The Pope resigns ...

Perhaps the stench will disperse one those responsible for the perversions carried out in the name of this disgusting corrupt organisation are finally brought to account for their actions.

The fundamental question is whether religion is a force for good or evil.

Here's Richard Dawkin's POV :

http://www.aljazeera.com/progr...121791038231381.html

The suffering this evil old man and his preprocessor has caused is overwhelming and George is surprised at the way this thread has gone? You might as well apologise on behalf of Adolf Hitler.Have you ever been to a Catholic third world country? 

See, I telt ye

Anti-Catholic bigotry? Are you sure?

Are you certain you're not mixing up criticism of a religion and its leadership/figureheads with heaping calumny and violence upon the followers of said religion?

There is an increasing tendency, especially on the part of Christians and Muslims, to try to deflect debate by accusing anyone who opposes or questions their beliefs (or their institutions) of bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness and so on. We have just seen this in the gay marriage debate here in Blighty.

This is a most egregious development and should be resisted at every opportunity.

Do you want to elaborate on that? And do you actually have any proof that this is the case?

Personally I find all three of the desert monotheisms pretty objectionable in most respects, with Islam the least attractive.

Please explain.

I know quite a few Catholics socially and at work, nearly all of them have long since turned their backs and distanced themselves from the church, and one colleague [a man] who still does have a slight inkling said to me there was a big difference with being Catholic and being a Roman Catholic.

I’ve know a couple of [women] devotees who could on occasion express an overabundance of intolerance due to their holier than everyone else stance on life, very nasty to be on the receiving end off [ime].

However, I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for people who were brought up within the grip of the RC faith. So many of them must be going though a present age of realisation, that their religious upbringing was no more than indoctrination, control, and in too many cases abuse.

I think this is very unfortunate because it is clear so many mainstream people do feel the need for spiritual guidance in life, and this needs to be honest and genuine, and not criminally orchestrated by a most exclusive club of peculiar men.

Debs

Intresting post Deb. My experience of Judaism (I'm married to a jewish woman from an orthodox family) gives me a similar impression; that the institutions (and sometimes the leadership) of the religion are for many young people a barrier to the faith and spiritual elements. this is not necessarily a rejection of tradition but of a controlling elite. It is perhaps not a coincidence that women seem have no place in the leadership of these religions (let alone their general status), something that repels both sexes I believe.

This cartoon made me hoot this week. Steve Bell in the Guardian as ever hits the spot.

+1 Bruce & Debs

I rejected RC in particular & Christianity in general in various stages.

The first was when I was 11 years old & realised the beatings & bullying I had endured thru prep school was not part of normal tutor behaviour. Then as part of my new schools religious education (education, not doctrine enforcement)  I started analysing what the various religions of the world were about.  Over time I concluded the mumbo jumbo & mythology of the churches was frankly unbelievable & is also the same for some of the non-Christian religions.  I accept the teaching of tolerance, goodwill & cooperation with fellow man that most religions seem to preach (but not necessarily practice) but that aside they all have this underlying teaching or aversion to women not being equal to men & that for me is a major reason for rejecting these religions.

Anyhow,  I could go on & on,  but this is a forum & not the place.

I now claim to be non-religion, not atheist or agnostic, but do follow the earth mother ways of life.

Bruce,

I know not much about Judaism, but it would seem they like to keep themselves to themselves, and have no evangelical agenda with trying to convert everyone in the world, which is very decent of them imho. Meanwhile i’m quite happy doing my own pagan things in my own time and place without bothering others too.

Although, from a UK perspective it’s high time we separated the church from the state. People should be allowed to believe in whichever faith they choose [as long as it harms none] but the parishioners should pay their own way without state funding.

I may not be Christian, Jewish, or a Moslem but I am a tax payer, and given no choice in contributing to Schools which set out to deliberately indoctrinate the innocent young minds of children for a future of ongoing tribal-separation and social barriers.

UK should be secular, and free from religious interference in politics.

Debs

Debs

Judaism is intresting in that it has racial and ethnic identity (it is a 'tribe') as well as a spiritual one. Orthodox jewry therefore can only be born-not converted. This explains the lack of evangelism, although perhaps also the insularity explains other characteristsics I find less appealing too.

My wife considers herself a secular jew, connected to the family, culture and heritage but without a religious belief. I think that is a fairly unique situation compared to other faiths.

Bruce

Bruce, 

I was told that it is possible to convert to Judaism (although not sure about the orthodox bit) but that the process is not easy and involves circumcision (maybe this explains the small number of converts). 

Orthodox teaching does not allow conversion, only Reform Jews (or other more liberal groups). As ever there is not a definitive single view!

It is conventionally the responsibilty of the woman to raise her children as Jews, to see them marry others in the community (and indeed to reproduce) thereby preserving and expanding the community.

Bruce

What I find interesting is that all these "anti-Catholic/Christian" thoughts make no mention of Jesus Christ, which I think is an indictment of the organized churches, and not the Being whom they allege to represent.  In fact, it appears this hypocrisy was all foreseen:

"Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; 'Depart from me you who practice lawlessness.'"

I used to be catholic, but I gave it up for Lent...

That would be the Anti-Anti-Christ.

Making it the Christ.

In which case, christ!!!

Off to the bad fire for you.

Kevin W: Sorry for the delay in replying.  To elaborate, I am suggesting that there is, at least in the United States, which has been traditionally a nation where Christianity, in one form or another, is predominate, a tendency to attack--or at least negate--not just Roman Catholicism, but Christianity in general--while steering clear of attacking or negating the other "big two".  As to proof, no--I am, as virtually all on this thread are doing as well, offering my considered opinion. 

