Religion
Related: About this forum50 Reasons to Boycott the Catholic Church
Last month in Ireland, Savita Halappanavar died, and she shouldn't have. Savita was a 31-year-old married woman, four months pregnant, who went to the hospital with a miscarriage in progress that developed into a blood infection. She could easily have been saved if the already doomed fetus was aborted. Instead, her doctors did nothing, explaining that "this is a Catholic country," and left her to suffer in agony for days, only intervening once it was too late.
Savita's death is just the latest in a long line of tragedies directly attributable to the doctrines and beliefs of the Roman Catholic church. I acknowledge that there are many good, progressive Catholics, but the problem is that the church isn't a democracy, and those progressives have no voice or vote in its governance. The church is a petrified oligarchy, a dictatorship like the medieval monarchies it once existed alongside, and it's run by a small circle of conservative, rigidly ideological old men who make all the decisions and choose their own successors.
This means that, whatever individual Catholics may do, the resources of the church as an institution are bent toward opposing social progress and positive change all over the world. Every dollar you put into the church collection plate, every Sunday service you attend, every hour of time and effort you put into volunteering or working for church organizations, is inevitably a show of support for the institutional church and its abhorrent mission. When you have no voice, there's only one thing left to do: boycott. Stop supporting the church with your money and your time. For lifelong Catholics, it's a drastic step, but it's more than justified by the wealth of reasons showing that the church as an institution is beyond reform, and the only meaningful response is to part ways with it. Here are just a few of those reasons: (list at link)
http://www.alternet.org/belief/50-reasons-boycott-catholic-church
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)and stopped giving them their time and money, it would either cease to exist or would need to make significant changes to get people back.
Unless the majority of the RCC population world-wide isn't as politically liberal as you would like to think and they won't actually do that to get them to change their horrible policies and positions.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Traditionally in Northern Ireland the (Catholic) IRA has favoured a shot in the head, a power drill through the kneecaps or a bomb in a shopping centre to make its political voice heard. God's on their side, you see. The fact that two men whose hands are stained with blood are now members of parliament doesn't change that.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)The Provos, for example, made no pretense of being active Catholics.
rug
(82,333 posts)I asked for an example of when a boycott in fact succeeded, particularly on an organization this large, this widespread and this well entrenched.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)My not voting Republican doesn't prevent Republicans from ever getting elected, but it means I'm not assisting in it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Please, go on.
...the fact of the Magdalene laundries, with sentences for reasons as specious as being 'flighty' or attractive to boys, with innocent women being held in what were work camps, sometimes for life. On top of these disgusting abuses any pregnant women, which could be the reason for their sentence but it is not unknown for it to be a priest or lay brothers child, needing a caesarean section were instead given a symphysiotomy but not for surgical reasons instead the church claimed a fear of barrenness. This left many women with life long problems. There was very limited need for this operation but not on the scale the Catholic church practiced it in Ireland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphysiotomy
The Croatian genocide whereby the Catholic church attempted the eradication of Eastern Orthodox Catholicism. Including Franciscan monks leading death squads, Carl Savich writes. "In all, there would be 22 concentration camps in the NDH, almost half of which were commanded by Roman Catholic Croatian priests." NDH refers to the Independent Nation Of Croatia.
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/007.shtml
http://www.jasenovac.org/whatwasjasenovac.php
There were also forced conversions on pain of death. Some of the monks also led squads armed with hammers who would stove peoples heads in and leave them where they lay after gouging their eyes out.
Or what about Pope Gregory who convinced a number of wealthy aristocrats that the end was nigh so convinced them they might as well give him all their wealth and chattels and retreat to a monastery. By this method he not only became one of the wealthiest men in Europe but it's largest slave owner.
The Donation of Constantine
Indulgences.
The post WWII 'Rat Lines'
The number of preventable sufferers of STC's thanks to the Vatican's stance on prophylactics.
Their involvement in the separation from their natural parents of 300,000 Spanish newborns for the lucrative adoption industry.
