I’m Not Quitting the Church

[cbayer]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/im_not_quitting_the_church_20120514/


Posted on May 14, 2012
By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Recently, a group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation ran a full-page ad in The Washington Post cast as an “open letter to ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics.” Its headline commanded: “It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church.”

The ad included the usual criticism of Catholicism, but I was most struck by this paragraph: “If you think you can change the church from within—get it to lighten up on birth control, gay rights, marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research—you’re deluding yourself. By remaining a ‘good Catholic,’ you are doing ‘bad’ to women’s rights. You are an enabler. And it’s got to stop.”

My, my. Putting aside the group’s love for unnecessary quotation marks, it was shocking to learn that I’m an “enabler” doing “bad” to women’s rights. But Catholic liberals get used to these kinds of things. Secularists, who never liked Catholicism in the first place, want us to leave the church, but so do Catholic conservatives who want the church all to themselves.

I’m sorry to inform the FFRF that I am declining its invitation to quit. They may not see the Gospel as a liberating document, but I do, and I can’t ignore the good done in the name of Christ by the sisters, priests, brothers and lay people who have devoted their lives to the poor and the marginalized.


more at link

[earthside]

1. Well, E.J. is wrong ....

.... the authoritarian patriarchy of the Roman church is not going to care what he thinks.

And, frankly, there is just no getting around the notion that by retaining membership in this religious organization he is an 'enabler' for their reactionary and retrograde ideology.

There are many other religious and non-religious organizations that E.J. could join that do not have the odious history and behavior of the Roman Catholic church. As long as he can be counted as a Roman and as long as he contributes even one dime to the church, the hierarchy will mark that as sanctioning their actions past and present.

[dmallind]

2. "Mah Honey only hit me the once. He's a good man really. He works hard. He won't beat me...again"

[PassingFair]

3. "I know he's a bully, but he likes ME".

Fighting godwin-like urge to point out that Hitler liked dogs.

Ooops!

[Phlem]

8. Godwin's law is a farce

Sounds like some republican couldn't win an argument and came up with crock.

-p

[Angry Dragon]

4. No comment from you??

[cbayer]

5. Sure. I found it interesting to read a counter reply to the FFRF ad.

[Angry Dragon]

6. I tend to be on the side of FFRF

[cbayer]

7. Really? Who would have guessed that?

[Angry Dragon]

11. Yes

I guess I have a great deal of trouble with people that put the church before people

I guess if you are okay to voice support for a church that gives money to a foreign government, hides criminals, try to force their beliefs on others, and treat women as second class citizens ........ go for it


edit: to add ...... and a church that has no problem cutting up some of their saints so they can pass around the pieces ..........

[eqfan592]

16. Interesting? Yes, but only as interesting as it is flawed. (nt)

[cbayer]

17. And only as flawed as the FFRF ad, imo.

[eqfan592]

18. To a degree perhaps.

Perhaps the FFRF overstates the entrenched nature of the RCC, but given the existence of alternatives for catholics to the RCC that discard many (if not all) of the RCC's more outdated views, I find the reasoning to stick with the RCC to be suspect at best.

[cbayer]

19. I see it as a very complicated decision that individuals have to make while weighing

many variables.

Most Catholics have very positive experiences with their church, in my experience. They see a lot of the good and are less concerned about some of the things the Vatican does. They see it on a personal level and not globally.

While it may look straightforward to non-Catholics or those that have made the choice to leave the church, I think it's much more complicated.

I have a son who is most likely going to convert to Catholicism. He is doing this for very personal reasons, but it is meaningful decision for him. While I don't fully understand, I support his decision because I support him.

Telling people that they just need to leave is simplistic and arrogant, imo.

[eqfan592]

20. Nobody ever said the decision would be easy or simple.

But to delude oneself into thinking that somehow they aren't enabling the negative actions of the church by giving the church their physical and financial support is counterproductive to say the very least.

I'm not a huge fan of telling people what they "need" to do, as you put it, but in regards to leaving the RCC, it's simply one of the most immediate, viable, and arguably effective means of accomplishing the goals of both reducing the support for a regressive institution and increasing the support for more progressive ones.

[cbayer]

21. They also see that they are supporting the good acts of the church.

They can see that both at the local and broader levels. They don't see it as counterproductive and believe that change can come from within.

It looks like a delusion to you, but it's reality to them, many of whom have been personally served by catholic charities, schools, counseling services and other positive functions. Oftentimes Catholic based services are the only services available for those most in need - the homeless, the psychiatrically ill, those who have been most harmed by the current economic crisis.

While leaving may be be seen as the most effective move to accomplish what you lay out from your point of view, it is not for many others.

This article outlines much of that, imo.

[rrneck]

38. Thats the problem.

All the good works done by the church should be done by government. It's just another example of the privatization of public services. They're feeding at the public trough just like all the rest.

[eqfan592]

40. I do see your point.

I think it's very sad that catholic services are the only ones available in some areas, and I see no reason why these same good deeds could not be accomplished without the baggage of the RCC, but I can see where the emotional attachment many feel towards their local church comes from.

That being said, their continued support of the RCC does enable its ill deeds as well, and all the appeals to emotion can't change that.

[cbayer]

83. So, let me ask you this.

If someone were to choose to switch from the catholic church to a protestant denomination, how would you feel about that?

Is your objection about "enabling" exclusive to the RCC or does it apply elsewhere as well?

