Religion
 

I have kept quiet on the subject but I feel I have to speak.

I have kept this off Steve's thread as it is not fair to muddy the waters of his useful link

There was a comment regarding an incidence of certain types of crime and a flippant comment posted connected with Catholicism.

Firstly, noting that the comment had ruffled some feathers I suggested removing the post in question. Secondly, I feel reasonably free to make such a comment. Partly from doing a simple Google and seeing the number of news stories around the subject matter and partly due to the fact that I am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic.

I am not saying that the comment was as funny as say Chris Rock commenting on black people or Dave Allen commenting on Catholicism but in the same vein I feel every right to make such a comment. I see the RC church as a club with rules. If you don't like all the rules ( you want to get divorced, you want to sleep with more than one person in your lifetime, you want to use prophylactics etc ) you leave the club. You don't pick and choose which rules you like and which ones you don't - it's all or nothing and you either stay in the club or leave. After my schooling in a Roman Catholic Christian Brother run Grammar School I chose the latter.

In a similar way that you don't get on your high horse about religion and have a quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian in your signature line - it's a double standard that really does not fit well with a 'holier than thou' attitude, excuse the pun.I don't feel the comment infringed on any person's civil liberties or took away anyone's freedom. It was based on well documented incidents of people in a position of trust and responsibility who have abused that position. However, noting the delayed response, I did suggest it was removed ( infringing my ability to make a comment freely but acknowledging that I was willing to remove it to keep the peace ). I could have taken offense at the homosexual comment as a parent of mine falls in this category but I didn't.

If I were of a flouncing nature, perhaps this would be a time to do so, but I'm not, so I won't. I do feel a simple PM would have sufficed and I would have considered the matter and then more than likely removed to comment of my own free will.

Re: Religion
 

I agree with all that you say.

I, too, am a baptised and confirmed Roman Catholic and went to church schools in England. We were taught by Fathers and nuns.

I, too, turned my back on it as I saw it as being way too hypocritical. I also believe that those that have any form of faith, should be secure enough to be able to not take offence when non-believers question their beliefs.

As I have said before, sticks and stones and all that.

Having said that, I am sure that there are those that will be offended by my post. I have just accepted that one cannont come close to pleasing all even part of the time.

Re: Religion
 

I reacted to your post originally: not because it offended my religion - it's been through worse, but because I saw it as an unecessary slur on real people. I personally know priests who live in the north east of Calgary. Hard working, caring people who have devoted their life to serving people. Many are in their seventies, and though tired and exhausted from long years of work still carry on - and not for personal gain. Others are young men trying to make meaning of their life, while giving to their community, and trying to live alone with a vow of celibacy - who still won't turn to illicit sex to fill their needs.

Furthermore I worked as a Catholic Chaplain in Calgary Correctional Centre with sex offenders form four years. Only one of whom was clergy - an Anglican Minister. They were from all walks of life - most were parents who had abused their own children. Many had also abused their neices and nephews or neighbours' children. There was a Fire Captain, a car salesman, working class guys, engineers, white and aboriginal. All had been abused as kids by their own fathers - including the clergyman. Many had turned to alcohol and drugs to self medicate. Most would have opted for castration if it was available. Most were suicidal and had attempted suicide. All hated themselves to the depths of their souls.

I could only handle four years i that environment - I was exhausted by it all.

Tangram - I wasn't stopping your right to speak - I was exercising my own right to rebutt. My comments were examples of equivalent bulls!t that paints in broad strokes, but can wound deeply when they inadvertantly hit the unintended target. I apologize for the hurt they caused.

I can turn the other cheek on my own behalf- but am less apt to do so when others are being insulted. I would rather no-one knew of my religious beliefs (I've got better things to do during my day), but choose to get involved when members of my faith community are insulted. Why should I allow the untrue and heinous perception that all clergy are by implication pedos to continue without comment?

RE: hypocrisy. I think its a human trait, and not the sole preserve of the Catholic Church. It sucks wherever it's found.

