Religion is a massive...........

........cult, based on the belief that a greater power is watching over us. But religion is very big business, sucking in billions from the punters. Don't want to go to hell, just mail a cheque.

From mosque, synagogue, cathedral, TV, and even a lowly tent, the message of God is spoken. But what is god? The punters don't know, but a few hallelujahs later and of course the mandatory passing of the 'pot' for money, everyone feels holy.

Sure some religious cults do good things; the Sally Anne for one or the Union Gospel Mission for another, as they redistribute wealth in the form of food and clothing for the poor. But the major cults have fiddled a tax exempt status for themselves, so no taxes paid, no oversight of money collected.

The evil of religion will be the death of this planet.

Fundamentalist religions, they scare the hell out of me and I would go so far to say, they are works of the devil.

Right on, Rafe

Hoo Boy, Rafe, I do believe you are stirring up a hornets nest.

Well, I'm one of those who as a youngster was force-fed RC doctrine right into my late teens, until finally I'd had enough. I've spent a lifetime since then separating the subtle but arrant hypocrisy from the bromides that are fed the RC faithful.

Unlike the Protestant faiths which allow their adherents to use their own intelligence to question teachings (Yeah, sometimes one wonders how much of THAT is actually done), RCs are told that to even entertain serious doubts re RC dogma is a Mortal Sin - the worst kind.

As might be expected, that stricture is guaranteed to deter the true believer from ever questioning RC dogma and those who deliver it. Neat trick , eh?

And so learning how to unbelieve yet retain a logical moral code has been a big task for me, as it has been for countless others. Sure, I've made mistakes along the way, but IMO, it was better than being a robot.

Well Rafe....

... your first-quoted commenter was nightbloom, one who is about as far from Catholic as you can get. But don't let that stop your pillar of umbrage in mid-rant.

I love to slag a devout Catholic as much as the next Anabaptist, but you've conflated issues of doctrine, practice and philosophy and tarred them all with the broad brush of wilful negligence. It's going to take time to pick them all apart, and if the Reformation didn't do so well at calling the Catholic church to account over 200 years, what makes you think you're going to be able to do it in a few short paragraphs?

I will, however, take issue with one item I know to be false. That the 1941 Croatian puppet state was recognized by Fascist governments in Italy and Germany is beyond doubt, but there is also little doubt that the Vatican expressly did NOT recognize this state, although the Pope did meet with Pavelic in a prearranged meeting four days after the creation of the puppet state, thereby conferring a legitimacy that an unattributed British Foreign Office report considered to be "recognition".

Israel Gutman in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust clears a lot of misconceptions like this up. One must consider this work more authoritative than an unattributed BFO report, especially when you consider that Jewish researchers are also responsible for the accurate tabulation of the vast numbers of Serb and Croat deaths at each others hands in those dark days from 1935 - 1945. Were it not for them, neither side would have any idea about the depths of the tragedy they had sunk into.

This is well-known in my family, for on my father's side, there are two uncles and an aunt who died in Jasenovac in 1944, and without the efforts of Jewish researchers, we would have no memory of the loss. And there are more vicious and nasty stories among the survivors than you can count. Many of these stories spring from the battle against Communism, which the Vatican considered to be more of an enemy than any fascism or nationalism then present in Europe. Our modern studies of the deaths in the camps of Jasenovac and others focus on the identity of the slain - Jewish, Serb, Muslim, Croat, Hungarian, homosexual, Roma, - but the main characteristic of the slain (at least as far as the fascists were concerned) was that they were, or were believed to be, Communist. That was the battle that was being fought.

Also unbelievable is the fact that you (and the BFO) would ignore the tremendous pressure that was put on the Vatican by Mussolini on behalf of his fascist allies, to stop speaking out against various tragedies.

But beyond that, I won't stand up for that pope or the Catholic church any more than to say it has preserved an antique way of life and an inspiring faith and art for centuries longer than any of man's other works. Beyond that..... have at 'er, Rafe.

Religious greed, manipulation and extortion.

My grandmother was raised as a Catholic. She and my grandfather struggled to raise 4 young children on a prairie farm during the depths of the great depression. There was no problem growing enough food. Even things like shoe repair could be bartered for with food. The toughest part was raising the cash to pay property taxes. The only people who had lots of cash were priests, bankers and government employees. Because they knew farmers were desperate for cash to pay property taxes, priests, bankers and government workers drove a hard bargain when buying farm produce.

One day the local priest dropped by my grandparents' farm and loaded up the back of his shiny new cadillac with a huge amount of fresh produce, eggs, chickens etc. Instead of paying for all this food, he jumped into his car, sped-off down the driveway, and yelled out the window, "God will pay you."

My grandmother was frozen in bewilderment and fear. The priest didn't just steal discretionary money. That money was earmarked for paying property taxes. The priest put my grandparents at risk of losing their farm for non-payment of property taxes.

My grandmother quit the Catholic church after this incident. But instead of losing interest in religion entirely like my grandad, she got involved with the Holy Rollers. Another weird bunch.

Gran was an intelligent and independent woman. I've never understood her need for religion. Perhaps it had to do with being brainwashed from birth by something along the lines of "Give us your money or we'll hurt your family by striking them down with bolts of lightning."

At least Gran changed churches to protest the thievery. Some people are so brainwashed they will defend their church no matter what. Sergio Alvarizares Sr., a pastor in Portland was recently arrested in his almost $1.4 million home and charged with sexually assaulting eight parishioners. See http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=119274025501396100

One comment below the story defends the pastor by saying:

CBC's The Fifth Estate uncovered some of the techniques that have enriched pastor Benny Hinn and provided him with a 7,000-square-foot, $10 million ocean-side mansion. Hinn is big on miracle cures. CBC used hidden cameras to show Hinn's staff screening audience members coming forward, ensuring none with obvious physical ailment get near. See
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_miracles.html and
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/video_player.html?miracles

The video shows that Hinn takes in up to 1/4 of a billion per year tax-free. He stayed at a $10,000 per night hotel and gave a $1,000 tip to the hotel concierge around the same time he gave $20 to a homeless woman and her child.

I have to post my response

I have to post my response in two installments, so bear with me:

This follow-up article is a red-herring. The original article was about the Harper Conservatives, their alleged Evangelical Christian fundamentalist and biblically literalist support base, and why believing Christians of any stripe cannot be trusted to hold public office. The author then drew on a hodge-podge of historical tragedies of one sort or another, some of which possessed religious dimensions (the Thirty Year’s War, for example), yet all of which pre-date the emergence of modern U.S.-style Evangelical Christianity and the collapse of “liberal Republicanism” after Eisenhower in the U.S., to present a simplistic and one-sided view of Western history. The author knew his readers wouldn’t know the difference. My own contributions to the discussion thread that followed was not aimed at whitewashing history, but rather merely to resist the simplistic blackwashing of it, and resist the broad-brush Dawkins-style condemnation without nuance or distinction contained in Rafe’s original article. To that end, I contributed a few points, which boil down to the following:

1. The principle of Separation of Church and State in the West has never meant the total abolition of religion and faith from the public realm – Rather, it has always meant that no one creed shall be elevated above the others as the official dogma of the state. The Separation is a principle that is articulated in the Gospels themselves, for which early Christians were put to death (for their refusal the worship the Roman Emperor - the State incarnate). Much of Western history is the difficult and bloody drama of this Separation working itself out, no doubt about it. But let's not oversimplify - wars never originate from a single cause, and "the Catholic Jesus" is hardly culprit the author makes him out to be. Nevertheless, the Separation did indeed work itself out...and long, long before Rafe Mair, Stephen Harper or any of our other talking heads came along to lecture us about it.

