New Pope elected! Francis I from Argentina.

[crispybits]

It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.

No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.

No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.

The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.

The problem with crispy and chang is that they are ignoring history. They are using the support of some Catholics and some priests and some bishops in Nazi Germany for the Nazis to paint the Catholic Church, in its entirety, as supportive of Nazi Germany. That simply isn't true. They are going to point to Pope John Paul's apology as evidence that the Catholic Church acknowledged its support of Nazi Germany. But that wasn't what John Paul apologized for - he apologized for anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church across history (i.e. from the founding of the Church forward).

Basically, there were some portion of priests and bishops (and Catholics) in Nazi Germany who supported the Nazis. There were a lot of other priests, bishops and Catholics who did not support Nazi Germany. Some or all of those people either escaped or were killed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis killed Catholics, because of their religion, in Poland. Catholics from all over the world, including priests, fought in armies against Nazi Germany.

In any event, this is a fun way for atheists to try to denigrate the Catholic Church. There are much better ways to do so that have some basis in fact.

OK, maybe "by definition" was a touch strong, but the cathoilc church runs along lines inherently similar to fascist politics. There is an overall dictator (the pope), oppressing the population by means of strict controls (heaven and hell), and suppressing the opposition through terror (anyone not "one of us" is going to hell). Further to that there is a stirring up of religious identity in a very divisive way, similar to secular nationalism and racism. All of this is by modern actions, if we go into history then there are even greater parallels, especially in suppressing the opposition, but of course the response you'll give is the typical "what the church did in the past isn't relevant any more". I call BS to that, what any organisation does is relevant when the philosophy of that organisation is largely identical now as it was then, and the doctrines and teachings of the catholic church are largely unchanged for hundreds of years on the primary points.

[thegreekdog]

It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.

No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.

No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.

The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.

The problem with crispy and chang is that they are ignoring history. They are using the support of some Catholics and some priests and some bishops in Nazi Germany for the Nazis to paint the Catholic Church, in its entirety, as supportive of Nazi Germany. That simply isn't true. They are going to point to Pope John Paul's apology as evidence that the Catholic Church acknowledged its support of Nazi Germany. But that wasn't what John Paul apologized for - he apologized for anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church across history (i.e. from the founding of the Church forward).

Basically, there were some portion of priests and bishops (and Catholics) in Nazi Germany who supported the Nazis. There were a lot of other priests, bishops and Catholics who did not support Nazi Germany. Some or all of those people either escaped or were killed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis killed Catholics, because of their religion, in Poland. Catholics from all over the world, including priests, fought in armies against Nazi Germany.

In any event, this is a fun way for atheists to try to denigrate the Catholic Church. There are much better ways to do so that have some basis in fact.

OK, maybe "by definition" was a touch strong, but the cathoilc church runs along lines inherently similar to fascist politics. There is an overall dictator (the pope), oppressing the population by means of strict controls (heaven and hell), and suppressing the opposition through terror (anyone not "one of us" is going to hell). Further to that there is a stirring up of religious identity in a very divisive way, similar to secular nationalism and racism. All of this is by modern actions, if we go into history then there are even greater parallels, especially in suppressing the opposition, but of course the response you'll give is the typical "what the church did in the past isn't relevant any more". I call BS to that, what any organisation does is relevant when the philosophy of that organisation is largely identical now as it was then, and the doctrines and teachings of the catholic church are largely unchanged for hundreds of years on the primary points.

The Catholic Church is run like any other religious organization and that could be considered facist, if you want. I'm not sure how much oppression is going on since Catholics can certianly leave the church (with the punishment being going to hell, sure). The Church also has not, at least in the last 150 years or so, made a big stink about being the "correct" religion. The Church has reached out to Muslims and Jews, primarily. Most governments couldn't say the same. I agree that one cannot ignore history and there are things to be ashamed of.

