Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Hazards of Belief

Options
1…323324326328329…334

Comments

  • Options
    #9752
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,978 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    robindch wrote: »
    Avoiding the public, I suppose. They're supposed to be hermits after all - though they don't live in that place any more, but in a distinctly weird outfit a few miles away called "The Priory", run by the SSPX Resistance, a ragtag group of hardliners who make the pansies who write and print "Alive!" look like wimps.

    Wondered what happened to Richard Williamson. He's in the SSPX resistance. Odious. Excommunicated twice, that's impressive.


  • Options
    #9753
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    The ballot box in one hand, and the Carmelites in the other?

    That comment nearly cost me a laptop... lucky it was only a rather nice espresso I snorted all over my keyboard.


  • Options
    #9754
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I first heard that one years ago!

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #9755
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Wondered what happened to Richard Williamson. He's in the SSPX resistance. Odious. Excommunicated twice, that's impressive.
    And deported from or booted out of Germany and seemingly Argentina too for anti-semitic activities of one kind or another. He's visited Rosscarbery a couple of times to spread his load. Far as I can make out Williamson now runs SSPX-Resistance after they split away from the mainstream SSPX who were open to a reconciliation with the Vatican. SSPX-R holds that Pope Frank was appointed somehow by Satan and bends to His Luciferian will.

    You can get a feel for SSPX-R by the contents of sites like the US-based https://www.cathinfo.com/ - as solid a diet of climate-change denialism, anti-vaccine brainrot, anti-semitic, racist, pro-trump bull**** as you'll find anywhere on the internet short of an openly Nazi website.


  • Options
    #9756
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Hey if you're going to let one flavour of crackpot fcukwittery inhabit your brain, might as well go for the full set.

    *awaits formation of Continuity SSPX*

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9757
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    *awaits formation of Continuity SSPX*
    Oddly, that's what some of the locals call it :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #9758
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Another case of projection....


    "A professor for Truman State University and elder of the Kirksville Church of Christ has been charged with misdemeanor prostitution. This is made worse for the anti-LGBTQ religious professor, because he’s alleged to seek same-sex relations from students."

    Police were told Poyner had been propositioning male students for sexual favors, as well as offering to pay for things in exchange for same. He was active on Grindr with the username “DILF”.
    After a detective set up a profile to catch Poyner, they received a message from the professor. Poyner propositioned the detective saying he:
    “Would live to have a sugar daddy relationship.”
    The fact an elder of a virulently homophobic church was caught engaging in this activity didn’t surprise some.


    https://percolately.com/ben/anti-gay-church-elder-arrested-pay-men-sex/?fbclid=IwAR1afNifpdG25mF63Z9BWIAC1w9USrrehjd-Qy4AaqY32wNQAcml9odQFXY




    Some posts from the church about the ebbil gheys

    https://www.towleroad.com/2019/12/barry-cole-poyner/


  • Options
    #9759
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,978 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Another case of projection....







    https://percolately.com/ben/anti-gay-church-elder-arrested-pay-men-sex/?fbclid=IwAR1afNifpdG25mF63Z9BWIAC1w9USrrehjd-Qy4AaqY32wNQAcml9odQFXY




    Some posts from the church about the ebbil gheys

    https://www.towleroad.com/2019/12/barry-cole-poyner/

    Apparently he offered to pay with an Arby's (US fast food specializing in roast beef sandwiches ) card - do the nasty with him, get your sandwiches for free. "Where's the beef?"


  • Options
    #9760
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    More of a white pudding roll than a sandwich :pac:

    He was trying to pray away the ghey, just didn't pray hard enough :cool:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #9761
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    A vile bunch.


    The Islamic State group has released a video claiming to show the killing of 11 Christians in Nigeria.
    IS said it was part of its recently declared campaign to "avenge" the death of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during a US raid in Syria in October.
    No details were given about the victims, who were all male, but IS says they were "captured in the past weeks" in Nigeria's north-eastern Borno State.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-50924266


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9762
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Interesting bit on the RTE news this morning that there is a hearing in which will test whether veganism 'philosophical or religious belief'. The bit below amused me;
    Mr Casamitjana's lawyers said ethical veganism satisfies the tests required for it to be a philosophical or religious belief, which would mean it was protected under the UK's Equality Act 2010.

    For a belief to be protected under the Act, it must meet a series of tests including being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not being incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with fundamental rights of others.

    I wonder how many current mainstream religions would fail this simple test?


  • Options
    #9763
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Comedy gold or puke inducing .....


