MellowDem
MellowDem's JournalThey can't contribute to its liberalization...
in any substantive way. There are no votes, women are completely excluded, the heirarchy is composed of those who must submit to conservative beliefs or be excommunicated, and the membership, especially those who actively participate and have the most influence, is overwhelmingly socially conservative worldwide.
The only thing that will contribute to its liberization is a mass exodus from the church, where the church must either change or die. That's always been the case. If liberals are cool with their local parish and keep supporting the Catholic Church, nothing will change overall, that's fine and dandy by the Catholic Church heirarchy, keep the money and membership up and don't rock the boat. The Catholic Church is rapidly expanding in the developing world, that is where there membership really is, and many of these places are incredibly conservative when it comes to homosexuality and misogyny, so the Catholic Church has no incentive to change. Kinda like the Episcopalian Church eventually just had to split from the Anglican Church. There was no way the small amount of liberal Anglicans were going to be able to change the overall policy of a church whose membership was overwhelmingly conservative on a worldwide scale.
The Catholic heirarchy is set up so there is no change.
True, there are many things I can't vote against...
and I never said membership equals a vote for something. But it does validate and empower the institution. The Catholic Church (and many other religions) have official positions that are in direct contradiction to progressive values. There are religions out there that have few or no offical positions, or whose positions are more in line with progressive values.
It's very easy to leave a religion in the US, not so to leave a country. If I asked a person why they just don't leave the US if they disagree with the drone policy for example, I would get some very substantive answers, like I can't afford it, my loved ones are here, nowhere else will take me, etc. etc. If I ask a person why they don't just leave a religion that they themselves say they disagree with, or don't even believe the fundamental beliefs of, I get far less substantive reasons.
The people criticizing the Catholic Church...
are not necessarily the same people that go ballistic when any criticism of Muslims comes up. Yes, that would be hyprocrtical. Just like it would be hypocritical to congratulate others for the appointment of a homophobic misogynist because he's a religious leader, but condemn every other homophobic misogynist out there.
I think various forms of Islam should be criticized just as harshly. In the US, it's not as visible and has less power of course, so we don't see it as much on the message boards.
Yes, all Americans do, however indirectly
But leaving the Catholic Church is a whole lot easier than leaving a country, and guess what, you still would be under some other form of government. You can choose to leave religion completely if you'd like, you can't with governments, and all governments do bad things obviously, but you don't get to choose to live in anarchy.
Comparing leaving a church with leaving a country is a terrible analogy. Quite a few people don't have the resources to leave the country, even if they wanted to. The barrier to exiting the country is several hundred times greater than leaving a church.
And yes, as an American, I do indeed help validate and empower my government, however indirectly, though as I said before, I have far less of a choice in the matter than with religion, and the barriers are far greater.
It's the ease with which one can come and go with religion that makes it less justifiable to remain a member of one that you fundamentally disagree with. At the very least, it's pretty intellctually dishonest.
And at least with the US government I can vote against certain policies. Most religions don't even give you that.
Then you don't know what bigotry is....
It's a perfectly legitimate opinion to claim that those who choose to continue to be members of homophobic and misogynist institutions are enabling them, however indirectly.
Catholics support and validate the Catholic Church...
by continuing to be members. There's no way around that. And as others have pointed out, you don't get to choose where you are born, you do get to choose your religion or lack thereof (obviously, most people were indoctrinated as children, but still, you can leave as an adult).
It's more akin to being a moderate member of the Republican Party, complaining about the leadership but still voting and giving money to the Party. The only difference being that there are a whole lot more choices for you in terms of religions you can choose from than political parties, ones that actually fit one's value system.
The same book from which some interpret liberation theology....
says all sorts of nasty things as well. I know religious people can be quite liberal, but again I'll compare it to libertarians. Libertarians agree with liberals on quite a few policy issues, but the reason why is very different, and is glaringly so when it comes to other policies they disagree on. Religious people have been on the forefront of reform movements and the forefront of opposing reform. I mean, there really were few "out" non-religious people for most of history, and that is only changing in the last couple decades.
Religious people who want to help the poor because they believe God told them to do it will tend to do things very differently than if you're doing it because you have empathy for others and think society works best and has the most happiness when there is equal opportunities and less poverty.
So you can have a Pope that wants to help the poor, in his own way, which unfortunately includes lies about condoms, encouraging archaic gender roles and no birth control, etc. etc. Or Mother Teresa, who only wanted to care for the poverty stricken, not get them out of poverty, much less challenge the system that created it. And of course, the Pope will also be against gay marriages or equality for women, because the same book that tells him to help the poor also tells him those other things.
I agree the membership of the Catholic Church believes little that the leadership preaches, but the membership supports and validates the leadership for as long as they are members, there is no way around that.
Skinner congratulating DU Catholics for the new Pope...
really depresses me. It shows that religion (Catholicism especially) gets a pass on this site like no other philosophy does. I can't imagine anyone here, much less Skinner, congratulaing anyone for the appointment of a misogynist, homophobic leader to a new position without getting some serious hell for it.
Why does it get a pass? Is it just because it's considered so mainstream? Is it just a cynical way to make the DU tent bigger? I don't get it.
Skepticism of religion...
might intimidate religious people because it reveals their insecurities about their beliefs. But criticism and skepticism are not intended to intimidate, they're intended to find the truth, and that's scary for many religious believers. I know, I was once one myself (because I was indoctrinated in it as a child), and I would never question things that didn't make sense because it scared me, and others who did were intimidating, but only because of my own fear, of hell, of there not being a heaven, of dealing with the social consequences of not believing etc. etc., not because of the person themselves.
Believers, especially who subscribe to specific religions, will find their beliefs challenged on DU because it's a discussion forum and those beliefs often contradict liberal ideals. You may find it intimidating, but it's just discussion.
I have no problem with "believers" in general, but many believers subscribe to specific religions that lay out their belief system quite clearly, and those beliefs are in direct contradiction to liberal values many on here hold. I have no problem pointing out this contradiction and the cognitive dissonance it requires.
Non-believers usually don't think humans have all the answers.... so I'm not sure what "elitism" you are talking about. Religious belief, on the other hand, claims to have all the answers, even objective truths. True faith requires no humility. Believing in objective truths based on no evidence is arrogant.
Exactly
You'd think these DUers would be congratulating evangelicals for the appointment of someone like Fred Phelps to some position. They just don't get it.
And worst, they blame "prejudice" when people criticize the stated beliefs of their belief system.
I can only assume it's the only way the can deal with the cognitive dissonance of being a liberal and a member of a bigoted homophobic, misogynist organization.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2008, 05:59 PMNumber of posts: 5,018