What's this got to do with a site about moving to Canada? Nothing and everything. We are still real people when we move over here and have a lot of living left to do - none of which we may have planned for.

Re: Religion
 

As an atheist
I find people that fixate on a religion enough to be a priest or spiritual leader, such that they have chosen dogma over reason, of such dubious intellect that they can be considered totally open season to such mockery as the public feels free to throw their way. My opinion!

I have no time or qualms about stepping aside or being apologetic for religions of any form, they have a historical record of doing more harm than the small number of their group that do good..
And in this case there may be many catholic priests that do well, but there have been enough that have abused their positions all over the world to merit the ridicule by stereotyping from the public
The public perception is that if they stood in a room full of catholic priests they’d be pretty sure that at least one of them has done something inappropriate to a boy in the choir, not all, but and it’s a big but the church has probably helped cover up the incident and in the eyes of the public the church itself is guilty of the crime by association

Re: Religion
 

When a central tenet of your faith is the power of forgiveness and redemption, it would be very hypocritical of the church to cast the VERY SMALL MINORITY who have offended to the wolves without first offering them a chance of redemption within the church itself. Its not like the church gives a hearty slap on the back and a gold watch to known pedophiles!

Now, the PR effect of this is certainly a problem, and the church has not done well in this regard, and continues to do badly (just look at the recent holocaust denier scandal that would have been easily avoided with some forethought)

The problem with perceptions is that they are not always based in fact, a point which I think triumphguy has made quite eloquently in his defence.

I am also an aetheist, but Im married to a catholic, so see this from both sides. Many many very smart and decent people have faith, I dont, but they do and I see the benefit it makes in their life all the time, so who am I to question the benefit to them. Ultimatley though I am not a fan of blind dogma, but most of the catholics I know use there god given judgment to find a balance that suits them anyway...

Re: Religion
 

Only if the church sees it self as above the law,
Which all churches I believe do :frown:
However in reality covering up a crime even if it’s disguised as forgiveness and redemption is still a crime in itself

The key to most religions is that they believe they are only answerable to their god of choice and not to the laws of the people (unless said law agrees with their religion) and that attitude has no place in a modern multicultural world :thumbdown:

I would agree with you many decent people have faith, and even many smart people have faith, but I would find following dogma, having faith (a belief that is not based on proof) as a rational case to exclude very smart people.

Re: Religion
 

You are right, ultimately a church answers to its God and only its God. If the RC church had decided (unlike the pentecostal church) that ALL laws should be blindly obeyed, Henry VIII would have wiped it off the UK map, wouldnt he? Meanwhile those bloody pentecostals think breaking the speed limit is a sin and slow me down no end on Sunday mornings.

My problems with religion come when they starts to get upity and impose their beliefs on those outside that particular doctrine. The covering up of the criminal actions of the pedophiles is a disgrace and hard to defend, but its not a particularly new area of controversy as presumably it came to light through the confessional, and that area is of special ambiguity when it comes to the church and criminal actions....the cardinal rule of confessional is that, like Vegas, what happens there stays there (with very few very specific exceptions), and as far as Im aware is legally protected, much the same as doctor or lawyer confidentiality is.

Re: Religion
 

I'm sure the rest of your post was interesting, but this part is so obviously not the case that I didn't read any further. Many of the most well-reasoned thinkers, philosophers, and intellectuals in general of the last 200 years have had that thought and philosophy rooted in religious faith: to dismiss their contributions as choosing dogma over reason is itself indicative of a remarkably "dubious intellect," to use your own phrase.

Most (mainstream) religious leaders, at least in the higher echelons of the world's organised religions, apply the rigours of intellectual thought and debate to the promulgation of their viewpoint - equally on matters of immediate theological import as on matters of broader moral or philosophical interest. While I wholeheartedly disagree, for example, with the position of the Catholic Church on contraception, there is no way in which that position can be dismissed as "dogma over reason" - it is a reasoned position which can be defended without reference to dogmatic argument (and certainly without recourse to violence - but that's typically the preserve of the Protestant fundamentalist rather than the Catholic hierarchy... a very different space on the intellectual plane).

