Religion & Politics--Why Such Rancor?

[jhar26]

What about when their priests sodomize young boys, then the religious authorities cover up this activity in the interests of preserving the reputation of the church?  The archdioceses of Boston had to sell off a substantial fraction of its real estate holdings to pay civil damages to victims after it was proven in court that the church knew of the abuse but covered it up.  One priest was sentenced to life in prison for crimes that the church was aware of, but concealed by moving the priest from parish to parish so that the pattern of behavior would not reach the attention of the authorities.  Similar actions have come to light in California, and now in Ireland and Germany.

......and Belgium.... Sick ain't it? And these child molesters and those that have protected them for all those years had/have the audacity to take the moral highground and tell the rest of us how we should live our lifes.

[karlhenning]

If we are not allowed to ridicule your religious beliefs, then don't bring them up here.

Ah, no, the ridicule is allowed certainly.  You cannot expecct anyone who does not sink into that ridicule with you to have much respect for you; but that is a liberty you are allowed.

And of course, the up-side for the objects of your ridicule is, ridicule is obviously not an argument.

In fact, it's a pronounced lack of an argument.

[Elgarian]

What about when their priests sodomize young boys, then the religious authorities cover up this activity in the interests of preserving the reputation of the church?

Yes, but if you read my post again, you'll see that this has nothing to do with the issue I was addressing. Your example is a matter of human beings doing terrible things - and terrible things are terrible things, no matter who does them, or under whatever pretext. That human beings can be horrible to each other in an infinite number of different ways doesn't really have a bearing on what I was saying.

[karlhenning]

I was taught that people with viewpoints other than my own may nonetheless merit my respect.

I feel sorry for atheists. To judge by this thread, they have no one to teach them any such rich lesson.

[Scarpia]

Yes, but if you read my post again, you'll see that this has nothing to do with the issue I was addressing. Your example is a matter of human beings doing terrible things - and terrible things are terrible things, no matter who does them, or under whatever pretext. That human beings can be horrible to each other in an infinite number of different ways doesn't really have a bearing on what I was saying.

My point is that the Catholic Church in the US concealed these crimes to protect the prestige of the church.  A well documented investigation identified 4,000 priests (of which 3000 were substantiated or found plausible) who had sodomized at least 10,000 young children.   That is 4% of all priests in the US.  The church was aware of these accusations and typically moved the accused priest to another parish and used its influence to prevent the incidents from bring brought before secular authorities, even when a priests was accused of multiple incidents.  This facilitated repeated assaults.  The fact that the church itself was held liable (rather than the individual priests) indicates that the culpability of the church itself was proven in court.

[False_Dmitry]

I feel sorry for atheists. To judge by this thread, they have no one to teach them any such rich lesson.

I hear you give masterclasses in Scorn, and in Hypocrisy, though, Henning?  Both of which the above is a perfect example!  ROFL!!!

[Scarpia]

I was taught that people with viewpoints other than my own may nonetheless merit my respect.

Do you have respect for my viewpoint that the Catholic Church in the US is morally responsible for more than 10,000 documented cases of child rape in the past 50 years?  (And who knows how many undocumented cases.)

[knight66]

MDL, I will answer your question.

No we don't tolerate any old thing. Lots of the posts of the individual referred to have been binned, more of his than of any other individual I can think of. He is forbidden at the moment from posting on any religious or political topic.

We took the action we thought appropriate against the background of the attitude of the owner of the site; who has a more relaxed attitude to the kinds of remarks made in the Diner than elsewhere and who in general does not care for censorship, but acknowledges a certain amount of it is needed to keep order. Incidentally, about the only view that he has made public is his extreme dislike of organised religion, so there was no partisanship involved in leaving what is left for people to read.

I often think that the counter arguments demolishing the kind of views you deplore are a more effective way of showing the more generally civilised consensus of the Board, than continually making all rabid opinion disappear. Additionally, people also need to see the kind of folk they are dealing with.

The mods often look to the climate on the Board to decide how far to let things go; but although we frequently act without highlighting it, I want to point out that there was not even ONE complaint received about the now reviled posts.

For some here we delete too much, for others we don't delete enough. I have no idea what site you are comparing us with, but over time we have gathered that there is a lot less conflict here than there is on many other sites, some of them specifically devoted to classical music.

Behind the scenes I have been accused of antisemitism, being a Nazi, of being a Jew lover, a MotherF***er, power hungry, coward, unable to grasp the most elementary argument.....I don't think any of that is true. But those we do clamp down on tend not often to take it well. I guess as long as I am being all round abused, I have not lent too far towards any side of an argument.

For the moment one highly abusive poster has been 'extinguished' not expelled, only Rob can do that, but what I find odd is that seemingly no one has noticed.

