The Pope

[O'Mac]

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._

Totally agreed. I think that if you look at history of various social movements be they political, social, or theological in nature, you'll almost always see violence as an entension of the extermist's point-of-view. Take the Russian communists for example. Stalin and his lot certainly were not advocates of any religion, yet they managed to kill more people than Hitler (who was a Christian, then agnostic, then tried to bring back the ancient Nordic faiths as the national religion of the new German empire, then became agnostic again, etc.)

In the new order, prancing shall be outlawed.

 

[elsol]

*deleted*

 

[Lauren Hynde]

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.

I have never in my life felt the need to tell anyone what my religious beliefs are, and never once felt any kind of religious intolerance, no matter how slight. Never, that is, until I came to this forum. I don't know why either, but when I first realised the level of intolerance, bordering on hatred, running across a board of people that are supposed to be the most rational and prejudice-free there are (literary pornographers?), it stung like nothing before.

It's easy to dismiss the most vocal, because they usually show themselves completely ignorant of what the Catholic Church is from post one - just look at JJ's posts on this thread. But the rest, the majority that smiles and giggles and nods in agreement and cracks a joke, that's what is really sad.


Edited to thank you for noticing, Doc.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

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.

What a cop out.

I'll answer for you: You have no answer to, "Why should I refrain from using you for my ends, using force if necessary? What is the ultimate reason why this is wrong?"

As you say, you need to have the specific circumstances, and then you will judge on a case by case basis. But you have thrown away any standard by which to judge. You even condemn any act of judgement, scorning anything that appears "judgemental." And to use your terms, if you do manage to bring yourself to judge, "Who are you to say your judgement is correct? I might judge differently, and who can say which is correct?" As I say, you have thrown out any common standard, or even the possibility of one. You are morally disarmed.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Totally agreed. I think that if you look at history of various social movements be they political, social, or theological in nature, you'll almost always see violence as an entension of the extermist's point-of-view. Take the Russian communists for example. Stalin and his lot certainly were not advocates of any religion, yet they managed to kill more people than Hitler (who was a Christian, then agnostic, then tried to bring back the ancient Nordic faiths as the national religion of the new German empire, then became agnostic again, etc.)

In the new order, prancing shall be outlawed.

Marxism is founded on a belief that human nature is mutable, which is essentially mystical, ie., religious. As you note, Nazism many mystical components. In addition, both advocated the use of violence to acheive social ends. A philosophy that from its most basic premises explicitly abjures the use of violence to acheive social ends by definition cannot be used to justify violence - the minute an individual tries to do so he is no longer expresssing that philosophy.

Some forms of mysticism have greater potential to lead to violence than others. This is certainly true of Islam today, and in its day Christianity was just as bloody handed. On the other hand, as with the philosophy cited above, it is very difficult indeed to ascribe much potential for violence to a faith like, say, India's Jainists.

 

[Pure]

this is a fairly mindless 'argument' of yours.

RoxanneI'll answer for you: You have no answer to, "Why should I refrain from using you for my ends, using force if necessary? What is the ultimate reason why this is wrong?"

As you say, you need to have the specific circumstances, and then you will judge on a case by case basis. But you have thrown away any standard by which to judge. You even condemn any act of judgement as "judgemental." And to use your terms, if you do manage to bring yourself to judge, "Who are you to say your judgement is correct? I might judge differently, and who can say which is correct?" As I say, you have thrown out any common standard, or even the possibility of one. You are morally disarmed.

Pure responds.
P:Thank you for putting 'no answer' in my mouth, then claiming I have 'no answer.'

Supposedly I and Mab and elsol are 'morally disarmed' while you are quite splendidly 'morally armed.' How do people, know, Roxanne, that your armament is superior?

Perhaps your lack of police record attests to this superiority.

You have superior debating skills, but I'm not sure if that's 'moral armament'!


As to your question, Roxanne:
R: "Why should I refrain from using you for my ends, using force if necessary? What is the ultimate reason why this is wrong?"

P: I will assume Jane Doe is asking this, so as not to address 'you' and make it personal. My answer is:

P: "Jane, we all use each other for our own ends. That is why in the grocery store you ask the clerk, 'where are the apples, please?' and you don't usually ask him 'how is your sick mother?'