Frankly, I find many fundamentalist groups much more bothersome, in terms of their political positions, than the catholics.

[Goblinmonger]

84. I think liberal Christians should be Episcopalians

Sure there are some bad branches/churches in that religion, but overall very good. Same mass. Same ritual. Pretty much the same dogma (though no Pope). And they could feel much better about where their money is going.

[eqfan592]

86. I've seen you talk about liberal christian churches. I'm sure any one of them would welcome...

...former members of the RCC with open arms. Or they could go the Unitarian route as well.

[cbayer]

90. While I have a fondness for the UU churches, they really don't fill the needs of true

christian believers.

That being said, I am aware that there are other protestant options, but they differ in significant ways from the catholic churches.

One of the things I objected to in the FFRF ad is that they were encouraging people to leave the church entirely (at least that is how I read it). They were not asking people to entertain the notion of just switching to another church.

[eqfan592]

94. I believe they were asking people to leave the RCC, not all churches in general.

And I think christian members of UU churches would disagree with your statement.

[cbayer]

105. I do know some christians who participate in UU churches, and you are correct.

I like the blending that goes on there, but it does not suit the needs of many others.

As to the ad, it does specifically address catholics, but it also actively promotes that people should leave and join them and makes much less of a distinction in it's conclusion.

If one wanted to run an anti-choice ad, it might well have a very similar tone. I find the position of telling people they should leave their church very off-putting. I find the position of telling them then what churches it is *ok* to be a member of very arrogant.

[laconicsax]

106. Two questions about something you just said...

What, in your opinion, are the "needs of true Christian believers" and how are they not met by UU churches?

Are Christian members of UU churches not "true Christian believers," and if not, why not?

(Ok, so that's three, maybe four questions, sorry.)

I don't know much about the UU church and how it operates and having never been Christian, I don't know what the "needs of true Christian believers" are.

[cbayer]

117. Simply, people want to congregate and worship with other people who share their

belief system. The UU church would not suit the needs of many practicing Jews or Muslims either. For some the rituals associated with their belief system are important. While some of those rituals may be included in UU services, it is much more diverse and amorphous. Definitely an asset for some, but not for all.

Perhaps *true christian believers* is the wrong term and I withdraw it. I would change to same *some* or *practicing* christian believers. I would not be in a position to define *true* and have no interest in doing so.

[laconicsax]

138. Thanks, that's what I thought you may have meant. n/t

[SheilaT]

9. I have been telling Catholics for a very long time now,

that by staying within the Church they are allowing it to continue its odious practices. This goes double for women.

If you really feel the need for organized religion, there are other denominations out there that truly work for social justice, don't oppress women, and so on.

[rexcat]

10. The problem with E. J. Dionne, Jr. and others like him...

they can't stand the truth.

1. The catholic church is run by men who live a perverted life-style. To try to live an asexual existence is not natural and goes against human nature. Bad things can happen when normal human desires are suppressed.
2. When they see every issue as black and white they usually miss the point and get it wrong.
3. Any organization that protected or protects pedophiles is an organization that should not be an ongoing entity.

[rug]

12. Me either.

[laconicsax]

13. Had much luck changing the Church yet?

[rug]

14. That's not my priority.

How about you? If you don't try to change it surely you must want to destroy it. It's almost your moral obligation.

[laconicsax]

15. So what is it then?

You're just content to stay at a church whose leadership promotes homophobic and misogynistic agendas and conspired to hide and protect serial child rapists?

[rug]

22. Yes, that's it precisely.

What are you doing to stop this homophobic and misogynistic institution which conspires to hide and protect serial child rapists, other than posting snide remarks on the internet?

Surely you're doing more than that.

[AlbertCat]

23. What are you doing to stop this homophobic and misogynistic institution

Excuse me but what has that to do with his point?

But I suppose to answer... he's not defending it and making excuses for it.... or participating in it or even allowing it any authority over his opinions.

[rug]

24. Thank you for speaking for laconicsax.

He usually slips back in an hour to post an answer.

Although, frankly, all you offered is what he's not doing.

If you really believe this corrupt institution is inherently destructive, you really owe it to yourself to do more to destroy it.

[laconicsax]

25. Among other things, I don't associate with it, defend it online, or support it financially.

Too bad you can't honestly say the same. Hell, you proudly admitted that you associate with the institution in this very thread and you're one of the most reliable posters on DU when it comes to defending the Church or trying to derail threads critical of it.

So I guess that leaves the last part.

Tell me, rug. Do you donate money to the homophobic, misogynistic institution which conspired to hide and protect serial child rapists otherwise known as the Roman Catholic Church?

[rug]

26. Yes, those are things you do not do.

Tell me, laconicsax. What exactly do you do?

[laconicsax]

27. Do I need to prove that I work against the Church more than you support it?

That isn't a terribly clever way of trying to shift focus away from your support, and it isn't very snappy either.

What's your plan here? Try to get into a pissing contest and hope that everyone forgets that you support an institution that is openly homophobic, misogynistic, and criminal?

[rug]

28. As a matter of fact, yes, since the subject you broach is personal hypocrisy.

Now, let's see exactly how honest you are.

Pick one:

a) The Catholic Church is inherently destructive and must be destroyed.

b) The Catholic Church does bad things and must be reformed.