Finally, we have also discovered by experience that if we don't specifically allow an arena for a measure of conflict in the Diner; it breaks out across the music boards, and that is something we try to avoid.

Knight

[Philoctetes]

@ Knight

Wait.... so you're not a Jew lover?

ANTI-SEMITE!

[Elgarian]

My point is that the Catholic Church in the US concealed these crimes to protect the prestige of the church.  A well documented investigation identified 4,000 priests (of which 3000 were substantiated or found plausible) who had sodomized at least 10,000 young children.   That is 4% of all priests in the US.  The church was aware of these accusations and typically moved the accused priest to another parish and used its influence to prevent the incidents from bring brought before secular authorities, even when a priests was accused of multiple incidents.  This facilitated repeated assaults.  The fact that the church itself was held liable (rather than the individual priests) indicates that the culpability of the church itself was proven in court.

Yes, I share your horror at all this, but don't understand what it has to do with the issue I was discussing (which was about ridiculing belief systems that we don't share).

My concern is, for example, with people like a couple I know who live along the road: professed Christians, tolerant of the beliefs of others, working tirelessly for the general benefit of the local community and living lives that seem generally to be as helpful and as happy as most of us can hope to be. I'm concerned to point out that the religious beliefs of such people (whose conduct makes me and my intellectual arguments seem rather superficial) are not an appropriate object of ridicule to those who don't share their beliefs.

[knight66]

Do you have respect for my viewpoint that the Catholic Church in the US is morally responsible for more than 10,000 documented cases of child rape in the past 50 years?  (And who knows how many undocumented cases.)

That is not your viewpoint surely; it is a matter of fact.

To partially answer the question at the top of this thread, I see a constant confusion between the 'faith' and the institutions of the faith by all sides involved in the argument. That is I stress only part of the answer.

Mike

[Gurn Blanston]

I am amazed at the number of otherwise intelligent people who seem to have no grip on the difference between religion and faith in a G_d. They are 2 entirely separate issues and really do need to be tr4eated as such. So Theism and Atheism have no place in a topic about religion.

Too complicated? Write today for my book "The Power of the Big Lizard" for a complete explanation. Only $29.95 + $6.95 S & H...   see? That's religion.



----------------
Now playing:
Trio Franz Joseph - Hob 15 27 Trio #43 in C for Fortepiano & Strings 2nd mvmt - Andante

[Scarpia]

That is not your viewpoint surely; it is a matter of fact.

To partially answer the question at the top of this thread, I see a constant confusion between the 'faith' and the institutions of the faith by all sides involved in the argument. That is I stress only part of the answer.

Mike

I used the word ridicule, what I probably should have said is "criticism."  The above discussion of crimes by Catholic priests is a combination of fact and viewpoint.  That children were abused by priests and that this was facilitated by church policy is fact.  That these facts argue against the idea that the church can be considered a moral authority is my viewpoint.   Bringing up inconvenient facts and using them to argue a point to the detriment to the church is often labeled "religion bashing" in these quarters.

[knight66]

@ Knight

Wait.... so you're not a Jew lover?

ANTI-SEMITE!

Ha.....if you had seen the full context, you would understand why I did not own up to it.

Mike

[knight66]

I used the word ridicule, what I probably should have said is "criticism."  The above discussion of crimes by Catholic priests is a combination of fact and viewpoint.  That children were abused by priests and that this was facilitated by church policy is fact.  That these facts argue against the idea that the church can be considered a moral authority is my viewpoint.   Bringing up inconvenient facts and using them to argue a point to the detriment to the church is often labeled "religion bashing" in these quarters.

Elsewhere I observe a poster who is fighting  a losing rearguard action on this very topic. But I still think that most of the time it is that overlay by all parties of the 'faith' onto the 'religion' ie the institutions promulgating the faith, (as Gurn points out).

Mike

[MDL]

MDL, I will answer your question.

No we don't tolerate any old thing. Lots of the posts of the individual referred to have been binned, more of his than of any other individual I can think of. He is forbidden at the moment from posting on any religious or political topic.

We took the action we thought appropriate against the background of the attitude of the owner of the site; who has a more relaxed attitude to the kinds of remarks made in the Diner than elsewhere and who in general does not care for censorship, but acknowledges a certain amount of it is needed to keep order. Incidentally, about the only view that he has made public is his extreme dislike of organised religion, so there was no partisanship involved in leaving what is left for people to read.

I often think that the counter arguments demolishing the kind of views you deplore are a more effective way of showing the more generally civilised consensus of the Board, than continually making all rabid opinion disappear. Additionally, people also need to see the kind of folk they are dealing with.

The mods often look to the climate on the Board to decide how far to let things go; but although we frequently act without highlighting it, I want to point out that there was not even ONE complaint received about the now reviled posts.