2. There are no theocratic policies contained in the Conservative platform, budget or other policy documents, therefore that entire insinuation and equal parts innuendo and scare-mongering. I’m not a supporter of their policies, but I believe they have to be combated with better ideas and better policies, not by demonizing other Canadian constituencies, or questioning the civic participation and political enfranchisement of Canaidan religious minorities.

Part 2 follows....

3. Christian constituencies

3. Christian constituencies are within their rights to exercise their civic enfranchisement by supporting a political brand that appeals to them; however, it’s a stretch to suggest that Evangelical Albertans are electing Conservatives in Quebec and the Maritimes. Obviously, the ideas and policy proposals are appealing to other people too. The broader the appeal, the harder it will be for any one constituency to control the agenda. And it looks like they've got some pretty broad appeal...

4. Christian constituencies cannot be lobbed under a single fundamentalist label. Roman Catholicism, for example, does not teach Biblical literalism in the manner Rafe (and Dawkins) seem to suggest. Nor do all Christian constituencies subscribe to the same politics. Roman Catholics have been prolific participants in the Anti-War Movement and the anti-death penalty movement (both positions place them squarely in opposition to the U.S. Christian Right) and Pope John Paul II vociferously condemned the Iraq Invasion very early in the course of events. These are important distinctions that need to be made. The point here is: One size doesn’t fit all.

5. Christians have a right to articulate their truths on such major issues as abortion and birth control without having their positions tendentiously misrepresented or slandered. The Catholic teaching on birth control is a teaching, not a dogma, and is therefore subject to the individual’s autonomous exercise of conscience. Aid groups (including Catholic ones) give out a lot of condoms in Africa as a harm reduction measure. Teaching the ideal is nevertheless totally valid. Not everyone is “on board” with the so-called Sexual Revolution, and that’s their right. The Catholic counter-culture has a very different view of human sexuality from the mainstream. Not having sex never killed anyone, or caused anyone to have an abortion. The teachings reject the modern notion of sex as a path to self-realization, self-actualization and self-identity, and therefore conflict with modern sexual and identity politics. Nevertheless, this viewpoint deserves to be engaged in an intelligent and sensitive manner, not made into an anti-Catholic cartoon in the manner the author is doing here.

outstanding

sure, i have my differences with mr. mair, but this is refreshing.

The point

Rafe writes of last week's article:

And given their track record, those who claim or believe that "god" is on their side deserve a little extra scrutiny. To criticize an organization is not to take away their rights. The Christian majority in Canada is in no danger of losing their rights as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To suggest otherwise is a red-herring to deflect the discussion away from the inconvenient history that Rafe actually wrote about.

Closer to home

from the book "Stolen from Our Embrace", by Suzanne Fournier, and Ernie Crey:

The Roman Catholic Church still delivers it's brand of education, supported by the state, in the province of Ontario. Alberta has recently opened two religious primary schools, supported by the state, at which children are "educated" in creationism.

I'm still waiting to see the

I'm still waiting to see the link between Napoleon, Pope Pius VII, Alberta's Protestant Evangelicals, Stephen Harper, Budget 2007 & 'Advantage Canada', and the imminent threat to the Separation of Church and State in Canada. Let's deal with the present, shall we? Roman Catholics aren't even a Conservative constituency (by and large), so what's their real offense here...? I can make a few guesses, and they have nothing to do with the history Rafe glosses over.

It would have been nice if The Tyee had followed up with an article genuinely intended to foster debate on some of these issues. But really - the RCC's agreement with Napoleon?? Even the subtitle of the article ("Catholic Smack-down") is indicative of an attitude that is not conducive to debate. I noticed the editors took no chances and spelled it out for us this time ("Focus: Catholic Hierarchy"). Rafe's original article didn't even do that much, and the present one is simply provocatory and tendentious.

don't be played. Rafe is taking the easy way out. Everyone loves to bash the RCC. You'll never see anything positive printed about Roman Catholics (or the Pope) here at The Tyee (no matter how consonant they are with liberal-left policy goals, how much they denounce American capitalism or war-mongering or capital punishment, etc.). Rafe's insinuations about the nature of Canadian Christian constituencies and the Conservative party are pure innuendo and scare-mongering. He's attacking constituencies, not ideas. Think about it: since when are condoms in Africa an electoral issue in Canada? And what's that about the African birth rate, Rafe--? Tell us what you really mean.

Whatever he insinuates, the Separation of Church and State has never been more solid, and our society's openness to the faiths of the world has never been more laudable. Stop fostering hatred and distrust of Canadian religious minorities, stop manufacturing bogey-men, and focus on the ideas and the policies.

let's not forget Spain Today

Fights as Spanish Civil War (catholic) clergy are beatified

http://tinyurl.com/2cuag3

...But the ceremony has revived bitter memories of the Church's support of Gen Francisco Franco, who won the war and went on to rule for almost 40 years.

Protesters argue that the Church was complicit in the deaths of thousands at the hands of Franco's forces, a subject which still arouses passion in Spain almost 70 years after the war...

Don't look

There were "ideas and policies" behind all the history that Rafe mentioned. Why do you want to divert attention from those issues?

Rafe wrote:

Agnostics are just atheists without balls.

Why not, Rafe? If God is omnipotent then surely "he" is responsible for the actions of "his" creations. What kind of lazy ass God sits around letting his believers destroy each other and their fragile home?

The Catholic Church is an easy target for your criticisms. Why not take on the idea of "God" itself, and all the harm that has caused, instead of hedging your bets as you seem to do in these recent articles?

But nightbloom

The Catholic 'hierarchy' and its traditions are precisely THE problem. Because of the nature of the Church and the traditions associated with the Magisterium (top down/not bottom up) the institution is inoculated 'against' change to an extent only paralleled in Orthodox Judaism and some branches of Islam.

It's not the 'word' or even its interpretation that is the problem - it is the structure of an institution that is almost incapable of growing.

Therefore, much of the admittedly fine intellectual effort that churchmen have expended over the years has served to isolate the official church even from many of its adherents. To pretend this isn't the case isn't even arguable. According to the last polls I'm aware of, a significant majority of the folks who call themselves 'RC' pay not the slightest attention to what they hear from the pulpit or the Pope.

For example, the last poll I saw on the subject found that 57% of Canadian Catholics supported the concept of marriage rights for same-sex couples. But that certainly ISN'T the Pope's, the Bishops' or the Vatican's position is it?

But, because of the way the church 'defines' itself, the Catholic position remains one that its adherents do not support.

The same thing is true of birth control and abortion. And this is NOT a matter of conscience - it is a matter of tradition and dogma - the Catholic conception of conscience has nothing to do with that little voice in your head and everything to do with bending your will to suit the church's teachings.

There is certainly no bogey-man in Catholic opinion these days but that doesn't mean that Stephen Harper and his fundamentalist base in this country aren't intent upon bending citizens to fit their moral vision of what 'ought' to be. His action relative to veils and voting is a perfect example of this and his position on 'justice' crime and punishment and rehabilitation is another.