I guess my response to your valid critique is whether you make the same critiques about, say, the British government or the UK in general, which has oppressed and killed a whole lot of people in the name of nationalism and empire. If you don't make those critiques, why not? And if you can answer that question reasonably, then I think you can also answer the question as to why you should stop critiquing the Catholic Church's history. To my knowledge, the United States has not apologized to the native Americans, the slaves, Mexicans, the Vietnamese, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Germans, etc. The Catholic Church apologized to all religious peoples, including the Jews, for its actions over the course of its history. I'm unconcerned as to whether the Catholic Church should be held to a higher standard than national governments (because I think it should), but what more would you like the Catholic Church to do?

[AndyDufresne]

Hocus Popus. Religious themed magic.




--Andy

[crispybits]

Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.

Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.

So, for reference:

The UK government has done some truly shitty things. I do not deny that they happened, nor do I condone them.
The US government has done some truly shitty things. I do not deny that they happened, nor do I condone them.
Both governments, along with pretty much every other government on earth, should immediately stop doing shitty things and should make reparations wherever possible for the shitty things they have done in the past.

The main difference between governments and the church though is that I believe that governments are necessary. I don't think they are in an optimal form at present, nor do I think they have ever been so, but I believe that we need them to be there in order for society to function. I do not believe the church is necessary at all. I believe that if the church, if all the churches everywhere along with all their screwed up fairy tales, if they all disappeared right now and left nothing but a vaccuum, then society would continue to function. In fact I believe that society would function a whole lot better without them.

So what do I want the church to do? I want it to do exactly what Jesus said, sell everything it owns, give up every shred of political, financial and wordly influence and power, and stop doing harm to the world with it's BS stories about some ultimate absolute truth it can't even demonstrate but which it claims gives it the right to spread harmful messages like "don't wear condoms" to the most AIDS ravaged continent in the world, or "abortion is murder" to societies that then outlaw abortion leading to the deaths of women when pregnancies go wrong, or extra children being put into the system because the parents either can't or don't want to cope with them, or a million other disguting "moral teachings" that do more harm than good. I want every religious person on earth to start spending the time and money they spend on being righteous and pious to actually help people. I don't care if they do it because they think they'll get a reward after they die even, they can carry on believing that all they want, but all the time and energy and money people spend on religion would go a million miles towards actually making this world more just, and kind, and fair, and good. THAT's what I want. For religion to just disappear. Now.

[PLAYER57832]

I've never thought the Catholic Church got away from helping the poor. I think the layperson view is that more time is spent on social issues such as homosexuality and abortion, but I think that is a public perception more than reality. I would like for less time to be spent on those types of issues if only so that the public perception changes a little. I don't expect the church to say "gay marriage is okay" and I don't want them to say "abortion is okay." I also want the church to address, correctly, the pedophilia issues. I don't know what the new pope's stance on the latter issue is.

I have never denied that the Roman Catholic church, or more precisely people and groups within the church, help others. That said, they also have a good many fancy cathedrals, expensive possessions. In many cases they were donated, but the donations often came with the message along the lines of this will excuse some sins I made or put me in a better place with God. They are far from the only church to do that, but as I look around, I see other churches (not my own, by-the-way) doing far more to dig in and help people with day to day needs than the Roman Catholics. Anyway, I don’t want to criticize what the church has done, but there is also wide variety amongst the various sects. The Jesuit and Franciscan lines are the ones participating mostly in the works of which you speak.


Homosexuality and abortion are issues mostly in the US and Europe. They are critical less becuase of specific doctrine (is this issue the correct ) , more because they get at the issue of how much the church should be able to dictate regarding secular life/people outside the church. I don't really feel it is my "place" to tell Roman Catholics what to believe. I will debate my beliefs with theirs, sure, but you all have the right to believe as you will. It becomes an issue, though, when the church decides their beliefs give them the right to decide and influence matters of law, which the RC church very much is doing. (and no, I am not overestimating this at all, just look at the birth control issue as an example)

[PLAYER57832]

The Catholic Church is run like any other religious organization and that could be considered facist, if you want. ?

This is very factually incorrect.

Just as an example, my Pastor has no real say over whether I go to heaven or not. Also, we have MUCH more control over who will lead our congregation.

Other than that, you made some decent points.

[thegreekdog]

Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.

Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.

It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.

It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.

I do not believe the church is necessary at all. I believe that if the church, if all the churches everywhere along with all their screwed up fairy tales, if they all disappeared right now and left nothing but a vaccuum, then society would continue to function. In fact I believe that society would function a whole lot better without them.