    US President Donald Trump has claimed his Democratic opponents would tear down crosses and pledged to bring prayer to public schools at a re-election rally to shore up evangelical support.
    Mr Trump - who despite three marriages, sexual assault allegations and a controversial business history has made himself a champion of right-wing Christians - promised "another monumental victory for faith and family, God and country, flag and freedom".
    "I really do believe we have God on our side," Mr Trump told the crowd at the King Jesus International Ministry mega church in Miami.
    "We are defending religion itself, it's under siege," Mr Trump said. "A society without religion cannot prosper."
    https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2020/0104/1104293-donald-trump/


  • Options
    #9764
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Comedy gold or puke inducing .....

    The latter. The screen adaptation of American Gods caricatures this kind of Evangelical attitude rather well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpBjph1T3Ls


  • Options
    #9765
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Hitler said exactly the same...

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #9766
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    smacl wrote: »
    I wonder how many current mainstream religions would fail this simple test?

    This is the sort of ridiculous knot a state ties itself up in when it's not secular. If it affords privilieges to religions, then it has to decide what is a 'valid' religion and what isn't...

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #9767
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,057 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    This is the sort of ridiculous knot a state ties itself up in when it's not secular. If it affords privilieges to religions, then it has to decide what is a 'valid' religion and what isn't...
    A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.


  • Options
    #9768
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,057 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    I wonder how many current mainstream religions would fail this simple test?
    The test is not applied to particular religions (or particular non-religious philosophical movements) as a whole, but to a specific religious (or philosophical) belief for which protection is claimed. It's not only possible but, I would guess, likely that most religions (and non-religious philosophical movements) embody a blend of specific beliefs, some of which would meet this test and others of which would not.


  • Options
    #9769
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.

    Would the state not just require specifically non-religious arguments to support any proposed changes to public affairs? It wouldn't even have to take a position on something as religious to reject it, just show it to lack a fair and logical justification.

    Your idea of secularism would only have a problem if it decided that nothing that happens to also exist in any way in any religion should be part of public affairs. I don't know of any secularism that says "Well, we were going to have a law against killing each other, but the religions say that too, so I guess it's open season on each other", so it looks like you have a bit of a strawman.


  • Options
    #9770
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The test is not applied to particular religions (or particular non-religious philosophical movements) as a whole, but to a specific religious (or philosophical) belief for which protection is claimed. It's not only possible but, I would guess, likely that most religions (and non-religious philosophical movements) embody a blend of specific beliefs, some of which would meet this test and others of which would not.

    That's a good point and seems to be one where many nominally religious people in this country are at odds with church dogma, the results of recent referendums being good illustrations of this. I think variations within a given religion also emphasize or reject different beliefs, so for example where the likes of Israel Folau and like minded right wing evangelists would push the line that homosexuals are going to hell as scripture, most Catholics in this country would reject it outright as morally repugnant.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.

    My take on secularism is that it basically boils down to 'freedom of religion and freedom from religion' such that in a secular democracy a persons religious belief can inform and restrict their own actions but not restrict those of others. Given that caveat, I think that attempting to remove religious symbolism and religious expression from the public sphere is actually anti-secular. Similarly, I see the undue influence of religion, e.g. in education in this country, as deeply anti-secular.

    Taken in the context of the previous post, the only expressions of religious belief I'd seek to exclude from public affairs are those that infringe on the basic human rights of others. The remainder I'd consider in the same manner as personal preference or opinion, as opposed to fact or truth.


  • Options
    #9771
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,716 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Would the state not just require specifically non-religious arguments to support any proposed changes to public affairs?

    I agree entirely with the sentiment, though you could and probably should say the same about any purely ideological arguments. Any proposition should be considered objectively in terms of who benefits, who loses and at what cost. The main problem I see with religious arguments in the public sphere in this country is that they often claim validation on the basis that a certain percentage of the population is Catholic, where the Catholics of this country have consistently voted against the position held by their church when given a voice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9772
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    A challenge shared, ironically, by a version of secularism which seeks to exclude religion from public affairs. This also requires the state to take a position on what is, and what isn't, religion.

    First you need to define what you mean by "excluding religion from public affairs".

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #9773
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,057 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    First you need to define what you mean by "excluding religion from public affairs".
    Indeed you do. I think there’s (at least) two distinct traditions within secularism about this.

    In one secularist tradition, secularism is about disregarding considerations relating to the supernatural, the divine, etc in making decisions. So a secular decision or action isn’t in any sense “anti-God” in the sense that a secularist doesn’t necessarily have to be an atheist, or opposed to religion. Indeed, someone who is devoutly religious in their personal life might also believe strongly that the state should be secular, and avoid any kind of entanglement with religion. There are several boardies whose views are similar to this.