The very status of the Vatican as a member of the community of Nations is a ‘real’ problem – whatever positive moral influence the Pope wields in the councils of nations is more than offset by the unique status of the Vatican as a ‘country’. It in one particular Christian domination – that’s all – and its enhanced status is an anachronism of the past that ought to be dumped in recognition that no religion should hold a hand in the game of international diplomacy. I can’t understand why the Muslims don’t hive off a section of Medina as the ‘official’ state of Islam and the Jews do likewise with a section of Jerusalem…not to mention every other sect demanding the same thing. The identification of national populations with a particular faith is both silly and dangerous. Time to get over it – religion is a matter of private morality which may, or may not, inform the way an individual lives – it should stay the hell out of politics.

it's money

our entire wealth system was backed by the RC church - it has centuries of wealth stored up and that is why they have their status with the un, et al.

certainly remove them and redistribute their wealth then make vatican city a world museum site open to the world.

btw - this is why they often align with wealthy interests (ie fascist, whatever) that often seek dictatorial powers - they hate redistribution of wealth by secular authorities because of this.

they are the first bank.

hate-mongering

It is no more hate-mongering to write about the unpleasant deeds of Catholic Church (or the Church of England, or Wahhabism) than it would be to write about the crimes of the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R. or China. Or the fascists in Germany or Spain or Chile.

Another 2-parter on account

Another 2-parter on account of the word count limitations....

o I don’t defend the RCC, I simply resist the blackwashing of Western history. I challenged you to present facts, not ahistorical and counter-factual clichés. Your windy rhetoric is placing all the blood ever spilled in Western history at the doorstep of Roman Catholics today. Gimme a break.

o A very complex history, of which religion was only one component. It’s important we recognize and teach it, but modern Catholics today can’t be slapped with “collective guilt” for the actions of the Conquistadors 600 years ago. That’s a ridiculous proposition.

o It’s important to recognize historical wrongs, without enacting a new kind of inquisition and creating a new brand of heritics. A lot of nastiness took place. It was a different era, and there were no democratic or accountability mechanisms. But it’s important to keep a few caveats in mind, which do not reduce or relativize the brutality which took place, but are important in placing this historical reality in context. “The Inquisition” denotes events which took place over different times in different geographical areas of Europe – it’s not a single event with a single character. In many places, it had a political component, and was often co-opted by local political forces (as occurred in Spain) to purge opposition elements. Catholics today trying to practice their beliefs should not be baited with tendentious references to events they had nothing to do with. No “collective guilt”, please.

Quote:the suppression of

o This happened, but far more momentous was the preservation of knowledge that occurred. Western civilization survived the Dark Ages for one reason alone: the diligence and hard work of the Monasteries.

o The current Pope, and the last one, have done more to bring an end to anti-Semitism than any other in history, by addressing the root causes of Christian anti-Semitism (i.e. nullifying any insinuation of collective guilt for the death of Jesus, pronouncing the Jewish Covenant with God as sufficient in itself for Salvation, etc.).

o As for homophobia, RC’s are hardly unique, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church forbids the disrespect, harassment, and persecution of homosexuals. If I’m not mistaken, that’s more than the Charter of Rights explicitly says. It’s also a whole lot better than a lot of other Christian denominations, let alone Muslim teachings on homosexuality. Not saying it’s ideal by any stretch, but let’s not get carried away and single out Catholics for this. Roman Catholic proscriptions against homosexuality are grounded in Natural Law Theory, not literalist readings of scripture (the RCC does not accept or teach the Evangelical / Protestant literalist readings of the Leviticus verses). As such, RCC sexual ethics are technically no harsher on homosexuals than they are on adulterers or straight horn-dogs having sex outside of marriage.

You are indeed anti-Catholic and anti-Christian, based on the one-sided insinuations of this article and your previous one. Face it, you don’t convey any of the nuance or any “good news.” That would be off-message, wouldn't it. Just “come out” already. You’ve lined all the half-truths up, and lead the readers to draw the obvious conclusions. It’s pretty bald, even though you’ve covered your tracks with the correct semantics.

I lost my original posting

I lost my original posting of the above, and had to quickly re-do, but I originally also included a few words about Pope JP2’s famous apologies for past wrongs (i.e. not doing more to help the Jews during the Holocaust, the Galileo Trials, etc.). They were a fairly big deal at the time, with many public mea culpas that were heralded by Jewish communities, scientific communities, etc. True, they boil down to mere words, but what else do you want – blood?

Rhetoric

nightbloom wrote:

Rafe does no such thing. Please give us a break!

It is your perfect right to object to an article that reminds us of the Church's ignominy. I hazard to guess that you would not similarly object to an exposition of the history of Stalinism or Maoism. Rafe is goring a particular ox that you happen to admire (in large part because of your own over-heated reaction to last week's article). Please don't exaggerate what he is actually saying.

only the insane

believe the church or monasteries were keepers of knowledge.

Unlike the PR campaigns you seem to swallow hole, nightbloom, the facts are clear - the early christian church destroyed libraries that ran counter to their own ideology.

These are historical facts that you do not like.

try this for a great compendium of lies and destruction - all for profit - that the church has engaged in since day one.

http://tinyurl.com/33kvuz

The RC Church is the first real corporate entity and it has been around for over a millenium - truly a wealthy, dangerous and naturually anti-democratic institution.

Nightbloom engages in the basest of religious obscuranism - writing pages and pages of obsfucations in an attemopt to hide the real arguments from the world.

Separation of Chruch and State?

Religion gets into trouble when it allows one human to dictates what should believed and what should not. The failure to separate Church and State by some is proof that they require an element of coercion to promote their views. That is completely contradictory to the teachings Jesus. The Churches have through the centuries subverted the teaching to build empires of control even if it is a spiritual control.

If the Churches allowed people to do their own searching and allowed them to wrestle with certain tenants of the faith, we would have a lot less war in the name of God or Allah. In this day and age what need is there of interpreters who read words in the same language as you or I. What does one need an Iman or a Pope or any other Preacher for anyway. They just cause more bloodshed. How valid is a conversion under threat?

Sex

What is it with the Church and sex? Can anyone explain that to me? How can death be preferable to using a condom?

from Reuters, Oct 23rd:

"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

http://tinyurl.com/3xnmdk

Is it because the Church is run by frustrated celibate old men? Does it stem from the twisted idea of "original sin"? And no, nightbloom, I am not saying the Church causes AIDS, just that they could stop it if they wanted to, considering their influence in L. Am., but they don't. In anyone's book that is utterly immoral. Again, what is it with the Church and sex?

LOL - well, I dunno how

LOL - well, I dunno how often I can repeat "it's not about whitewashing...it's about not blackwashing...."

Whatever. I think if people feel affirmed in their prejudices and hatreds, then nothing I say here will convince them otherwise. I still think Rafe has done some pretty sloppy history here, and I've stuck it out & explained why. As I said earlier - what'd'ya want, blood? I think putting forward such one-sided arguments confirm my assertion that Rafe Mair is both anti-Christian, and more precisely anti-Catholic. He should just come out and admit it like everyone else has on this thread.

Booker - we got into the whole sex question and "the Christianities" on an earlier thread. I tried to engage that debate constructively too. It goes right back to the origins, and it's not just a Catholic thing today. But that debate is a little too nuanced for this forum, and doesn't facilitate the 'constituency consolidation' objectives of The Tyee website. Another time, perhaps.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Rafe ever attempted a "Jew Smack-Down" or a "Muslim Smack-Down" with a similar tenor, however.

Really - how so?

Anti-Christian and anti-Catholic...

