Catholic Bigotry?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But the Cardinal thinks he is right because God is right about such things. Therefore, you have to tackle the morality of that God. Or easier still, demonstrate that Catholicism is a load of rubbish.

[manshimajin]

But the Cardinal thinks he is right because God is right about such things. Therefore, you have to tackle the morality of that God. Or easier still, demonstrate that Catholicism is a load of rubbish.

 

I would say that alternatively one recognises that Catholicsm has its values which one may or may not share; that the Cardinal has a point of view that one may dislike but it is not truly an important one to non-Roman Catholics; that in a tolerant society one has to accept that not everyone thinks the same and to be very careful not to believe that one is, oneself, 'right'.

 

With respect, to set out to demonstrate that Catholicsm is 'rubbish' would be, in effect, to adopt the same approach as the Cardinal which is saying that homosexuality is 'rubbish'. Both are IMO sterile approaches that lead potentially to aggressively 'anti' each other mental positions.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Catholicism is based on a particular dogma resting on the belief of a particular God (which has a particular character and commandments). It isn’t just some array of various values. But even it is worse. Those values are up for debate.

 

I can’t say I know exactly what you mean, but essentially you are arguing that believe can have an opinion (such as thinking they are right), but they cannot think they are right. Well that doesn’t make sense. I think you are erring towards some dreadful moral relativism. I don’t know where you have picked it up but it is very flawed. I mean, some cultures think that female circumcision is right. I think they are wrong. Are you saying that we should be sure that we are correct in our opinions on that matter? There are many other examples.

 

Or is the temper or the assuredness of opinions you have a problem with? Are you trying to aim for some live and let idea (that makes no sense in the circumstances). I think you need to explain a good deal more.

 

As for the matter of rubbish. I am talking about rubbishing of the nonsense of catholic belief. Demonstrating why should people and ideas should not be heeded nor given credibility.

[HeliX]

I opened up a news site and found the proof of non-existence of God you were looking for in less than 3 seconds.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/03/tornadoes-roar-through-south-midwest/100256/

[P.K.]

*Please note the irony - the Catholic Church knows all about legislating about slaves: Pope Nicholas V happily condemmed people to perpetual slavery while Pope Paul III "declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome"

I noted the irony and discarded it. OK looking back may help to give some historical context but issues like slavery are hardly relevant in today's modern world. One issue I think the Catholic Church is completely blinkered on is in contraception - particularly barrier contraception. Thanks to their preaching "contraception is unnecessary as there's no bonking outside of wedlock" (dream on with that one!) Aids is roaring through sub-Saharan Africa. It's almost like the US Bible-Bashers being smug that Aids cut down so many homosexuals as "It's God's own punishment for their sinful behaviour" or some such other puritanical nonsense.

 

Legislation recently also found against religious belief in boarding houses. The couple who refused a double bed to a gay couple lost their appeal. In their case I think their beliefs around the sanctity of marriage and therefore their actions were completely genuine. I don't think it's possible to legislate around belief because it's, well, it's belief. To me there should be room in an open society to accept that we're not all the same because if we were we simply wouldn't get along. Story http://www.bbc.co.uk...ngland-15811223

 

What annoyed me was this:

 

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity Stonewall, said he was "delighted" that the court upheld the judgment. He also stated:

 

"I hope Mr and Mrs Bull will now feel content to go home to do God's good work as Easter approaches, instead of relentlessly pursuing a happy couple through the courts."

 

Complete and utter bullshit. According to Mr & Mrs Bull they WERE doing God's work and Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall pursued them through the courts for it and received £3600 from them in damages. Of course the Bull's were on a hiding to nothing as a Civil Partnership is supposed to give the same "rights" as marriage however it's essentially a legally binding arrangement that SUBSTITUTES for marriage - and religious belief has nothing whatever to do with it.

