Religion
Related: About this forumWhy atheists should listen to Pope Francis
An article over at Salon, reposted from AlterNet, by CJ Werleman.Francis wrote in a papal statement, “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system…. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”
When the Pope washes the feet of convicts while calling for greater efforts to lift up the world’s poor, he makes it possible to establish meaningful partnerships with other moral communities, secular and religious. Of course, when Francis speaks about the “idolatry of money” and “growing income inequality,” you know, the things Jesus spoke about, you can set your watch in waiting for someone on the Right to accuse him of being a Marxist. Hello, Rush Limbaugh.
Atheists like to talk about building a better world, one that is absent of religiosity in the public square, but where is the atheist movement, as defined by the some 2,000 atheist groups and organizations in the U.S., when it comes to dealing with our third-world levels of poverty? Not only is the atheist movement absent on this issue, it is spending thousands of dollars on billboards that make atheists look like assholes, at the same time Catholicism is looking hip again. The Pope has changed the perception of the Church in the minds of millions while the atheist movement has been sucked into the Right’s fictitious “war on christmas.”
Have an enjoyable day.
Bryant
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
libodem
(19,288 posts)Mmmmmm. Breakfast.
searchingforlight
(1,401 posts)There are many groups in the public and private sector who do not give to charity. That does not mean that the members of those groups aren't philanthropic or generous.
If you Google the subject you will find that this argument has been studied to death and that there is just as much evidence that atheists are more generous than Christians as the other way around.
Arkansas Granny
(31,522 posts)like myself, who don't advertise the fact that they are atheist and would be just as happy that it wasn't well known. To many people, atheists are considered to be evil, immoral, untrustworthy, deceitful etc. "Godly people" would sooner accept a mass murderer in their midst than associate with an atheist. It's almost impossible for them to accept the fact that someone who does not share their beliefs can be a generous, caring, moral person. They see demons.
searchingforlight
(1,401 posts)I lived in a small town in North Carolina in the 70's that had a Catholic church. The members used the back door to enter for services. The church building always looked unoccupied and the members were very closed mouthed about their faith.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If they would just stop voicing their opinions and quietly endorse the status quo, they would be more liked, I guess.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)He is saying that things such as that billboard in Times Square are doing the atheist cause no good. In fact, it is playing right into the right-wing fantasy of "the war on Christmas".
The nattering about atheist groups not doing enough about the world's real problems is, at best, overstated.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I knew I could count on you.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I start by saying that the author of the article did not say that atheists are to blame for the bigotry. Is this a statement of hatred for atheists? If so, how.
I then say "He is saying that things such as that billboard in Times Square are doing the atheist cause no good". Is this a statement of hatred for atheists? If so, how.
I then say that a billboard which says, in effect, "take Christ our of Christmas" is playing into the hands of the people who claim that there is a "war on Christmas" -- people whose slogan is "keep Christ in Christmas". Is this a statement of hatred for atheists? If so, how.
I then say that the author's statement that atheists are not doing enough about the world's real problems is wrong. Is this a statement of hatred for atheists? If so, how.
Trotsky, you start by misunderstanding the article, then you continue by pretending I said something which is neither expressed nor implied anywhere in my post.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)He said "If they would just stop voicing their opinions and quietly endorse the status quo, they would be more liked, I guess"
To which you said "He is saying that things such as that billboard in Times Square are doing the atheist cause no good"
and then you agreed with that, which is pretty much a rephrasing of the original statement.
rug
(82,333 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I went through my post, sentence by sentence and asked him where there was an expression of hatred for atheists in any part of it. Heck, there isn't even an implication of hatred in anything in that post. I notice that Trotsky has not responded so far. I wish he would.
Saying, "The people who put up that billboard were wrong to do so because they are playing into the hands of their enemies" can only be taken as an expression of hatred by someone so thin-skinned as to take any disagreement as an expression of hatred.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm amazed you still haven't figured that out.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)As with so many movements, those that began kicking the door down were rather extreme in some of their views and attitudes towards believers. I think it's unfortunate that there hasn't been some new leaders emerge other than those that are forming these "churches" and may not be fully trustworthy.
I do think FFRF is doing some good work, along with the Clergy Project, but there seems to be little in the way of more politically motivated groups that are focusing on things like social justice and civil liberties in conjunction with other groups.
There does seem to be a new tone from some campus based groups and that is a good sign.
edhopper
(33,597 posts)"Atheist groups" who are mostly there for the purpose of promoting atheism and questioning the influence of religion, are not analogous to the RCC.
Why not ask where PETA is on Global Poverty, or the AARP or the Planetary Society. It has nothing to do with whether atheist are concerned or not with these issues.