Once again, it seems to me that the demonizing is coming from a slightly different angle...
A commenter should not attract that kind of attack without more persuasive evidence. Religion is, after all, a private matter for most and being ‘against’ the Church of Rome (or at variance with the hierarchy) in no way implies either of the descriptors above.

I think the best illustration of what's wrong with such argument is provided by a simple substitution exercise. Now it may be true that there is no 'real' danger of Christians (or Catholics) getting their act together to confront and dominate everyone else; but, if one looks to Islamic states where Muslim values predominate to the exclusion of all others, it isn't hard to appreciate why Rafe and others might well say that religious values and principles shouldn't have any overt sway in the government and institutions here in the West, Substitute Muslim masters for Christian ones and the problem becomes more real. It is perfectly valid not to want either…

As for the 'desire' of the RC Church to 'interfere' in the secular and political sphere I'd ask everyone to cast their mind back to the Kerry campaign for President. There was no shortage of examples there of churchmen (including Bishops and, as I recall, at least one Cardinal) who were more than willing to interfere in politics from the pulpit.

Anyone who cherishes secular institutions and humanistic values would be wise to insist that religion and politics remain separate spheres.

IN my view.

illness

Let's be honest: Belief in God is mental illness. If I were to walk down the street talking to Roger the Invisible Rabbit, they'd take me away, but if I were talking to another imaginary companion, Jesus, or Mohammad, or Beelzebub, or some other figure in whose name we self-righteously kill, I'd be holy.

Certainly we have progressed past the days when we needed this nonsense to explain the mysteries of Nature. Surely, we have grown up past the point of lying to ourselves to make us feel better about our mortality, . . havent we?

Social club?

G West wrote:

I think you misrepresent the work within the UCC. There is very deep work going on in areas of social justice and poverty relief that is conveniently ignored by anti-church commentators. For that matter, work within other denominations, including Roman Catholic, the world would be a far MORE chaotic place with unmeasurable human suffering.

the work

Doing the things you say you're going to do shouldn't absolve you of the things you shouldn't be doing.

Sayblade

Hmmm!

You may well be correct although I'm a little troubled by that word 'within'. One of the great things that the Catholic Church 'does' do is reaching out to the community - regardless of denomination.

My experience of the United Church is that it is pretty insular and it certainly does a lot within its home communities. I'm sure you're more familiar with the details than I am - I grew up in a place where the United Church was really the only denomination available (apart from R.C.) and I found the disconnect between what local pastors did and worked for and the tyranny of the local church board of elders was pretty marked. The United Church, for example, was very anti-alcohol at the time (is it still?) and the pastor was very much against a new bar planned for the community. The local board undermined him and drove him out because they 'wanted' the new bar.

I absolutely agree that it's wrong to forget the effect of centuries of education, health care, bearing witness and the like on the part of the 'People of God' (of all denominations) although I'm not absolutely convinced of your last proposition.

Stump wrote: Quote:"Doing

Stump wrote:

This about work within the denominations not by them. This applies equally to Islam, Judaism and other faith groups.

While it does not erase crimes and absolve sins done in the name of religion or religious groups, the value of the good makes the dismissal of the whole unreasonable.

The role played by religious groups -- in particular, Christianity -- in establishing educational infrastructure in Canada where people can learn to think for themselves is enormous. Ironic, isn't it?

Non Christian religions and freedom of speech

The Catholic church, and Christian member churches, have been the subject of widespread criticism, particularly over the past 50 years. Much of this criticism has been well founded, and one hopes that in the near future the Christian churches(particularly the Catholic church) will priortize their teachings with love, rather than cloaking love with rigid trappings.
Now to my main point, and I pose this in the form of a question to Rafe Mair. Is the time approaching whereby western societies will be free to criticize non-christian religions in the same manner that christian religious sects are criticized. Or are the physical threats emunating from the fundamentalists too inhibiting for one to indulge in a democratic exercise, namely, freedom of speech.

Napoleon Buonaparte

"Napoleon I was a monster whose years in power saw hundreds of thousands of deaths by soldiers and civilians for no loftier ideal than satisfying Napoleon's brutal greed."

Er, excuse me...the Napoleonic Code? Still in use in many countries, and more progressive, even in watered down form, than the Angloplex's Common Law...

For example, the Code requires that a parental bequest be distributed equally between all siblings. That was a stab in the heart of primogeniture.

The Code also enshrined women's property rights, at least 100 years before English law did.

Also, its death duties were draconian, and did not allow the Trust Law fiddle that the Angloplex has allowed for 100s of years, e.g. the Percy family, leaders of one side in the feudal Wars of the Roses, still featuring among Britain's Rich 100.

No, Napoleon did not fight just for his own power, but on behalf of the people, too.

Thanks eelpie

Glad you picked up on that.

Rafe's assessment of Napoleon Bonaparte was the typical verdict of an Anglophile all right. The Emperor was hardly an unalloyed triumph in terms of human rights (Haiti) and he wasn't 'really' a democrat but, his contributions were far from uniformly black and negative and he got the French, enfin, out of frame of mind which set in with Maximilien Robespierre and his Jacobin buddies on the Committee of Public Safety. It's important to remember that was a very BLOODY time too.

And I'd like to see a bit of the Napoleonic 'death' duty here in Canada one of these days to straighten outcome of the 'entitlements' we're building chez nous.

Merci.

errata

That should be 'straighten out some' of the entitlements....etc

Fear

Christendom had never been shy about "criticizing" other religions, as the Jews and the Muslims can confirm. There is a great deal of criticism of Islam going on publicly and privately and I think the fear of being killed for making statements against Islam is overstated. The authors of the current bestselling atheist books have most definitely taken Islam to task (particularly Hitchens, in whose home Rushdie once hid).

Many of us, however, are more interested in critiquing our own culture rather than the cultures of foreign lands, so that is another reason we focus on Christianity (I recognize that we are 'multicultural' in Canada, but the dominant culture here is derived from the European Christian tradition). For better or worse, it's what we know best, and it's what we grew up with.

What?? The Napoleonic Code

What?? The Napoleonic Code is not synonymous with English Common Law - they're totally different legal traditions.

Let me try to tally the

Let me try to tally the present-day “beefs” secular liberals have with the Roman Catholic Church, and filter out all the historical vendettas that Rafe and others have spewed forth for a moment. I’ll try to present both sides, without attempting to put forward water-tight argument for or against, either way. This is what the RCC stands accused of:

1. The RCC teaches that birth control (including condoms) commodify the sex act and turn it from a life-oriented act of participation in God’s creation into a self-centred act of self-gratification and mutual exploitation. Catholic agencies nevertheless make condoms available for “harm reduction” purposes, while preaching their ideal that sex attains it highest purpose in the context of a loving relationship (esp. sacramental marriage) that is open to the creation and nourishing of new life.

2. It has the temerity to tell the career women of the developed world that abortion is the willful termination of another human life, and is therefore a form of legally sanctioned murder, and not justified by arguments of self-defence or personal autonomy. The Church nevertheless keeps its anti-abortion advocacy within the bounds of legal discourse and protest, and never makes a public statement about abortion without abjuring violence, rejecting the harassment or targeting of women and healthcare providers, declaring its solidarity with women in need, and calling for the effective redressing of the root socio-economic causes of abortion. Nevertheless they still call on the consciences of the mother, the father, and the medical service providers, and this seems to be their cardinal offence to modern secular sensibilities.

part 2 follows...