The list of crimes is so overwhelming I have just picked these few out. So I feel that to be called a filthy organization is quite mild yet still fitting.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)won't actually be able to rebut or refute any of these, nor will he even try. He prefers to respond to this sort of criticism of his Church with deflection, distraction and irrelevant, passive-aggressive snark.
Just so ya know.
jamtoday
(110 posts)Cheers for the heads up, definitely met this sort before.
rug
(82,333 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)he also loves to play "Questions" (tho' he's not very good at it)
"Questions" is a game invented by Tom Stoppard in his absurdist play "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead". The rules are you must answer every question with a question. You lose points for statements and rhetorical questions or repeated questions. It is scored like tennis.
Of course the point is quickly apparent: you get nowhere.
rug
(82,333 posts)Direct aggressionn is much more refreshing. Next time you can point it directly at me.
I do understand though why that play appeals to you.
Rosencrantz: Or just as mad.
Guildenstern: Or just as mad.
Rosencrantz: And he does both.
Guildenstern: So there you are.
Rosencrantz: Stark raving sane.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Did I say it did?
And talking to you is a bore, anyway.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Take the British Empire, of far less duartion.
Do you consider that a filthy organization?
Now take the British Commonwealth, to which it devolved.
Do you consider that a filthy organization?
jamtoday
(110 posts)...is that to your original question? Plus I was very careful to include the willful ignorance of the church's continuation of it's denial of prophylactics to prevent the spread of STD's. Do not try deflect on this one as it involves heterosexual health, hence my careful choice of it's efficacy.
Surprised you did not mention the British Empire's treatment of the indigenous peoples of North America especially Canada, wait, no surprise there as the Catholic church was involved in that too.
Do you really feel that I had to go that far back, indeed the scandal of the trafficking of 300,000 Spanish newborns is within living memory.
rug
(82,333 posts)You pick a handful of incidents to describe the whole as a "filthy organization".
I suppose I could pick a handful of the more notorious incidents of your homeland's history and conclude the entire country is a filthy nation and anyione who stays is guilty of cooperation with untold genocide and rapacity.
I could but that would be as dishonest as your laundry list.
If you really want to discuss Serbia, Croatia and the rest I'll be happy to. But not as a laundry list to support a preformed antipathy. I'm surprised you left out the Inquisition, the Crosades and pedophilia.
jamtoday
(110 posts)The obvious. Your implicit question was about why people think it is a disgusting organisation so I supplied you with some reasons that you refuse to address. Whether you like people looking upon these reasons in such a manner is neither here nor there these are the reasons why people think that and as the organisation's contemporary politics, finances and morality are as base and unpleasant as they have always been then these things continue to be relative. I also gave you examples, as in the trade in newborns in Spain that are still in litigation which you chose to ignore. The 'never mind insulting John Wayne Gacy look what Charles Manson did' defence wore out on these ears a long time ago.
Address the issues that people present to you as to why they think the organisation is disgusting instead of trying to deny them an opinion.
Strange to find a Republican mindset on a Democratic forum.
rug
(82,333 posts)Unless you think your picked examples characterize the entirety of the organization, I'll be happy to discuss each of your examples. Since this is a discussion forum and not a grabbag, start a thread on any onf them you like. Otherwise, I assume you are simply anti-anything associated with the RCC.
Strange to find a bigoted mindset on a Democratic forum.
jamtoday
(110 posts)I stated I avoided the obvious not the question. If we could boycott the thing out of existence I would be in the vanguard. If it is bigoted to be against criminals, charlatans and fraudsters then, yes, you got me. I'd also like to introduce you to my co-accused morality, integrity and legality.
rug
(82,333 posts)The fruit of ignorance is bigotry. Unless of course it's deliberate.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the "everyone else does it too" defense for the many and egregious crimes of the Catholic church, as if that made any of those offenses any less disgusting.
rug
(82,333 posts)scottie hopes he can generate snickers without being seen.
silly scottie.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)as this was the 1000 year reign of the Holy Roman Empire (400-1400 a.d.).
Thank you for this post. The RCC is one of the worst institutions in all of human existence.
