The Hazards of Belief

Lurkio

recedite wrote: »

Lots of people believe in a deity, but don't insist on signing up their infants for full RCC membership.
I don't accept accept that a sane person would want to sign up to a doctrine that opposes their deepest feelings, their "self" in fact.
You don't see a black person insisting on membership of the KKK, or a Jew insisting on joining ISIS. It can only be for mischievous reasons.

While I have no idea what goes on in their heads, I accept that many people see far more to the RC than its teaching on sexuality and related matters.

PopePalpatine

Vice News got their hands on some headcam footage filmed by a Da'esh fighter. It's not a pretty sight...unless, of course, you find jihadi incompetence entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM3ElTvF52I

Lurkio

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Vice News got their hands on some headcam footage filmed by a Da'esh fighter. It's not a pretty sight...unless, of course, you find jihadi incompetence entertaining.

Theres a sequel to "four lions" in there.

PopePalpatine

Coming soon to a Da'esh propaganda video: rubber dinghy rapids.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Rules is rules.
If you don't agree with the club rules, why would you try to join the club?
Being abusive towards the priest is not helping their case either.

As I understand it, they are already members of 'the club' and want their child to be also. The only reason being presented to not permit this is because they happen to be gay.
If you were a believing parent who wished your child to partake in a religious ritual, and said ritual was denied through no fault of your child, I think you'd be annoyed too.

Further hypocrisy is exposed by the priest's reasoning that non-biological parents are not permitted - but adoptive parents neither of whom have a biological relationship with the child are.

recedite wrote: »

Lots of people believe in a deity, but don't insist on signing up their infants for full RCC membership.
I don't accept accept that a sane person would want to sign up to a doctrine that opposes their deepest feelings, their "self" in fact.
You don't see a black person insisting on membership of the KKK, or a Jew insisting on joining ISIS. It can only be for mischievous reasons.

False dichotomy, we are not talking about ideologies chosen as an adult but doctrines imposed since childhood.

recedite

I'm no fan of RCC, and I'm not defending their rules. But atheist's complaints about RCC are usually based on the interference of that church with secular and public affairs, such as schools and civil same sex marriage.

If you want the RCC to mind their own business, you can hardly complain when they are doing exactly that.

smokingman

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/prince-s-last-days-gathering-clues-to-star-s-untimely-death-1.2631019

Knew he was a bit out-there with his beliefs but are jehovahs OK with painkiller drugs?
Still going to miss him though...

cowboyBuilder

https://twitter.com/BasimaFaysal/status/726784798224601088

recedite

Prince. Had a religious-based resistance to medical intervention - killed himself with drugs

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Chances are he was ordained when Franco was still around, and after all, Spain IS the birthplace of Opus Dei.

The anti Franco leftists being responsible for the rape and murder of some 7000 Catholic clergy of course.Opus Dei being responsible for hundreds of hospitals,schools and charities throughout the world.

It's when scallywags like you get together that rumours start :pac:

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

The anti Franco leftists being responsible for the rape and murder of some 7000 Catholic clergy of course.Opus Dei being responsible for hundreds of hospitals,schools and charities throughout the world.

It's when scallywags like you get together that rumours start :pac:

Saddam Hussein was responsible for free access to primary, secondary and university education. He also gave free basic healthcare to pretty much the entire population, and that which was not free was heavily subsidised. So, what's your point? Doing some good stuff makes up for the bad? So Saddam was actually alright and should have been left alone, I mean, he seems to have been doing a good job, you know, unless you were a kurd. The RCC does a good job unless you are a cute underage boy, gay or a woman, so let's leave it alone?

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I'm no fan of RCC, and I'm not defending their rules. But atheist's complaints about RCC are usually based on the interference of that church with secular and public affairs, such as schools and civil same sex marriage.

If you want the RCC to mind their own business, you can hardly complain when they are doing exactly that.