 

Personally I think the Bull's have been penalised for being just a little bit old-fashioned. Shameful!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

P.K., you have lost me. What were you saying about slavery not being relevant? The issue is that the God of the Bible condones slavery, regardless of whether it goes on or not today.

[Evil Goblin]

Evil Goblin - you can cleave to Totalitarians as much as you like

? What totalitarians am I cleaving to?

 

I think the question is whether you really think people's moral lot is now better than the 17th century or not?

Of course I think that we currently have a better set of moral values than were general in the 17th Century. My point is that people in those days would have considered their dominant moral codes were better than had previously been the case and might well think that the codes we have today are quite immoral! In a few hundred years moral codes will have moved on and be completely different again - our views of such things may be regarded as hopelessly immoral. As I'm sure you know, morals are subjective moveable feasts - my (and your) moral views now will be quite different from those we held 20 years ago, which in turn would have been different from those we held 20 years before that. Are our present day codes better or worse than those of the 17th Century (in any objective sense)? We obviously think so but that's just what we think.

 

I, personally, think the Enlightenment has done alot of good, I'm not interested in perfection - an unachievable ideal and I am highly sceptical of Rami's extended universalism - but the Enlightenment has severely limited the absolutists - most of whom encouraged an "abusive exploitation of the human religious sentiment" - and I think you can include the Nazis and Stalin in that.

I willcover this when I get around to responding to Helix.

 

The Enlightenment stands in opposition to absolutism, and I don't think its best proponents replaced God with Man. Rather they accepted the difficult reality that we do not know what is for the best and hence we must grope for it aware that unintended consequences will haunt our every attemtped good deed.

I disagree - they made a God out of Man.

 

The Cardinal is a God knows best - and I'll interpret it for you - absolutist.

It would be surprising if the Cardinal did nothold such a view - "No Salvation Without the Church", the authority of the Apostolic Succession and all that.

 

I think that is genuine moral progress - EG you seem to continually disagree seeing no sign that the world is getting better at solving its problems - it is in no way perfect, but to say its no better than in pre-Enlightenment times seems to me a bit blind.

Your opening words express it perfectly - YOU think - that's just your subjective view and not a matter of any objective fact. If you think I deny that any meaningful progress of humanity to any sort of Nirvana is being achieved (or is achievable) you are correct - I have a very jaundiced view of the whole notion of human progress.

[Evil Goblin]

Heh, it seems like we agree Chinahand, except perhaps on where we're going but that's surely allowed. I hope we reach a shared future, it'd be a darn shame to revert to a group of isolationist nations or worse.

This view is akin to the American Neo-Liberal Dream of an homogenous global economy on their model, and just as unlikely to ever come about.

[Evil Goblin]

Yes, and so they will always be. Directions supposedly from 'Divine' origin would also be subjective, it would also be relayed by 'mere mortals' who would subjectively relay the message and there is no method of proving or disproving otherwise. Therefore it is entirely probable that the laws passed down by humans claiming to act on behalf of a Divine are merely guided by their own reasons. This is much evidenced by the actions of many religious institutions in the past and the present.

I agree with you on this, Rami - my point is that such Divine Directions were generally accepted as having a supra-human authority, even if they were just a set of tenets arrived at in the subjective view of a few people. We seem to lack any such supra-human authority today, so people have no way of coming to a universal view of what is moral and what is not - a recipe for continous dispute.

[Chinahand]

You do confuse me EG - at the start of this post you say "Of course I think that we currently have a better set of moral values than were general in the 17th Century".

 

But at the end you say "I deny that any meaningful progress ... is being achieved".

 

These two points seem in contradiction.

 

I think we both agree there is no Nivana - the process will never end as societies and circumstances will always change.

 

But that isn't really the point - we have, I think, an objectively better understanding our lot than in the 17th century which has enabled our moral values to advance. There can be times when societies retrograde - when people can look to a time in the past and say the values were better in the past.

 

China in the 1930s, Europe in the 1940s were times when these feelings were shared widely as people reacted with horror to the situation they and their countries were facing.