I have a card in my wallet which states I am NOT to be admitted into Catholic hospitals.
jamtoday
(110 posts)Joseph McCabe would interest you especially 'The Popes And Their Church.'
"OF all the fictions which still shelter from the storm of modern criticism under the leaky umbrella of "Catholic Truth," the legend of the divine foundation of the Papacy and the Papal system is quite the boldest and most romantic. No divine force, but a pitifully human series of forgeries and coercions, of pious frauds and truculent ambitions, perpetrated in an age of deep ignorance, built up the Papal power, hierarchy, and creed."
It was written at the turn of the 18/19th Century and parts are a little archaic and his politics perhaps are now outmoded but the bulk of his work in dissembling Catholic myths can be a delight at times. The murder and disgusting behaviours in fighting over the Papacy in it's early years would have made Al Capone blush, all told with a seriously dry and dark British humour I found a delight. The very Catholic G.K. Chesterton did not find him amusing which is some sort of recommendation in itself.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/popes_and_church/PandC-begin.html
rug
(82,333 posts)Response to rug (Reply #46)
jamtoday This message was self-deleted by its author.
jamtoday
(110 posts)Read his work? You cannot read that man's work and then criticise posters on this thread, he may use venal and we use filthy they are interchangeable in this context. It makes you come across as irrational and contrary and does you no credit whatsoever.
rug
(82,333 posts)Chapter V
HE ORGANIZES THE PLOT IN SOUTH AMERICA
Pacelli-Pius was rightly selected for the Papacy as the ablest cardinal in the Church of Rome. That does not imply genius. Half of these cardinals would not successfully run a large grocery store. Pacelli has considerable ability. He is also the most widely- informed cardinal on the world-situation. His immediate predecessors were of the type that asks: What are Keats? Even Leo XIII was amazingly duped by his Vatican 'specialists' about the state of affairs in England -- they persuaded him that if he recognized the validity of Anglican "orders" the whole Church of England would join up under the Papal banner -- in France, and elsewhere. Pacelli has travelled more than any. Besides spending twelve years in Germany he has made three visits to England, travelled all over North and South America, and visited France, Hungary, and other countries.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/big_blue_books/book_02.html#5
Et cetera.
Although, admittedly, it lacks the depth of "The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk".
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~traister/hughes.html
Was also in Berlin up until the US was manoevred into WWI, and his record during and after WWII needs no disparaging from myself. After all McCabe considered the Soviet Union a worthwhile exercise in government and had no criticisms of communism or Stalin, so faint praise of Pacelli considering post war developments I would consider thin ice. Are you really using such a smidgin of faint praise to claim some form of moral or intellectual superiority for the church. I'm either missing the point or you are merely being obtuse in order to feed some superiority complex. Explain please why you chose to quote this particular part of McCabe when Pius is now viewed with abject horror? The sub heading is totally divorced from the following cut and paste. Although to be fair as previously stated it does ply the figure of Pacelli with faint praise, is that all it takes for you.
Pacelli is also the man that helped dismantle the Catholic political centre to assist the Nazis in return for a Concordat that was not revoked after the War.
The Catholic church also preached from the pulpits in the Saar for it to be reintegrated into Germany, Hitlers first real foreign policy success and fuel for his expansionist ambitions.
Some consider Maria Monk a fraud (no quotes, sorry). Not looked into enough personally but at the moment I am inclined to agree.
rug
(82,333 posts)My objection is to the use of raw nineteenth century anti-Catholic propaganda. It muddies and distracts from the criticism that is there for the making.
