The Pope

[dr_mabeuse]

Hi Dr. M.

I just read in the news that in Somalia they shot a nun in the back and killed her, and they think its related to all this pope quotes crap.

You know, I think peoples will accept hostile anti-catholic verbal assaults but when these fanatics gunned down a nun they have lost any chance they had to make rational peoples see thier point of view.

I gotta go throw up.

Exactly. The Pope was trying to make the point that violence in the name of religion is never justified. He picked a bad example, and so to protest (and I guess to prove that Islam's not a violent religion), Muslim extremists went around burning churches and killing Christians.

Way to make your point.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Exactly. The Pope was trying to make the point that violence in the name of religion is never justified. He picked a bad example, and so to protest (and I guess to prove that Islam's not a violent religion), Muslim extremists went around burning churches and killing Christians.

Way to make your point.

Yea.

Our religion is not violent, and we'll kill this nun to prove it.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Yea.

Our religion is not violent, and we'll kill this nun to prove it.

Lisa,
Religion is inherently violent. The crusades were fought because of religious intolerance and lust for dominate power (Catholic Church? :eeK: ). Church based Anti-Abortion groups blowing up abortion clinics and shooting abortion doctors all in the name of "saving innocent lives".

Now that the Catholic Church is seeing people wake up and leave the church because of it's hypocracy they decide they need a "new direction" and choose a far right-wing theologen with no real life experience over the past 60 years. And has he made a difference? Choir boys are still being molested, the abortion issue still rages on just below the boiling point and the Pope is quoting some guy who made inflamitory statements 400 years ago.

Would any inflamitory statement that came from a head of state cause riots and bad feelings in the Middle East? Hell yes. But there is another interesting point.

Historiclly, the Pope is above the King. He was, in fact, a head of state. Is the Pope truely a head of state in the same terms that Bush is Head of State in the U.S. or Tony Blair is Head of State in the UK? No. The Vatican and the Pope ceased being a state in the usual sense a couple hundred years ago. Do they have power and influence? No, not really. They give the illusion of being an influencial state. But there is not substance or reality. In many ways it would be the same if Pat Robertson declared himself a head of state. Remember, he shoots him mouth off regularly too and gets in trouble.

 

[Pure]

note to jenny

jenny said, Religion is inherently violent.

would you accept this broader formulation:

all human belief systems, moral systems, religions, and worldviews have a leaning toward (purportedly justifying) violence.

if this is true it ensures that you're not speaking out of a sense that you're exempt! (i.e. that your belief system is innately pacific, while the pope's is innately bellicose)

upon some thought, however, the formulation is a little misleading, a bit like saying 'all hard objects are instruments of violence-- stones, sticks, metal bars.'

the more accurate statement is that humans, being violent, use all 'hard objects', at times, for their violent purposes.

 

[elsol]

the more accurate meaning is that humans, being violent, use all 'hard objects', at times, for their violent purposes.

Humanity's natural bend towards violence is in constant struggle with humanity's concience (empathy... fill in your word), thus a belief system that allows one while assuaging the other is going to be the natural form of any -ism.

High school kids don't behave like that because they're in high school

 

[Pure]

good points about violence, mab.

reminds me of the old joke.

"Mommy, mommy, the boys at school called me a two-bit whore!"

"What did you do, my dear?"

"Hit them with my bag of quarters."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Good morning, Roxanne

Your post seems as though those qualities (a belief that life has purpose, individual efficacy, truth, beautiy and goodness) applies to the Catholic church. In a few ways I agree, but when the Catholic Church takes it upon itself to dictate you personal efficacy or define what truth is in their own terms then I have a problem. I would point to the abortion issue and the Catholic Church's politicising elections in Italy and elsewhere as enough proof of their meddling in effecacy and truth for their own purposes.

Hi, Jenny.