"Now there are some 'uses' considered bad or even illegal; for instance if you strap on a dildo and rape the girl next door, despite her protests. It's considered bad because harming others--that type of 'use'--is, quite unsurprisingly, looked askance at by not just the victim, but by others who don't even know her. Makes them uneasy; their butts twinge.

"Societies, be they bees or chimps or humans operate by a kind of 'compact'--routine procedure or rule-- NOT to severely harm one another in a number of ways; though sometimes a number of exceptions are allowed. For instance in our society, one prizefighter *in the ring* may strike another in the head and kill him.

"The present society is which you and I live, Jane, has agreed in its penal code that rape is not tolerated; that it's a serious harm that 'we' don't want. I'm not much subject to rape outside or prison, but my wife and daughter are, so I strongly disapprove. That disapproval is reflected in the law, not caused by it. Indeed 'we' would think it wrong were the law repealed, because of the social harm.

"Now if you ask, why follow what this society says, i say, 'your life will be pretty miserable if you don't; i.e. there's a good chance of prison, for serious harms.'

"Now if you say, 'Some societies allow rape in certain cases,' so the rule of one of those societies is the rule you will follow, I'll point out that you're not in those societies. Yes, in some medieval times, the Lord could go and rape the serf girl, without penalty; in US precivil war times, a Master could rape a slave girl. HOWEVER, you are not a medieval Lord, nor a precivil war slave owner. If you rape the girl, you'll likely pay, and almost all of us will say you did her a wrong.

You may ask if I have 'absolute proof' you are wrong. No, and I don't have absolute proof that you shouldn't, for a lark right now kill yourself. I'm VERY sure, however that i and others in this society consider your raping someone wrong because of the harm to the victim. If you don't have any feeling about the matter, I suggest you go by others'. If you doubt me as to others' feelings, take a little poll on our block or at your website."

---
I hope that answers your question.

 

[Pure]

Another misstep

Roxanne:

R: Marxism is founded on a belief that human nature is mutable, which is essentially mystical, ie., religious.

P: I'm not sure if you've read much Marx. What is your evidence for this statement?

But let us suppose FTSOA that Marxists are 'mystical' to argue 'human nature is mutable.'

Why are you LESS mystical when you argue: "It's not the case that 'human nature is mutable.' You have not examined many cases, so the generalization is speculative, and affirmed only out of mystical allegiance to Ms. Rand's dogmas.

 

[cloudy]

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.

You need to read her post where she tells the "truth" about the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Just full of knowledge, that one.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Guys, I know I said I wanted to stir things up with this thread, but I'm starting to feel like I unleashed some kind of monster.

This was satire. End of story.

Suddenly the whole mood of the thread has become really sour, and I'm starting to resent the personal attacks going on.

If it doesn't stop, I'm going to have to intervene personally - and then things will turn really ugly. Yes, I'm talking about burning effigies of people's AVs and shooting nuns from your hometowns.

This has to stop.

 

[Pure]

{quaking}

 

[CopyCarver]

Guys, I know I said I wanted to stir things up with this thread, but I'm starting to feel like I unleashed some kind of monster.

This was satire. End of story.

Suddenly the whole mood of the thread has become really sour, and I'm starting to resent the personal attacks going on.

If it doesn't stop, I'm going to have to intervene personally - and then things will turn really ugly. Yes, I'm talking about burning effigies of people's AVs and shooting nuns from your hometowns.

This has to stop.

And it will, if the 12th century Irish archbishop St. Malachy knew what he was yapping about. He claimed Benedict would be the second to last pope before the papacy is terminated. The bad news is that he claims we will all be terminated with extreme prejudice at that same time.

Quick, hide the dinosaurs--the killer asteroid is coming

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re-direct/Hi-jack

I would like to re-direct/hi-jack this here thread from headbashin personal attacks and talk about the pope.

Pope GWB?

I saw this thingie in the news, where they are saying they are gonna protest the pope's remarks by burnin american flags and shit. I didn't even know he was an american, and when they said Italy I didn't know they meant Italy Texas (a nice lil town) I thought they meant Italy overseas, or maybe they just mean they think he works for GWB, I dunno, heres a quote (quotes are dangerous but I thrive on the edge) so quote this:

(Extremists said the pope's comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.

Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies issued a statement addressing the pope as "a cross-worshipper" and warning, "You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere.

"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.

Another Iraqi extremist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations.")

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Re-direct/Hi-jack

I would like to re-direct/hi-jack this here thread from headbashin personal attacks and talk about the pope.

Pope GWB?

I saw this thingie in the news, where they are saying they are gonna protest the pope's remarks by burnin american flags and shit. I didn't even know he was an american, and when they said Italy I didn't know they meant Italy Texas (a nice lil town) I thought they meant Italy overseas, or maybe they just mean they think he works for GWB, I dunno, heres a quote (quotes are dangerous but I thrive on the edge) so quote this:

(Extremists said the pope's comments proved that the West was in a war against Islam.

Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies issued a statement addressing the pope as "a cross-worshipper" and warning, "You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere.

"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.

Another Iraqi extremist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations.")

I'm afraid the entire thing has gotten totally confused, Lisa. Some of the Moslem countries are pissed off about the Pope's remarks. Most are not. Oddly, the two Moslem countries the US is currently carrying on a war in, Afganistan and Iraq, have not had much of a reaction. I haven't heard the latest news from Afganistan, but Iraq burned a church and I believe a Nun was shot.

Egypt, Jordan and Syria, on the other hand, are having street demonstrations with the people screaming for appologies. So, does this make one wonder how a few lines from a University speech made such a controversy? It's certain that the Iman's have their people out looking for something to make a big stink over.

As far as the flag burning is concerned, that, if I heard the report correctly, occured in Lebanon where the Hezbollah directed thinking is that the US was behind and aided in the recent war with Isreal. That is a totally different issue.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Guys, I know I said I wanted to stir things up with this thread, but I'm starting to feel like I unleashed some kind of monster.

This was satire. End of story.

Suddenly the whole mood of the thread has become really sour, and I'm starting to resent the personal attacks going on.

If it doesn't stop, I'm going to have to intervene personally - and then things will turn really ugly. Yes, I'm talking about burning effigies of people's AVs and shooting nuns from your hometowns.

This has to stop.

Zade, just to reassure you about one element of what's going on here, Pure and I bash heads all the time in political threads and neither one of us take the other's tough talk personally, I don't think. We are both passionate advocates for our side and don't hold back, that's all. So you need not be tense about what's happening in those quarters. I can't speak for the rest, but I sense that you may have to take action in a few cases.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You need to read her post where she tells the "truth" about the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Just full of knowledge, that one.

So, is this what the vaunted "civility" of AH amounts to? Absolutely no engagement of the issues under discussion here. Just drop in out of the blue with a purely ad-hominem attack, trashing an individual who expressed a view that you disagree with.

Why don't you consider taking down this post? I'll remove the quote if you do. Seriously - go ahead and set a postive example. Show that you are big enough to make a mid-course correction.

 

[cloudy]

So, is this what the vaunted "civility" of AH amounts to? Absolutely no engagement of the issues under discussion here. Just drop in out of the blue with a purely ad-hominem attack, trashing an individual who expressed a view that you disagree with.

Why don't you consider taking down this post? I'll remove the quote if you do. Seriously - go ahead and set a postive example. Show that you are big enough to make a mid-course correction.

Nope, sorry.

She insulted my family...blatantly, and didn't seem to mind at all. It wasn't that I "disagreed" with her post, it was that she spouted supposed "knowledge" that was nothing but negative rumors and lies about a religion she knows nothing about. Positive example be damned. And, it wasn't an attack, merely the truth. I would have been much more blatant if it was an attack.

I don't like predjudice or intolerance of any kind, and JJ displays it regularly. As long as she does, I'll call her on it, just like Lauren did on her intolerance of Catholics.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I'm afraid the entire thing has gotten totally confused, Lisa. Some of the Moslem countries are pissed off about the Pope's remarks. Most are not. Oddly, the two Moslem countries the US is currently carrying on a war in, Afganistan and Iraq, have not had much of a reaction. I haven't heard the latest news from Afganistan, but Iraq burned a church and I believe a Nun was shot.