For some here we delete too much, for others we don't delete enough. I have no idea what site you are comparing us with, but over time we have gathered that there is a lot less conflict here than there is on many other sites, some of them specifically devoted to classical music.

Behind the scenes I have been accused of antisemitism, being a Nazi, of being a Jew lover, a MotherF***er, power hungry, coward, unable to grasp the most elementary argument.....I don't think any of that is true. But those we do clamp down on tend not often to take it well. I guess as long as I am being all round abused, I have not lent too far towards any side of an argument.

For the moment one highly abusive poster has been 'extinguished' not expelled, only Rob can do that, but what I find odd is that seemingly no one has noticed.

Finally, we have also discovered by experience that if we don't specifically allow an arena for a measure of conflict in the Diner; it breaks out across the music boards, and that is something we try to avoid.

Knight

Thanks for your detailed reply. You've put my mind at ease on some points. Unless we're talking about different threads, I thought I DID hit the "report to moderator" alarm button. Perhaps you know who has been posting offensive material elsewhere that I've yet to have the misfortune of encountering.

Edit: My other half was until recently a moderator on the rock forum I mentioned, so I'm aware of what a pain in the arse it can be, how soul-destroying it is to deal with trolls and bigots and how your efforts are generally not appreciated by Joe Public. And I'm sorry if I've added to your woes.

[Daidalos]

I think the topic of religion and faith is very fascinating, as some might have noticed, so I usually read and participate in the threads dedicated to such discussions. However, recently I have been discouraged to join in the conversation; not so much because of the incivility or ridicule (I debate with Saul on occasion, for goodness' sake), but rather the glibness. People gloss over arguments and evade points, seemingly refusing to give serious replies. This applies to both "sides" of these debates. However, since I suppose I belong to one of those sides, I am more prone to notice that behaviour among those with whom I disagree rather than agree. Then there's the annoyance of having clueless members of your "team" make artless comments that subsequently get gleefully ripped apart by the opposition, which pointlessly diverts the entire discussion to no one's benefit. I find, after such digressions, that broad brushes are being employed injudiciously, and we've seen examples of that in the recent thread. 'Tis most irksome, I say, and I'm the greater fool for persisting in reading the bloody thing.

[Bulldog]

Do you have respect for my viewpoint that the Catholic Church in the US is morally responsible for more than 10,000 documented cases of child rape in the past 50 years?  (And who knows how many undocumented cases.)

Although the Catholic Church has done a horrible job of handling its pedophile problems, I think it has little to do with religious belief or the moral character of the Church's leadership.  My view is that the Church's heavily centralized structure is the primary source of the problem.

[Scarpia]

I think the topic of religion and faith is very fascinating, as some might have noticed, so I usually read and participate in the threads dedicated to such discussions. However, recently I have been discouraged to join in the conversation; not so much because of the incivility or ridicule (I debate with Saul on occasion, for goodness' sake), but rather the glibness. People gloss over arguments and evade points, seemingly refusing to give serious replies. This applies to both "sides" of these debates. However, since I suppose I belong to one of those sides, I am more prone to notice that behaviour among those with whom I disagree rather than agree. Then there's the annoyance of having clueless members of your "team" make artless comments that subsequently get gleefully ripped apart by the opposition, which pointlessly diverts the entire discussion to no one's benefit. I find, after such digressions, that broad brushes are being employed injudiciously, and we've seen examples of that in the recent thread. 'Tis most irksome, I say, and I'm the greater fool for persisting in reading the bloody thing.

Exactly

[Catison]

I used the word ridicule, what I probably should have said is "criticism."  The above discussion of crimes by Catholic priests is a combination of fact and viewpoint.  That children were abused by priests and that this was facilitated by church policy is fact.  That these facts argue against the idea that the church can be considered a moral authority is my viewpoint.   Bringing up inconvenient facts and using them to argue a point to the detriment to the church is often labeled "religion bashing" in these quarters.

As a Catholic, I can assure you that bringing up the priest abuse scandal is not "religion bashing".  However, to see this as an argument against the Church, for example, is illogical.  It would be a valid argument if child abuse was part of Catholic theology, but it is not.  Child abuse is plainly against Catholicism (and any other significant religion).

It is true that actions speak louder than words, and those actions of priests undo centuries of work.  I do not blame anyone from recoiling from abusive priests or wondering how it happened or wanting to prosecute those priests and bishops for what they did wrong.  But simultaneously these actions do not constitute an argument against the Catholic Church.

This goes for everything, though.  We cannot use the actions of members of an organization to argue that a particular philosophy is wrong, unless those actions form an inherent part of the philosophy.

I do think that if people examined the core of Catholic ethical teaching, most would find they agree.  Why do people do things they know are bad?  That is a different, but fascinating, question.