crispybits wrote: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.
crispybits wrote: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)."
crispybits wrote: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?
crispybits wrote: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.