Egypt, Jordan and Syria, on the other hand, are having street demonstrations with the people screaming for appologies. So, does this make one wonder how a few lines from a University speech made such a controversy? It's certain that the Iman's have their people out looking for something to make a big stink over.

As far as the flag burning is concerned, that, if I heard the report correctly, occured in Lebanon where the Hezbollah directed thinking is that the US was behind and aided in the recent war with Isreal. That is a totally different issue.

Thats what I mean Jenny, they are confused also. I mean, I coulda been confused cause I was downloadin a good porn movie a friend sent me a link for a running some programs and all while I read the news but I went back later and there was a bunch of stories like that.

One even said they thought the pope slipped up and admitted working for GWB, or maybe they was saying god works for GWB, but yes, they was saying they are gonna burn american flags and shit because of what the pope said.

They are tryin to make it a big day-long family-affair type flag-burning hate-spewing event for this coming up Friday, a world wide event.

Of course the organizers, who intend to call it "day of rage" insist it will be a peaceful flag-burnin rock and bottle throwing event and nobodies should expect violence to break out (except for those of us with brains) and it is just gonna be a peaceful protest.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Nope, sorry.

She insulted my family...blatantly, and didn't seem to mind at all. Positive example be damned. And, it wasn't an attack, merely the truth. I would have been much more blatant if it was an attack.

I don't like predjudice or intolerance of any kind, and JJ displays it regularly. As long as she does, I'll call her on it, just like Lauren did on her intolerance of Catholics.

It doesn't matter what happened before, or what or who you like or don't like - purely ad hominem attacks are wrong and have no place in this forum. Your post stands out like a sore thumb in this thread. There have been some tough back-and-forths here, but every other person in these has engaged the substance of what the other person said. You are the only person who has launched a purely ad hominem attack. It is wrong and you are wrong to wilfully defy the behavior norms of this forum.

 

[cloudy]

It doesn't matter what happened before, or what or who you like or don't like - purely ad hominem attacks are wrong and have no place in this forum. Your post stands out like a sore thumb in this thread. There have been some tough back-and-forths here, but every other person in these has engaged the substance of what the other person said. You are the only person who has launched a purely ad hominem attack. It is wrong and you are wrong to wilfully defy the behavior norms of this forum.

Sorry you don't like it, but it stays.

(I had no idea you were now the political-correctness monitor. Honestly, I like you, Roxanne, but you have no place telling others what they can and can't say)

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Thats what I mean Jenny, they are confused also. I mean, I coulda been confused cause I was downloadin a good porn movie a friend sent me a link for a running some programs and all while I read the news but I went back later and there was a bunch of stories like that.

One even said they thought the pope slipped up and admitted working for GWB, or maybe they was saying god works for GWB, but yes, they was saying they are gonna burn american flags and shit because of what the pope said.

They are tryin to make it a big day-long family-affair type flag-burning hate-spewing event for this coming up Friday, a world wide event.

Of course the organizers, who intend to call it "day of rage" insist it will be a peaceful flag-burnin rock and bottle throwing event and nobodies should expect violence to break out (except for those of us with brains) and it is just gonna be a peaceful protest.

You are right. The whole thing is confused. Why? Because we were lead into an unjust war by lies and half truths that meddles with Islam. And the Iman's are much better at using even the smallest slight for their advantage than we could ever be. That advantage is used to incite. The result is what you see going on right now.

 

[Pure]

jenny, you're forgetting

J You are right. The whole thing is confused. Why? Because we were lead into an unjust war by lies and half truths that meddles with Islam. And the Iman's are much better at using even the smallest slight for their advantage than we could ever be. That advantage is used to incite. The result is what you see going on right now.

we have our imams too. and mr rove. i think these folks are the equals of any cleric at finding political advantage in events. i say it again: there is no special character of Islam or muslims when it comes to propensity for violence. i mean, in the long view, of course--say 1000 years. does anyone need reminding it was the Tamil tigers who are said to have invented 'suicide bombing.'

at the present time, tactics, too, have to be judged by the balance of power. i'm reminded of the famous line: the law, in its majestic impartiality forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges. the side with the f_16 fighters says to the Talib, "come out and show yourselves on the field and fight like men; none of these cowardly IEDs."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

at the present time, tactics, too, have to be judged by the balance of power. i'm reminded of the famous line: the law, in its majestic impartiality forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges. the side with the f_16 fighters says to the Talib, "come out and show yourselves on the field and fight like men; none of these cowardly IEDs."