3. The RCC defends its right

3. The RCC defends its right to adhere to the institutional composition suggested by its reading of scripture, as well as the composition which allowed it to survive, flourish and maintain its institutional and doctrinal solidity – i.e. namely, a closed male-dominated hierarchal clerical caste of celibate men drawn from the pool of “extra males” and disenfranchised second, third and fourth sons which is an anthropological characteristic of all human communities (except in the contemporary developed world, which from their perspective is in a transient unnatural state). There are a lot of other reasons why they don’t want to change this, among them the fact that women’s ordination hasn’t stopped the exodus from the pews in other denominations, and the fact that the main body of the Roman Catholic women’s ordination movement has become overtaken by radical lesbian-feminist elements imbued with a Gnostic variant of Christianity that would be totally foreign to most RC congregations.

4. It advocates celibacy as a path to holiness, and states that all are called to a chaste life outside of marriage – including unmarried Catholics, youth, and those in ordained ministry. This has contributed, some have argued, to a “lavender priesthood” – i.e. a sub-culture of closeted gay men within the larger priesthood, who entered the priesthood as a way to sublimate their non-acceptance of their sexuality. Some argue this demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Church in preaching sexual morality out one side of its mouth while seeming to wink at the cohort of cruisey gay men in their own ranks.

5. It totally failed to effectively address, report, and root-out serial sex molesters in its own ranks, including both pedophiles and adolescent-chasers.

6. It cracked down on the Liberation Theologians, many (not all) of whom argued and taught that the Gospels presented the Church with a socio-political program of Marxist revolution and the overthrow of neo-liberal political regimes.

Is this the whole rap sheet of present-day gripes against the RCC?

I don't have time to address your points now

Although I am impressed by the approach.

I'll just point out one small problem in the couple of minutes I have available.

(the) Church nevertheless keeps its anti-abortion advocacy within the bounds of legal discourse and protest

I don't think this is sustainable - the attacks from the ‘official’ Church on John Kerry in the last presidential campaign were personal and ad hominem - not within the bounds of reasonable discourse and protest in a secular society. Kerry's personal views are between him and his God - the move to make a public spectacle of purporting to deny him communion was unforgivable and, in my view, beyond the pale. Such a level of direct interference in the political sphere and on a highly-personalized basis - especially in Quebec in the first half of the 20th century - is another prime example of the same sort of thing that creates bad feelings about the Church and its motives for generations.

That's it for now - and thanks for the change in attitude.

I don't think eelpie was implying that the two codes were 'synonymous' - in fact, quite the contrary. He/she was suggesting it was both different and, in certain itemized respects, better.

I think you should read that post again.

WHY ABSTAIN FROM SEX?

nightbloom, Why, would a normal human being abstain from sex? like wants the point?

No, Gwest. As I told you on

No, Gwest. As I told you on the other thread, the Kerry kerfuffle was fair game.

A lot of Catholics disagreed with it (I certainly did), as is their right, but the Bishops were within their rights as leaders of a religious organization (and there was a notable difference of opinion among the Bishops on the Kerry kerfuffle, it must be said). No laws were broken, no violence advocated or perpetrated. It was all above-board. If you're gonna flaunt the brand for votes, you gotta walk the walk. Pretty simple, if you ask me.

Anti-Christian

Question for you Nightbloom, why does raising criticism of something, especially religion, automatically mean that person is "anti"?

Avoiding any arguments of facts or history, it just seems that that is the response so often in these discussions.

I can complain about the instigator rule or the play of Marcus Naslund, but that doesn't make me "anti-hockey".

Disagreeing with the actions of certain Popes or the churches policy on birth control is valid- but doens't make someone automatically "anti-Christian"

I think I've laid that out

I think I've laid that out in detail - it's the selective reading of history, and the selective mixture of fact with half-truth to present a monochromatic picture of history which leads the reader to reach an a priori conclusion that is highly prejudicial to one particular religious minority. It's a version of history that allows everyone to get off scot-free...except, of course, Roman Catholics. No wonder everyone's on board with it.

I disagree

In my view, it was nothing but an ad hominem personal attack - exactly the same kind of thing right wing protestants tried to hang on John Kennedy until he declared he wouldn't be getting marching orders from Rome. It just came from a different angle but it evidences the same phenomenon - direct religious interference in the secular and political sphere. The fact it doesn’t trouble you is not particularly germane to the case – I think you need to reconsider.

Priests are free to say what they like in the pulpit, but when any religious act overtly against anyone (in their religious role) that kind of thing is inappropriate and unjust. If the church doesn't like the US government policy it has every right to make its point judicially but it has no more right to act personally in such cases than a committed Christian does to kill an abortion doctor to save unborn lives. This was in no way analogous to a priest stepping in front of a gun to save a baby – it was an underhanded and calculated ‘political’ act…and that’s precisely why so many people react appreciatively when Rafe writes this kind of column – because so many similar examples of interference and overt hypocrisy come to mind.

That's the WHOLE point: criticize the policy till the cows come home...but don't personalize it. To suggest that a man shouldn't go to communion is infringing upon a matter of personal faith and conscience and the hierarchy ought not to comment or interfere.

It's that kind of high-handed nonsense that gives the Church such a bad reputation. In its way it was no different from the absurd spectacle of Terry Schiavo and American fundamentalism. Such attitudes and the willingness to interfere in the secular realm give succor to the guys who shoot doctors in the moonlight.

The Church should know better and it doesn't get off Scot-free either. These are matters of belief and choice - as long as the individual - Kerry in this case - was acting legally (and he was) the Church cannot reasonable interfere - especially given the fact that the whole purpose of commenting was "political" and not substantive anyway.

As I said, I’m too busy for this right now – and my lunch break is practically over.

The point, Gwest, is that RC

The point, Gwest, is that RC objections to abortion stay within the confines of the law. It's a legitimate viewpoint on a contentious issue, expressed legitimately, and protested legitimately. It's all above-board.

You can belly-ache all you want about pro-choice politicians who flaunt their Catholicism for votes, catch flak for their position, and then don't duck in time. But it's all fair game. Regarding abortion as the deliberate pre-meditated murder of another human being is a totally legitimate, rational and ethically sound viewpoint which secular liberals have great problems with. You can disagree all you want, but people who see it this way are equal and legitimate participants in the free market of ideas...and in the political process. The Bishops were within their rights, and there was nothing ad hominem about it. That's the politics of abortion. Besides, the pro-life side isn't the only one to hold public officials & candidates to apply a litmus test on this issue. As I recall, pro-choicers nearly lynched Clarence Thomas over it (tho they didn't have the integrity to come out and say why they were doing it and what their real agenda was - everyone knew the truth all the same).

I have no problem with that

You need to read a lot more closely. I was CLEARLY referring to the threats to deny Kerry Holy Communion. That was beyond the pale and it was deeply shameful and personal.

That's the problem with religion. Get it?

How many times do I have to say it?

Hmmm - I wonder if that's

Hmmm - I wonder if that's the real beef that utilitarian neo-liberalism has with the RCC: the RCC's deep-seated opposition to abortion, fetal experimentation, genetic manipulation, and the unfettered commercialization of the human genome. Let's face it: the RCC is the only organization with an autonomous worldwide platform standing in the way of the total commercialization of all aspects of the human person and human life. And they do a pretty effective job at getting their viewpoint across in this regard (another merit the secular liberal-left won't ever admit or acknowledge).

re nightbloon nonsense

Yes, but the problem arises - and you know it does, NB - when the Church tells an RC politician that he/she is not allowed to take even a neutral position on an issue like abortion, but must actively oppose it.

Beyond question, Kerry's arm-twisting was so public because private "advice" had failed to persuade him. One has to wonder then, given that Canada's population is 46% RC, how much of our legislation is shaped by a discreet phone call handing out instructions for the next day's vote?

Separation of Church and State? Bah.

How about, nightbloom, just once

How about, nightbloom, just once, forgetting THAT mantra, to which you tend to reduce every single debate, and actually addressing the idea that it is a shameful thing for a religion that preaches personal responsibility and free will - not to mention that the relation between the sinner and the sin is one mediated by God - through the medium of the priest in the confessional - is doing something profoundly at odds with its own philosophy when it enters so blatantly and personally into the public sphere as it did in the Kerry case? IN the name of demonizing one individual among many in order to make political hay; the Church should criticize all it likes – but personal attacks are reprehensible and, coming from the hierarchy, they tend toward being unforgivable.

One-Way Street

nightbloom wrote:

I would agree with that statement, but it seems to me that you don't agree with it. When they express their opinion they are participating in the free market of ideas, and when we express ourselves we're hate-mongering fundamentalist liberal-left nihilists, "blackwashing" history. It's a tad tiresome, but frankly, pretty typical.

Woody wants to know why a

Woody wants to know why a person would want to abstain from sex. Well, I suppose for the same reason a fat person might want to abstain from food, or an alcoholic from drinking beer, or a wife-beater from violence toward his 'loved one.' In a word or two - self-control. Without which we might as well acknowledge we are nothing more than another primate.

BTW, the church does not and never has 'preached' free will. It has advocated the exercise of 'personal responsibility' to restrain wanton free will, much as we use a rein to control and direct the power of a horse.

ME2 worries about the effect the RCC church might exert on Canadian politicians secretly by covert phone calls in the night. We have had both protestant and catholic prime ministers over the past half-century but it is only now under Stevie's protestant conservatives that you should worry about women's rights (including abortion), gay rights (including marriage), and common rights (excluding the right of the rich to get richer). I doubt that Stevie accepts any calls from a church that advocates for the poor, the dispossessed and the handicapped.

Scripture written by wing nuts, for wing nuts!

Des Emery, your description of abstinence is wrong. Alcoholism is mental illness. Obesity is caused by, anything from genes out of whack to mental illness. Wife beating, is a crime, mostly associated with alcoholism( probably 95%) to mental illness.
If people wish to be treated as sheep, and follow instructions read from a book, written long ago, by a bunch of delusional wing nuts, which states, that you must abstain from sex, then I say, go ahead ,knock your self out, do it, as I don't give a rats ass.

A lot of world religious

A lot of world religious have religious communities that practice celibacy or periods of abstention and chastity. No one thinks twice about celibate Buddhist monks. The West has a long history of asceticism and monasticism – in fact, the early desert hermits were analogous to pop-culture superstars in their day, achieving legendary reputations throughout the Mediterranean, North Africa and the Near East, and amassing huge multi-ethnic followings of both men and women. The form of Christian monasticism were recognize today was founded by St. Benedict and his sister St. Scholastica.
The early women monastics were particularly zealous, overcoming all sorts of societal barriers in their pursuit of an ascetic transcendental life, and it actually didn’t take too long before they were accepted by their male counterparts in the desert. This was also a period of relative equality and platonic amity between the monastics of both genders – monastic women in the early years were seen as exempt from the social constraints placed on both unmarried & married women in mainstream society.

This was always an accepted reality – only in hyper-sexed-up contemporary North America and Western Europe do we project pathology and weirdness onto abstention from sex (for any reason, let alone spiritual reasons). The modern West does not accept the notion of transcendentalism unless it’s hidden in totally foreign garb, as is the case with the nimby West Coast fascination with Tibetan Buddhism. All religions have a branch of mysticism, including the great Occidental monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). It’s within this mystic spectrum that the faiths begin to intersect in very interesting ways – Muslim Sufism with Jewish Kabbalah with Christian monasticism.

Also, it’s important to remember that in pre-modern society, a huge portion of the male population had no hope of attaining social status or accessing sex in a socially sanctioned manner. This conclusion is born out by science (i.e. we have far few male ancestors than we do female). This is a component of what is called “male expendability”. Male creative energies must always find a constructive outlet, and the explosion of monasticism among society’s “surplus males” was one of those.

In actuality, we all know people who are celibate out of personal preference, beliefs, or natural inclination. Celibate men and women are in our families, social networks, and workplaces. We just don’t see it. Even the sexually active among us are chaste for 99.9% of our lives. Think of the all time we each spend not having sex. There’s something a little sociopathic in our fixation with sex and our insistence that it is only through sex and sexual identity that we become fully self-realized. This is probably the biggest falsehood promulgated by the Sexual Revolution.

It's not all about you

It's too bad this thread has degenerated into a war between a few personalities arguing finer points of meaningless doctrine. I don't usually like or agree with Rafe but I enjoyed his provocative poke in the eye this time and I think an opportunity for a meaningful discussion has been missed.

I especially appreciated his disclaimer that "God, or a higher authority, if such exists, cannot be blamed for the serial horrors perpetrated by those who abuse his name."

Some have said, "why not, if he's supposed to be a good and loving God, etc."

The same person might argue that if God intervened he was being a tyrant, a monster crushing free will and choice, choosing one side over the other. I guess you could blame God for everything, if you wanted, by blaming him for creating people who didn't want to be created. But what does that get you? You're still here.

But I'm not here to argue that point, I just wanted to say that I agree with Rafe that the Catholic church – and other unapologetic religious bodies – should own up to past mistakes and move on.

I also want to say that it doesn't just apply to religious organizations. As long as people have had the ability to organize, they have used that ability to oppress, harass, abuse and murder others. People have done it in the name of God, Jesus, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu, the tree god, the earth mother and athiesm. Yes, athiesm. You only have to look at the atrocities committed by the Soviet Communist regime against its own people in the name of suppressing religion to see that.

The shit stick to all of us.

Good post, GJW. And I

Good post, GJW. And I agree. As I've tried to explain, the RCC has made huge strides in redressing past wrongs (JP2's apologies, evolving perspectives on the Jewish people and their relationship to Christianity, etc.). It doesn't seem to be enough for those who regard the RCC's very existence as offensive. They want it extinct, period. I don't think Catholics have anything to gain by bending over to please such people.

On a lighter note:
"What the New Atheists Don’t See"
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html

You don't get it

We will never separate those who need to believe from their irrational needs. Nor will we ever be safe from those willing to sacrifice us to the flames "for our own good", as the Christians are wont to do.

Yes, I called religion mental illness. What would you call the "belief" (whatever that is), in some Great Power that cannor be shown or proven?

We created God to hide our vulnerabilities, our fears, our insecurities. If you need such a crutch, fine, just don't expect me to have the same failings.

"The evil of religion will

"The evil of religion will be the death of this planet." Grumpy is partly correct. But PLato is credited with a more accurate conclusion. That being that writting in general will doom civilization. It's ironic that he wrote that down.

humbug

You took the words right out of my mouth!
I have long maintained that religion is a crutch for weak people, happy to see others agree.
To even waste time and energy on this issue shows how ingrained that brainwashing has become.

Asking forgiveness...

Indeed, in spite of such a quick historical overview, the article remains a mouthful. I will limit my comment to the article's closing paragraph.

Before going through a list of links... remember, the reader understands what the reader wants, and can. And then try and convince me that there is no apparent prejudice among the "Best comments" posters, or their selection. But, read on as you will, and/or can.

The Catholic Church carried over many of the Jewish practices and traditions. Even the Old Testament is a series of Books borrowed from the Jewish faith. One of the recurrent practices is the year of the Jubilee. The Great Jubilee was in 2000.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Jubilee#Prayer_for_Forgiveness_for_Sins_of_the_Church] The section titled "Prayer for Forgiveness for Sins of the Church" summarises JP II + company's request for forgiveness.

This article's title, French Catholics apologize for World War II silence on Jews, is self-explanatory.
[url=http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9710/01/france.catholics/index.html]

In this document, Ezer Weizman, the then President of the State of Israel (yr 00), states:

"We appreciate Your Holiness’ contribution condemning anti-Semitism by labeling it as a crime against God and humanity, and bythe request for forgiveness for deeds carried out in the past by representatives of the Church against the Jewish people." (my bold, p.13 of dcmt)
[url=http://www.adl.org/Interfaith/JohnPaul_II_Visit.pdf]

CNN gives its version of the March 12th mass "Day of Forgiveness" at St Peter's Basilica. Read links.
[url=http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/03/12/pope.apology.02/index.html]

The year of the Great Jubilee, or any Jubilee, is practiced throughout the world, throughout that year.

That we should all do the same! But indeed, forgiveness appears to be a gesture required only of the "Roman Catholic Hierarchy"! Gives an impression of self-righteousness from those requesting it, but I guess x-politicians never did or do wrong, is that not so?

I'm an atheist, by the way.

physical vs. mental

When I read Woody's comments I got the impression it was from a male writer, young, inexperienced and unstudied. His answer only confirms that impression. Alcoholism is a physical addiction - ask anyone who belongs to AA about the physical pain of withdrawal. So is excess weight - overeating can be measured in physical units. Spousal assault, like rape, is not sexual, but provides physical relief of a kind. Abstinence from sex is also physical, like abstinence from alcohol,food,and violence, and proves to the ego that the superego is dominant, over-riding the ego and elevating the practitioner well above animal instincts.
Any athlete will tell you that self-discipline is the all-important way to true self-expression.

I presume Woody, in rejecting the Bible, also rejects the lessons to be learned in Aesop' Fables, the Brothers Grimm, Shakespeare, the Odyssey, the Iliad, etc. Pity.

Mair Argues Religion

I am often reminded of the last line in Peter Shaffer's 1964 play "Royal Hunt of the Sun," about the destruction of the Inca empire by Conquistador Francisco Pizarro.

"Thus fell Peru. We gave her the three gifts for the civilized life: greed, hunger and the cross."

Roman Catholic Church

THe Catholic Church has a long sad history of hanging our with opressive regimes in the world : English as they supressed the Irish,Catholic South and Latin America and no end of bloody regimes,Hitler and other like minded regimes in Europe.The list is VERY long.

Then of course there is their long history of abuse of children.

I think that the present head of the roman catholic church should be held accountable for his sins in the World Court in the Hague.

religion

God gave us a brain and with it a requirement to think.Even if that thinking brings us to the logical conclusion,that there is no God.I read that once and thought it neat.
Belief in God results from an inability to believe in ourselves.At least that's my view of it.Maybe if we can get ourselves weaned of the notion of afterlife we'll be better able to start fixing this one.

humbug said Quote:We

humbug said

And then alive responded with:

I have often felt that junkies and Jesus freaks were more alike than different. They are both just people looking for a simple answer to the complex question of life (where do we come from, why are we here, what should we do, WHY?) and how to live. For some people Jesus is the answer, others conclude that Heroin is the solution. Personally I think they both are too easily seduced by the EASY ANSWER! But of course that's just my take as a person who has given each (and others) an opportunity to present its case.

Last comment from me

Believe what you like, justify it how you will - but when your beliefs infringe on democratic freedoms to choose the institutions of government and the schools, the way the law and the justice system operate, then it's time to back off.

One other thing I'd like ended - the tax free status of religion. No reason they can't operate "charitable foundations" like the Fraser Institute so folks can still get their tax receipts for 'real' good works though.

But if religion is going to have a political presence - it needs to be treated just like a political party.

My view.

the oldest ideas, practices and values

I've just read Mair's column on Catholicism. I have not read all the comments, and realize I might be taking up eye-time with points already made.

The Catholic Church is the oldest European institution, no? As such is is the repository of the oldest, and perhaps most outdated, ideological foundations among institutions, which have been spread all over the globe. Those ideological matters include the actual practices of the institution under examination. Mair points to a tiny fraction of the possible cases to be made for the hypocrisy, the cruelty, the woman hating, the violence promoting and sanctioning, child damaging, practices which might be enumerated if there were time enough and space to do so.

And in addition, Roman Catholicism promotes and supports and revivifies at every turn the ideology and practice of patriarchy - the sanctioning of the rule of the fathers over everyone and everything.

As such, in my view, there is every reason to celebrate each stone turned over to reveal the breadth and depth of the heinous treatment of human beings by this institution of Catholicism. Whether you agree with Mair is hardly the point. The point is that Catholicism, and those of its defenders and its practionners who refuse to reject in a personal or public way the damage done in the last 1500 years or so [because it is the institutionalized Catholic Church - not only the beliefs of christians which is the problem] to millions of human beings, who condone the on-going contemporary practices of destruction and death which institutionalized Catholicism is.

How can any thinking person who has given even a moment's thought to the plight of the children of sub-Saharan Africa, the plight of their mothers, their fathers, their grandparents, refuse the practical, real need to combat both social resistance and viral success with latex? How do you rationalize such thinking? Have you no compassion?

How can anyone who's taken even a cursory look at the nearly successful annihilation of First Nations in Canada over the last 400 years think for a moment that the ideas and practices of institutionalized Catholicism didn't have a key part in that genocidal, greed driven history?

Do you get it that it hasn't been only boys who have been stolen from their childhood by sexual predators supported, protected and hidden by the institutionalized Catholic Church? Girls and their mothers, sisters, aunts and grandmothers have been the targets of sexual predators taken care of by the Catholic Church for millenia now.

Every word you write in defense of them, every word you speak in their favour adds to the burdens carried by the living and dead targets of the Catholic Church's institutionalized practices of greed, predation, and death.

Not easy, or simple

kootcoot said:

Hoo boy, I don't know where the idea comes from that being a "Jesus freak" is a simple answer to life's complex questions. Have you actually read what Jesus said in the Bible? "Take up your cross and follow me" is one quote that comes to mind, which implies that "if you follow me, expect to be tortured and killed." Nowhere do I see him saying "I'll make life all fuzzy bunnies and puppies for you, buddies! Give me your money! Love Jesus, LOL!"

No, the Christian life is about learning to live well despite pain and suffering. If that's a crutch, then call me a cripple.

I respect people who say they can handle everything this world has to throw at them, and don't need a crutch of some kind, but I don't believe them. People seek refuge in something to numb or overcome the pains of life – entertainment, political activism, in casual abuse of alcohol – getting ripped at Saturday night's party, looking forward to it all week, talking about it all the next week. People always turn to something, even if it's a belief in their own willpower to overcome their troubles. But at some point we all have to confront the pain and suffering in our lives and in the world, and realize that we can't really do anything about it.