As Will Rogers said, "You can’t teach a pig to sing. It’s a waste of time and it annoys the pig."
jamtoday
(110 posts)To McCabe, well then I am afraid I remain unapologetic. I simply do not know of anyone who does early church history like him. I think it's the dry sense of humour I find appealing. I also find that being a deeply traditional faith I often use him as a reference for the frauds that Christians base their belief system upon. I try the contemporary approach as with the Spanish newborns for sale ongoing scandal but even you ignored that. So I tend to stick to the Grand Guignol approach of their earlier history as references of things within living memory are within their personal confessional so are too easy to ignore.
rug
(82,333 posts)jamtoday
(110 posts)ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)I'm a Christian, but I could never be a Catholic. I was even nominally raised that way, but quit as a teenager, and even I returned to the faith it was obvious that I could follow Jesus or follow the Catholic Church but I wasn't able to follow both. I made my decision, (I was even baptized again so my baptism was an act of my own will, and it doesn't "belong" to the Catholic Church.)
rug
(82,333 posts)I ask only so he can pull out a litany of horrors committed in the name of your particular church.
You see, it really doesn't matter which one it is.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)Led by people who never covered up for pedophiles or forced women to die of pregnancies or that engaged in forced conversion.
Mind you it's not just the sex abuse scandals or even the positions on women and gays that are why I can't be Catholic. Theologically I find a lot of the things the church teaches troubling, such as transubstantiation, the way they view paedobaptism and all that Mary dogma. Even a "liberal" Catholic church would not appeal to me. So I really had no other options but to leave.
rug
(82,333 posts)ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)I haven't identified as Catholic for quite awhile though, not even as a teenager. Even then I identified personally as Lutheran (my father's side of the family is Lutheran and we started going to a Lutheran church instead when I was in high school.)
rug
(82,333 posts)
LuvLoogie
(6,995 posts)You pay taxes. Taxes support our electoral system. Taxes support campaign financing of republicans through matching funds.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)I do on my state returns, but that lets you select a party to earmark $5 to, to which I select the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.
Laochtine
(394 posts)Not as big as the RCC, but what is.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)that's a pretty good breakdown of the reasons to try to stop this evil form further corrupting people. Not many see the evil their church does, they are blind to it, but sourced information can sometimes be an eye-opener for some and I'll keep this handy for next time I need the evidence so many say does not exist.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Enjoy.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)probably could be updated:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/successfulboycotts.aspx
Mostly of organizations which want to continue to please their consumers.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Catholic Charities is a network of charities with headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, that aims "to provide service to people in need, to advocate for justice in social structures, and to call the entire church and other people of good will to do the same."[5] It is one of the largest charities in the United States.[6]
Founded in 1910 as the National Conference of Catholic Charities, the organization changed its name in 1986 to Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA).[7] In 2010, Catholic Charities' centennial year, more than 1,700 agencies, institutions and organizations composed the Catholic Charities network, including individual organizations of the dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Chicago. About $2 billion of its budget comes from the Faith-Based Initiatives Office of the federal government. Nearly 90 cents of every dollar donated to Catholic Charities agencies goes directly to programs and services.[8] In 2008, Catholic Charities agencies served over 8 million individuals.
Together with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, it is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Relief_Services
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is the international humanitarian agency of the Catholic community in the United States. Founded in 1943 by the U.S. bishops, the agency provides assistance to 130 million people in more than 90 countries and territories in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. A member of Caritas Internationalis, the worldwide network of Catholic humanitarian agencies, CRS provides relief in emergency situations and helps people in the developing world break the cycle of poverty through community-based, sustainable development initiatives. Assistance is based solely on need, not race, creed or nationality.
Of Catholic Charities income comes from the Federal government, factor in the Tax Free Status of the church on all it's financial activities and how that benefits them and I think you could make a claim that they make money from these activities rather than it costing them anything.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll give you credit. It's a step up from calling it a "filthy organization".
jamtoday
(110 posts)On the assertion? Looking at the financial and property portfolios of the church one could suppose that's precisely my claim.
Whilst we are at it Catholic run hospitals and schools receive the same private fees or insurances and/or government subsidies as any other similar organisations. That does not qualify as the alms giving you would portray. They are a business, a corrupt one at that, given unfair advantage by a tax free status that belies their commercial activities and gains.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)You label them a corrupt business, and offer no proof of that either.
Those on my thoughts on your assertions.