The Catholic church does believe in those things (that life has a purpose, individual efficacy, truth, beauty, and goodness.) I don't happen to share the basis on which it founds these beliefs, which is an epistemologically untenable belief in an invisible, omniprensent, omnipotent Deity, and as a result my definition of purpose, truth, beauty and goodness differ from the church's in many (but not all) important details. My belief in these things has a different foundation, which is primarilly (but not exclusively) what I think is a proper understanding of objective reality, rather than the existance of a Deity.

I think it is fair to say that Pure does not believe in these things that I believe, and contends that the basis of my beliefs is as epistemologically flawed as the Catholic Church's. This puts me in the unusual position of being aligned with the Pope to a certain extent, with Pure and those who share his relativism on the other side.

Finally, the Church cannot "dictate" truth or anything else to any person. It is not a state; the pope has no army or divisions. You and I may not like imany of its views, but no one is forced to accept a single thing it says. If it expresses positions on public policy issues in a democratic system, such as advocating against abortion because it believes that is murder, that only has weight to the extent a majority agree with its views. (I'm not sure the same is true in many Moslem nations, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to those who contend that Islam properly understood also does not countenance "forcing" itself on people.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Being a relativist (No it doesn't interfere with my Catholicism)... I'd like to volunteer NOT to be lined up against a wall... thank you very much... just feel free to bash me from that angle too instead.

Sorry, Sol, you can label yourself anything you want, of course, but you really can't be a Catholic and a relativist both. It's just inherently contradictory.

Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Live,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

That "AMEN" at the end is what defines a Catholic. If you don't believe this, you're not a Catholic, and there is no room for relativism in this creed. (The very word "creed" is the opposite of relativism.)

 

[Pure]

philosophically challenged,

our roxanne

she says, that if elsol says,

"I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;"

he can't be relativist (undefined by her); he must be an 'objectivist' (undefined by her),

though of course, adds Roxanne, elsol cannot by an Objectivist (defined by her), because though elsol is objectivist, he hasn't 'objectively' gotten hold of the (objective) truth, namely Objectivism.

he is an 'objectivist', though he is objectively in error.

the pope of course replies that Objectivism is 'objectively in error,' hence:

it is, according to the pope, roxanne, not elsol, who is an objectivist, but objectively in error.

elsol, however, holds that Roxanne, while in error, is not objectively so. she, an Objectivist, lacks objective truth.

elsol however is willing to say he's not stating an objective truth about Roxanne's state of knowledge. he agrees he does not 'objectively' know that Roxanne lacks objective truth, though he has his suspicions.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

jenny said, Religion is inherently violent.

would you accept this broader formulation:

all human belief systems, moral systems, religions, and worldviews have a leaning toward (purportedly justifying) violence.

if this is true it ensures that you're not speaking out of a sense that you're exempt! (i.e. that your belief system is innately pacific, while the pope's is innately bellicose)

upon some thought, however, the formulation is a little misleading, a bit like saying 'all hard objects are instruments of violence-- stones, sticks, metal bars.'

the more accurate statement is that humans, being violent, use all 'hard objects', at times, for their violent purposes.

As you might imagine, I do not accept this formulation. I would put it this way: All belief systems based on a mystical belief have the potential for violence, because if you don't accept the epistemologically unprovable mystical foundation there is nothing left to talk about, we can only fight. A philosophy based on reason does not have the potential for violence, because there is always something more to talk about.

I contend that relativism has just as much potential for violence as religion, because it can provide no answer to the questions, "Why should I refrain from using you for my ends, using force if necessary? What is the ultimate reason why this is wrong?"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

our roxanne

she says, that if elsol says,

"I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;"

he can't be relativist (undefined by her); he must be an 'objectivist' (undefined by her),

though of course, adds Roxanne, elsol cannot by an Objectivist (defined by her), because though elsol is objectivist, he hasn't 'objectively' gotten hold of the (objective) truth, namely Objectivism.

he is an 'objectivist', though he is objectively in error.

the pope of course replies that Objectivism is 'objectively in error,' hence:

it is, according to the pope, roxanne, not elsol, who is an objectivist, but objectively in error.

elsol, however, holds that Roxanne, while in error, is not objectively so. she, an Objectivist, lacks objective truth.

elsol however is willing to say he's not stating an objective truth about Roxanne's state of knowledge. he agrees he does not 'objectively' know that Roxanne lacks objective truth, though he has his suspicions.