[laconicsax]

31. Ah, you're going to try the tu quoque route.

As I recall, and can readily see from this subthread, the subject I broach is your support of a homophobic, misorgynistic, organization that conspired to protect and hide serial child rapists.

[rug]

34. I'm merely following you.

Now, if you pick one of the choices I gave you, we'll see where that leads.

[laconicsax]

36. You stopped following me after you dodged my question in #15.

True to form, rather than answer a straightforward question, you dodged it with the grace of a mule and started pursuing me. The thing is, I'm not willing to play your games and follow you on a journey through straw men, false dilemmas, and the assortment of other fallacies you characteristically employ to close off the path leading back to the original discussion.

I realize that sort of schtick can be useful in verbal legal proceedings, but on an Internet discussion forum where everyone can read the transcript, it only demonstrates your aversion to honest discussion and invites speculation on why you are so unwilling to discuss your position on issues where expressing support for the Church's positions could easily constitute a TOS violation.

So, what is it you are doing if not willingly supporting the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that is openly homophobic, misogynist, and among other things, conspired to protect serial child rapists?

You already said that changing the Church isn't a priority for you, so what is it?

[rug]

37. It's a bogus question as you well know.

Considering you began this sad charade by interjecting a snide remark, your squeal of me pursuing you would be laughable if it were not so predictable.

You fail to appreciate the inadvertent logic of your disingenuous challenge:

If indeed you consider "the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that is openly homophobic, misogynist, and among other things, conspired to protect serial child rapists", you have failed to show what you have done to stop this destructive entity other than post, bait, and lurk on an internet discussion board.

As to your deliberately distorted characterization, it is as accurate and complete as a blind man's description of an elephant upon removing his hand from its ass.

Once you step up and describe what you have done beyond haunting a board you may have earned an answer.

[laconicsax]

39. Sorry, rug. This isn't about me.

The Church's official positions, as described in its documents and promoted by its leaders are homophobic and misogynistic.

The Church leadership's role in conspiring to protect serial child rapists is well documented.

You stated unequivocally that you are a member of this church and that changing it is not your priority.

None of that has anything whatsoever to do with me. This is entirely about you, your attitude towards your church's homophobic policies, you attitude towards your church's misogynistic policies, your attitude towards your church leadership's criminal behavior, and why and to what degree you have and continue to support them.

I eagerly await your next attempt to make me the subject of a thread about your support for what would, under any other circumstances, be called a criminal hate group.

[rug]

43. No, this particular subthread is entirely about you.

And it's not about me either, despite your strivings.

"This is entirely about you, your attitude towards your church's homophobic policies, you attitude towards your church's misogynistic policies, your attitude towards your church leadership's criminal behavior, and why and to what degree you have and continue to support them."

More specifically, it is about your desire to mark every Catholic, on or off this board, as a member of a "criminal hate group", a silent co-conspiraor in child rape, an abettor of misogyny and homophobia.

Your desciption above is indiscriminate. The only Catholics you would exempt from from your condemnation, hurtling through the internet from your keyboard, are Catholics who are no longer Catholic, who do not attend Mass, supporting the criminal hate group with their presence, who do not throw a dollar in the basket, supporting a criminal hate group with its cash, who do not baptize their children, supporting the growth of a criminal hate group. In your constricted, narrow world, no one can be Catholic and not be a bigot.

In short, you condemn any Catholic who remains a practicing Catholic and, by your narrow, prejudged view, by that fact itself, thereby belongs to and supports "a criminal hate group".

If that is inded your position, it is the quintessence of bigotry. Read the ToS yourself.

If that is not in fact your position, go on, wiggle out of it.

[laconicsax]

44. No, rug. You may have been trying to make it about me, but it isn't and never was.

The OP is about someone who has decided not to leave the Roman Catholic Church in spite of all of the immoral, vile, criminal, and bigoted things it has done and continues to do. You replied to the OP to agree with the sentiments (at least that's what I interpret "me either" to signify).

As you have previously mentioned that you offer legal services to a group wishing to change the Church, I assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that you desire to see a change in the Church and asked whether you had enjoyed any success. I knew at the time that the answer could only been "no" because the RCC is not an organization that responds to internal pressure.

Still with me? It's all about you and has been the whole time.

You replied to say that changing the Church is not a priority of yours and then claimed that "surely" I must want to destroy the Church (an untrue accusation, but being completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I ignored it).

I then asked a question you have yet to answer and have shown no intention to do so: [div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.3077em 0.3077em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]So what is it then?[div class="excerpt" style="border-left: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-right: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3077em 0.3077em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]You're just content to stay at a church whose leadership promotes homophobic and misogynistic agendas and conspired to hide and protect serial child rapists?
This is a fair question to ask of someone who, like you, knows what the Church's official positions are, what homophobic and misogynistic agendas its leadership promotes, and the extent to which the organization conspired to cover up instances of child rape and protect the rapists within its ranks.

-You haven't denied that the Church leadership promotes homophobic and misogynistic agendas.
-You haven't denied that the Church leadership acted criminally in its handling of the euphemistically termed "abuse scandal."
-You have stated that even knowing of these issues, you not only choose to stay a member of the Church but don't regard working to change it a priority.

You gladly admit that you support the RCC in spirit with your continued attendance, have likely helped fund it over the years, and eagerly defend it from criticism on the Internet. That certainly sounds like enabling to me. What else do we have?