They are perfectly entitled to do so and we are perfectly entitled to point out their hypocrisy and the hurt their rules cause to people.

recedite wrote: »

Prince. Had a religious-based resistance to medical intervention - killed himself with drugs

Albeit accidentally. It was rumoured for years that he required hip surgery but couldn't have it as a JW as it would require blood transfusions. Certainly not the first or last person to die as a result of refusing treatment due to belief

JPNelsforearm

MrPudding wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was responsible for free access to primary, secondary and university education. He also gave free basic healthcare to pretty much the entire population, and that which was not free was heavily subsidised. So, what's your point? Doing some good stuff makes up for the bad? So Saddam was actually alright and should have been left alone, I mean, he seems to have been doing a good job, you know, unless you were a kurd. The RCC does a good job unless you are a cute underage boy, gay or a woman, so let's leave it alone?

MrP

Well Saddam should have been left alone, its no one elses business how Iraq is/was run. The issue with the RCC is that they are a subversive foreign entity doing bad stuff and wielding undue influence in Ireland.

PopePalpatine

fran17 wrote: »

The anti Franco leftists being responsible for the rape and murder of some 7000 Catholic clergy of course.Opus Dei being responsible for hundreds of hospitals,schools and charities throughout the world.

It's when scallywags like you get together that rumours start :pac:

Whereas pro-Franco rightists were responsible for up to 300,000 forced adoptions against "enemies of the state", and as for rape, I'd hazard a guess pro-Francoists saw asking for a woman's consent as "cultural Marxism" or some mad conspiracy theory like that.

anothernight

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess pro-Francoists saw asking for a woman's consent as "cultural Marxism" or some mad conspiracy theory like that.

The official terminology for pro-Francoists is "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy". That's what you get if you follow a dictator whose power apparently comes from St Therese's incorrupt arm. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, women under Franco couldn't give consent for most things. Want to open a bank account? Ask your husband. Working, sex, signing a contract, getting a passport, even spending money was legally up to her husband. The new rights women got in the constitution of 1931 were wiped out by Franco in the name of National Catholicism. It wasn't until 1978, when a new constitution was prepared after Franco's death, that women got autonomy again.

Both sides of the war killed people (it was a war. That's what happens in a war). But only one side actively pushed the country back into that retrograde morality that removed basic rights from half of the country's population. And that's before we mention homosexuals and people with different cultural and religious backgrounds.

fran17

MrPudding wrote: »

Saddam Hussein was responsible for free access to primary, secondary and university education. He also gave free basic healthcare to pretty much the entire population, and that which was not free was heavily subsidised. So, what's your point? Doing some good stuff makes up for the bad? So Saddam was actually alright and should have been left alone, I mean, he seems to have been doing a good job, you know, unless you were a kurd. The RCC does a good job unless you are a cute underage boy, gay or a woman, so let's leave it alone?

MrP

Maybe that's because Saddam Hussein was the leader of a country and a government with the responsibility for its peoples education,healthcare etc.You know,what all governments are responsible for.I'm struggling to find the comparison between him and a charitable religious based organisation such as Opus Dei on any level.Being a Christian under him was no barrel of laughs either,thousands were ethnically cleansed.
Your remarks on the RCC are nothing more than an ill founded generalisation laced with insidious stereotyping.If the RCC was such a haven for anti gay sentiment why did a large minority of gay men reside in the church for decades?
Seems to me that the only hazard of Christian belief is persecution for your beliefs.This thread is nothing more than a poorly constructed set of fables

Custardpi

To be honest I'd be reluctant to ascribe moral superiority to either side of the Spanish civil war. While the 1931 government certainly did their best to implement worthwhile reforms the Republican forces which ended up fighting the war on their behalf quickly became the pawns of Soviet interests. Read Orwell's Homage To Catalonia for an inside account of a movement which was essentially run by a bunch of fanatical Stalinists, more focused on carrying out the kind of ideological purges then in full swing in the Soviet Union than in actually fighting the war. If they had won (it's questionable whether Stalin would have even wanted them to, given the greater difficulty in controlling a Spanish socialist government versus those in his backyard of Eastern Europe) I'm not sure the overall human rights situation for Spain would have been vastly better.