Right. So your argument is not just that the Church has done bad things. Your argument is that the Church has done bad things plus you don't like what it stands for (apart from the bad things) and you don't like what it believes in and you don't like its effect on society (apart from the bad things). And that is why I said above that your motivations for your criticism of the Catholic Church go beyond "they supported Nazis." It is inclusive of "they do/say/preach things I don't agree with and think are stupid (and do more harm than good... which we can address in the course of where I think this conversation is going)."

So what do I want the church to do? I want it to do exactly what Jesus said, sell everything it owns, give up every shred of political, financial and wordly influence and power, and stop doing harm to the world with it's BS stories about some ultimate absolute truth it can't even demonstrate but which it claims gives it the right to spread harmful messages like "don't wear condoms" to the most AIDS ravaged continent in the world, or "abortion is murder" to societies that then outlaw abortion leading to the deaths of women when pregnancies go wrong, or extra children being put into the system because the parents either can't or don't want to cope with them, or a million other disguting "moral teachings" that do more harm than good. I want every religious person on earth to start spending the time and money they spend on being righteous and pious to actually help people. I don't care if they do it because they think they'll get a reward after they die even, they can carry on believing that all they want, but all the time and energy and money people spend on religion would go a million miles towards actually making this world more just, and kind, and fair, and good. THAT's what I want.

Very impassioned. Again, my question is why the Catholic Church (or any religion) and not the United Kingdom and the United States?

For religion to just disappear. Now.

This is a separate item which I've argued with about others before. Unlike in other threads (heh), I'll post my thoughts now (incomplete though they may be). I believe that too much emphasis is placed on the role of religion in prior atrocities and wars. It's like how too much emphasis is placed on race in achieving entrance at university. The real motivation behind wars and atrocities is not religion, it is power and money. With some very limited exceptions, atrocities committed in the name of the religion would have, in my opinion, been committed without the religion existing. Any war or atrocity you bring up I could point out the non-religious motivation behind the war or atrocity.

You could also point out the resistance to gay marriage or abortion as being religious tendencies, but that also isn't entirely based on religion. Gay marriage proponents can also be religious (e.g. Andrew Sullivan... e.g. me). And gay marriage detractors can also be atheists.

[crispybits]

Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.

Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.

It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.

It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.

Only if you say that religion and government are the same thing. In many ways they are similar, but they are not the same and holding them to different standards isn't hypocritical as long as the standards you hold them to are cogniscent of their different natures. A better analogy would be:

"should Bill, a trained cop, go to jail for raising his gun and deliberately pulling the trigger and shooting a 4 year old." Yes
"should Jim, a 4 year old who thinks the gun in his hand is just like any of his toy guns, go to jail for raising that gun and deliberately pulling the trigger and shooting another 4 year old?" No

And besides, as I already said, I will criticise countries. But this is a topic regarding religion. Did you miss the bit where I said that both the UK and US have done shitty things? Did you miss the bit where I said I think they should do everything possible to make reparations for them? I'll add that we should all be working towards changing the nature of the governments to ensure shitty things are not done again.

I do not believe the church is necessary at all. I believe that if the church, if all the churches everywhere along with all their screwed up fairy tales, if they all disappeared right now and left nothing but a vaccuum, then society would continue to function. In fact I believe that society would function a whole lot better without them.

Right. So your argument is not just that the Church has done bad things. Your argument is that the Church has done bad things plus you don't like what it stands for (apart from the bad things) and you don't like what it believes in and you don't like its effect on society (apart from the bad things). And that is why I said above that your motivations for your criticism of the Catholic Church go beyond "they supported Nazis." It is inclusive of "they do/say/preach things I don't agree with and think are stupid (and do more harm than good... which we can address in the course of where I think this conversation is going)."

No, again you're not actually reading what I'm writing, just putting words in my mouth contrary to what I'm actually saying. Yes it's true that I don't like religion, but that isn't what makes it different to anything else, because very often I don't like government either. The difference isn't like / dislike, it's NECESSITY. I think we NEED government to have the kind of society that works best, I do not think we NEED religion for that at all. I can quite easily picture a society with no religion that works just fine. It's an optional extra that if it worked properly would be beneficial, but which always seems to get corrupted and converted into something damaging. As an optional extra it can be discarded.