I worked for Catholic Charities for a year or so. I am not Catholic, I was never questioned about any religious status, or even if I had a religion. I saw the good work they do, and they do a great deal of good.
and Catholic Relief Services was working in Darfur before anyone had even heard of the place.
jamtoday
(110 posts)a no no to financial regulatory bodies as they are 'vulnerable' to money laundering (diplomatic language for corrupt). You could check out Calvi, Banco Ambrosiano, Bishop Mercinkus, Sindona, P2 etc etc etc. It wasn't said lightly. It is however a whole thread of it's own and I haven't the time just at the moment. I cannot quite bring to mind the indictments and I seem to recall at least two clerics receiving sentences. In Ireland the orders culpable in the Industrial Schools and the Magdelene Laundries moved assets and declared themselves bankrupt in order to avoid their liabilities. So the facts are out there.
The churches of all denominations have worked all over Africa since Europeans conquered and colonized. In fact Africa and Asia are Christianities only growth areas. Sorry for the cynicism but it does fund and cover for an evangelic drive. As this has led to children being murdered for witchcraft in other parts of Africa (Salem anyone?), then I cannot conceive of it as entirely humanitarian and without ulterior motive. Charity is for the vulnerable and the church has a track record with the vulnerable.
Add to that the preventable pregnancies and diseases that cause so much death and distress throughout the continent and the goodly church looks less than saintly, to finish off all denominations, not just Catholics, are considered to have taken an active part in the Rwandan Genocide.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Do you have evidence of that?
The churches of all denominations have worked all over Africa since Europeans conquered and colonized. In fact Africa and Asia are Christianities only growth areas. Sorry for the cynicism but it does fund and cover for an evangelic drive.
Another assertion that requires proof. I'd like to see your connection between Catholic Relief Services and any evangelical drive.
As this has led to children being murdered for witchcraft in other parts of Africa (Salem anyone?), then I cannot conceive of it as entirely humanitarian and without ulterior motive.
I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense, children are murdered for witchcraft ,by who, for what reason?
You are making some very broad-brush statements here that you are not really backing up.
jamtoday
(110 posts)http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/01/witchcraft-curse-africa-kristy-bamu
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/more-damage-from-religion-persecution-of-witches-by-african-christians/
http://markhumphrys.com/christianity.killings.html#africa
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2012/01/should-witch-hunter-helen-ukpabio-be-allowed-to-visit-america.html
http://explorer9360.xanga.com/759491248/fundamentalist-christianity-is-spreading-through-africa-making-things-worse/
I am really surprised that you are unaware of these sorts of incidences there are so many more I could post
On Evangelicalism and aid. "Catholic Relief Services had not only become the largest private international relief agency by the 1950's, it was also the recipient of the majority of government relief supplies. In turn, evangelical fears grew that foreign aid money was supporting Roman Catholic institutions abroad and sanctioning discriminations against Protestants. 'Observers report that the recipients think the Roman Catholic church, not the U.S. government, has been the donor'."
Piety and Public Funding: Evangelicals and the State in Modern America Axel R. Shafer
In other parts of the book he goes into how in the post WWII construction of the 40's and 50's how the government funding agencies created a cosy relationship and assisted in proselytisation allowing a religion's name to be attached to government spending. Something that here in the UK is the standard modus operandi. However if you still maintain it is largely assertion then I accept that.
I also mentioned the Rwandan Genocide which you sidestepped.
"The historic participation of the Rwandan churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, in reinforcing ethnocentric thought and behavior both in public life and in the church itself."
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3048
The last is from a religious viewpoint but I found that part particularly telling about the behaviour of Christians, as are other parts of the article, not just Catholics.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)this is revealed in several of the links you have posted.
and from you last link about Rwanda:
First, it cannot be assumed that the Christian faith is taught in such a way as to emphasize love of neighbor (all neighbors) and respect for human life. No agency on earth has ever been able to control what is actually taught in a local church on a given Sunday morning. A variety of bastardized versions of the Christian message, including hateful ones, have been and continue to be communicated in congregations all over the world. This is true both in churches where authoritative (and sometimes authoritarian) church hierarchies supposedly have great power to control what happens in the local church, and in decentralized communions in which the local minister has the final say. Either way, the teaching of the Christian churches lands all over the map, from richly faithful to blandly mediocre to dreadfully immoral.