 

But beyond that I think there is a genuine expansion of the moral space - slavery, intolerence of extreme poverty, might = right politics exist today as then, but in the 17th century they were far more institutionally acceptable, in ways unimaginable today. Problems still exist, and new problems are continually being created, but at the same time progress is being made at solving problems.

 

The result is a slow overall improvement. Sure, it can be lost - all too easily. But that just makes the progress more precious, and something to continue.

[Chinahand]

Evil Goblin - you can cleave to Totalitarians as much as you like

? What totalitarians am I cleaving to?

I didn't express myself well - but your critique of the Enlightenment seems dominated by something like "look at the Nazi's and Stalin this proves there has been no moral progress and shows you can't develop a moral system without either Gods or Man usurping God".

 

I disagree and await your explanation of why you disagree with me when I say the best Enlightenment thinkers did not simply set up Man in place of God.

 

As you know I've found it fascinating comparing Daoist Philosophers (especially Zhuangzi) with Enlightenment thought - these people struggled with the loss of the absolute, and the knowledge man would never be able to fill that void.

 

The result is a morality based on caution - unforseen circumstances can spoil many an attempt to do good - and doubt.

 

They see an essential equality between people - no one can set themselves up as absolute - they must recognize others may disagree and there is no easy way to show who is right.

 

The result is therefore intrinsically pluralistic and democratic.

 

Jean Francois Billeter … sees Zhuangzi’s fundamental ethical law of equality … as universal and that Zhuangzi … “recognizes in his own way the essential equality of all human beings” … [an] equality based on a law inherent in the interactions between human subjectivities, “a law according to which we cannot act on another, and so live and collaborate with him, if we do not accept that he equally acts on us”. Unfortunately, this idea had no impact on Chinese political culture, which based itself rather on the principle of the domination of one human being over the other.

 

Zhuangzi knew the difference between pluralism and absolutism in the 4th century BC, Hume, Smith, Locke, Mill, knew it too.

 

The principle of the domination of one human being over another is absolutist and inherent in the God-told-me-I-was-right attitude, which the Enlightenment rightly, in my view, has struggled with to replace with a better morality.

 

I feel that effort has reaped rewards. EG, at the start of your post you seem to agree, but at the end deny it. You can't consistently hold both views. Which is it - our we better off now or not?

[manshimajin]

Catholicism is based on a particular dogma resting on the belief of a particular God (which has a particular character and commandments). It isn’t just some array of various values. But even it is worse. Those values are up for debate.

 

I can’t say I know exactly what you mean, but essentially you are arguing that believe can have an opinion (such as thinking they are right), but they cannot think they are right. Well that doesn’t make sense. I think you are erring towards some dreadful moral relativism. I don’t know where you have picked it up but it is very flawed. I mean, some cultures think that female circumcision is right. I think they are wrong. Are you saying that we should be sure that we are correct in our opinions on that matter? There are many other examples.

 

Or is the temper or the assuredness of opinions you have a problem with? Are you trying to aim for some live and let idea (that makes no sense in the circumstances). I think you need to explain a good deal more.

 

As for the matter of rubbish. I am talking about rubbishing of the nonsense of catholic belief. Demonstrating why should people and ideas should not be heeded nor given credibility.

 

LDV I can't really understand what you are saying as it is not logical. What is the point of being intolerant? That is the way you are coming across. Frankly I don't give a damn what Roman Catholic doctrine is but I do give a damn that like others they should be allowed to believe what they want to believe. I am not sure of the basis of your intolerance but you are coming across as the mirror image of the Cardinal. It is a dangerous street to go down.

 

You seem happy to rubbish other peoples' beliefs but are offended when they rubbish beliefs that you may respect. That in my book is hypocrisy. I am not saying that the Cardinal is not a hypocrite but I am surprised that you are one too.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I have a good idea of what those beliefs are and knowing what they are I can form the opinion that they are rubbish. And worse. I think they are highly immoral and in some cases of Catholic belief they are evil.