Any organization that works to prevent the passage of marriage equality legislation is bigoted.
Any organization that demonizes the LGBTQI community is bigoted.
Any organization that works to hinder the ability of women to control their own bodies is bigoted.

The RCC is 3/3 on that.

Any organization that conspires to prevent the rape and molestation of children from being known is criminal.
Any organization that conspires to prevent the arrest and prosecution of serial child rapists is criminal.

2/2 on that.

Why shouldn't I, or any other person, not view the Roman Catholic Church, an organization which works to prevent the passage of marriage equality legislation, demonizes the LGBTQI community, works to hinder the ability of women to control their own bodies, conspired to prevent the rape and molestation of children from being known, and to prevent the arrest and prosecution of serial child rapists as anything other than a criminal hate group?

Why shouldn't I, or any other person, not view persons such as yourself who, with full knowledge of the above, willingly supports such an organization and has no serious desire to change it as anything other than an enabler?

You want to call me a bigot because I think actively opposing marriage equality and demonizing the LGBTQI community is homophobic? Fine. I relish being bigoted against homophobia.

You want to call me a bigot because I think that actively working to prevent women from controlling their own bodies and does this while holding that "Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts" is misogynistic? Knock yourself out. I take delight in being bigoted against misogyny.

You want to call me a bigot because I believe that all Catholics are bigots? Well, seeing as how I don't even come close to believing that all Catholics are bigots, you'd be lying. Try another straw man.

So, where does that leave us? You still haven't said a word about why you, knowing what you know, not only support the RCC, but don't include changing it for the better among your priorities. Tell me, if you're not willingly enabling an organization that has committed serious crimes and promotes hate (a criminal hate group if you will), what are you doing? Do you just go for the bake sales? Is it the smell of the hymnal? Did you lose a bet?

[trotsky]

47. Wow.

That is one hell of a post. Well done. Very well done.

[rug]

48. Tell me this.

How do you reconcile this

"Why shouldn't I, or any other person, not view persons such as yourself who, with full knowledge of the above, willingly supports such an organization and has no serious desire to change it as anything other than an enabler."

with this

"Well, seeing as how I don't even come close to believing that all Catholics are bigots, you'd be lying."

Tell me, how does one belong to the Church and not enable "an organization which works to prevent the passage of marriage equality legislation, demonizes the LGBTQI community, works to hinder the ability of women to control their own bodies, conspired to prevent the rape and molestation of children from being known, and to prevent the arrest and prosecution of serial child rapists as anything other than a criminal hate group?"

Based on your own descriptions, one can't. Based on your own descriptions, a Catholic, per se, is a bigot. And that is bigotry.

Now that claim is real easy to refute. All you need to do is name a practicing Catholic, who regularly donates, and show how that person is neither a bigot nor an enabler.

You're dancing.

[eqfan592]

51. Sorry, but your premise is false.

Saying that somebody is an enabler of a bigoted and/or criminal organization does not automatically make that person a bigot and/or criminal themselves, as you so claim. Thus your entire premise (and attempt to accuse another of bigotry) is false.

[trotsky]

52. You can try to keep pointing that out to him...

but it's the only thing he's got. He won't let it go, and clearly is just doubling down now because he realizes the corner he's in.

[rug]

55. Oh, good. Tell me what corner I'm in.

[rug]

53. That's his premise not mine.

I'm glad to see you at least do not equate being a Catholic with being a bigot.

[daaron]

60. Impressive. Masterful, even.

Loconicsax, you are correct in assuming that most readers of this thread (certainly this reader) will see through your debating opponent's attempts to derail your argument by any means necessary. It does seem to be an awfully vigorous defense of the RCC for a professed liberal Christian (a group of which I generally consider myself a member) - bordering on, as you say, 'enabling'.

I find it odd that some of my fellow Christians are so unwilling to even glance at the log in their own eye, ever.

[rug]

61. What is his argument?

[Goblinmonger]

63. Well, following the subthread back

it seems to be

Had much luck changing the Church yet?

That wasn't hard.

[rug]

66. Following it forward,

It's an attack against Catholics who have not left the Church. That's bigotry.

That wasn't hard.

[eqfan592]

72. You keep using that word...

[rug]

77. Let me check.

"Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic."

No, I think I know.

[Goblinmonger]

80. No it wasn't about that.

You want it to be about that, but it isn't. It is about how you, and other liberal Catholics, reconcile their support of time and money to an organization that we all know is sexist and homophobic among other foibles.

[rug]

97. Therefore belonging to a "sexist and homophobic" institution makes its members sexist and homophobic

Spell it out for me goblinmonger.

You describe the Catholic Church as sexist and homophobic.

I belong to it.

Are you calling me sexist and homophobic?

Be explicit.

[Goblinmonger]

100. Well since you asked for it twice, here it is twice.

You may or may not be sexist and homophobic. If you give your time and money to the church, you are supporting sexism and homophobia. If you are not sexist and homophobic, I would imagine, at the least, that that should cause you some consternation.

[rug]

101. "You may or may not be sexist and homophobic."

Lol.

You may or may not be an antireligious bigot.

[Goblinmonger]

109. Yep, that's true.

I either am or am not. The point I was trying to make was that your support of bigotry does not impact whether you are a bigot or not.

[rug]

112. Therefore practicing Catholics are, ipso facto, supporters of bigotry?

You're not helping yourself.