Re: Religion
 

What with your 'amen' comment earlier are you trying to set a record for religious puns?:rofl:

Re: Religion
 

Sorry I just had to ask is your new avatar taken from the Exorcist?

Re: Religion
 

Wouldn’t it be fair to say though?
That if a lawyer was found to have breached the law by another lawyer, confidentiality may hold but only because we would expect the profession to encourage the lawyer to step away from the profession and or dis-bar themselves
Same with a doctor he could be struck from the register or at least fellow doctors would attempt to stop him practising

The problem is the same internal control and discipline does not take place inside religions
And again this lies on the fallacy that they believe that everything is ultimately resolved by their god and through this they abdicate the responsibly for the behaviour of their fellows
I mean they’re fast enough to throw the confidentiality out the windows when it comes to heresy or blasphemy but not sexual abuse

Isn't it fair to say that religions and double standards have gone hand in hand through out time.

Re: Religion
 

Double standards and humanity have gone hand in hand through out time, i dont see any need to single out religion. We live in a flawed world, religion is just one way some people try and make sense of it. Obviously you are not a big fan, but I say live and let live.

I dont know that its fair to say that at all. Doctors get sent for remedial training and retesting for example most of the time, or working with additional supervision, rather than being disbarred. Im not entirely sure what internal discipline in the church includes, but Im damned sure priests are removed from contact with parishioners in these circumstances. Nothing the church or anyone else can do will turn the clock back and unmake the crime. The church isnt interested in pleasing non church people is my guess.

Blasphemy/ Heresy are anti church, so you are booted out. Abhorrent behaviour is exactly the kind of thing the church would argue it exists to combat, so why kick out those it would seek to help?

Now, Im not even a catholic, let alone privy to the way the church makes these decisions, but I can see an argument from their perspective even if I dont particularly agree with it, thats just part of having an open mind on these things.

Re: Religion
 

no, I don't think this holds water. The two cases within the medical profession that spring to mind are of the medico-legal opinions of incompetent practitioners - one in Canada and one in the UK - that led to the imprisonment of parents on charges of infanticide, thus destroying families who had already been in the middle of enormous tragedy. In both cases there were enough criticisms of the individuals and of their opinions to provoke comment, but in both cases, as far as I can recall from news reports, nobody from the medical profession did anything except defend "their" man until wronged individuals brought cases before the courts. And I'm sure there have been many cases of bent lawyers being protected by colleagues - isn't the husband of some British cabinet minister involved in just that sort of thing at the moment, bunging sweeteners to Berlusconi in Italy? David Mills, or somebody... Again, only came to light because it came to court - he's not been disbarred (yet), I don't think.
I think the fallacy there is that religious organisations believe they are above the law. Sure, they have a parallel disciplinary process, in much the same way as the Bar Association or the GMC have for legal and medical practitioners. But when a (lay) crime has been committed, in general members of the clergy have been dealt with by the same criminal courts as everyone else. Sure, there have been one or two notable exceptions where a priest known to have offended was simply moved away rather than face justice, but the point is that these were notable exceptions, not the normal state of affairs.
Iain's answered this one. It's humanity, not religion, that is corrupt. I hold no particular candle for organised religion (I'm a weddings-and-funerals, Christmas-and-Easter Anglican, in case that makes a difference to how my views are perceived) but to single religion out for the contempt with which you obviously treat it is narrow-minded, I suggest.