And BTW one of the Humanist groups I subscribe to regularly send me political action notices on things like cutting foodstamps.
In other words, bullshit article.
rug
(82,333 posts)spellcheck doesn't work in the titles and I rely on it to much.
pokerfan
(27,677 posts)In Firefox, it's a simple about:config tweak to change the layout.spellcheckDefault value to 2.
edhopper
(33,597 posts)will try that.
on edit; That did the trick.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)If people want to see what atheists are all about they might well go to these groups websites - in which they would see that they seem eager to take the other side in the RW's nonsense War on Christmas.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I can't fault them too much, unless they've been told it's wrong and they continue to do it anyway just to be obnoxious, because it just seems to be a feature of how the believing brain works.
"Atheists" therefore are a group, with leaders, organizational structures, gatherings/meetings, etc. and thus because they are related to religion more than those other orgs you list, must automatically be compared to religious institutions.
So when the new pope talks about poverty (ignoring some of the causes and exacerbating factors, of course), the believing brain thinks "Tut, tut - here is this religious leader talking about an important item, where are the atheists leaders on the same? Stupid atheists think they are better than believers but they don't even care about poverty." And so on.
You are right, it's a bullshit article, but certain believers (and apologists) seem to lap this up.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Someone says "Why aren't Atheists making a social stance like this?" and that's taken at face value that they don't. No one goes to check and see that, hey, they often do! and when the question asker gets corrected, it gets ignored because, well, that atheist was being confrontational, or something.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I think you pretty much nailed it right there.
Weird how only atheists are expected to turn the other cheek. Lots of Christians don't think that applies to them, apparently.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)employed and interested in intrusions of religion into politics.
They can be, and sometimes are, powerful political forces for things that people on this site generally agree on.
I think the author's point is that in some cases this is being squandered and an opportunity is there which should be recognized.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Why single out atheists? PETA, the WWF, and so on - none of them have leaders out there campaigning against poverty despite most of their members also being liberal/progressive and educated. Will you heap scorn on them, too?
Or is your judgment once again just limited to those terrible, horrible vocal atheists that you wish would be eliminated?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Key word: perception. That's all he's done. No church policies have changed. The RCC continues to energetically oppose core items on the progressive agenda, like women's quality, LGBT rights, reproductive freedom. Should atheists listen to him on those items too?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)There's nothing more winning than that.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Where are the atheists out screaming "Christmas is bullshit"?
Have you been watching too much O'Reilly or something?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Apparently not.
Times Square billboard.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That was your claim. Are you retracting your claim?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Obviously there is no similarity between saying Christmas is Bullshit and saying Nobody Needs Christ at Christmas. I mean those statements couldn't be further apart.
And I apologize for the deceitful way I implied that the statements are similar.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)in order to celebrate this time of year? Serious question.
FWIW, clarity and accuracy DO matter. If FAUX News had to follow that they wouldn't be able to "report" 95% of what they do. That really IS bullshit and it's how O'Reilly et al feed their War on Christmas meme, by twisting and distorting real events.
I expect better from DUers.
I think an Atheist or non-Christian Believer can celebrate the time of year just fine - there are several other holidays as well.
But the billboard isn't making that argument; it's making the argument that Christians should Celebrate Christmas by abandoning Christ. It is saying that what Christmas means to Christians is nonsense. And that's not a winning argument, anymore than the PETA poster showing mom slaughtering a turkey and splattering blood on her children was a winning argument.
Bryant
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that even many Christians celebrate the holiday without "Christ." Also, the original significance of this time of year predates your religion by unknown thousands of years. So many things that are considered Christmas traditions today have no origins in Christianity.
Clearly you have your own interpretation of what the billboard means. I am sorry it offended you and that you think it said "Christmas is bullshit." That doesn't mean you should feed O'Reilly's War on Christmas, heaping more scorn on atheists by making claims that aren't true.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"it" is saying that you can join us in celebrating an entirely secular holiday we call christmas. Or not.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)references crew checkin' in.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Oh, not in those words, but that is clearly the message.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Still fun to do.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)The billboard doesn't say that. You just want it to, because it lets you play the poor, persecuted victim, so you invent yet another "quote".
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)The billboard says "Having Christ in Christmas is bullshit". Do you disagree with that? And how does it differ materially from what I originally said?
No, it is obvious that both Trotsky and you are blinded by your dislike for me into reading things into my posts that are simply not there.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Just another invented quote by you.
For those interested in the truth, the billboard says:
"Who needs Christ during Christmas? Nobody."
"Celebrate the true meaning of Xmas"
"Happy Holidays"
If you can find the word "bullshit" in any of those quotes, please point it out.
