone in that ancient organization would decide it was time to make significant changes and transparency. But I still can't lay the same amount of blame on the average church attendee as I do with the structure that actively hid these crimes for years. But let's be honest, even if churches did nothing but good works, Maher, Dawkins disagree with religion at the very core level and wouldn't be any more shy about saying so. >>To go back to the American analogy, leaving one's country is extremely difficult from a practical standpoint. Unless you want to learn another language, you're very limited in where you can go, it's very costly, takes years to adapt, etc., etc.<< Well, we;ll have to agree to disagree then. I think that politicians and perhaps those that actively work to elect them are responsible for their actions and policies, not every citizen in the nation. That's too black & white for me. Look at how many on the right act towards Obama. They have been completly insulting and disrespectful from the start with him. It's not even about policy, they just flat hate him, project all kinds of things on him from being a commie to whatever else they dream up. I think that sucks. I think people can disagree without going off the deep end and HATING everything about the guy. He is the President, lawfully elected, and while that doesn't mean he is above criticism ever, there should be some level of adult decorum when doing so. That level of unhinged, scorched earth, no holds barred outrage permeates every debate and discussion in the last several years. It's the same with religion. That's what I am arguing against. I'm arguing for some civility.
Originally Posted By LoyalOderUfWaterBuf We want God in our country so get over it all of you intolerabalists. ~~~~No God then No love~~~ ~~~~Know God then know love~~~ Got it? I hope you do because a country without God is doomed like the Soviet Union.
Originally Posted By LoyalOderUfWaterBuf And please leave the Catholic Church out of this. Haven't they suffered enough already. Stop kicking a good man when he is down or in this case a good church. You can lay off our brothers and sisters in the Morman faith also ok!!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You may disagree, but it's not fair to expect Maher & Co. to assume they same posture towards religion that you do. I believe religion is a fairy tale. I believe it is a myth. I truly, honestly, from the bottom of my heart, do not say that to be a jerk or to be insensitive. I say it because it is the best, easiest, clearest way to express my beliefs. By telling me I can't think that way because it's rude, you're telling me how I need to feel about religion.<< No, you are free to think that, and nowhere did I say how anyone should think. By using your argument, the tea baggers are perfectly in bounds by showing Obama as Hitler, so long as they truly believe he is the second coming of Adolph (and they do, they really do). I believe people can present rational objections to Obama's policies without flopping into the cesspool of the low blow attack. I don't think you're a jerk. And I also think you are practical and sensitive to others enough that you wouldn't attend a wedding and stand up in the middle of it and start laughing about God or shouting "Boy! What a fairy tale!" By sitting politely through a church wedding, are you promoting religion, or abandoning your principles? I think not. You're merely respecting the right of the others in attendance to practice their beliefs.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And now that the trolls arrived, so much for a civil discussion about civil discussions.lol
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>and Jay Leno deserved the Tonight Show back << LOL! Game, set, match: ecdc.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yeah, no kidding. Let's remember DFTT. I'm actually really enjoying this back and forth between two intelligent posters I respect.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Your time would be much better spent speaking out against them than Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, who have impacted your lives exactly zero.<< I do. And I'm not speaking out against Maher and Dawkins -- just pointing out that they have a certain blindspot when it comes to religion.