 

If you think this is intolerant then I can only assume that you are not thinking about this issue clearly. I don't mean that in any dismissive or insulting way, but only that I think you are possibly making an exception for religion by allowing it some form of protection it does not deserve.

 

If someone said it is okay to murder people if they get in your way over ANYTHING, then I would say they are wrong and immoral. Is that intolerant?

 

If someone said that they believed in magic fairies living in their garden that come in and dry their clothes on the washing line by blowing on, then I would say that (in the absence of any evidence that they have been asked to provide) they are talking rubbish.

 

If someone thought they were visited by the ghost of Napoleon who told them that those gay folk are dirty bastards and should never be allowed to adopt children because it would make them gay. And that people thinks this Napoleon is a very good authority on such matters, then unless that person can demonstrate their claim they are FUCKING NUTS.

 

I can rubbish Catholic beliefs because they cannot demonstrate the existence of a God they claim manifests in our reality at times; that responds to prayer; and that has set down commandments in the Bible. I can say that the very substance of the belief system is clearly a creation of humans given the absurdities of the content of their beliefs. It it no more credible and deserves no more credibility than the mad man who cannot demonstrate he is seeing Napoleon.

 

Whereas my position is simply that there should be no State laws that prohibit same-sex people marrying. A law that exists regardless of whether the Church wants it or not. I think I am right because the State should not involve itself in matters of religion.

Simply matter of church and state separation in my view.

 

Now anyone can say that my view is the biggest pile of shit they have heard. They can. That's their view.

 

Where is the hypocrisy here? And where are you getting this idea that people are being prevented from believing what they want?

 

I think Catholics have completely crazy beliefs that trump some of the most wild hallucinations of mentally disturbed patients. But nobody is stopping them having those views and I am not stopping them. I am, however, criticising them.

 

But please recognise in this case that the Cardinal and many other clergyman really are in the wrong, if you believe in church and state separation. Nobody will force the Churches to ordain same-sex marriages. This is purely a disconnect between state and church. And the Churches will benefit from such a disconnect.

[Rami]

Frankly I don't give a damn what Roman Catholic doctrine is but I do give a damn that like others they should be allowed to believe what they want to believe

 

I agree with you that people are allowed to believe what they want within their own personality. I can believe I can drive on the wrong side of the road, but I'm not actually going to do it. That leads me to what will probably be an unpopular statement but people need to be reigned in what they are allowed to publically voice and do.

 

With this I mean the Cardinal is still a high ranking member of an influential organisation. In some ways unfortunate, but a lot of people will take his word at heart because of how they were brought up or their own beliefs. His words are inflammatory and hypocritical. With so many more of us on this planet, and so many more belief systems converging there is a dire need for restriction in what leaders of any faction or organisation say, a restriction in the sense of moderation. If a Prime Minister or a President says the wrong thing, people can die. When a Cardinal comes out with statements such at this, people are discriminated against more. For those gay or more liberal thinking people who DO go to church, how many went to church shortly after these statements, how many discussed this topic, how many felt ashamed or were even outright discriminated.

 

With power comes responsibility, even such power as a Cardinal holds over his following. Who is holding these types of personas to account? God? Don't make me laugh. Keep it behind closed doors, preach it in your churches but stay away from the mainstream media because such franktly extremist views are no longer wanted in our society.

[manshimajin]

If you think this is intolerant then I can only assume that you are not thinking about this issue clearly.

 

And if you 'assume' that someone who holds a different view to you is not thinking about an issue clearly you are doing what the Cardinal does. You are 'assuming' that you are 'right' and those that do not agree with you are 'wrong' (or wrong headed)! As I have said I am surprised by your lack of tolerance of views that differ to your own. The lesson from history is that nobody is actually 'right'. Everything is open to different views.

 

IMO this whole issue is actually a storm in a teacup and will be forgotten, except by a few zealots, in a week or two's time.