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe that's because Saddam Hussein was the leader of a country and a government with the responsibility for its peoples education,healthcare etc.You know,what all governments are responsible for.I'm struggling to find the comparison between him and a charitable religious based organisation such as Opus Dei on any level.Being a Christian under him was no barrel of laughs either,thousands were ethnically cleansed.
Your remarks on the RCC are nothing more than an ill founded generalisation laced with insidious stereotyping.If the RCC was such a haven for anti gay sentiment why did a large minority of gay men reside in the church for decades?
Seems to me that the only hazard of Christian belief is persecution for your beliefs.This thread is nothing more than a poorly constructed set of fables

The main point was that, irrespective of one being a dictator, a benevolent-ish leader or a charity that some of one's actions are good does not necessarily counter-balance the bad. I believe this is particularly the case when the 'charity' is arguably not so much for charitable and altruistic reasons, but more for the furtherance and survival of the organisation. Were it not for the fact that the RCC was poisoning the minds of school children that don't know any better whilst operating a virtual monopoly in primary education it would have died out years ago in Ireland.

And yeah, maybe i have used some generalisation and insidious stereotypes, but am I not allowed to? Are only priests and bishops allowed to do that when they are talking about gay people or atheists?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the RCC is a good place for gay men because so many of them resided in the church? Really?

MrP

anothernight

Custardpi wrote: »

To be honest I'd be reluctant to ascribe moral superiority to either side of the Spanish civil war. While the 1931 government certainly did their best to implement worthwhile reforms the Republican forces which ended up fighting the war on their behalf quickly became the pawns of Soviet interests. Read Orwell's Homage To Catalonia for an inside account of a movement which was essentially run by a bunch of fanatical Stalinists, more focused on carrying out the kind of ideological purges then in full swing in the Soviet Union than in actually fighting the war. If they had won (it's questionable whether Stalin would have even wanted them to, given the greater difficulty in controlling a Spanish socialist government versus those in his backyard of Eastern Europe) I'm not sure the overall human rights situation for Spain would have been vastly better.

Both sides did horrific things. The difference is that one side was a bunch of different groups with barely any organisation, and the other side was an organised military faction (with subsections, mind you) with an experienced military leader.

Things got incredibly messy with the civil war and I don't think either possible outcome would have helped the country at all. But the third option was: Franco doesn't try to seize power, and the country tries to find its own footing through democracy. Spain had only just had a previous dictatorship and I doubt they would have been able to cope well for a few decades after the start of the second republic (the short republic was very unstable), but eventually they would have figured it out, just like Ireland took a while to figure out some things. (Having said that, at least Franco's death became the catalyst for sudden change. Ireland hasn't had that "luxury".)


I've read and liked Homage to Catalonia, but it's not a very good source for this time period in that he didn't really know what was going on, and even though he attempts to only state what he sees, he's a little too biased at times. He seems to think that a lot of of the republicans were only interested in revolution, rather than defence. That's true for some of the groups, but certainly not all of them. Ultimately this is all off topic, however, as what the war did and didn't do is completely unrelated to religious belief, whereas what Franco did and didn't do is absolutely linked to it.


EDIT: Off topic as it may be, for anyone who understands written Spanish, the National Library has the newspapers and magazines of the era digitised and available online. It's very interesting and eye-opening to see the publications from both sides, before and during the civil war. Though it's also very sad.

fran17

MrPudding wrote: »

The main point was that, irrespective of one being a dictator, a benevolent-ish leader or a charity that some of one's actions are good does not necessarily counter-balance the bad. I believe this is particularly the case when the 'charity' is arguably not so much for charitable and altruistic reasons, but more for the furtherance and survival of the organisation. Were it not for the fact that the RCC was poisoning the minds of school children that don't know any better whilst operating a virtual monopoly in primary education it would have died out years ago in Ireland.

And yeah, maybe i have used some generalisation and insidious stereotypes, but am I not allowed to? Are only priests and bishops allowed to do that when they are talking about gay people or atheists?

Are you seriously trying to argue that the RCC is a good place for gay men because so many of them resided in the church? Really?

MrP

Generalise and stereotype at will,it wont make it true though.
Ah,no I don't believe I made the argument for the RCC being a good,bad or indifferent place for gay men to reside.While there may be no conclusive evidence regarding this matter there is a number of studies which very much conclude that the percentage of gay men in the RCC is vastly higher than in the general population as a whole.A US study in the 1990's estimated it to be as high as 33% while another ranged it anywhere from 15-58%.
Why,baring in mind religious teachings on the matter,would such a disproportionate amount enter the priesthood?What is the net gain?