So what do I want the church to do? I want it to do exactly what Jesus said, sell everything it owns, give up every shred of political, financial and wordly influence and power, and stop doing harm to the world with it's BS stories about some ultimate absolute truth it can't even demonstrate but which it claims gives it the right to spread harmful messages like "don't wear condoms" to the most AIDS ravaged continent in the world, or "abortion is murder" to societies that then outlaw abortion leading to the deaths of women when pregnancies go wrong, or extra children being put into the system because the parents either can't or don't want to cope with them, or a million other disguting "moral teachings" that do more harm than good. I want every religious person on earth to start spending the time and money they spend on being righteous and pious to actually help people. I don't care if they do it because they think they'll get a reward after they die even, they can carry on believing that all they want, but all the time and energy and money people spend on religion would go a million miles towards actually making this world more just, and kind, and fair, and good. THAT's what I want.

Very impassioned. Again, my question is why the Catholic Church (or any religion) and not the United Kingdom and the United States?

Hopefully now I've said it twice you understand my position, if not just say so

For religion to just disappear. Now.

This is a separate item which I've argued with about others before. Unlike in other threads (heh), I'll post my thoughts now (incomplete though they may be). I believe that too much emphasis is placed on the role of religion in prior atrocities and wars. It's like how too much emphasis is placed on race in achieving entrance at university. The real motivation behind wars and atrocities is not religion, it is power and money. With some very limited exceptions, atrocities committed in the name of the religion would have, in my opinion, been committed without the religion existing. Any war or atrocity you bring up I could point out the non-religious motivation behind the war or atrocity.

You could also point out the resistance to gay marriage or abortion as being religious tendencies, but that also isn't entirely based on religion. Gay marriage proponents can also be religious (e.g. Andrew Sullivan... e.g. me). And gay marriage detractors can also be atheists.

It's not separate, that's the whole point. Without religion we would still have debates about ethics and whatnot, removing the religion doesn't change anything except that nobody has the fallback "well my magic book says so" and everyone is forced to argue based on real principles and real consequences. Without religion we would still have charities. Without religion we would still have communities. Taking out the "saving an immortal soul" angle, because it's not proven that there is any such thing and especially that any given religion has the answer to that question, is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?

[PLAYER57832]

[
is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?

Yes, faith.
(serious answer, not a joke).



---------------------------------------------------------
wanted to leave it there, but might need to clarify.

Religion gives people the ability to find answers without absolute reliance upon fact. Fiction helps us to do that, but many would argue that without religion there is no fiction.. and I don’t mean that as a pun, even though I know I made myself rife for a joke there.

The thing is that part of what makes us human is our ability to explore, investigate and imagine. That relies stepping beyond fact and into something else..that something is “faith”. There is a distinct difference between a complete fairy story and belief in a religious idea. The fairy story is one the listener/teller each know to be false, it may have a message, but is fundamentally entertainment. Faith is something else. It provides answers, but with incomplete data. It allows us to “fill in the blanks” when we specifically don’t have evidence. It allows us to make decisions based on that “fill in”, Sometimes that “fill in” leads to very wrong answers and sometimes it leads people forward, but that concept is very fundamental to how science works.

Without the foundation of faith, there is no going ahead to explore and put one’s life on the line for a mere idea that might or might not be correct.

On another front, I have always argued that there is no such thing as “having no faith”, (other than for a very narrow section of high-end Autism spectrum folks.) However, I do argue that this is something that does not come from the secular world. It comes from religion, fundamentally.

[2dimes]

is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?

Yes, faith.
(serious answer, not a joke).

Not a joke but not correct either. I have spoke with many people completely void of the burden of religion who have stories of faith. Some even involve faith in God during an event from a person who is agnostic or perhaps even considers themselves atheist.

Religion is either a group of people sharing beliefs or teaching them. Just like any club or organization.

[crispybits]

Also, "no faith without religion" means that we do not have any innate way of connecting to God, which kinda violates core principles of most if not all of the world's religions...