[Goblinmonger]

116. Yes. If they support the church with time and money

they are supporting bigotry. Correct.

That does not make them a bigot nor does it make a bigot not a bigot. That decision would be based on the individual. Many people enable alcoholics without themselves ever taking a drink. And, no, I am not equating religion with alcoholism.

[rug]

118. How does one support bigotry without being a bigot?

[Goblinmonger]

123. Here's a way.

A truly progressive liberal that is in NO WAY a bigot--not a bigoted fiber in their body--gives money or time to support an organization that is bigoted.

Wow, that was hard.

[rug]

125. And why would a truly progressive liberal (not to be confused with a true progressive liberal)

do that?

[Goblinmonger]

127. I have no idea. Why do you? n/t

[rug]

130. Which is it? Are you calling me a truly progressive liberal, a supporter of bigotry,

an enabler of bigotry, a bigot, or simply a Catholic?

[Goblinmonger]

134. Well

I see "a supporter of bigotry" and "enable of bigotry" (psychological nuances that I know nothing of aside) as being the same, and yes, they are.

Bigot? No

Catholic? Of course they are if they identify themselves as such.

[Goblinmonger]

137. So, since your effort to get a post hidden has failed

and I gave you a very clear answer, you want to tell me why you support a bigoted organization. Why a truly progressive liberal would do that?

[rug]

139. For one thing, I reject your description.

The totality of that organization if far more than your narrow definition.

For another thing, it does a tremendous amount of good.

For a more detailed answer, send Biden an email.

Now, you tell me: do you want all its members to leave and do you want it to cease to exist?

[Goblinmonger]

154. So it isn't a hate group when it comes

Last edited Thu May 17, 2012, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

to gay rights and women? You know that's bullshit, rug. If a conservative Republican said what the various leaders of your church had said, you would be in GD right along with everyone saying they were hateful bigots. Just because they have a red beanie and are leaders in your church makes them no less hateful bigots.

If Biden wants to come in here and have a discussion with me or have it somewhere else, I'll gladly do so. In the meantime, you're the one in the discussion and you are refusing to answer the tough questions.

I'm pretty sick and tired of you demanding straight answers from me (which I have given you) and then getting obfuscating bullshit from you.

I want the members of the Catholic church that aren't bigots to stop supporting bigotry.

Now answer my question straightforwardly. I've answered two of yours and you have answered none of mine.

[rug]

121. Are you calling me a supporter of bigotry?

Yes or no.

[Goblinmonger]

124. Well, if I am correct in assuming that

you support the RCC with time and money, then yes. You support bigotry. That does not make you a bigot.

[rug]

128. And do you call any Catholic who attends Mass and donates a supporter of bigotry?

[Goblinmonger]

129. I don't go out of my way to "call" them that

but I think that they are supporting bigotry and have had that conversation with some of my close friends that are Catholic. I don't stand outside a Catholic church and tell them they are all supporting bigotry, if that is what you are asking.

[rug]

131. Do you consider Catholics who remain Catholic to be supporters of bigotry?

[Goblinmonger]

133. How many times do I need to answer this?

Yes. If they give money and time to the church, they are supporting bigotry.

No, after my very direct answer, why do you continue to support bigotry?

[Eyerish]

135. Heads up, someone's trying to knock you out of this thread....

I voted to leave it...

At Wed May 16, 2012, 01:07 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

How many times do I need to answer this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=27623

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Broad brush and personal. This is not simply a critique of an institution. And it is disruptive on a Democaratic board with a Democratic vice president, who falls into this poster's category as a "supporter of bigotry", seeking reelection. Positively bigoted and divisive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 16, 2012, 01:13 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

[Goblinmonger]

136. Yep, I knew that was where it was headed.

Surprised it got 2 votes to hide, but just goes to show you.

[eqfan592]

110. Not exactly a counter to the point made.

He may or may not be many things, but that fails to address the point made either way.

[rug]

119. What is the point made?

[cbayer]

82. I am very confused by you.

I have heard you describe yourself as a liberal christian, yet you are actively participating in the Atheist forum and appear to present yourself as an atheist there.

Could you clarify?

[eqfan592]

85. I can't agree with the implication that one must be an atheist in order to make the point made by...

...the poster in question.

[daaron]

92. I suppose I could clarify, but nobody's going to like it.

If you lurk about long enough, you'll see I did identify myself as an agnostic Christian. Baptized Methodist in middle America, because that's what parents did in those days where I grew up - you sent your kids to Sunday school. I'm pretty damn liberal of the blue-collar, union-loving, European-Socialist-leaning Democrat variety, so 'liberal Christian' fits as well as anything. Your basic WASP,

Why agnostic? Same reason any agnostic says they're agnostic: I don't know. What do I know about the origin of the universe or the origin of life? I wasn't there. Plus, as I said elsewhere on this site, my mom's agnostic and my dad's a non-believer, and always has been. I was baptized out of social convention, so faith was never forced on me. I got interested on my own, and had a long and circuitous journey away from then back to myself that would bore you to tears, I'm sure. Along the way, I picked stuff up - I got interested in mysticism and unorthodox Christian texts, and the many fascinating heresies in Christian history, as well as the intersections of Christianity with other religions over time. I also studied many of those religions - especially mysticism - and consider myself an amateur student of comparative religion.