But Pure - a few posts ago you were holding up the law as a substitute for any moral principles . . .

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RoxanneI'll answer for you: You have no answer to, "Why should I refrain from using you for my ends, using force if necessary? What is the ultimate reason why this is wrong?"

As you say, you need to have the specific circumstances, and then you will judge on a case by case basis. But you have thrown away any standard by which to judge. You even condemn any act of judgement as "judgemental." And to use your terms, if you do manage to bring yourself to judge, "Who are you to say your judgement is correct? I might judge differently, and who can say which is correct?" As I say, you have thrown out any common standard, or even the possibility of one. You are morally disarmed.

Pure responds.

"Societies, be they bees or chimps or humans operate by a kind of 'compact'--routine procedure or rule-- NOT to severely harm one another in a number of ways; though sometimes a number of exceptions are allowed. For instance in our society, one prizefighter *in the ring* may strike another in the head and kill him.

"The present society is which you and I live, Jane, has agreed in its penal code that rape is not tolerated; that it's a serious harm that 'we' don't want. I'm not much subject to rape outside or prison, but my wife and daughter are, so I strongly disapprove. That disapproval is reflected in the law, not caused by it. Indeed 'we' would think it wrong were the law repealed, because of the social harm.

"Now if you ask, why follow what this society says, i say, 'your life will be pretty miserable if you don't; i.e. there's a good chance of prison, for serious harms.'

"Now if you say, 'Some societies allow rape in certain cases,' so the rule of one of those societies is the rule you will follow, I'll point out that you're not in those societies. Yes, in some medieval times, the Lord could go and rape the serf girl, without penalty; in US precivil war times, a Master could rape a slave girl. HOWEVER, you are not a medieval Lord, nor a precivil war slave owner. If you rape the girl, you'll likely pay, and almost all of us will say you did her a wrong.

You may ask if I have 'absolute proof' you are wrong. No, and I don't have absolute proof that you shouldn't, for a lark right now kill yourself. I'm VERY sure, however that i and others in this society consider your raping someone wrong because of the harm to the victim. If you don't have any feeling about the matter, I suggest you go by others'. If you doubt me as to others' feelings, take a little poll on our block or at your website."

---
I hope that answers your question.

Several Islamic nations incarcerate or even execute raped women under "Hudood," a set of Quranic laws which legalize the prosecution of a woman for fornication if she cannot prove a crime was committed. In Pakistan, for example, four Muslim men must have witnessed the event, and testify for the victim. If the woman can't produce those witnesses, she can be prosecuted for alleging a false crime. Penalties include stoning to death, lashing or prison. Stoning and lashing are rare, but more than 2,000 Pakistani women now languish in jail for Hudood violations.

You have no standard by which you can say this is wrong.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

J You are right. The whole thing is confused. Why? Because we were lead into an unjust war by lies and half truths that meddles with Islam. And the Iman's are much better at using even the smallest slight for their advantage than we could ever be. That advantage is used to incite. The result is what you see going on right now.

we have our imam's too. and mr rove. i think these folks are the equals of any cleric at finding political advantage in events. i say it again: there is no special character of Islam or muslims when it comes to propensity for violence. i mean, in the long view, of course--say 1000 years. does anyone need reminding it was the Tamil tigers who are said to have invented 'suicide bombing.'

at the present time, tactics, too, have to be judged by the balance of power. i'm reminded of the famous line: the law, in its majestic impartiality forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges. the side with the f_16 fighters says to the Talib, "come out and show yourselves on the field and fight like men; none of these cowardly IEDs."

Yes, Pure that is correct. We do have our own Imans. But we just don't exploit as well as those of Islam. I can still remember the stupid flags flying from 90% of the cars during the first Iraq war and I still see the fake ribbon stickers on cars today.

That tended to boister public support for the wars. But it didn't incite to riot.

Still you do have the arm chair generals sitting around the barber shop in Podunk Junction talking about "kick some rag head ass" and such. The next step would be riot. I find it very scary.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Just a really stupid question for everyone. How many of you have read the Koran?