    A secularist in this tradition would take that view that, e.g. in funding schools or hospitals, religious and non-religious institutions should be treated in exactly the same way, and according to the same criteria, which themselves should make no reference to religion, nor be motivated by any support for or animus against religion. In their view, it is simply not the business of the state to take any position on any religious question, including a hostile position.

    In another secularist tradition, religion and religious considerations should be actively excluded from civic and public affairs. On this view, religious schools, hospitals, etc should be denied public funding or support because they are religious.

    But either tradition does require its advocates to be able to identify “religion”. We can neither exclude religious questions/considerations as irrelevant, nor practice a policy of denying/excluding religious movements, institutions, etc. from public affairs, unless we can say what is religious and what is not. Similarly guarantees of freedom of religion or freedom from religion are meaningless if we can’t say what “religion” is.

    Take abortion as an issue. A lot of people would argue that anti-choice arguments which are grounded in “divine law” or something similar cannot legitimately be allowed to influence public policy on abortion. I think secularists of both the traditions outlined above would take this view. Fair enough.

    Now go a little further. Suppose an argument is not grounded in anything like divine law, but on an ethic of respect for human life (in the biological sense of “human”) or on utilitarian grounds about the social consequences of a particular aspect of abortion law or practice. But suppose also that this argument is advanced by a man wearing a soutane and a roman collar. Is it legitimate? Some secularists would say yes, it’s legitimate (but they might still be unconvinced by it as an argument) while others would say no, it’s not, because it’s advanced by a representative of a religious institution, who should not be participating in this discussion.

    Now take a different issue - the death penalty, say, in the US. Suppose I am a secularist and an opponent of, and campaigner against, the death penalty. Many other campaigners are religious, and many of those advance explicitly religious arguments against the death penalty. Should I refuse to work with them? Should I, in fact, oppose their involvement in the issue, and argue against the state acceding to their views in public affairs, even though in terms of the desired outcome their views align with my own? Does the participation of religious institutions in public affairs, or the advancement of religious views, become legitimate if the same position can be arrived at on non-religious grounds?


  • Options
    #9774
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    At least two of a number of talks that a controversial American Catholic chastity campaigner was expected to deliver to Irish school students will not now take place.
    Jason Evert advocates chastity for teens and young adults. In books and in speeches he has called homosexuality, and the use of contraceptives, "disordered".


    Jaysus forfend somebody try to protect against pregnancy....
    Mr Evert is touring Ireland, visiting Dublin and Waterford, over two days next week. According to a schedule that was published on Mr Evert's website but was subsequently withdrawn, Mr Evert was due to deliver addresses to two fee-charging Dublin boys schools, as well as at churches and other locations in Dublin and in Waterford.

    "The homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex - babies and bonding."

    Good jaysus tonight.....
    https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/0110/1105663-jason-evert/


  • Options
    #9775
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Street Preacher fail:

    https://twitter.com/StoneTadhg/status/1215421145564041217


  • Options
    #9776
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    robindch wrote: »
    Street Preacher fail:

    https://twitter.com/StoneTadhg/status/1215421145564041217




    There was a big group at henry street today that I think were Afro-americans, with 5 or 6 of them singing gospel and doing a fine job of it. Nobody tried to give me a leaflet though, so I've no idea what grouping they are precisely.


  • Options
    #9777
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Odhinn wrote: »
    There was a big group at henry street today that I think were Afro-americans, with 5 or 6 of them singing gospel and doing a fine job of it. Nobody tried to give me a leaflet though, so I've no idea what grouping they are precisely.

    Yeah but are you still feeling f**king sick though? :pac:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #9778
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Yeah but are you still feeling f**king sick though? :pac:


    Alas I do still have a throbbing pain in the bollocks, but that's the kind of thing only a grade 1 relic can fix.


  • Options
    #9779
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    There was always going to be a problem having a second Pope in the granny flat out back.

    The former pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against allowing married men to become priests, in a move that could jeopardise a potential plan by Pope Francis to change the centuries-old requirement in areas of the Amazon.
    Benedict, who implied upon his resignation in 2013 that he would not interfere with the work of his successor, has defended clerical celibacy in an explosive book written with the outspoken conservative cardinal Robert Sarah.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/13/former-pope-benedict-warns-against-relaxing-priestly-celibacy-rules


  • Options
    #9780
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Odhinn wrote: »
    There was always going to be a problem having a second Pope in the granny flat out back.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/13/former-pope-benedict-warns-against-relaxing-priestly-celibacy-rules

    Schism! Schism! Schism! Schism!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9781
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,987 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Schism! Schism! Schism! Schism!




    My moneys on Frank - KO before round 6.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement