So the Pope is a marxist.... (wait for it)

[kandrathe]

Point 1: It's a little more than complicit when you are asking people to go slaughter people on your behalf. Trying to say that is complicit, and nothing more is not a very realistic approach.

It is hard to understand outside of the context of that time. In many ways the Caliphate brought it upon themselves by mistreating non-Islam believers and destroying or seizing all the Churches. The pope gave a speech. Many years later 20,000 peasants marched to the Holy Land unprepared for any battle and were mercilessly slaughtered. And, you know how these "for justice" things build. In that age, warfare was considered a glorious opportunity to improve your lot in life. It was not considered to be the horror we ascribe to it now.

Point2: That doesn't change the fact that these things were done by religious people, and these things done in the name of religion show that it does not pacify the populace.

Some self proclaimed "religious" people say and do horrible things. Why? Because they are people. I would hazard to say that if you examined the population for crime, drug abuse, etc. that a person religious affiliation has little meaning. Just because you claim to be a horse, doesn't make you a horse.

Point 3: I'm not trying to convict millions. Otherwise, I would have brought up the super awesome funding that people like Focus on the Family gets, or some of the atrocious groups that work to further perpetuate stereotypes. I could convict millions on those accounts, but I purposely left them out, because that wasn't my intent. My point was to show that it isn't a pacifistic teaching coming from the pulpit. And you can do a little research / read those links I posted, these aren't people ordained by the holy baptist church of bob, or the WBC. they are from nationally recognized, nationally run denominations.

And, "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence? People like Worley still have the freedom to speak their mind, even when it is hateful. Now, people will judge his words and gather to protest him.

But since I've now brought it up, we can use groups like Focus on the Family, and their ilk, coupled with the record that we have of pastors who are still out there, preaching the approval of violence towards LGBT, towards the continued subservience of women as a lesser to man, and on and on, to show that the current religious structure in Christianity is not pacifistic in practice. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't pacifistic sects of modern christianity, or that there aren't entire denominations that do embrace the "legitimate" teachings of the New Testament.

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press. But, again, you think "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence?

Point 4: If you read the bible, all have sinned and come short of the glory of god. Sometimes, there are groups of christians who forget that, especially when it fits to further divide the populace, protect their own interests, persecute those who have a differing viewpoint, or lifestyle than their own.

As an aside, the the pre-disposition to being divided, Sectarianism, pushes this to an extreme, by working to further create derision amongst a group of believers. This is beyond the normal "divisionist" behavior of the human condition.

My neighbors divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. My co-workers divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. When I was in high school, we were divided into factions, but not on religious grounds. Cliques or tribes are innate behavior for us. " Humans evolved to be innately prepared to commit to the institutions and projects of their tribes but culture dictated how to recognize who belonged to the tribes, what schedules of aid, praise, and punishment was due to tribal fellows, and how the tribe was to deal with other tribes — allies, enemies, and clients. " [Richardson]

Also, While my current posts are focusing on Christianity, I would hold most other world religions (short of buddhism) to the same standards, and point to the same issues associated with all of them.

I think the myriad of belief systems makes that a hard judgement between black and white. I can't say that all Islam inspires violence, while clearly some sects are very violent. Or, maybe it's the interpretation of the Koran by specific clerics who's flock then take matters into their own hands. Sound familiar? A narrow reading of the Geneva convention, and a room full of word smithing lawyers enabled our government to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques", but we'd not want to call it torture. Whether one is blowing up a market filled with women and children, or water boarding the person suspected of doing it -- somewhere the knowledge of right from wrong was lost -- the inspiration for their justification is the very thing that positive philosophies seek to change.

People have brains, and mouths, and ears, so they will use them to spread their opinions and philosophies. How are you going to influence that for the better? (see also; Terror Management Theory, although I believe it is more complicated than this.) People will subscribe to a world view (Weltanschauung), and so language and reason are our tools for convincing each other of the "truth" of our world view, and the "falsity" of others. But, then, people seldom accept the whole bushel basket of beliefs in the belief system resulting in changes over time -- some good, and some bad. A world view can be "Christian", or it could be "Enlightenment", or "Marxist", or "Nazi Third Reich". We all have one, and according to Leo Apostel, they encompass; an explanation of the world as it is, a plan for the future (Where are we going?), a system of ethics/values (What should we do?), a theory of action (How do we attain our goals?), epistemology (what is true and false?), and etiology, or an account of origin and building blocks.

The bottom line is; There are 7 billion people in the world, and the more homogeneous our world views, the better we will get along with each other.

[kandrathe]

I'd like to see links to those surveys. I know you have them

I'd start here. Pew "Nine-in-ten of the leaders (90%) reject the so-called prosperity gospel, the notion that God will grant wealth and good health to those who have enough faith."

[Hammerskjold]

But since I've now brought it up, we can use groups like Focus on the Family, and their ilk, coupled with the record that we have of pastors who are still out there, preaching the approval of violence towards LGBT, towards the continued subservience of women as a lesser to man, and on and on, to show that the current religious structure in Christianity is not pacifistic in practice. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't pacifistic sects of modern christianity, or that there aren't entire denominations that do embrace the "legitimate" teachings of the New Testament.

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press. But, again, you think "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence?

Key phrase here is, 'and their ilk'. So let's not be coy here, you're bright enough to know what shoju is talking about.

Even the US 1st amendment doesn't cover the 'right and muh freedums' to yell 'fire' at a crowded theatre situation.

And when it comes to other countries, the laws on what constitutes hate speech can be different. Again, let's be absolutely clear here, we are talking about the international stage. Some of the uhm, naive 'missionaries' at best, their evangelizing are producing violent outcomes. At worst, it is absolutely deliberate.

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/12/229869334/...y-movement

Freedom of speech, carries with it responsibilities. You say someone has the freedom of expression, no matter how hateful? I say get real.

You want to revisit the Rwandan Genocide? The Khmer Rouge Revues (now with more hidden mass graves!)? The 1960's Indonesian Chinese alleged 'commies' purge coup? Kosovo conflicts of the 90s? Some good ole fashioned Kristahlnacht? How about a Pogrom? That's russian for prom night right?

When I'm in the mood to read a good horror story, I go to the Historical section. Way better horrorshow than Stephen King.

You don't need a funny pointy hat or a bushy beard to be a 'bad religion', (isn't that a band name?). Virulent, violent fanaticism can mutate from secular sources as well.

Hint: If both worship power for it's sake alone, treats accountability\checks & balances like a used toilet paper, then chances are it's now a 'bad religion' scenario. The absence of superficial 'religious' trappings is a flimsy argument used by overly literal people who can't into forest because of pesky trees. See: North Korea's situation. Kim Jong Il's father, if propaganda is to believed, practically birthed the whole universe from his head, Zeus like.

You of all people should know that, going by your past postings.

The bottom line is; There are 7 billion people in the world, and the more homogeneous our world views, the better we will get along with each other.

Looking at past historical trends, my bet is on the opposite. (eg: The Irish 'Troubles' during the 60s-80s.) Look at all the NWO memes, One World Order backlash. More than a few of them are frankly, crackpot tinfoil brigades. Except, I would not rule them all as outright crazy.

If nothing else for the insurance that frankly, someone in the desert has no business telling me that I have too much clothes on, if I'm in the Arctic. And the reverse is also true, I have no business or right or 'freedoms' to tell anyone in the desert\beach to cover up and put on a parka, because -I- feel I would freeze if I only wear my banana hammock in my Ice Castle. Figuratively speaking.

Edited to get rid of an extra asterisk. Dangling Asterisks must be. Purged.

[DeeBye]

I'd start here. Pew "Nine-in-ten of the leaders (90%) reject the so-called prosperity gospel, the notion that God will grant wealth and good health to those who have enough faith."

The wording of the question is important. That's why I asked for a link to the survey.



The part that matters is "doesn't always". If I were a snake oil salesman and wanted repeat business, I'd be sure to have some fine print that contained the wording "doesn't always". It sometimes does though, which is why you need to buy more of my snake oil.

The other part that strikes me as wrong is the linking of wealth and health as if they are one and the same. What if I believe that prosperity theology can give me wealth, but not health? How do I answer that question honestly?

[kandrathe]

I'd start here. Pew "Nine-in-ten of the leaders (90%) reject the so-called prosperity gospel, the notion that God will grant wealth and good health to those who have enough faith."

The wording of the question is important. That's why I asked for a link to the survey.



The part that matters is "doesn't always". If I were a snake oil salesman and wanted repeat business, I'd be sure to have some fine print that contained the wording "doesn't always". It sometimes does though, which is why you need to buy more of my snake oil.

The other part that strikes me as wrong is the linking of wealth and health as if they are one and the same. What if I believe that prosperity theology can give me wealth, but not health? How do I answer that question honestly?

The question was carefully worded to catch those who are PG adherents. The mainstream believe that bad things can happen to good people. The survey was given to religious people, so they'd be keyed into the buzz words.

[kandrathe]

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press. But, again, you think "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence?

Key phrase here is, 'and their ilk'. So let's not be coy here, you're bright enough to know what shoju is talking about. Even the US 1st amendment doesn't cover the 'right and muh freedums' to yell 'fire' at a crowded theatre situation.

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes. My point is that we don't convict groups of people for the aberrant actions of individuals, unless there is a conspiracy to commit a crime. I might be suspicious of people who attend the mosque led by Mustafa Kamel Mustafa, but I'm not going to assume every participant is in lock step with his words. In the majority of Christian denominations, homosexuality is considered a sin. There is a difference between addressing the "sin", and advocating ill upon the "sinner". That is a line, crossed by those extreme examples, that offends most people including most Christians. My second point is that denominations have variable controls over who becomes a minister, and how their clergy perform. Often, it is the local churches deacons who hire, or fire the minister. Third, people in professional positions "of power" fail, (and worse commit crimes) and often the governing organization struggles in remaining unbiased. Often the they are complicit in concealing wrong doing for fear of bad publicity. This is true for more than church organizations. It is true of hospitals, schools, mental health providers, day care, etc.

And when it comes to other countries, the laws on what constitutes hate speech can be different. Again, let's be absolutely clear here, we are talking about the international stage. Some of the uhm, naive 'missionaries' at best, their evangelizing are producing violent outcomes. At worst, it is absolutely deliberate.

Yes. The results of bad philosophies (or parts of them) are often unjust, or at times horrific. But this is an issue with some ideas in certain world views. The snake oil salesman might be selling financial ponzi schemes, or terrorism, or heavens gate cult. How do you cull the good (parts) philosophies from bad philosophies? There is plenty of debate on the anthropological implications of missionary work. They certainly understand some of the risks, but probably don't comprehend "all of the risks". It's not just Christianity the must deal with this. Should look to how Iran, or Soviet Russia has treated minorities. And... it is not like this topic isn't forward leading throughout the world. It is hotly debated in France, in Russia, in the US, Japan, and many, many other nations.

Freedom of speech, carries with it responsibilities. You say someone has the freedom of expression, no matter how hateful? I say get real.

You want to revisit the Rwandan Genocide? The Khmer Rouge Revues (now with more hidden mass graves!)? The 1960's Indonesian Chinese alleged 'commies' purge coup? Kosovo conflicts of the 90s? Some good ole fashioned Kristahlnacht? How about a Pogrom? That's russian for prom night right? ... Virulent, violent fanaticism can mutate from secular sources as well.

Forcing people to not speak, or express their wrong headed thinking does not allow the wrong ideas to be challenged in the light of day. We've forgotten perhaps what it was like to be jailed, and executed for offending the authority. Freedom of thought and expression resulted from the horrors exhibited by the lack of it. When the government can determine which thoughts are criminal, we are in big big trouble. I would rather that the wrong headed pastor Whorley vent his bigotry for the world to see, and respond to it with the lack of respect it deserves. Judge him for it, question his flock for complicity in allowing it, but don't generalize it to the US population, or even the majority of Baptists. I understand the fear of "hate speech", but I fear more the silencing of dissent.

The bottom line is; There are 7 billion people in the world, and the more homogeneous our world views, the better we will get along with each other.

Looking at past historical trends, my bet is on the opposite. (eg: The Irish 'Troubles' during the 60s-80s.) Look at all the NWO memes, One World Order backlash. More than a few of them are frankly, crackpot tinfoil brigades. Except, I would not rule them all as outright crazy.

If nothing else for the insurance that frankly, someone in the desert has no business telling me that I have too much clothes on, if I'm in the Arctic. And the reverse is also true, I have no business or right or 'freedoms' to tell anyone in the desert\beach to cover up and put on a parka, because -I- feel I would freeze if I only wear my banana hammock in my Ice Castle. Figuratively speaking.

I think you might misunderstand a bit. I was just pointing to where the conflict comes from. Certainly we will never get to one common Worldview®. It's not really the same as "One World Order" -- the concept would be say to imagine if we did have world wide agreement on Islam, or Buddhism, or democracy.

One thing we can do to reduce violence is to recognize how to negotiate between world views, and show tolerance when they do not match our own. Often it is when the discussion stops (or is censored) that the guns come out.

[Hammerskjold]

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes.

You know, I think the 'sins of the father shall not be visited upon the son' etc etc line, has great merit.

However, it's still also true in the real everyday world, that people often represent something other\bigger than themselves, and that is also held accountable.

Both for good and bad, but it does happen and I'm pretty sure you know that.

My point is that we don't convict groups of people for the aberrant actions of individuals, unless there is a conspiracy to commit a crime.

Again I say, look up atrocities like the Rwandan Genocide. Specifically, the use of radio broadcasting.

http://www.rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html

And I'll try to say this as clear as possible. My point is not about stifling free speech. (Did I ever imply that I wanted to do that? ) It's not about 'radio\newspaper\websites is the problem'. That is either naive, or just wanking around the issue.

You don't need to be Rwandan to understand and empathize, to recognize the danger of 'Muh Freedomz' of speech without responsibilities.

This isn't a matter of philosophical circle jerk for some people. My own grandparents, and parents survived similar horrors. So it's not some 'distant' ancestry here, I'm talking about 2-3 generations past. And I can tell you from my own experience, it's not some 'aberrant' individuals.

My own grandmother was put on a death list that was rubberstamped by the CIA, during a coup. Her crime was belonging to the 'wrong ethnic' group, praying to the 'wrong' religion, and working in a book store. (Not a 'radical subversive' book store, it was the 1950-60's equivalent of an Indigo. Just without the loyalty card sales push and 20 dollar soap and knick knacks. When book stores sold mostly, books.) She lived through that horror due to sheer luck\providence.

Often the they are complicit in concealing wrong doing for fear of bad publicity. This is true for more than church organizations. It is true of hospitals, schools, mental health providers, day care, etc.

Why yes, yes they absolutely do. So you obviously understand that aspect. Which makes me more puzzled as to why there seems to be a cognitive dissonance with some of your previous points.

Look I'm not interested in a 15 pages philosophical circle jerk debate on "well that depends on the meaning of the word, 'is'..". I'll just say that it's ahem, very puzzling and strange to say that individuals should be held accountable (absolute agreement there). An ir-responsible group or a system should be held accountable as well (agreed again here). But connecting the two, or the idea that a person(s) can build or corrupt a system to do outright evil work. That's somehow...does not compute? That it's stifling 'muh freedom' of expression? Seriously?

Since when is literally, seriously uttering a death threat, covered under the U.S. free speech?

How do you cull the good (parts) philosophies from bad philosophies? There is plenty of debate on the anthropological implications of missionary work.

Leave the 'debate' to master debaters. Ok a more serious reply.

Again, I like certain things to be clear, and simple without crossing into simplistic.

There's one line that I think has held up and is quite good I think.

"whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

I like it because it can be applied in a practical way. Not easy, but practical IMO.

If it's a good philosophy or good application of it, chances are it probably passes that test of 'how do you treat the least of you' line. To be blunt, how does it treat women, children, people in minority positions? I'm saying position, not just 'ethnicity' alone.

Even blunter version: How does the people with power treat those without\with less? How fanatical are they to slavish devotion of doctrine vs actual people?

Really, there is enough obstacles in real life to navigate, that I personally treat it the same way as picking a good apple vs bad apple. Sight, feel, and smell test are pretty good indicators. If it can't pass the smell test, it's usually rotten.

I understand the fear of "hate speech", but I fear more the silencing of dissent.

And from my own experience, I'd say that constant surveillance is a far more chilling and effective method vs silencing dissent outright. The first is not that far off with developing current tech. While the second has the risk of pushing a human's innate 'rebel' button.

It's not really the same as "One World Order" -- the concept would be say to imagine if we did have world wide agreement on Islam, or Buddhism, or democracy.

We seem to be splitting hairs on this one. We can imagine all we want. I can imagine 12 complete random strangers unanimously agreeing on which toppings they'd like for their pizza. Doesn't mean reality will match our imagination.

One thing we can do to reduce violence is to recognize how to negotiate between world views, and show tolerance when they do not match our own.

You know I agree and I have the same scant hope with that. I'd place a thousand bucks easy on humanity murdering each other for petty reasons for quite a while longer. And I'd place 10$ on humans reaching critical mass enlightenment eventually before our sun eventually goes supernova. But hey I'm a pessimist, not a nihilist.

Often it is when the discussion stops (or is censored) that the guns come out.

I however disagree with that , from the experience I've had and heard from my not so distant ancestor. Before the guns come out, it's usually preceded by a yell of 'get those (insert your choice of group here)!Kill and Burn! Take back what is ours!111'. The ones who are doing the slaughtering rarely sees themselves as the more powerful ones. If anything they often see their group as the aggrieved, wronged minority that are oppressed. Or you know, being told and whispered that they are the victims here.


TLDR: Must have been a slow news day at CNN. I can't directly peer into the pope's mind due to his funny hat blocking his brain waves. But I do like that he likes this statue. The artist name is Timothy Schmalz. (The only indicator that the figure is Jesus is the nail holes in his feet. That's a clever artistic twist IMO. Besides, blonde haired blue eyed swimmer's build hunky Jesus is overdone anyway. )

http://www.catholicregister.org/arts/art...he-vatican

[shoju]

It is hard to understand outside of the context of that time. In many ways the Caliphate brought it upon themselves by mistreating non-Islam believers and destroying or seizing all the Churches. The pope gave a speech. Many years later 20,000 peasants marched to the Holy Land unprepared for any battle and were mercilessly slaughtered. And, you know how these "for justice" things build. In that age, warfare was considered a glorious opportunity to improve your lot in life. It was not considered to be the horror we ascribe to it now.

You are correct. But you are still missing the point. This was, asked for, agreed upon, and "sponsored" by the church. It was "ordained" by the church, in a sense. This was bloodshed, with God's Blessing, and it wasn't "that long" ago, in a "historical sense" this is post AD here.

Some self proclaimed "religious" people say and do horrible things. Why? Because they are people. I would hazard to say that if you examined the population for crime, drug abuse, etc. that a person religious affiliation has little meaning. Just because you claim to be a horse, doesn't make you a horse.

I see this type of rationale quite often. And it's always when someone is bringing up the horrors of Christian Terrorist / Extremists. Are you willing to say then, that this same opinion applies universally, even to those of Muslim faith, who are decried by their peers? Are you willing to accept that Extremist Muslim sects are no more true Christian than the likes of David Koresh, the Christmas Day Bombers, the Rape the Gay Away Pastor, etc...?

And, "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence? People like Worley still have the freedom to speak their mind, even when it is hateful. Now, people will judge his words and gather to protest him.

I didn't say that they specifically promoted violence. I said that if I wanted to convict millions of christians for doing awful shit, I could bring up Focus on the Family, there work with repression therapy, conversion therapy, their "shun, and isolation" stance for parents towards LGBT youth. In an age when suicide is the #3 cause of death for teenagers, (and while not explicitly supported by in depth analysis, because of the sketchy details in suicides, perceived to be higher in the LGBT teen population) they have a lot to answer for. We can start here if you would like.

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press. But, again, you think "Focus on the Family" is promoting violence?

I don't know if an ordained pastor being convicted, and 2 later backtracking and apologizing count as anectdotes, and like was previously pointing out, I was referring to "they" in a much broader sense. We can focus on the problems in the US, the mission field, where ever you would like, if you want more news. But that wasn't the point.

I started with talking about violence, and sort of veered off into the other shitty things like Focus on the Family when talking about "convicting millions". Because while Christian Extremism leading to violence may be a smaller pool of crazies than what Islam has, (and there are easily identifiable societal constructs that prevent that), it does have a very large pool of crazies.

The extremists who would see LGBT people killed, assaulted,
The extremists who believe that the USA should be a Theocracy
The extremists who subscribe to the Prosperity Gospel
The extremists who subscribe to creationist math
The extremists who shun modern medicine in favor of praying the illness away, and watch their children die
The extremists who believe that every new piece of technology is a sign of the trials and tribulations
The extremists who believe that anything they don't understand is witchcraft
And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

My main point, was that Christianity is not very pacificistic in nature. And we can point from the Crusades, to England / Ireland, to bombings, to assaulting people who are different Orientation, race, etc... as evidence, that throughout even modern, recent history, Christianity doesn't have a good track record of being pacifist in nature. But, at least in my opinion, that gets glossed over, as just a few crazies, because we live in it, while we point the finger at other religions, and say "SEE! SEE! THEY ARE VIOLENT!, when going by the numbers they aren't really that much more violent than 'murica's pet religion.

My neighbors divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. My co-workers divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. When I was in high school, we were divided into factions, but not on religious grounds. Cliques or tribes are innate behavior for us. " Humans evolved to be innately prepared to commit to the institutions and projects of their tribes but culture dictated how to recognize who belonged to the tribes, what schedules of aid, praise, and punishment was due to tribal fellows, and how the tribe was to deal with other tribes — allies, enemies, and clients. " [Richardson]

And I still personally feel that sectarianist behavior, and attitudes, pushes this to the extreme. Sectarianism takes the tribe mentality that humans have developed throughout history, and pushes it to a "finding a reason to be superior, searching for faults, searching for the differences" mentality that looks to create rifts between a populace.

For me, it's just as unacceptable as the bullying we all witnessed in high school, but it takes place on a much more grand level. We used Sectarianist behavior to start, fund, and rationalize over a decade of "war against terror".

I think the myriad of belief systems makes that a hard judgement between black and white. I can't say that all Islam inspires violence, while clearly some sects are very violent. Or, maybe it's the interpretation of the Koran by specific clerics who's flock then take matters into their own hands. Sound familiar? A narrow reading of the Geneva convention, and a room full of word smithing lawyers enabled our government to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques", but we'd not want to call it torture. Whether one is blowing up a market filled with women and children, or water boarding the person suspected of doing it -- somewhere the knowledge of right from wrong was lost -- the inspiration for their justification is the very thing that positive philosophies seek to change.

People have brains, and mouths, and ears, so they will use them to spread their opinions and philosophies. How are you going to influence that for the better? (see also; Terror Management Theory, although I believe it is more complicated than this.) People will subscribe to a world view (Weltanschauung), and so language and reason are our tools for convincing each other of the "truth" of our world view, and the "falsity" of others. But, then, people seldom accept the whole bushel basket of beliefs in the belief system resulting in changes over time -- some good, and some bad. A world view can be "Christian", or it could be "Enlightenment", or "Marxist", or "Nazi Third Reich". We all have one, and according to Leo Apostel, they encompass; an explanation of the world as it is, a plan for the future (Where are we going?), a system of ethics/values (What should we do?), a theory of action (How do we attain our goals?), epistemology (what is true and false?), and etiology, or an account of origin and building blocks.

The bottom line is; There are 7 billion people in the world, and the more homogeneous our world views, the better we will get along with each other.

I will completely agree with this. For me? I'd love to see it all gone. All the religion, the politics, the bullshit as I'd call it. I'd love to live in a world where people could be trusted to "be civil", and work together to make a better world for those who will inherit it from us. I raise my children with that in mind. I raise them to evaluate things based on the idea that every person has value, and that value isn't found in their religion, their orientation, their politics, their skin color, or any other "box" that we can categorize people with. I want them to have a world view, in which we don't have the tribe mentality. Because it's a flawed outlook to have. The Tribe mentality leads to those who are with you, and those who are against you. It's crippled this country's political system. It's crippled discussion here on the lounge.

Obviously, people will disagree, but that doesn't mean that it should devolve into a "they disagree because they're a [insert some BS categorical adjective here]". It drives me insane, and it's something I've been guilty of as well.


EDIT:

I saw a snippet of another post of yours

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes. My point is that we don't convict groups of people for the aberrant actions of individuals, unless there is a conspiracy to commit a crime.

Oh, if only that were really the case, things would be a lot different right now.

[kandrathe]

You are correct. But you are still missing the point. This was, asked for, agreed upon, and "sponsored" by the church. It was "ordained" by the church, in a sense. This was bloodshed, with God's Blessing, and it wasn't "that long" ago, in a "historical sense" this is post AD here.

No, it was a long time ago in terms of moral sensibilities. Attitudes about warfare have changed considerably even in the last 100 years. Can you imagine using the US WWII tactics in any encounter today? Can you imagine the public opinion on sending 50,000 men into combat knowing most of them will be killed or wounded. How about charging out of a trench into barbwire, mortars, and machine guns in WWI? The indiscriminate carpet bombing, or use of agent orange of Vietnam? In the middle ages, warfare was glorious. Much has changed. That is not to say that "The Church" was not morally wrong in their support of killing the Turks in our modern sense of right and wrong. Ultimately it began in defense of Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who was being invaded. Unfortunately, due to the intermingling of church and monarchy of that time, "The Church" was swept into political affairs and acted more like a state, than the seat of Christian thought and teaching.

Some self proclaimed "religious" people say and do horrible things. Why? Because they are people. I would hazard to say that if you examined the population for crime, drug abuse, etc. that a person religious affiliation has little meaning. Just because you claim to be a horse, doesn't make you a horse.

I see this type of rationale quite often. And it's always when someone is bringing up the horrors of Christian Terrorist / Extremists. Are you willing to say then, that this same opinion applies universally, even to those of Muslim faith, who are decried by their peers? Are you willing to accept that Extremist Muslim sects are no more true Christian than the likes of David Koresh, the Christmas Day Bombers, the Rape the Gay Away Pastor, etc...?

Yes. David Koresh was not wrong to lead Branch Davidians, but he erred when he began to violate the laws of the state with regard to the safety of the minor children, and the procurement of illegal weapons. His resistance to the authorities directly resulted in their deaths. I blame Reno for her use of force, and Koresh for making that force necessary. I don't necessarily disagree much with Jihadists in their condemnation of the excesses of Western culture (e.g. Miley Cyrus as the latest poster child), except in their decisions to use violence. I do disagree with their views on individual liberty, rights of minorities and women, sharia law, theocracy, etc. As long as we can discuss them openly, and democratically, then I don't have issues with them. But, categorically, anyone who resorts to violence (other than self defense) is wrong in my book.

I could bring up Focus on the Family, there work with repression therapy, conversion therapy, their "shun, and isolation" stance for parents towards LGBT youth. In an age when suicide is the #3 cause of death for teenagers, (and while not explicitly supported by in depth analysis, because of the sketchy details in suicides, perceived to be higher in the LGBT teen population) they have a lot to answer for. We can start here if you would like.

In reviewing the FOTF site, I only see they have a position on "counseling unwanted same-sex attractions". The bottom line is how should most "people of the book" react to homosexuality when it is considered a sin? You may not agree with their views on it, and their approach to dealing with it. You suggest that they are complicit in teen suicide, but wouldn't that be true of any sin correction, like premarital sex, or teen pregnancy? If the "authority" of the church brands them with the scarlet A, regardless of why, I'm sure it causes those people to lose self esteem. In that case, wouldn't any judgment by any authority do the same? When Focus on the Family, The Anglican Church, or any pastor suggests that gender identity counseling is reasonable -- then you are disagreeing with their approach. I'm sure their intention isn't to drive people to suicide. Much of the press bruhaha stems from one FOTF editor, Candi Cushman who seems to be more concerned that tax payer funded anti-bullying education isn't co-opted to promote a specific liberal agenda. It also seems dated, since the articles of hers I read referred to Exodus Intl. which shut down last May. Personally, I think any judging of another, or showing a lack of compassion towards others for any reason is unchristian.

The record of at least 3 anecdotes who made the press.

I don't know if an ordained pastor being convicted, and 2 later backtracking and apologizing count as anectdotes, and like was previously pointing out, I was referring to "they" in a much broader sense. We can focus on the problems in the US, the mission field, where ever you would like, if you want more news. But that wasn't the point.

I started with talking about violence, and sort of veered off into the other shitty things like Focus on the Family when talking about "convicting millions". Because while Christian Extremism leading to violence may be a smaller pool of crazies than what Islam has, (and there are easily identifiable societal constructs that prevent that), it does have a very large pool of crazies.

• The extremists who would see LGBT people killed, assaulted,
  
• The extremists who believe that the USA should be a Theocracy
  
• The extremists who subscribe to the Prosperity Gospel
  
• The extremists who subscribe to creationist math
  
• The extremists who shun modern medicine in favor of praying the illness away, and watch their children die
  
• The extremists who believe that every new piece of technology is a sign of the trials and tribulations
  
• The extremists who believe that anything they don't understand is witchcraft

And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

Ignorant people are ignorant, not all of these are extremists. I find the whole labeling of viewpoints as "extremist" mostly pejorative. Most of those things you list above represent the views of a slim minority of fundamentalist people in the US. We can remedy that with enlightenment and reason. Until we reach them with truth, we reject and vote against their ideas and hold up our constitution and Bill of rights (against theocracy), use the legal system to protect the innocent (violence, etc.), reveal the truth about technology, "creationist math", prosperity gospel and other obvious ignorance. My point was that violence is much more complicated than their prevalent world view, but that it relates more to ignorance, poverty, and other deprivations.

My main point, was that Christianity is not very pacificistic in nature. And we can point from the Crusades, to England / Ireland, to bombings, to assaulting people who are different Orientation, race, etc... as evidence, that throughout even modern, recent history, Christianity doesn't have a good track record of being pacifist in nature. But, at least in my opinion, that gets glossed over, as just a few crazies, because we live in it, while we point the finger at other religions, and say "SEE! SEE! THEY ARE VIOLENT!, when going by the numbers they aren't really that much more violent than 'murica's pet religion.

I feel you are pointing to a myriad of actions by people who might be identified in some group, without considering all factors or any filter of adherence to the tenets of their self proclaimed world view. For example, OBL didn't act like a devout Muslim when you get right down to his lifestyle. Is it fair to attach his inspiration of violence to Islam? No. I think it is better stated that people don't have a good track record of being pacifist in nature, even when their proclaimed world view advocates peace.

My neighbors divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. My co-workers divide into factions, but not on religious grounds. When I was in high school, we were divided into factions, but not on religious grounds. Cliques or tribes are innate behavior for us. " Humans evolved to be innately prepared to commit to the institutions and projects of their tribes but culture dictated how to recognize who belonged to the tribes, what schedules of aid, praise, and punishment was due to tribal fellows, and how the tribe was to deal with other tribes — allies, enemies, and clients. " [Richardson]

And I still personally feel that sectarianist behavior, and attitudes, pushes this to the extreme. Sectarianism takes the tribe mentality that humans have developed throughout history, and pushes it to a "finding a reason to be superior, searching for faults, searching for the differences" mentality that looks to create rifts between a populace.

For me, it's just as unacceptable as the bullying we all witnessed in high school, but it takes place on a much more grand level. We used Sectarianist behavior to start, fund, and rationalize over a decade of "war against terror".

The implication was that the "superiority" was also a natural human behavior, or why else would you remain in your tribe. Some differences are obvious, like racial, ethnic, or language -- but, some are less obvious, like income level, school district, or professions. The bigotry begins with stereotyping THEM. Like, "those Christians are violent, ignorant zealots."

For me? I'd love to see it all gone. All the religion, the politics, the bullshit as I'd call it. I'd love to live in a world where people could be trusted to "be civil", and work together to make a better world for those who will inherit it from us.

I would say that is impossible. People will have a world view, either one inherited by their family, one adopted from their peer group, or a made up one.

I raise my children with that in mind. I raise them to evaluate things based on the idea that every person has value, and that value isn't found in their religion, their orientation, their politics, their skin color, or any other "box" that we can categorize people with. I want them to have a world view, in which we don't have the tribe mentality. Because it's a flawed outlook to have. The Tribe mentality leads to those who are with you, and those who are against you. It's crippled this country's political system. It's crippled discussion here on the lounge.

Belonging to a "tribe" or having a disparate world view doesn't make one an intractable "crippled" bigot. It's only when one refuses to a) acknowledge that theirs is one of many, or b) engage in respectful honoring dialog with those different than themselves.

Obviously, people will disagree, but that doesn't mean that it should devolve into a "they disagree because they're a [insert some BS categorical adjective here]". It drives me insane, and it's something I've been guilty of as well.

Me too. I try to keep the discussion on the thoughts, rather than the thinker.

I saw a snippet of another post of yours...

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes. My point is that we don't convict groups of people for the aberrant actions of individuals, unless there is a conspiracy to commit a crime.

Oh, if only that were really the case, things would be a lot different right now.

Maybe I should say, "We try to hold individuals accountable for their crimes." It often doesn't work out that way.

[DeeBye]

In reviewing the FOTF site, I only see they have a position on "counseling unwanted same-sex attractions".

Unwanted by whom? FOTF specifically mentions their opposition to California's ban on gay conversion therapy for minors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that legislation is meant to prevent forced gay conversion therapy for youths. The same-sex attraction of the youth is unwanted by the parents, who then force their child into this therapy.

I equate this to parents who refuse to vaccinate their child, or seek whatever kind of "prayer therapy" instead of going to a doctor when their child is ill, are force-feeding their newborns vegan diets, or are throwing them into the pit to be Snake Handlers. I absolutely agree that parents have the right to raise their children and instill their values as they see fit, but once they start endangering their children's physical or mental health - someone has to step in and stop it.

edit: it's amazing how many "Donate" links are on that FOTF website

[FireIceTalon]

Parents who want to put their gay or lesbian kids into therapy, as if being attracted to someone of the same sex is some sort of disorder, is reactionary and downright fucked up. It is the fucking PARENTS who have the disorder, not the children. It's called homophobia, and in many cases, sociopathy.

[kandrathe]

Unwanted by whom?

Well, exactly. Psychologists are proscribed professionally from doing harm. No laws should be necessary if people are "licensed", but there are all sorts of people out there.

"The American Psychological Association's code of conduct states: "Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination," but also: "Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making." The American Counseling Association says that "it is of primary importance to respect a client's autonomy to request a referral for a service not offered by a counselor." No one should be forced to attempt to change their sexual orientation against their will, including children being forced by their parents." -- Wikipedia

Parental choices are a gray area. So, no snake pits for kids... What about snowmobiling, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, hunting with rifles/shotguns, rodeo, sky/scuba diving, rock climbing, cliff diving, ski racing, football, hockey, etc. Then, what about a diet of candy, and ding dongs?

[Hammerskjold]

Parental choices are a gray area. So, no snake pits for kids... What about snowmobiling, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, hunting with rifles/shotguns, rodeo, sky/scuba diving, rock climbing, cliff diving, ski racing, football, hockey, etc. Then, what about a diet of candy, and ding dongs?

If the kids are mature enough physically\emotionally\intellectually and capable of :

snowmobiling, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, hunting with rifles/shotguns, rodeo, sky/scuba diving, rock climbing, cliff diving, ski racing, football, hockey, etc.

And if they want to do it, and not being forced by the parents, there is no problem that I see.

A diet of only candy and ding-dongs, are what immature people would want. People who thinks freedom to do anything = freedom from any consequences, are likely still in the same big yellow bus.

If you honestly have trouble with this concept, and still want to see a gray area between throwing someone into a snake pit without consent, and snowmobiling. Here's a hopefully easier way of putting it.

Children, are not property. At least, they should not be treated as such.

If someone started a cannibal cult, but they move to a far remote place and murders and consume only their children. That should not somehow absolve or render them immune from -any- laws.

Just because they're only harming -their own- children, and in the name of their faith, and not in -your- own backyard. None of those reasons should be treated as an absolute 'get out of jail for free' card.


TL DR:

This quote is from a lawyer who specializes in child abuse cases.

http://www.vachss.com/av_interviews/borderline.html

...he is also a mover behind the CARE Act, a piece of legislation intended to close a horrific loophole in US law which means that a criminal can expect a longer jail sentence for possession of a pocketful of cocaine than they would for incest. At present, most states of America draw a distinction between the sexual abuse or rape of a child and the same crime perpetrated by a blood relative. The term Vachss coined to describe this inequality is "grow your own victim" ...

'You can't throw that child into a snake pit!' 'Why not?! He's my own kid!' 'Oh....he is? Oh never mind then...carry on!'

(edited for grammer rodeo mistake.)

Edited addition: INB4, if kids are already mature, they would not be kids. They do have youth size\appropriate equipment for some sports. Some activities have a physical minimum. Even some theme park rides have a height requirement.

[Alram]

The pope gave a speech. Many years later 20,000 peasants marched to the Holy Land unprepared for any battle and were mercilessly slaughtered. And, you know how these "for justice" things build. In that age, warfare was considered a glorious opportunity to improve your lot in life. It was not considered to be the horror we ascribe to it now.

Really?

In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons.
Herodotus

It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee

An unjust peace is better than a just war.
Marcus Tullius Cicero

War is hell.
William Tecumseh Sherman

"War is delightful to those who have had no experience of it. "
- Desiderius Erasmus

[kandrathe]

And if they want to do it, and not being forced by the parents, there is no problem that I see.

I'm being a bit of the devils advocate here, since I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just pointing out that not everyone agrees with other parents boundaries. There is negligence, and then there is abuse. Allowing children access to unsupervised dangerous things is negligent, and often causes harm.

Children, are not property. At least, they should not be treated as such.

This is not in dispute. I'm keenly interested in understanding whether children have constitutional protection. I think they do.

[kandrathe]

Really?

"Contamine traces the rise of a new literature of strategy and changes in the concept of courage which he puts in the context of actual risk. He points out that the chivalric ideals of the later Middle Ages operated within narrow limits, outside which aristocrats and commoners freely slaughtered each other. Contamine also analyzes the theories of just and unjust war that developed at this time, and illustrates a phenomenon more typical of the period; the religious glorification of the warrior." -- War in the Middle Ages

[DeeBye]

I'm just pointing out that not everyone agrees with other parents boundaries.

That's the point of this sub-discussion I suppose. I'd further suggest that no one agrees with other parents boundaries. My wife thought I was a heartless monster when I allowed my son to use our gas mower to mow our lawn for the first time.

There is negligence, and then there is abuse. Allowing children access to unsupervised dangerous things is negligent, and often causes harm.

This is where laws and courts come in to play. Society sets (hopefully) reasonable laws as to what is or is not appropriate for minors. Society isn't intentionally walking all over the Snake Handlers constitutionally protected freedom of religion by saying they can't toss children into snake pits.

This is not in dispute. I'm keenly interested in understanding whether children have constitutional protection. I think they do.

Why wouldn't they?

[kandrathe]

Why wouldn't they?

All well and good for Canadian children. :-)

The basis in law in the US is not clear. The US and Somalia are the only two nations in the world who have not ratified the UN-CRC. My understanding of the US's opposition are two issues; a) the hard definition of 18 as the age of adulthood -- many juveniles are treated legally as adults in serious crimes, and b) in that criminal law is handled by each state, and not federal law.

The U.S. Supreme court first ruled on children's rights issues in the 60's, and not much has progressed in the last 50 years. The two leading concepts are HLA Hart's Choice Theory and Joseph Raz’s interest theory. I found it particularly sad that it was the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, that began defending children.

Hidden in Plain Sight The Tragedy of Children's Rights from Ben Franklin to Lionel Tate

Here is another good review of the state of thinking on it; Do Children Have Rights? A brief analysis of the theories of rights.

And, that returns us back to the "culture war" forces leading legislation, like "The Parental Rights Amendment" -- which seeks to permantly block the UNCRC. This type of legislation is more of a rally flag, than a serious attempt at law -- it becomes a platform to gin up political support. The usual suspects are involved, "Organizations that have allied with Parentalrights.org on the issue include the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, Liberty Counsel, and the Traditional Values Coalition, among others."

/S Because, you know, Kofi Annan wants to deny you your parental rights to toss your kids into snake pits. Seriously though, what they are worried about are cases like this where a government judge gets between a parent [relative] and a dependent person. And, here is where choice theory, and interest theory collide -- as well as there being an inflexible and arbitrary interpretation of competency. I can see both sides, although I eschew the clericalism and anti-clericalism involved in using law this way.

[Occhidiangela]

Christ was a Jew. The earliest Christians were all Jews. Yet from the Council of Nicaea in 325 until the 2nd half of the 20th century, the official Catholic positions regarding Jews and the Jewish faith were hostile. For centuries the Jews were persecuted. So, what does that say about what it means to be Christian?

And the position of the Jewish establishment regarding the early Christians, Jew and Gentile alike, was ... love and kisses?

GMAFB.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The Council of Jerusalem (~50 AD) had to address whether or not Gentiles could get in on the action, could they eat pork (and shellfish, et al) and would they have to get their willies sliced. This is about 300 years before Nicea. Also some passages in Peter and James on that, as I recall. Don't have a Bible to hand at the moment.

A further point is that this sub cult or offshoot of the Hebraic faith was not a legal/recognized religion by the Romans. These are the same Romans who were military occupation of the Holy Land in the first century, the same Romans who took a recognized religion (Jewish) and put a lot of its adherents to the sword, followed up by a bit of Holy Land ethnic cleansing ... leading to the diaspora ... but it was more about politics and home rule than it was religion, as I read it.

Further your point ... it took 300 years for someone an Emperor, so a very important someone) Constantine, to formally accept that "this christian bunch" were a formal and valid religion in the empire. (Why he did that is interesting, IMO politics had a big play).

If you do a little digging, you will find that the animosity between Christians and Jews wasn't all one way. The bad blood flowed in multiple directions.

I remember something Pete said:
There is no quarrel like a family quarrel, and the Abrahamic religions are certainly a dysfynctinal family. (Not his exact words, but the sense of his bon mot).

As to the Pope (or Catholics at any rate) and Marxists, may I suggest a little research for our OP on a thing called "Liberation Theology" and where it was most common.

[Alram]

My intent in that post was to point out the hypocrisy of the Christian ethic--not to indicate any moral superiority of Jews. There is a story which describes my point of view.

A friend came to see Mulla Nasruddin from somewhere deep in the country, bringing fresh produce. Delighted, Nasruddin cooked the vegetables, made a soup and shared it with his guest. The next day a man arrived and stated that he was a friend of the man who brought the vegetables, and he was also invited in to have some soup. Then the following day another arrived and said he was "the friend of the friend of the man who brought you the vegetables." He was also fed. Daily this scenario repeated itself.
Finally the Mulla was exasperated. One day yet another stranger appeared. "I am the friend of the friend of the friend of the friend of the friend of the friend who brought you the vegetables."
He sat down, like all the rest, expecting a meal. Nasruddin boiled some plain water and handed it to him in a bowl.
"What is this?"
"That is the soup of the soup of the soup of the soup of the soup of the soup of the vegetables which was brought by my friend."

The further from the source, the more diluted and false the teachings become.