Personally, I come from a fundamentalist Christian background, but have never subscribed to any religion or belief that would allow me to lay claim to not being an atheist.  Oh, I suppose from a strict epistemological standpoint, I would have to say that since I cannot prove a negative, a Supreme Being--or anything else--is possible.  That having been said, I subscribe, like so many today, to the notion that Man creates God in his own image for the specific reason that he cannot trust himself enough to live existentially, making his own sound decisions and creating his own morality.  Some folks just need a Daddy. 

Now, having put a smiley face on a statement of negation--and what may appear to be sarcasm--let me say this: In saying what I just did, I do not presume to make fun of anybody's philosophical construct--especially one (belief in a spiritual god or afterlife) which is so much a part of our very being and anchored so deeply in prehistory.  As a young philosophy student, I used to attack people's beliefs and tried, using Socratic method, to strip them of whatever they took consolation in to get through the darkness.  How ****ing presumptuous was that?  Now, I have mellowed and am willing to leave others to their beliefs.  I am even willing to thank the occasional evangelist who still has the breath and energy to try to convert me--for attempting what to him is my eternal salvation.  (Sometimes, I have to throw in that I am worried about his motivation and wonder if he is not endangering his own salvation by committing the sin of pride--but usually, I just smile and thank him.)

So that covers my world view--for all those who have been waiting breathlessly to hear it.  Now on to organized religion:

The religions of the world have done much to help those who believe as they do.  On occasion, they have stooped to help others as well.  Many of the "religions" today who do the most good are those which are the least orthodox.  (And no, Kevin, I decline to offer any proof--just please accept my opinions, which, like *******s, most people have!)  But in addition to doing much good, the major religions have done much harm.  Proof?  Well, the Inquisition, the support of Apartheid and American slavery, the beheadings, stonings, etc ad nauseum.  The Jews seem to have been far less offensive than others, just trying to freaking keep to themselves and get along.  Hell, they were even forced into their somewhat correct stereotypical position of being rich bankers and jewelers by Christian kings who needed money but couldn't borrow from Christians because lending was a sin!  So I tend to give the Jews a pass--not only because both of my children are Jews--but because they haven't gone out on historical programs of extermination.

Catholics, for many centuries, off and on, were really, really bad: burning Jews in hot oil--that sort of thing.  Massive abuse of power on a massive scale.  Today, they oppose birth control, which many of us disagree with.  But that falls far short of the institutional evil they have endorsed in the past.  As to sex abuse and cover ups, that is an evil that, in my opinion, falls far short of killings and tortures as well, but is still close to unforgivable--especially in view of the cover up.  As a result, their behavior, taken in conjunction with a general secularization of the world, is costing them big time in terms of membership.  The only saving grace, if you will pardon a very intentionally bad pun, is the massive population growth among their faithful due to lack of birth control---hmmmmm.

We come to the more fundamentalist Protestant churches, most of which do some good in the community, while holding, in many cases, racist and sexist views in general--but relatively harmless in terms of the number of preachers who diddle the kids in their flocks. 

The cool thing about Jews is that they have never really tried to kill anyone, (the blood libel notwithstanding).  Protestants have made feeble efforts to off some of those who don't believe as they do--but not so much.  Catholics were once massively guilty of doing so, but not in the last couple of centuries or so.  Those of another massively popular world religion, who advocate executions in the name of the Supreme Being, often point to the Old and even the New Testaments of Christianity as being just as vengeful and bloody as their own holy book.  And they are right!  The only difference is that Christians don't go around actually killing people in the name of God, any more. 

So what does it come down to: I have no problem with people believing whatever the Hell they want to believe, and so long as they: (1) don't expect me to take them particularly seriously, (2) don't expect to use my tax dollars to further their membership or activities, and (3) don't go around killing folks who disagree with them, they will have my respect. 

I know of nothing in particular that would cause me to disrespect the outgoing Pope.  I suspect he did the best with what was bestowed on him.  As far a his being a Nazi--give me ****ing break!

Best regards,

Russ

Big can of worms I know but Zionism is extremely agressively prosecuted against all who stand in the way. I think your view of Jews now is somewhat generous!

As ever it is not the Faith, it is the Politics.

Bruce

Don't get me wrong, Bruce.  I don't mean to say that Jews, Israelis included wear halos and spotless white tunics.  That having been said, viewing their collective actions as a group from an historical perspective, the trail of their "conquests" has been very narrow indeed--restricted to one little strip of land that only they seem able to make bloom--and has not been been marked by the great swaths of blood and destruction that has characterized so much of the religious justification of war in the Western world.  Yes, in Israel, they do take strong action against those who call for the total extermination of their people.   I suppose the alternative would be for them to unilaterally lay down their arms as an example for those who hate them to follow.  Unfortunately, that did not work well against the antisemitism rampant in Europe in the centuries culminating in Nazism and the collaboration of some other European nations which failed to stop the Nazis when they could.  Churchill saw it coming--Chamberlain did not.  Nor, I must confess, did the isolationist United States.  European Jews largely trusted that they were French, German etc. and that would protect them.  The motto now is--and should be: "Never Again".

Best regards,

Russ

Russ. I agree with much of your historical context. I think we'll differ about the actions and intentions of modern Zionism but it is too complex and emotive a topic to discuss here. I have 'fun' enough mentioning it to my in laws!

Of course Islam is historically the most tolerant and repectful of other religions, traditionally protecting and accepting communities of other religions within their own.

Bruce