I see all the usual arguments here against the futility and stupidity and evils of religion, but let me turn it back at the arguers – if that's true, do you believe that billions of people are mentally ill morons who hold to a faith because they're naive dupes who need a crutch to overcome the futility of life? That only the truly strong overcome the mass delusion? That's a pretty arrogant position to take, don't you think?

What's more likely is there is a universal truth – that life sucks – and that many people find meaning in life through faith.

cyrpess - yes, the RCC is

cyrpess - yes, the RCC is the single oldest Western institution. That's why the ideological liberal-left would love nothing more than to pull it up by its roots. A distant second are the extant universities the RCC founded in Europe (the university is an RCC invention, after all).

But the RCC is Western no longer. That's what really irks the nihilist left. Look at the numbers in Asia (esp. China) and the entire southern hemisphere. If it ain't Muslim, it's Roman Catholic. The generations are turning over, and who knows what the future will bring as Europe and North America commit slow suicide and undergo reverse-colonization by the developing world.

Also, Western monasticism has undergoing a bit of a post-post-modern renaissance, much to everyone's suprise. There are long-term social forces at work here that the liberal dialectic (let alone Rafe's ornery scibblings) hasn't even gleaned yet.

Aaaahhh religion! A few

Aaaahhh religion!

A few years ago I became an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, a "religion" that was created to provide equal rights for anyone who didn't feel comfortable sitting at the same table as the diety worshipers, be they monotheists or panthiests. The 2 commandments are "Do good." and "Respect all life in the universe." Pretty simple and refreshingly liberating compared to other organized religions. In their words @ http://www.themonastery.org/

"We are all children of the same universe

The Universal Life Church is the only denomination in the world that opens its doors to all, welcomes all who ask to Become an Ordained Minister and grants it without question. We are a non-denominational ULC church. We support a full spectrum interfaith ministry. Over 20 million Universal Life Church (ULC) ministers have been ordained online throughout the world. We make no religious hurdles, no hoops to jump through, no tests of loyalty, no rings to kiss and no fees to pay. Why? The ULC Monastery represents freedom, and to have freedom you can not make demands upon individuals. In the Universal Life Church (ULC) Monastery everyone is equal - the same level of greatness is enjoyed by all."

Having over 20 million members means it is a bigger faith than Judaism (14/15 million)!

So believe in a rather brutal, all powerful father figure who is conveniently managed by a devious fraternity, or choose a life-affirming set of values to guide yourself by (if you trust yourself). It is really a question of critically reflecting on your upbringing, and making informed choices that are aligned with what you want to see more off in the world. Personally I don't want to see any more AIDS, religious warfare, lack of of womens rights, lack of environmental stewardship, missionary work, etc.

Look around you. It is time the collective "we" tried something different. Let's leave the oppression that is organized religion in the 20th century and grow up. We have reached childhood's end and we don't need to believe the fairy tales anymore.

M

Torture, Death - I think not!

GJW sez accepting Jesus involves:

I don't think many "born agains today even think of that part of Jesus much less his other teachings about humility, sharing and helping your neighbor. Most of today's evangelicals are into the forgiveness, like the First Saved in the White House to whom Jesus mainly said it was okay for him to have spent his first forty years drinking and snorting coke (and taking advantage of his family connections) and now tells him to kill people in the name of freedom or something.

Hand your life over to Jesus and everything is okay, no matter what sins or crimes you committed before accepting the lord. To a junkie, getting a fix makes everything alright, too! The easy "fix" is generally a pretty easy sell!

I must admit though that I don't see much Christianity" in most folks who call themselves Christians these days, cynical me.

Fair enough

Fair enough, I agree, and I suspect we see eye to eye on a lot of things here, even though I gather you're an atheist or agnostic of sorts.

I just wanted to make the distinction between those who call themselves Christian for political, social, economic and reality-avoidance reasons and those who are genuinely trying to follow Christ.

Here's another quote for you: "Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in your name, and through your name cast out demons, and through your name do many wonderful works?' And then I will say to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from me, those working lawlessness!' "

One could imagine that applies to presidents who put on religious airs to get re-elected, and to get support for invasions masked as righteous crusades.

to GJW

I get the impression we might agree on more than we would disagree about. I find it difficult to be anything more "sure" than an agnostic, it would require suspension of believing the evidence of my senses, and that includes being an atheist, because that requires a statement of faith I'm not prepared to make and stand behind.

If I would to try and define myself, perhaps an existential Taoist would seem appropriate, at least today.

I do think Jesus Christ is a wonderful role model as is Lao-Tzu and the Buddha, but I find it hard to buy into "secret" or faith based knowledge. If everyone lived like Christ though the world would definitely be a better place.

I definitely abhor the intrusion of ChristoFacism into US Politics and consider it equivalent to the radical Muslims elsewhere. I also view Harper and his ChristoFacist Gang with distaste, and hope that enough Canadians can avoid being fooled by his somewhat hidden agenda to make his form of Evangelicalism even more influential than the RC Church ever was, even in Quebec. I don't want my grandchildren to have to learn that the Earth may be only 6000 years old. These types are perfect examples of "if you give 'em an inch..............."

I'm actually agnostic as

I'm actually agnostic as well.

I worry about the monotone sameness of mainstream secularized society though. There really is an unspoken liberal orthodoxy on a full range of public issues that is very stultifying. There's a whole gamut of human activity, thought and emotive self-investment that isn't being engaged anymore. I'm also amazed at how entitled people feel to hang all sorts of shite & baggage on their neightbour. Large swathes of this 'new orthodoxy' is about doing precisely that, and justifying it by cultivating an exagerated and largely unjustified sense of grievance among specific constituencies. One would think we had first-hand victims of the Inquisition right here on this thread, for example. There are other examples (like the self-righteousness of the over-indulged feminist towards her hapless male peers, to name one) It's our sublimated and neuroticized substitute for something that was lost with the old ritual social forms, protections, and controlled outlets for collective stress (like the charivari). I see the current assault on religious belief using exclusively Christian metaphor in this vein - that is, as an oblique and perverse expression of Fear of the Other - i.e. the hijab-wearing Muslim or the turban-wearing Sikh. It's socially unacceptable to be critical of these communities' religious behaviour, so Christianity is a safe and politically correct cipher upon which to mount this critique because, on some level, agnostic or atheist Westerners still feel a sense of belonging (or ownership) to the Christian tradtion. It's "okay" because they believe they're criticizing their own culture & tradition, which in a sense they are. That's why Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris...and I guess Rafe too...are very, very circumspect about criticising non-Christian sects, but feel entitled to let'er rip on Christianity without any apparent awareness of the double-standard or hyprocrisy inherent in such a stance.

What happen to the Natives

What happen to all the Natives who left this earth before knowing of, Christ ,Jesus, Christianity, White mans God?
What would the Christian explanation be? That until the arrival of Christianity, the Natives would not have been permitted to enter the Christians heaven, that their spirits roamed aimlessly around the plains for centuries waiting for the Christans to come and unlock the pearly gates to let them in. (Written by an anonymous Native woman.)"If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind."

Funny, but I don't know a

Funny, but I don't know a single Christian of any stripe (and certainly no Catholic) who would argue that position. Those kinds of literalists are a bogey man of atheists like Dawkins. They're not representative of the majority of mainstream Christians of any creed. I'm sure they exist, like those loonie Baptists picketing the funderals of U.S. soldiers, but I wonder why you are so absorbed with the most negative 0.001% of Christians living today. It's almost like you need to believe that they are the worst they can possibly be. Perhaps that's your belief system, your negative leap of anti-faith. But it's not reality.