[chang50]

It's not just complicity, by definition the religion is fascist itself. It's hardly a surprise that it finds like-minded types to share afternoon coffee and cake with.

No more than your idea that anyone with faith is obviously not thinking straight.

No single idea is fascism, fascism is about not allowing opposition. Most modern Christians are no less willing to let others be than atheists.

The article was humerous, and largely because it did have just enough truth in it to be painful.. but expanded. Trying to paint is as anything else is beneath you crispy.

The problem with crispy and chang is that they are ignoring history. They are using the support of some Catholics and some priests and some bishops in Nazi Germany for the Nazis to paint the Catholic Church, in its entirety, as supportive of Nazi Germany. That simply isn't true. They are going to point to Pope John Paul's apology as evidence that the Catholic Church acknowledged its support of Nazi Germany. But that wasn't what John Paul apologized for - he apologized for anti-Semitism promoted by the Catholic Church across history (i.e. from the founding of the Church forward).

Basically, there were some portion of priests and bishops (and Catholics) in Nazi Germany who supported the Nazis. There were a lot of other priests, bishops and Catholics who did not support Nazi Germany. Some or all of those people either escaped or were killed by Nazi Germany. The Nazis killed Catholics, because of their religion, in Poland. Catholics from all over the world, including priests, fought in armies against Nazi Germany.

In any event, this is a fun way for atheists to try to denigrate the Catholic Church. There are much better ways to do so that have some basis in fact.

I wasn't just referring to Germany,but Italy,Spain,Portugal and Croatia in Europe and a host of Latin American countries.If you doubt the direct complicity of the Catholic church in fascist atrocities just google the wartime activities of the Catholic Croatian Ustache in what was Yugoslavia,it's truly horrific.

[BigBallinStalin]

Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.

Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.

It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.

It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.

At least the Catholic Church doesn't send an army of goons after you when you don't pay your annual "voluntary contributions".

[BigBallinStalin]

I think we NEED government to have the kind of society that works best, I do not think we NEED religion for that at all. I can quite easily picture a society with no religion that works just fine.

Talk about ideals, huh!

As far as maintaining law and order goes, both governments and religions can do that--without each other. Arguing that one is necessary while the other isn't seems a bit odd to me.

[PLAYER57832]

is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?

Yes, faith.
(serious answer, not a joke).

Not a joke but not correct either. I have spoke with many people completely void of the burden of religion who have stories of faith. Some even involve faith in God during an event from a person who is agnostic or perhaps even considers themselves atheist.

Religion is either a group of people sharing beliefs or teaching them. Just like any club or organization.

This is really a matter of debating a definition, not substance.

Religion can be used to mean a specific organized group. It can also be used more generally to mean a core belief system. Often we use the term religion to mean more than one person having similar ideas and faith to mean specific ideas or specific individual beliefs, but that is not always true.

[AndyDufresne]

The...Space Pope!




--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

Also, "no faith without religion" means that we do not have any innate way of connecting to God, which kinda violates core principles of most if not all of the world's religions...

Not sure why you would think that is true. There is nothing in that that denies connection to God. That connection is, by definition, faith. (one type of faith, part of faith).

[PLAYER57832]

I think we NEED government to have the kind of society that works best, I do not think we NEED religion for that at all. I can quite easily picture a society with no religion that works just fine.

Talk about ideals, huh!

As far as maintaining law and order goes, both governments and religions can do that--without each other. Arguing that one is necessary while the other isn't seems a bit odd to me.

In that sense they are one and the same.

When church does the practical work, it becomes government. When government ideas become permeate core values, such as Democracy, it is part of religion.

[2dimes]

As far as maintaining law and order goes, both governments and religions can do that--without each other. Arguing that one is necessary while the other isn't seems a bit odd to me.

Somewhat, yet it kind of makes sense that if you choose one to be more important, the other is often at at least perceived to be at odds with your choice.

[crispybits]

Also, "no faith without religion" means that we do not have any innate way of connecting to God, which kinda violates core principles of most if not all of the world's religions...

Not sure why you would think that is true. There is nothing in that that denies connection to God. That connection is, by definition, faith. (one type of faith, part of faith).