Re: Religion
 

I have to admit that reading yours and Iaink responses I agree

I have issues with the church even being allowed to think its above the law, let alone allowing it to operate this way as long as it’s not too embarrassing for the governments of the day, and I’m not so sure that they were exceptions, certainly in Ireland where the church has much more power criminal acts merely involved a move away


I agree that humanity is corrupt, but my issue is with the church taking the view and position that it’s divine or at least divinely inspired and thus it and its teaching cannot be corrupt even when its abundantly clear that it is

Re: Religion
 

I wouldn’t dream of dismissing them, so many ideas started in the Victorian era as ways to glorify the beauty of gods earth, Darwin being a great example

But as a start in a modern world I have no issue with thoughts and philosophy rooted in religious faith, but huge issues with it being fertilized and nurtured by those instructing in those religious faiths today

Re: Religion
 

I was just searching for something to add to this debate, and came across a sermon preached by the current Archbishop of Canterbury in honour of Rudyard Kipling, an agnostic and a man who, in Williams' words, "showed (to put it mildly) a degree of impatience towards orthodox religion, not to mention the practitioners of orthodox religion." It's quite an interesting discourse on how there's more to religious faith than church orthodoxy. Few would dispute that Rowan Williams is one of the more intellectual of recent Archbishops, but senior Churchmen - even during the touchy-feely reign of George Carey as Archbish, understood that there's no conflict between being of the Church and being of the World.

Williams' text: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/303

Re: Religion
 

Yes....a great movie poster for a great movie.

Re: Religion
 

It makes for an interesting read, and I’d love to see Kipling’s thoughts on it I think it would make a much more interesting read

And I don’t disagree with the line “there's no conflict between being of the Church and being of the World” especially if you took the Anglican Church as your example, it may not fit so well with more fundamental churches or religions

But I do see a issue if it was phrased this way "no conflict between being a student of religion and being student of the natural world."

Re: Religion
 

Religion is very personal to some people, so a dig or a joke at it's expense will rile some people. Stereotypes, while often valid and understood by people to be so for good reason, are not always true. We've read stereotyped comments about First Nations on here that I know the OP has taken up with people.

This site has produced much hilarity, sarcasm, jokes, digs and offensive material and comments aimed at many groups of people, be they religious, ethnic, lawyers, corporate, police, parents, or as in dbd's case, donkey lovers. Are we all fair game? Can we all just say what we like because we feel justified in some way, or because we are actually part of that group that we ridicule anyway?

I dunno ! :o

I am often flippant with throw away comments. Do I mean to really insult anyway? No (well, hardly ever anyway :sneaky: ). There is no right or wrong really - too many grey areas. A couple of people do set out to purposefully provoke, upset or annoy and I think one has to be very careful going down that route. If we were all ultra-sensitive about making or receiving comments, this would be a very dull forum indeed. But a little forethought by all parties wouldn't go amiss.

And this isn't a dig at anyone in particular, before anyone says I've been mean to them :p

Re: Religion
 

i read the original posts with interest, glad to see this is being discussed further here.

an offhand comment/joke in bad or good taste, funny or unfunny, depends on your viewpoint.

whether though catholic priests are actively engaged in any criminality in this or other areas surely is not the point, they have been historically and to try and defend them categorically, as it appears the whole of catholicism attempted to be, i think is unrealistic, just as it would be to suggest they are all involved.

What this whole debate highlights simply is the sensitivity some have on a particular subject, and on this forum as a whole should we avoid such topics or refrain from commenting. its a public forum i am afraid, you come on, you take your chances. off button, top right.

Re: Religion
 

If you choose to post and chat in the public domain, then you are fair game


I think I just agreed with rae

Re: Religion
 

I'm not sure I quite agree, Mike (seem to be doing a lot of that today - nothing against you personally, I promise!)

There's a point beyond which a robust argument becomes a slanging match. I think most of the original discussion on religion which spawned this thread had probably not reached that point, and there was a lot of (to my mind, at least) oversensitivity to the point of whinging on the part of one or two contributors.

There have been threads on here in the past which have definitely overstepped the mark. I think the dividing line is between attacking an argument or a point of view, and attacking the person or institution that holds that point of view. To the case in point: it's OK to say that some of the actions of the Catholic church have been indefensible or immoral; it's not OK to say that the Catholic Church as a whole, or any individual adherent to the Catholic faith, is in some way immoral simply because he's a Catholic. It's sometimes a fine line, but as with all debate it descends into he-said, she-said juvenilia once ad-hominem attacks replace genuine arguments.