Second, it cannot be assumed that the people gathered to hear the Word proclaimed and to participate in the sacraments are serious about the Christian faith. People come to church for a wide variety of reasons. They bring widely varying levels of receptivity to the truth that leaders communicate from the pulpit and the altar. They bring widely varying moral and spiritual capacities. Jesus himself said that the seed of the gospel is scattered on all different kinds of ground; only one of the four kinds of soil that he mentions has the quality needed for fruitfulness (Mark 4). In light of Auschwitz and Rwanda, that sounds about right. Narrow is the road that leads to salvation; few there are who enter it.
Third, it cannot be assumed that all of the self-identified Christian people (baptized, born-again, converted, members -- whatever criteria or name you want to use) gathered in these churches are subject to the influence of the Holy Spirit. I cannot believe that what the Bible says about the work of the Spirit of God is erroneous. But what must be admitted is that there is quite a gap between the list of "Christians" on church rolls or in church pews and the much smaller list of Christians in whom the Spirit of God is working.
I completely agree with this.
and on Catholic Relief Services:
Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services, said, "The employees of Catholic Relief Services do not proselytize--ever--period. We are organizationally inspired by our faith. But we let our actions do the talking."
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3048
It is linked in with Christianity now was the point. Your claim that a belief in witchcraft preceeded Christianity is an assertion, the likes of which you take me to task for, in Ashanti traditional beliefs Anansi is a spider and a trickster African beliefs do not tend to have the figures one would connotate as witches, that itself is a nomination from the Bible. Do not forget the fact you ignore the mentions of spells, sorceresses and necromancy in the Bible itself. With syncretism animist belief systems take on the murderous aspect of an inquisition.
Efik mythology demanded sacrifice but to the deity, much as in the Old Testament God, other than that they tend to believe in spirits, which I find no different to the Catholic faith. What now seems to be different is they now believe people embody those spirits and have taken the Christian way out in killing people so designated instead of ceremonies to drive out the spirits. Perhaps the Vatican could send one of it's Exorcists to help save the lives of these children.
The Vatican does have Exorcists and does believe in evil spirits and they do believe demons will torment them in hell when they die. So the syncretism with Christianity was easy as it would be in such similar forms of ignorance, superstition and belief in magic, it's just that the Catholic church can afford solid gold symbols and artifacts whilst dressing up in fine robes as they made so much stealing their natural resources and selling them into slavery.
Should you question about whether Christians believe in magic the obvious one to pull out of the hat would be transmogrification, any tribal animist or shaman would have loved to conjour that one up for the money it's earned the church. Laughing all the way to the bank as Liberace reportedly said. Yet you have only to watch one of the prosperity preachers throwing the credulous around the stage at one of their gatherings, casting spirits out etc, to realise that the Catholics (probably to their dismay), have not cornered the market in superstition and ignorance. Pray do tell what is the difference between ancient Animism's belief in various spirits ie: good and bad, and the Christian church's?
As to not using aid to proselytise, the man is not going to admit such so we'll have to agree that it's just my opinion.
rug
(82,333 posts)Your "assertion" is in service of a biased mindset at the expense of reality.
sir, you are a blast of fatuous hot air!
Would you care to expand on your last statement?
Each of your post emits enough to expand to anyone's satisfaction.
These little tidbits you offer only serve to torment us, leaving us giddy with expectation that the obvious rapier like wit and sparkling intellect may yet fully show itself and confound the dark clouds of ignorance so we may yet see your truth.
Dispel these doubts and ignorances sire we beseech thee, for pity's sake just one fact that we may yet find the answer to Voltaire's statement "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
rug
(82,333 posts)Prithee, list your fellows.
Since you like quotes, your posts to date bring this one from Ambrose Bierce to mind. “The covers of this book are too far apart.”