It's simple.

Religions are started by people who already have faith. The faith is there and the religion grows around that faith. Without the faith there to begin with, nobody starts trying to spread any sort of belief or story. Somebody needs to believe, or have faith, before they can start spreading that belief and it turns into a religion.

If you argue that faith needs religion, then none of it ever gets started at all. It's like saying that co-operation needs society, it's backwards. Co-operation leads to society, and can happen independently of society. Similarly faith doesn't need religion, faith leads to religion and can happen independently of religion.

[2dimes]

Religion is either a group of people sharing beliefs or teaching them. Just like any club or organization.

This is really a matter of debating a definition, not substance.

Religion can be used to mean a specific organized group. It can also be used more generally to mean a core belief system. Often we use the term religion to mean more than one person having similar ideas and faith to mean specific ideas or specific individual beliefs, but that is not always true.

Sure, but if you're a monk that sits In silence never even writing your thoughts, your religion is internal and no longer relevant to this or any other conversation.

More than one person having similar beliefs was the "sharing" example.

[PLAYER57832]

Religion is either a group of people sharing beliefs or teaching them. Just like any club or organization.

This is really a matter of debating a definition, not substance.

Religion can be used to mean a specific organized group. It can also be used more generally to mean a core belief system. Often we use the term religion to mean more than one person having similar ideas and faith to mean specific ideas or specific individual beliefs, but that is not always true.

Sure, but if you're a monk that sits In silence never even writing your thoughts, your religion is internal and no longer relevant to this or any other conversation.

More than one person having similar beliefs was the "sharing" example.

A monk alone still has religion.. as do some peoples who have no specific set religion.

[thegreekdog]

Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.

Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.

It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.

It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.

At least the Catholic Church doesn't send an army of goons after you when you don't pay your annual "voluntary contributions".

Hmm... they kind of do.

[thegreekdog]

Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.

Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.

It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.

It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.

Only if you say that religion and government are the same thing. In many ways they are similar, but they are not the same and holding them to different standards isn't hypocritical as long as the standards you hold them to are cogniscent of their different natures. A better analogy would be:

"should Bill, a trained cop, go to jail for raising his gun and deliberately pulling the trigger and shooting a 4 year old." Yes
"should Jim, a 4 year old who thinks the gun in his hand is just like any of his toy guns, go to jail for raising that gun and deliberately pulling the trigger and shooting another 4 year old?" No

And besides, as I already said, I will criticise countries. But this is a topic regarding religion. Did you miss the bit where I said that both the UK and US have done shitty things? Did you miss the bit where I said I think they should do everything possible to make reparations for them? I'll add that we should all be working towards changing the nature of the governments to ensure shitty things are not done again.

I do not believe the church is necessary at all. I believe that if the church, if all the churches everywhere along with all their screwed up fairy tales, if they all disappeared right now and left nothing but a vaccuum, then society would continue to function. In fact I believe that society would function a whole lot better without them.

Right. So your argument is not just that the Church has done bad things. Your argument is that the Church has done bad things plus you don't like what it stands for (apart from the bad things) and you don't like what it believes in and you don't like its effect on society (apart from the bad things). And that is why I said above that your motivations for your criticism of the Catholic Church go beyond "they supported Nazis." It is inclusive of "they do/say/preach things I don't agree with and think are stupid (and do more harm than good... which we can address in the course of where I think this conversation is going)."

No, again you're not actually reading what I'm writing, just putting words in my mouth contrary to what I'm actually saying. Yes it's true that I don't like religion, but that isn't what makes it different to anything else, because very often I don't like government either. The difference isn't like / dislike, it's NECESSITY. I think we NEED government to have the kind of society that works best, I do not think we NEED religion for that at all. I can quite easily picture a society with no religion that works just fine. It's an optional extra that if it worked properly would be beneficial, but which always seems to get corrupted and converted into something damaging. As an optional extra it can be discarded.