I'm not going to kid you. You wouldn't like what Jesus has become, to me, but I've poured my soul into questioning and have no compunction about trimming, a'la Thomas Jefferson, from the Bible, because I've moved beyond the Bible. I do not consider the Bible to be the Gospel Truth. It is a warped compendium, and offers only a narrow view of the spiritual depths of Christianity as it evolved into being over the last 2200+ years. I am a Christian who accepts that the canonical scripture was long ago twisted to political purposes, and I do not claim to know what the true story of Christ really is. I wasn't there. My claim is merely that the truth about Christ is not to be found in the Bible. At least, my truth - one that still jibes with my respect for science (I'm a software developer by trade), with it's natural skepticism of miracles and the claims of mystics.

Happy now? Does this soul-baring meet with your approval? May I now continue to participate in both the Atheist/AGNOSTIC forum and the Religion forum free from suspicion? Should I post this datum on my profile just in case next week I'm asked to justify myself, again?

[cbayer]

98. You can post wherever you want.

I was just curious as to where you stood and appreciate your taking the time to answer.

[daaron]

107. Thanks & no problem.

Curiosity is a virtue, in my book. On reflection, I got a little defensive. I'm sure you understand.

[trotsky]

35. Ignoring your false dilemma...

The most effective way to make b) come about is to force it to change - and in the case of a giant beast like the Catholic Church, you do that by starving it. Oh, it's slowly doing that to itself by becoming more irrelevant - as we see by the lack of priests, the shuttering of churches, a diocese merging with another, etc.

But real change, and sudden change, can only happen when a large enough number of Catholics leave. The church will have no choice but to adapt or die.

Those who stay in it, continuing to support it with their time and money, are only sustaining it as it is. Look at your church, rug. Can you honestly say it's grown more progressive, more liberal, more tolerant during the reign of the latest pope?

[eqfan592]

41. Well put. nt

[rug]

42. If you look at the facts, the Church is growing, not shrinking, numerically and globally.

Beyond the privileged myopia of Europe and North America, its growth has been significant.

Further, it is not a political party where the terms "more progressive, more liberal, more tolerant" have a very specific meaning.

That said, it has not measured well against the standard employed in the privileged northern hemisphere in the areas of gender and sexuality. But that is only a part of the story.

Its teachings on economic justice and war are solid by any measure.

Personally, my opinion is the former has no part of civil law, is antithetical to equality under civil law, and any attempt to impose it should, and will, be resisted.

As to the latter, my opinion is that it is consistent with equality and justice under civil law and should be applauded, but nevertheless should not be the basis for that civil law.

If you don't like what it says, go on attacking it. But don't do it narrowly. Be honest and don't attack a caricature.

Beyond that, it remains at its core a religious institution, not a political movement. Measure that with a political yardstick.

[trotsky]

46. Yes, of course it's growing in the third world.

Their power and influence in those places is quite strong. If it fades into obscurity in Europe and North America, I'd be quite happy.

It's funny you bring this up, basically further trivializing your alleged pro bono legal work that's supposed to change the system.

Now I ask again, how has your church improved its anti-progressive stances since the last pope was installed? What difference has it made for liberal Catholics to "fight from within"? Can you point to anything? Anything at all?

[rug]

49. "What difference has it made for liberal Catholics to 'fight from within'?"

You rehash an old argument. It goes like this. a) the Church is destructive, b) if you stay you're part of the destruction, c) you must leave.

a) is an incomplete caricature, b) is simplistic, c) is nonsense.

Your premise and critique lead to a false conclusion.

Tell you what, recite what you think would be an improvement of "its anti-progressive stances since the last pope was installed"?

[trotsky]

50. I'm sorry you refuse to see the damage your church is doing.

a) is true, b) is reality, c) is a logical course of action if an organization is actively working against the goals you claim to support.

What do I think would be an improvement? Acknowledging and supporting women's reproductive rights. Ceasing to consider homosexual sex a sin. Butting out of secular governmental affairs. Do you think those would be an improvement?

[rug]

54. Stick with a).

Betond its position on sexuality and gender, how is it destructive?

[trotsky]

56. WTF?

So if I ignore the two of the biggest destructive policies of your church, what else is wrong with it? Is that really all you're left with now?

[rug]

57. So there is nothing else? Is that correct?

[Goblinmonger]

58. It's attitude toward birth control in the 3rd World.

It's attitude toward the suffering of the poor as we learned from the "great" Mother Theresa.

[rug]

59. Its attitude toward birth control in the third world is the same as its attitude all over the world.

As long as that's not the basis for civil law, what's the problem?

Its history toward the suffering of the poor, as well as the suffering of the non-poor, is older and greater than Mother Teresa. What's the problem?

[Goblinmonger]

62. So when they tell people in Africa

that condoms don't prevent AIDS, that's not a problem?

I think we got a glimpse into what the church thinks and does through the cracks that showed us how horrible Mother Teresa really was.

[rug]

64. Sure that's a problem. But it's a problem easily dealt with.

[trotsky]

68. Why hasn't it been dealt with, then?

And when will it be?

[rug]

70. Maybe you should ask the governments where it's happening.

And if they're not doing enough, start a thread about their bigotry.

[trotsky]

73. The Catholic Church wields too much power.

They effectively control the political agenda. So explain to me how it's "easily dealt with."

[rug]

76. I thought you claimed it had no secular power.

[trotsky]

88. Nope, never said that.

You are confusing your claim about your church being a secular institution.