Lurkio

fran17 wrote: »

Generalise and stereotype at will,it wont make it true though.
Ah,no I don't believe I made the argument for the RCC being a good,bad or indifferent place for gay men to reside.While there may be no conclusive evidence regarding this matter there is a number of studies which very much conclude that the percentage of gay men in the RCC is vastly higher than in the general population as a whole.A US study in the 1990's estimated it to be as high as 33% while another ranged it anywhere from 15-58%.
Why,baring in mind religious teachings on the matter,would such a disproportionate amount enter the priesthood?What is the net gain?

Yet again the gay community can rest assured that once they're convenient for whatever argument you're trying to win, you sort of support them.

Custardpi

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

One eyed Jack

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

I imagine a more likely explanation is that there wouldn't be any suspicions about their sexuality if a man joined the priesthood, plus of course there was the added advantage that the priesthood is a sausage fest!

fran17

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past.The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

One eyed Jack

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past. The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

You didn't surely type that with a straight face? :pac:

Society, religious organisations, and indeed governments were very much aware of how repressing sexuality would manifest itself in society. That's how they were able to justify the continued existence of the laundries and keep the rampant child sexual abuse covered up for so long!!

Custardpi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You didn't surely type that with a straight face? :pac:

Society, religious organisations, and indeed governments were very much aware of how repressing sexuality would manifest itself in society.

Actually I'm not sure that's completely true. Obviously not to excuse the behaviour of the Church & wider society in this matter too much but the fact is that there was a wide level of genuine misunderstanding regarding sexuality up to a few decades ago. The concept of "curing" gayness was, well within living memory a perfectly reasonable idea & not just in wacky Evangelical Christian circles. In the field of Psychiatry the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders listed homosexuality as a disorder up to the 1970s.

One of the most famous victims of this flawed belief on the part of supposedly learned people was of course Alan Turing but there must have been thousands of others over the years. Strange as it seems to our eyes today there were once many well meaning people to whom either hiding LGBT people away or attempting to "cure" them with highly invasive & humiliating treatments was not "repressing" them in any way but rather doing the right thing to humanely help them. Thankfully we have to a great extent (though by no means universally sadly) moved on from such beliefs & practices.

One eyed Jack

Custardpi wrote: »

Actually I'm not sure that's completely true. Obviously not to excuse the behaviour of the Church & wider society in this matter too much but the fact is that there was a wide level of genuine misunderstanding regarding sexuality up to a few decades ago. The concept of "curing" gayness was, well within living memory a perfectly reasonable idea & not just in wacky Evangelical Christian circles. In the field of Psychiatry the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders listed homosexuality as a disorder up to the 1970s.

One of the most famous victims of this flawed belief on the part of supposedly learned people was of course Alan Turing but there must have been thousands of others over the years. Strange as it seems to our eyes today there were once many well meaning people to whom either hiding LGBT people away or attempting to "cure" them with highly invasive & humiliating treatments was not "repressing" them in any way but rather doing the right thing to humanely help them. Thankfully we have to a great extent (though by no means universally sadly) moved on from such beliefs & practices.

The concept of "curing" what were considered mental disorders is itself a relatively recent idea in terms of human history. Homosexuality wasn't always considered immoral behaviour, and wasn't always classed as a mental disorder.

Repressing people's sexuality on the other hand, is a concept as old as the existence of human civilisation itself.

Lurkio

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

Quite possible. Certainly here it was traditional to try and send the youngest son to the priesthood.

Custardpi

Lurkio wrote: »

Quite possible. Certainly here it was traditional to try and send the youngest son to the priesthood.

While the older & more intelligent son would be encouraged to go into medical school.

One eyed Jack

Custardpi wrote: »

While the older & more intelligent son would be encouraged to go into medical school.

That certainly explains why my mother wanted me to either be a priest or a doctor - I was the middle child, and she wanted a priest or a doctor in the family as both were seen as a vocation and would increase the family's social standing!

I was considering the priesthood when all the scandals about the priests having relationships came out (seemed like a great way to get the ladies!). I reconsidered however when all the scandals about the priests abusing children came out...