So what do I want the church to do? I want it to do exactly what Jesus said, sell everything it owns, give up every shred of political, financial and wordly influence and power, and stop doing harm to the world with it's BS stories about some ultimate absolute truth it can't even demonstrate but which it claims gives it the right to spread harmful messages like "don't wear condoms" to the most AIDS ravaged continent in the world, or "abortion is murder" to societies that then outlaw abortion leading to the deaths of women when pregnancies go wrong, or extra children being put into the system because the parents either can't or don't want to cope with them, or a million other disguting "moral teachings" that do more harm than good. I want every religious person on earth to start spending the time and money they spend on being righteous and pious to actually help people. I don't care if they do it because they think they'll get a reward after they die even, they can carry on believing that all they want, but all the time and energy and money people spend on religion would go a million miles towards actually making this world more just, and kind, and fair, and good. THAT's what I want.

Very impassioned. Again, my question is why the Catholic Church (or any religion) and not the United Kingdom and the United States?

Hopefully now I've said it twice you understand my position, if not just say so

For religion to just disappear. Now.

This is a separate item which I've argued with about others before. Unlike in other threads (heh), I'll post my thoughts now (incomplete though they may be). I believe that too much emphasis is placed on the role of religion in prior atrocities and wars. It's like how too much emphasis is placed on race in achieving entrance at university. The real motivation behind wars and atrocities is not religion, it is power and money. With some very limited exceptions, atrocities committed in the name of the religion would have, in my opinion, been committed without the religion existing. Any war or atrocity you bring up I could point out the non-religious motivation behind the war or atrocity.

You could also point out the resistance to gay marriage or abortion as being religious tendencies, but that also isn't entirely based on religion. Gay marriage proponents can also be religious (e.g. Andrew Sullivan... e.g. me). And gay marriage detractors can also be atheists.

It's not separate, that's the whole point. Without religion we would still have debates about ethics and whatnot, removing the religion doesn't change anything except that nobody has the fallback "well my magic book says so" and everyone is forced to argue based on real principles and real consequences. Without religion we would still have charities. Without religion we would still have communities. Taking out the "saving an immortal soul" angle, because it's not proven that there is any such thing and especially that any given religion has the answer to that question, is there anything that religion gives to society that is not also given by secular sources?

Just for future reference - I hate the blue. I know some people hate the bifurcation of posts, but I prefer that to the blue.

I definitely understand your point (or maybe not, see below).

So, some follow up questions and points -

- Why do you hold religion (a fascist organization) to a higher stnadard than representative governments?
- I do understand where you've critcized governments. It doesn't have the same vehemence and I certainly don't see any other posts on your critiques. How did the UK handle itself prior to World War II, for example? You were quick to point out the Catholic Church's failings in this thread, which had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Again, the answer is that you hate religion. And that's fine. I'm fine that you hate religion. But you're masquerading your hatred of religion with this idea that it should be held to a much higher (not higher, much higher) standard than governments.
- What difference does it make if you need government and don't need religion? You don't need governments to kill Native Americans right? I mean, this is pretty straightforward stuff my man.
- I definitely do not understand your position as you've indicated twice that I've misinterpreted your position.
- There is nothing given by religion that is not given by secular societies. So?

[AAFitz]

Not "any other religious organisation" but I'll skip that point as it's largely a tangent.

Saying "you didn't oppose this lot doing those bad things so why do you oppose that lot doing these bad things" is invalid. It's like saying "you didn't say anything here about the Norway mass shootings, so you're not allowed to comment on Sandy Hook". I'm allowed to comment on whatever I want to comment on, and the hypocrisy you imply would only exist if, when asked a direct question about something similar I took a completely different stance without good justification for that or failed to condemn it at all.

It's perfectly valid. It's not valid to use it as a counterpoint to your argument that the church has done bad things. I acknowledge that the church has done bad things. What it is perfectly valid to use is as a way to show hypocrisy. I'm showing that you're a hypocrit. You will criticize the Catholic Church's history and demand that it do something, but you will not criticize a country and demand that it do something.

It's like if you said "Bill should go to jail for rape." And then I said, "I agree."
Then I said, "Should Jim also go to jail for rape?" And you respond, "No, I don't hold Jim to the same standards as Bill." That's hypocritical.

At least the Catholic Church doesn't send an army of goons after you when you don't pay your annual "voluntary contributions".

Hymn... they kind of do.

Fixed.