And you're still desperately trying to shift the topic. How is it so easily fixed?

[Goblinmonger]

78. Get back to me when you solve it. n/t

[rug]

79. Not my job.

[Goblinmonger]

81. So keep giving your time and money to the organization.

That'll help.

And it is your job. It's your organization. It's not MY job. They won't listen to me. Truthfully, they won't listen to you, either, but if you and all other liberal Catholics left the church and stopped giving your time and money to the organization, then they would be forced to listen or die. Then you could join the Episcopal church and not have to deal with the pope.

[rug]

96. Therefore, Catholics must leave the Catholic Church or they're bigots?

Is that your logical conclusion?

[Goblinmonger]

99. Nope.

Follow along. It isn't tough.

Catholics that give their money and time to support the church are supporting bigotry. They may or may not be bigots themselves. If they aren't bigots, I would imagine that they would not want to continue to support bigotry, but that is something that they need to deal with mentally.

[rug]

103. Therefore, those that attend Mass and put their money in the basket are bigots?

Answer. It isn't tough.

[Goblinmonger]

111. I don't know if they are bigots because I don't know them.

I do not have enough evidence (in most cases I have NO evidence) to know.

What I do know is this:

The RCC is sexists and homophobic.
If you put money in the basket, you are supporting that whether you are a bigot or not. Your support doesn't make you a bigot; it makes you an enabler.

[rug]

114. Practicing Catrholics are enablers of bigotry?

I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Yes or no?

[trotsky]

65. There's plenty more!

But why am I supposed to just set aside two of the most glaring and anti-progressive?

[rug]

67. Where is it?

[trotsky]

69. Your game isn't working.

Tell me why I should set aside the two glaring examples of the misery and misogyny your church promotes.

[rug]

71. Because that's all you've got.

Prove me wrong.

[trotsky]

74. Keep trying to play your game. At least everyone else sees it for the ruse it is.

It's fun seeing the gymnastics you'll do to defend your church's woman-hating and gay-hating official policies.

[rug]

75. Uh huh.

It's not nearly as fun as seeing the lengths you'll go to in your Catholic bashing. Let me know when you have something more than your usual talking points.

[trotsky]

89. Actually, the person going to lengths is you.

Defending your church by trying to equate attacks on it with attacks on individual Catholics.

Speaking of talking points, you've used yours up. Looks like you lose again.

[rug]

95. Demur all you want. Calling Catholics enablers of a ciminal hate group is bigotry.

[Goblinmonger]

102. Even if you are enabling a hate group?

So if I give money to the KKK and you say I am enabling racism, I can call you a bigot for saying that about me and where my money goes?

[rug]

104. Are you now equating the RCC with the KKK?

Your hole is getting deeper.

[Goblinmonger]

113. No, your attempts to make this about me are getting more desperate.

It was an example not an analogy.

What are you going to do next to not deal with your support of a bigoted organization?

[rug]

115. Your analogy compared the RCC to the KKK.

Are you waking it back?

[Goblinmonger]

120. No, it didn't.

You said that saying someone supports bigotry is actually bigotry.

I then asked if I supported the KKK and you said that made me a supporter of bigotry can I then call you a bigot for saying that to me.

It is a comparison of the calling someone a bigot point, not of the two organization.

But keep obfuscating the point.

[rug]

122. Speaking of obfuscation, explain how a supporter of bigotry is not a bigot.

[Goblinmonger]

126. How about you just focus on one

of the subthreads in which you ask this instead of bringing it up in 3 different places.

But, so you don't say "Oh, you never answered" someone who is 0% a bigot gives money to an organization that is bigoted. They are not a bigot but they support bigotry.

[rug]

132. I'm responding to your posts to me.

Leave it in one place then and don't be so touchy.

[laconicsax]

140. Wait...you're demanding that Goblinmonger explain how your actions don't make you a bigot?

You have proudly announced that you support what is inarguably a bigoted organization, have been arguing that anyone who does so is a bigot, and now want Goblinmonger to explain to you how you aren't a bigot?

If Goblinmonger can't (or doesn't) explain that you aren't a bigot to your satisfaction, what then?

[rug]

141. If you keep twisting words you'll hurt your neck.

Now listen closely.

You can take your deliberate distortion "you're demanding that Goblinmonger explain how your actions don't make you a bigot?" and put it with the rest of your dissemblances.

Now that your bullshit is removed, pay attention.

It was in fact you (goblinmonger just dutifully tagged along in your absence) who insinsinuated, since you do not have the ability to state directly, that the simple act of belonging to the Catholic Church makes its members bigots.

You pronouncement that it is "inarguably a bigoted organization" is as insignificant as it is inaccurate.

So this is not at all about my actions. It is about your wholesale attack, not on an institution, but on its members.

You didn't answer it before. You didn't answer it now.

Try again and for once have the integrity to make a plain and direct statement.

Do you or do you not claim that practicing Catholics are supporters of bigotry, if not bigots, because of their membership in the Church?

Your answer is already all over this thread. Let's see if you can make a plain statement.

[trotsky]

143. I'll give an answer, even though you didn't ask it directly of me (yet).

Not all Catholics are bigots.

But every Catholic who gives their time, money, and/or membership to the church is (directly and/or indirectly) supporting bigotry against women and homosexuals.

[rug]

146. So, only Catholics who are not members of the Catholic Church do not support bigotry?

Did I get that right?