Have you been drinking? I can't remember a post with more non-sequitors. One thing about relativists - and you know darned well what I mean by that - they can pour out the words.

 

[S-Des]

A philosophy based on reason does not have the potential for violence, because there is always something more to talk about.

It does if it's practiced by human beings. You show me a belief structure, I'll show you someone who has used it to justify condemnation, an attitude of superiority, and eventually violence. It's in our nature. Since most nations are old enough to have been founded on some religious basis, it's easier to point to them and say they're examples of why religion is wrong, but there have been plenty of examples of people who believed in nothing, yet it didn't seem to quench their thirst for power, wealth, and status.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It does if it's practiced by human beings. You show me a belief structure, I'll show you someone who has used it to justify condemnation, an attitude of superiority, and eventually violence. It's in our nature. Since most nations are old enough to have been founded on some religious basis, it's easier to point to them and say they're examples of why religion is wrong, but there have been plenty of examples of people who believed in nothing, yet it didn't seem to quench their thirst for power, wealth, and status.

I wonder if you are conflating "our nature," which is prone to those destructive habits you cite, with the philosophy I am referring to. You are correct that any belief structure can be (mis-) used to "justify" violence. But the violence would be a product of human nature, not necessarily of the particular belief system. However, when the belief system is based on, "Because God says so," subsequent violence may indeed be based on the belief system, because there is no room for disagreement - God says, period.

 

[S-Des]

I wonder if you are conflating "our nature," which is prone to those destructive habits you cite, with the philosophy I am referring to. You are correct that any belief structure can be (mis-) used to "justify" violence. But the violence would be a product of human nature, not necessarily of the particular belief system. However, when the belief system is based on, "Because God says so," subsequent violence may indeed be based on the belief system, because there is no room for disagreement - God says, period.

Point taken. I still find that good people seek to do good things within the context of their religious beliefs (i.e. Mother Theresa). Even if their belief is agnostic or atheist, I know there are self-sacrificing people who will cite their beliefs for reasons to care about others. I tend to believe it's more them than the particular belief structure. I don't think that "Because God says so" is enough to make a good person (or group of people) become ass-holes. Do you really think Randle Terry would have been a great guy if he was raised without any religious beliefs?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Point taken. I still find that good people seek to do good things within the context of their religious beliefs (i.e. Mother Theresa). Even if their belief is agnostic or atheist, I know there are self-sacrificing people who will cite their beliefs for reasons to care about others. I tend to believe it's more them than the particular belief structure. I don't think that "Because God says so" is enough to make a good person (or group of people) become ass-holes. Do you really think Randle Terry would have been a great guy if he was raised without any religious beliefs?

I agree with all the essentials you state here. My version of "doing good things" is benevolence, which is recognizing other people's humanity, independence and individuality, and is expressed through acts of kindness, compassion, and thoughtfulness. To me these things are not "sacrifices;" they make me feel good. Compassion would be spending $5 to buy a street person a happy meal. Sacrifice would be giving him my $5 to buy crack.

It might be said that in this I have "sought to do good things within the context of my philosophical beliefs." What I really think is that, just as orneryness and a potential for violence are aspects of human nature, so is benevolence and taking joy in performing acts of kindness, compassion and thoughtfulness

 

[Pure]

let's start at the beginning, roxanne,

Roxanne says, that if elsol says, [sincerely and whole heartedly]

"I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;"

he can't be relativist ; he must be an 'objectivist'.

Why is this so, milady?