Re: Religion
 

Its a balancing act here, and with my mod hat on you cant please all the people all the time.

If its obviously offensive in my opinion or that of the other mods, or if it draws a lot of complaints then we will spike it, if its in a grey area, usually its best to give it the benefit of the doubt. If it degenerates into personal abuse then it will be spiked and the parties involved spoken too about expected standards of behaviour.

I am glad that people took the hint though and brought the off topic discussion here rather than carrying on in Steves thread (which I must confess I was tempted to lock at one point as it was no longer Canada related), and I am equally pleased debate has been conducted in a civilised thoughtful manner here in the maple leaf.

Hopefully between us all we can maintain a decent balance without the mods having to do too much, so far so good I think...

:thumbup:

Re: Religion
 

Its Friday :D I think it healthy to have debates like this, I’ll admit to enjoying debating with people that disagree with me, it helps me to refine my opinion and sometimes even change it.

I don’t approve of slanging matches and nobody deserves that especially on topic that requires some thought
But post up an opinion on a public forum I think you at least should be prepared for somebody to post up an opposing view.
And I think having posted up the viewpoint, have the decency to hang around and defend it..

Re: Religion
 

A few points - having studied theology (a masters) and Law (LLB) and Education (B.ED) I would not think theology is any less vigorous intellectually than law:rofl:

I do know, from my studies, that sins that are also crimes will not be forgiven in Canada unless the penitent also confesses to the authorities. So, whilst I was a prison chaplain, inmates who confessed to me of abuse against children knew that the expectation was that they also told the authorites: which they would subsequently do with or without my help. Part of the sacrament of reconciliation for child sexual abusers WILL involve treatment, and most probably incarceration. You cant just whisper your crimes through a curtain and be done with it.

Regarding the church and intellect: without Franciscan scholars translating arab translations of Aristotle in the 12th centruy and onwards a scientific revolution in thinking would not have occured - or only many centuries later.
Irish monks in the dark ages could be argued to have kept the roots of Western Civilization alive.

One could also trace the roots of western democracy and freedom of the individual back to the writings of Paul.

Free thinkers have a lot to thank the old monks and priests for!

In other words - one could not be an atheist without the church!

Regarding whinging - refusing to allow individuals I know personally to be grouped as abusers is not in my mind whinging.

Re: Religion
 

thats assuming of course that all these writings are factually accurate, like the resurrection for instance.

Re: Religion
 

Yes. Like it or not Atheist's have to accept that Western Society is founded on Christian principles and the law has developed on those principles of right and wrong over time. In the court of law people are made to swear on the bible when they testify etc.....

There has been corruption and abuse in religion but those two things will always have the potential to exist in any situation where there is power to be corrupted and abused. That is not the fault of the religion but the fault of the people who have had the power go to their heads.

Re: Religion
 

Theres obviously a difference between faith and belief. But faith is not necessarilly irrational. We now believe many things to be true that were unbelievable and unfathomable in previous centuries. Most relationships come down to faith in another or the "other." But how can you KNOW another mind?

In the same way spritiuality is a relationship with an other - just a bigger other. How can one know that mind?

There comes a point in relationships and in spirituality where one steps out in faith, into the void.

However, one can use reason to judge one's own actions in the face of one's belief in the other.

Who can ever prove the resurrection?

However, the language of the resurrection narrative has, I believe, helped impel our society from survivng in mud huts along the banks of the Thames to something greater.

Meanwhile my relationship with my creator remains, and religion is the language I use to describe it.

It's time for a beer!

Re: Religion
 

Who can disprove the resurrection?

Re: Religion
 

No, Rae, that assumption is not necessary. There is no causal link between the intellectual rigour of an argument and the truth of an unrelated belief that the proponent happens to hold.
There's also no denying the influence the monastic tradition had on Western civilisation from the fall of Rome through the Dark Ages and, through the religious quasi-monopoly on education, well past the Renaissance and into the Age of Enlightenment. Where I'd disagree with Triumphguy is in his assumption that that influence was always for the good. There's a strong argument that without the single-minded and blinkered approach to maintaining orthodox ideas (for example, through the threat of excommunication to those who countered the geo-centric view of the solar system) many scientific advances would have been made earlier. Non-Christian (particularly Hindu and Islamic/Arabic) traditions of knowledge were what really kept pushing at the boundaries of accepted wisdom; several breakthroughs in mainstream Western (hence Christian) thought were hundreds of years behind similar advances in the Middle East. And that's taking no account of the Chinese influence on early modern thinking.


well, I suppose you could, but Paul's thoughts draw so heavily on Aristotelian and Platonic thinking on the individual that you'd be guilty of a pretty arbitrary distinction to trace back only as far as Paul and not to where his thoughts came from.

Steady on... while I bow to your undoubtedly greater knowledge of ecclesiastical history, I thought it was fairly evident that for well over half of its existence the Church hierarchy has gone out of its way to suppress free thinking in favour of unquestioning acceptance of the orthodox. Isn't that what the Inquisition was all about, and the dogmatic dismissal of Copernicus' work 60 years after its publication, and the infamous imprisonment, torture and enforced recanting of Galileo?

Re: Religion
 

Pure sophistry. You might as well argue for the existence of a divine soul in ameoba, since we certainly couldn't have bypassed that stage in our evolution into sentient entities.

Re: Religion
 

If Christianity hadn't got in the way of the Greeks

It quite possible we'd be even further ahead

the church is responsible fro holding back the progress of Europe many times when that step conflicted with the teachings of the day

Copernicus and Galileo spring to mind

Re: Religion
 

Many of those principles occur in other places that aren't Christian so those we could easily put done to common sense application of rules within societies
I don't see right or wrong as something exclusive to religion
And I don't have to swear on a bible nor would any judge with common sense impose it ;)

Re: Religion
 

Or perhaps centuries earlier, but not in Europe first?

It's not clear what this scientific revolution which apparently occurred soon after the 12C consisted of, but whatever it was, why was it more valuable for God to have it occur in Europe rather than, say, Persia?

Re: Religion
 

Ah - that's an interesting conundrum!

The church was asking Copernicus to "prove" that the earth was not the center of the universe! Precisely what non-believers are asking believers to do!

One has to break down the difference between fundamentalism and orthodoxy also. Thinking goes wrong when it resorts to fundamentalism.

There's a difference between right thinking and thinking I'm right.

When thinking becomes institutionalised there is a danger of "thinking I'm right." The church is always at it's best when counter cultural, rather than monolithic. Where a non-catholic can point to the institutional monolith of the Church in the middle ages, I can think of the thinkers who challenged that monolith from within and so helped change the world.

The roots of the inquisition is not so different from today: monolithic catholicism 'defending' europe from the inroads of monolithic mohammedism, versus 'monolithic' 'western - read American - democracy (read capitalism)defending the world from encroaching Islam. Abu Gharib could be the new Inquisition!

Instead of point at the past, we can use lessons of our human weakness in the past to point out current day wrongs, and place them in context.

Re: Religion
 

It wasn't - Europe happened to invent the printing press a short time later.:rofl:

Re: Religion
 

400 years later. Surely that's a ridiculously weak argument? And it wasn't Europe, it was a German called Gutenberg. It took another 400 years to get to the European Union. I suppose that was the inevitable consequence of typesetting?

Re: Religion
 

Eh? Do believers think the earth is the centre of the universe? News to me.

Tell that to the Borgias when you meet them in Heaven.

Re: Religion
 

Right people I'm off to bed. Good night and God bless.....

When we all die we will know who is the true victor of the arguement. Until then I am putting religion in the same carpark as race and social class.

Re: Religion
 

Sorry, but we already do know that.