Originally Posted By ecdc First Kar2oonMan, your rambling, nonsensical posts can't measure up to the unimpeachable logic of posts 125 and 126. I dare you to try. >>But let's be honest, even if churches did nothing but good works, Maher, Dawkins disagree with religion at the very core level and wouldn't be any more shy about saying so.<< I disagree here. I've read Dawkins, probably never missed one of Maher's shows, saw Religulous, etc. I do not think they are nearly as worried about what people believe as they are the result of those beliefs. They do seem to feel that the overall concept of religion - in their opinion, suspending judgment for fantasy - is harmful. But that's because they see the logical conclusion of harmful results. If Mormons stop using their brain and suspend judgment about being gay in favor of something an ancient book written by old men says (or in the case of the Book of Mormon, made up by Joseph Smith in the 19th century) and use it to take away people's rights, then that's a cause and effect. Take that away and religions only do good, the most you'd get out of these guys is eye rolling and the occasional joke. I do not think you'd have the new atheist movement that you have today.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"Oh, gee, it's complicated. It's big. People are raised in them so it's hard to leave."<< You've left a church, so you know that it can be done. But you also know that it is not a particularly easy thing to do. And you left your church because you do not believe in God. While that doesn't mean it's easy to leave, it's easier than someone who believes in God, was raised with certain rituals and practices and now finds themselves horrified by what church higher-ups have done. There is a sense of betrayal there that is hard to put into words for those that are deeply involved in their local parish. Imagine the person who has been in the Knights of Columbus, helped with church fundraisers, charity work, community. It really isn't as easy as it would sound top up and find some other church. It isn't impossible, but it sure wouldn't be that easy. And if you belive in the teachings of the church, and that those rituals have meaning and are the "correct" way to honor God, how does one ignore than and adapt to some other religion? Not impossible, but very, very difficult and complex.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> We want God in our country so get over it all of you intolerabalists. << "We" Kimosabe? ~~~~No God then No love~~~ ~~~~Know God then know love~~~ Great. Any more bumper stickers you want to share with us? If you've been reading this thread, you will have noticed that the knock on religous people is that they're sometimes unquestioning and not big on independent thought. As such, your little contribution only supports this contention. If you'd like, you can share YOUR thoughts, and support them with logic and reason. Join us. Or don't. But drive-by potshots don't contribute much of anything useful to the dialog.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>That level of unhinged, scorched earth, no holds barred outrage permeates every debate and discussion in the last several years. It's the same with religion. That's what I am arguing against. I'm arguing for some civility.<< All my time defending Maher (cause I am a big fan, obviously) and Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., probably makes me seem more gung ho than I really am. I am mixed on this. I agree with your earlier statement that you catch more flies with honey. I hate the scorched earth as well, I hate the incivility, the nastiness, and the basic inability of humans to get along today. What is it about human beings that makes us fearful and contemptuous of that which we don't understand? I just don't get it. But I also know that progress never happens with reason or logic. It happens through moral persuasion and outrage. Slavery, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, etc. It only takes root when there's enough people who are mad as hell and aren't gonna take it anymore. I don't really know what the solution is. I just feel defensive of the new atheist movement as a legitimate, important movement. I don't agree with everything they say or all their tactics. I do think they could do things differently. But I get a sense from a lot of my friends that they think the strident tone and the nerve of actually challenging the very core of religion somehow means it's an Illegitimate movement, somehow not worthy of consideration. I think it's important.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't agree with everything they say or all their tactics.<< Just keep PeTA in mind. That's what happens when people get carried away and go for the in-your-face approach. Every time. I don't know enough about the new atheist movement, but the old atheist movement under Madelyn Murray O'Hare was pretty darn strident and confrontational.
Originally Posted By DAR My view on atheists is this. If you don't believe then you don't believe. I won't try to change your mind with stories of you burning in hell for all eternity. I won't ever point out the Bible says this will happen because you don't believe. Okay this is tricky but I believe in God. And I believe that him/her/it gave us the ability to have free will. Some of us have chosen to believe, others haven't and you know what that's fine. All I expect from someone in the atheist movement is the same respect I will give them.
Originally Posted By gadzuux He/she may indeed be a troll, but I'm the guy that's always trying to encourage more people to contribute to threads - that's my alterior motive.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>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.<< You've said this before, and it's a false equivalency. For one to be "guilty as charged" in this sense, you'd have to continue turning up for Bush rallies, possibly encourage others to do so (assuming that some Catholics still work on recruiting as I KNOW some of them do), and of course DONATE to HIS cause. Can't you see the difference?