Therefore the converse is . . . .

[trotsky]

147. Oh, Catholics who are not members of the church (which is a bit contradictory, but whatever)...

might still support bigotry in other things that they do.

If there are non-Catholics who give their time or money to your church, then they too are supporting bigotry - directly or indirectly.

[rug]

148. On that note of clarity, I'll depart.

[trotsky]

150. Sorry to see you give up.

But I expected it.

[laconicsax]

151. Goblinmonger already explained how you aren't necessarily a bigot and you attacked him.

I've already stated that I don't believe that all Catholics are bigots and I have never claimed that "practicing Catholics are supporters of bigotry, if not bigots, because of their membership in the Church." The reason for this is that I believe it to be untrue.

I do claim that some practicing Catholics may be enabling the bigotry of the RCC, but as should be obvious to anyone, "part of a subset may" is a long ways off from "all are." What's more, supporting a bigoted organization does not automatically make one a bigot, especially if the support is made in ignorance of the bigoted nature of the organization.

It has been you who has stated emphatically that all Catholics, by supporting the Church through membership, are bigots. While I sincerely doubt you actually believe it, you are the only one claiming it and by stating that you are a Catholic who supports the Church through membership, you have spent a good part of this thread calling yourself a bigot.

BTW: I notice you have contradicted yourself and wonder when (if) you'll realize it.

[rug]

152. So you believe that Catholics may belong to the Catholic Church and be neither bigots nor enablers.

I don't believe you believe that for one second since it flies in the face of your posts about the RCC and its members. But it's interesting to see you type it out.

[laconicsax]

153. Everything I've posted in this thread is consistent.

It's not consistent with your interpretation of what nefarious motives you think I have, but I bear only a superficial resemblance to the straw laconicsax you've built.

[trotsky]

142. Definition time

enable
vb (tr)
1. to provide (someone) with adequate power, means, opportunity, or authority (to do something)

True or false: by giving the Catholic church your time, money, and membership, you are providing them with the power, means, opportunity, and/or authority to effect change in the world.

--------

bigotry
noun
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

True or false: calling someone an enabler is showing complete intolerance toward that person's creed, belief or opinion.

Additional note: at no time does "enable" have anything to do with what a person's beliefs are, only what their actions do.

[rug]

145. These are easy.

False.

True.

Here's one for you.

Is calling active Catholics members of a "criminal hate organization" bigotry based on someone's religion?

True or false.

[trotsky]

149. I'd like you to explain how giving your time and money to your church DOESN'T give it power

and legitimacy.

If every Catholic left the church tomorrow, would anyone care what the pope or his cardinals say?

Is calling active Catholics members of a "criminal hate organization" bigotry based on someone's religion?

Please point out where that was said. All I have read to this point has been claims that members of the church are SUPPORTING a criminal hate organization.

[dimbear]

29. If you hadn't been born Catholic, would you become one? n/t

[cbayer]

30. My best friend in New Orleans did. And my son is probably going to.

It's a very personal decision, often having to do with family and children.

[dimbear]

32. I know it happens, people do enter the church of their own volition, but that's trending down.

An ominous sign which the RCC ignores.

[cbayer]

33. I'm not sure about trends.

I think it varies in different countries, and regions within a country.

New Orleans is a very catholic town. Most of the non-public schools are catholic and people are strongly affiliated with them. In addition, I think the catholic church has played a vital role in building and keeping strong families there. While most members are not strongly religious, their affiliation with the catholic church is strong.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. My parents are rather proud lapsed Catholics...

Not atheists, and they certainly didn't join another church, but the church stuff they get every month ends up in the trash.

My mother in particular has extremely strong disagreements with the church on choice, contraception and LGBT rights. Of course, she quit back when I was a child.

[brooklynite]

87. If you plan to stay in the Church...why do you disobey it?

Your positions on cultural issues that the Church has deemed important are contrary to the Church's dogma. I don't think they'll hold it against you (unless you become an elected official), but on what basis do you justify it? Churches are (for the most part) institutions built around belief in a GOD and belief that that God wants you to behave a certain way. In the case of the Catholic Church, you believe that the Church is a direct offshoot of God's disciples and has a leader who determines how to interpret God's rules. You're free to disagree with the Pope and still call yourself religious, but I don't see how you can still call yourself Catholic.

[cbayer]

91. You are directing this at the author of the article, right?

[brooklynite]

93. Yes, but I think it applies to any Liberal Catholic

[pinto]

108. It's often a conflict. Many American Catholics don't hew to all the Vatican edicts.

"Cafeteria Catholics" is the short hand used, fwiw.

Many Catholic organizations focus on the traditional mission of service to the community, regardless of social, economic or religious status. The recent verbal / operational conflict between the Vatican and a large group of Catholic nuns here highlights a difference in the practice of Catholicism in secular terms versus the standard practice of Catholicism in basic ritual terms. And in interpretation on the mission of the church in the larger picture.

[trotsky]

144. An important quote here:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” -- Then-Cardinal and Now-Pope Joseph Ratzinger, 2004.

[ButterflyBlood]

155. The guy misses the point

In the last quoted paragraph with his defense, he brings up the Gospels and Christ, things hardly exclusive to Catholicism. You like that stuff, fine. You can still quit and join something else, it's not like there's any shortage of alternative denominations (something like 40,000 I believe).