Bit of a Britishism. Oops!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)the fact-free, content free passive aggressive snark from ruggie...he's a master. You'll wait a long time for an original thought from this one.
rug
(82,333 posts)Voilà!
jamtoday
(110 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Oh Ruggles.... such a comedian! You'll say ANYTHING!
rug
(82,333 posts)
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Catholic Charities USA
Boston. Between about 1985 and 1995, Catholic Charities of Boston, which contracted with the state's Department of Social Services and accepted state funds in support of their adoption services program, placed 13 children with gay couples out of 720 adoptions. Catholic Charities President Rev. J. Bryan Hehir explained the practice: "If we could design the system ourselves, we would not participate in adoptions to gay couples, but we can't. We have to balance various goods." The agency had never sought an exemption from the state's anti-discrimination statute,[32] which had taken effect in 1989.[33][n 2] In December 2005, the lay-dominated board of Catholic Charities of Boston voted unanimously to continue gay adoptions. On February 28, 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and Hehir met with Governor Mitt Romney to make the case for an exemption from the state's non-discrimination statute, but Romney told them he was unable to help. They considered and rejected the idea of a lawsuit. On March 10, O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Boston announced that the agency would terminate its adoption work effective June 30, rather than continue to place children under the guardianship of homosexuals. The statement did not distinguish between gay and lesbian individuals and those in same-sex relationships.[n 3] Hehir said "This is a difficult and sad day for Catholic Charities. We have been doing adoptions for more than 100 years."[34][n 4]
Illinois. Following the legalization of same-sex civil unions effective June 1, 2011,[35] Illinois required Catholic Charities, because it accepted public funds, to provide adoption and foster-care services to same-sex couples in the same manner that they serviced different-sex couples. Rather than comply, Catholic Charities closed most of its Illinois affiliates. They had provided such services for forty years.[36]
Washington, D.C. In November 2009, Archbishop Donald Wuerl wrote that he recognized that Washington, D.C., officials were intent on legalizing same-sex marriage, but asked for stronger language to protect individuals and institutions with religious objections to the policy. He wrote that "Despite the headlines, there has been no threat or ultimatum to end services" and explained that Catholic Charities had contracts with the District to provide "homeless services, mental health services, foster care and more."[37] The law legalizing same-sex marriage passed in December 2009 with the first marriages set to occur on March 9, 2010.[38] Faced with the law's requirements, the Catholic Charities in D.C. decided to stop providing health benefits to its married employees rather than provide them to married same-sex couples as well. Spouses already enrolled in the plan were not affected.[39]
As far as Catholic Relief Services, they apparently are better than the church they affiliate with, so I have few problems with them, look up what they say about condom use as a way to prevent the spread of HIV, unlike their church, they are actually honest. So put both these down as number 51 and 52 why to boycott the church.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I am well aware of their stance on same-sex marriage, on gays adopting, on condom use, etc. All of which I strongly disagree with.
They still do great good in this world. That is not negated by the thing they don't support. Good works are good works.
There are not enough good works in this world, regardless of who does them.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)dimbear
(6,271 posts)you just have to do something brave.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Did you suggest everyone boycott the Muslim religion, because certain Imams' call for violence motivated 9/11 and other attacks?
Catholics were an important swing voting group that helped elect Obama and Democrats to the Senate. Is there some reason you want to alienate them? Because the only Catholics who will read this are progressives -- and this is a slap in the face to many of them.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If it is the latter, I urge a boycott of ALL religion. I think the world would be a better place without it. But that's just my opinion.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)I realize you are an atheist.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Not really sure what you are getting at or what your point is. I post articles on all religions. Just because this particular post deals with only one means nothing.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)It kind of summarizes well why I simply could not be a Catholic in good conscience.
Response to cleanhippie (Original post)
TeamPooka This message was self-deleted by its author.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)From Hinduism to Islam to Judaism. From Anglicans to Baptists to Zoroastrianists. Give me enough time, and I can come up with 50 reasons to explain why each is evil and should be eradicated. Hell, I'll bet even the Buddhists could make the list.
The problem isn't any particular faith, but the mindset that comes from organized religion. When you are certain that your organization represents the one true will of your diety, and that your faith is true above all others, then you can justify ANYTHING to protect and promote it. Whether we're talking about protecting pedophiles to shield the Church from harm, or bombing Palestinian babies to secure Zion for God's chosen people. ANY evil can be justified if you're doing it for "God".
dimbear
(6,271 posts)You may get up to 50 after a long time, but they'll be mostly silly.
My point is this: if we are liberals and we feel the need to belong to a church, or just have the desire to belong to a church, it should be a church we can agree with, not one we constantly need to defy.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)I'd definitely have to think about that one for a while.
The problem with the rest is that you're failing to take the faith itself into account. Unitarians are certainly a more "agreeable" church than the Catholics, but the faiths themselves are entirely different. If you truly believe that Jesus intended Saint Peter to found his Church, and that the beliefs of the Catholic Church reflect his "true" intentions, then switching becomes a real problem. You may find Unitarians to be more agreeable, but if you believe that their faith is incorrect, then what's the point?
In my experience, this is the real reason that most Catholic liberals still attend their church. They may disagree with the Churches position on many things, but they still believe that the underlying dogma of the church is essentially correct. Changing churches isn't a matter of merely swapping buildings, but is a fundamental shift in faith...and Catholics have many beliefs that simply don't exist in other churches.
How do you fix that? Short of splintering the existing church into "liberal" and "traditionalist" branches, I don't think it's possible.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 28, 2012, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/123011765
Even your buddies appear to have left you dangling on that piece of slime.
Nobody here supports the sins committed by the Catholic Church or it's priests, as nobody here supports the sins committed by Stalin or Mao. And no self respecting atheist supports the kind of hate fest you try to foster against people of faith.
You are not our leader. You are not our mouthpiece. You are not our messiah. Get over yourself.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Did my OP give you the idea that I gave a shit about what you think? Cause I don't.
You have a nice day.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)you were defending the posts of someone who got PPRed for their bigotry.
So yeah, you've got absolutely zero credibility when it comes to slinging the attacks and accusations you do. A comic that cleanhippie posted in a safe haven (sad that you still feel the need to lurk after being banned for poor behavior there) has absolutely zero relevance to what individual Catholics can do to change their church.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You describe this slime as "A comic that cleanhippie posted in a safe haven". Please enlighten us all as to what you find comic about it. Is that what your "safe haven" is about? Do these "comics" make you giggle?
My reference to this obscenity is about your hero's call for boycotting. Personally, I have boycotted all churches for more than 50 years. I didn't need 50 reasons.
Exposing bigotry, wherever it comes from, is the purpose of my posting here. I have no issue with any group, based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. I do have issue with those extremists who purport to represent a broader segment of society through their bigotry. The OP is fine, but others have a right to know the source.
BTW, I am a star member of DU and do not "lurk", especially in groups I subscribe to. I was blocked from posting there by a triumvirate (2 of whom remain) that did not approve of my "behavior". Apparently, I was too tolerant of believers. I also resented being stalked and accused of dishonesty by not declaring my personal relationship (marital status). My inquisitor/stalker, ironically, accused me of homophobia and transphobia when I challenged his integrity.
And let me add that I defended one post of a member who was PPR'd. You OTOH have never defended anyone who has been axed, right?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)No one takes your charges seriously given your documented history defending proven bigots, and your inability to behave in a civil manner in a safe haven.
Take care, and all the best to you & your family for the holiday season!
rexcat
(3,622 posts)that has nothing really to do with the topic at hand seems a little silly IMO. If someone could behave themselves they would not be banned from the other forum and could add positive dialogue but I don't think that is ST's MO.
It also seems some things run in families, that is being banned from the another forum in question. 
trotsky
(49,533 posts)specifically to personally attack someone just goes to show how correct the group hosts were to ban him in the first place, sadly.
lyingsackofmitt
(105 posts)I told my catholic family years ago I would never set foot in one again.