 

[Pure]

Roxanne, As you might imagine, I do not accept this formulation. I would put it this way: All belief systems based on a mystical belief have the potential for violence, because if you don't accept the epistemologically unprovable mystical foundation there is nothing left to talk about, we can only fight. A philosophy based on reason does not have the potential for violence, because there is always something more to talk about.

This is, of course, pure balderdash: mystical foundations don't predispose to violence.

further a number of philosophies based on reason, namely roxanne's, the French revolutionaries, the marxists, can and have lead to violence. there is nothing more deadly that the fellow who says, "Reason is on my side and I don't want to listen to your evil nonsense." The Rational person--such as Ayn Rand-- is often disposed to attribute evil to those who don't agree or do as she says; this is known to be the case with Ayn Rand.

---
PS. One often hears, "Your philosophy or religion fails, leads to evil, because of its intrinsic defects; MY philosophy or religion *appears* sometimes to lead to evil, but when that happens, it's actually evil human beings who've corrupted my philosophy or religion."

There is usually no basis, no objective evidence for such assertions; it's merely an adherent's 'special pleading,' and it's answered by the other person claiming the same thing.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne says, that if elsol says,

"I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;"

he can't be relativist ; he must be an 'objectivist'.

Why is this so, milady?

I didn't say this, Pure. Thus my question about your activities this evening.

 

[Pure]

attributed to roxanne:
//he can't be relativist ; he must be an 'objectivist'.//

Roxanne:

I didn't say this, Pure.

sorry, roxanne, that's exactly what you said,

Roxanne there is no room for relativism in this creed. (The very word "creed" is the opposite of relativism.)

a creed is a statement of belief. to say sincerely, "I believe in one God the Father, etc." is, quite obviously to state a belief.

why you think a person stating that belief is NOT relativist, but necessarily 'objectivist' is entirely unclear. do explain if you have the time.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, As you might imagine, I do not accept this formulation. I would put it this way: All belief systems based on a mystical belief have the potential for violence, because if you don't accept the epistemologically unprovable mystical foundation there is nothing left to talk about, we can only fight. A philosophy based on reason does not have the potential for violence, because there is always something more to talk about.

This is, of course, pure balderdash: mystical foundations don't predispose to violence.

further a number of philosophies based on reason, namely roxanne's, the French revolutionaries, the marxists, can and have lead to violence. there is nothing more deadly that the fellow who says, "Reason is on my side and I don't want to listen to your evil nonsense." The Rational person--such as Ayn Rand-- is going to sometimes attribute evil to those who don't agree or do as she says; this is know to be the case with Ayn Rand.

---
PS. One often hears, "Your philosophy or religion fails, leads to evil, because of its intrinsic defects; MY philosophy or religion *appears* sometimes to lead to evil, but when that happens, it's actually evil human beings who've corrupted my philosophy or religion."

There is usually no basis, no objective evidence for such assertions; it's merely an adherent's 'special pleading,' and it's answered by the other person claiming the same thing.

I did not say, "Mystical foundations predispose to violence." I said they create the potential for violence, because there is no possible response to "Because God says so" except to obey.

I did not say that "philosophies based on reason" don't lead to violence, although I was very vague on this, and my post is easily read that way, so the fault is mine. I was referring to a particular philosophy, and you know which one, Pure. I don't accept that Marxists or the French Revolutionaries had a philosophy based on reason. Theirs were based on a fantasy that human nature is mutable and that they could use government (coercion) to create a "new socialist man." There is as much mysticism in this as in any religion.

The philosophy I was referring to abjures the use of force to acheive social ends; by definition it cannot be used to justify violence, however you may try to twist it into that shape.

I think the real problem is, as I said above, that you simply cannot accept any confident expression of a belief that life has a purpose, a belief in individual efficacy, or a belief in truth, beauty, and goodness. I will extend to you the presumption of good will, and assume that the reason for this is that you sincerely believe that such expressions inevitably lead to bloodshed. This is the reaction of the academic left to the bloodsoaked history of the 20th century. It is understandable, but they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater in rejecting all such expressions in the (well founded) fear that some of them will lead to bloodshed.

The name of this rejection of any truth or certainty is relativism. I said something else in that post, too:

'I contend that relativism has just as much potential for violence as religion, because it can provide no answer to the questions, "Why should I refrain from using you for my ends, using force if necessary? What is the ultimate reason why this is wrong?" '

 

[O'Mac]

"I never wanted to be a nazi. Everyone was doing it in 1935. I only followed orders." Adolph Eichman -1961

Since Pope Benedict "left" (odd word from Wikapedia) the german army he went to Seminary School. Then he was a Theology Professor at the University of Munic, then Bonn then another Universtiy in Bavaria. After that he was Archbishop of Munic. Then he went to the Vatican where he was dean of the college of cardinals and protector of the faith. Oh, by the way, did you know his father was characterized as a "major politician" in germany between 1932 and 1941? Who was in power in germany then?

Yes. I do know all about his history and about his right-wing fanaticism. None of this changes the fact that he has no grip on the realities of either the Middle East or International Politics.

So let me get this straight, you supposedly know all about his history yet made incorrect or misleading statements and implied statements regarding his election and early history? Sounds to me like you've been hitting the old wikipedia page, but it would have been better if you did that before your initial post.

Oh, and with regards to his father's occupation during World War II. Are you implying that the sins of the father must be burdened by the son?

And for the record, I'm not Catholic. I'm as far Catholic as you can get on the theology-scale.

But I am pro-truth.

 

[O'Mac]

I've noticed that anti-Catholicism is tolerated on this board in a way that anti-semitism or anti-paganism or anti-anything-else-ism would probably never be.

I just wonder why that is.

Didn't you get the memo? Racism is has been on it's way out. And sexism is no longer cool either. Anti-theism is the new socially-accepted prejudice.

But to seriously answer your question, I haven't seen any real anti-semetic posts or whatnot in other forums. I know if I did come across one, the participants there would feel my wrath as well as well.

Trust me when I say that the ignorant and prejudiced are in my sights no matter the argument.

 

[Pure]

Roxanne said,
R'I contend that relativism has just as much potential for violence as religion, because it can provide no answer to the questions, "Why should I refrain from using you for my ends, using force if necessary? What is the ultimate reason why this is wrong?" '

P: Yes, we've been hearing that from the last few popes, too; secular humanism is just not hardassed enough.

On the whole, I find the claim too abstract and murky to understand, let alone argue with. It would be like arguing about whether "laxity is responsible for more human suffering than rigor."
The agents, their worldviews, their context-- all specific references are lacking.


R: The philosophy I was referring to abjures the use of force to acheive social ends; by definition it cannot be used to justify violence, however you may try to twist it into that shape.

This makes no sense:

The religion i have says, "love thy neighbor as thyself" as a core principle, as well as "do not avenge yourself" (don't requite evil with evil). BY DEFINITION it cannot be used to justify violence, however you might try to twist its formulations or attempt to use evil men's actions to count against it.

Jenny started it, and you're continuing it: It's one thing to claim Catholicism has a potential for violence: it's another to prance about and claim that the allegedly rational and atheist system you subscribe to (one of several conflicting ones) does NOT have similar potential. Particularly silly is the claim of yours, _my system [compared with yours] only enjoins me to do good things._

 

[S-Des]

Jenny started it, and you're continuing it: It's one thing to claim Catholicism has a potential for violence: it's another to prance about and claim that the allegedly rational and atheist system you subscribe to (one of several conflicting ones) does NOT have similar potential.

Did Jenny and Rox really prance? Did they do it together? Damn I am sorry I missed it. I think I might pay for that video.

 

[Pure]

it will be out soon: a kind of chorus line of Radio City Randettes, on the Higher Moral Plane label.