In reality, the "quote" you cite is entirely an invention by you, as anyone who cares to actually look at the billboard can see. Which begs the question of what sort of person would claim something that is so transparently false, when the actual words on the the billboard are laid out plainly for everyone, including you, to see.
I'd repeat my previous advice, but it's likely a waste of time.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I'd ask for an apology for falsely accusing me of lying, but I suspect you have either the balls or the grace to do the right thing.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You can't put that in quotation marks when it's not a quote. It is your interpretation. Just like your falsified quotes when you've spewed your bile against Richard Dawkins.
Thou shalt not bear false witness. Unless it's to spread your hatred of atheists, I guess?
rug
(82,333 posts)Thank God he didn't use the Oxford comma.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)It's the exact words that were said or written. Not your misbegotten (or even accurate) interpretation of what you think someone might have meant. If you claim to be quoting (as you are when you put something in quotes and attribute it to someone), you don't get to use "other words". I'm starting to think that in your world, you truly have no grasp of that.
And if you think I've falsely called you a liar, feel free to alert on me, and let a jury decide. Or just wait for all those who love and admire you here to come to your defense.
Response to skepticscott (Reply #172)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)What's this? A charity? Founded and operated by those evil "new atheists" who don't do anything but bitch and complain about nativity scenes?
Q.E. fucking D.
I guess Mr. Werleman is unfamiliar with Google.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I feel quite sure he is familiar with Google.
He is expressing a POV that he is not alone in holding.
It doesn't read like a "hit piece" to me at all.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Nor do I care how popular his opinion may be. He's wrong--demonstrably so--and would have realized as much if only he'd made the slightest effort to research his opinion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)His opinion is just that, an opinion.
He never says that there aren't any atheist organizations pursuing good causes. There are.
He just notes that there are some problems and that resources could be better spent in some areas.
Again, you may disagree, but I think his points are valid.
What we see here, even in this thread, is something of a schism. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Emerging movements, and I think this is one, often must go through these kinds of growing pains as they define themselves.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There's no other way of putting it. He chastises atheist groups for putting up billboards when the money could be better spent elsewhere, exhorting us to follow the example set by Pope Francis. He ignores 1) there are plenty of atheist and secular charities, and does not take into account private charitable donations made by individual atheists, and 2) that Pope Francis' own bishops here in the United States allocate approximately 3% of their total expenditures to charity.
Whoopsie...
cbayer
(146,218 posts)He says there are 2000 atheist organizations and that there is an absence of activism in addressing third world poverty.
Many respondents in this thread have focused on charitable giving, but that is not what he is addressing. He is addressing organized activism to address specific global issues.
He makes the point that many of these organizations talk about how much better the world would be without religion, but they really haven't stepped up to the plate to replace some of the good that religious organizations do in terms of addressing the needs of the neediest and most marginalized people on the planet.
IMO, one of the reasons for that is that some individual and organizations have difficulty acknowledging that religious organizations do anything good, but that's another topic.
And he makes the argument that the whole billboard thing plays right into the hands of the christian right. My personal opinion is that the billboards are juvenile and serve no purpose other than to further alienate an already marginalized and misunderstood community (atheists). I totally agree with him that the money could be much better spent.
Every time an atheist levels criticism at other atheists he is torn to shreds in this group. This is unfortunate but understandable, as many atheists who participate here appear to feel very persecuted and some have huge chips on their shoulders.
In the end, I am with him in his wish that atheist organizations would start to focus more on big social issues and start working collaboratively with other organizations (both secular and religious) to address some of the worlds most pressing issues.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's been pointed out to you numerous times on this thread but you are steadfastly refusing to acknowledge it.
Until and unless you do, you can expect nothing but desperation as you try to be taken seriously. Ratcheting up the arrogance, the judgment, the dismissal of other points of view is not helping you.
rug
(82,333 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I would amend cbayer's comment, "Every time an atheist levels criticism at other atheists he is torn to shreds in this group" to Every time anyone levels criticism at atheists he is torn to shreds in this group.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)When you go around making up quotes to bash people, calling others names, and generally act like you do, yeah, you can expect to be torn to shreds.
I thought you left this group again? How can we miss you if you don't go away?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And I am seriously considering reporting you for calling me a liar. But I won't.
And you still have not told us what the alleged "hole" is. Instead, you resort to an Ad Hominem. Use of the Ad Hominem is in actual debate is generally taken as saying "I don't have an argument". You have given us no reason not to believe this.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm not surprised you wish your past history would just go away. But it's there, and available for anyone to read.
You can take your personal attacks elsewhere. I'm not interested in indulging your abusive, nasty behavior. Let cbayer address the hole in her reasoning - she knows very well what it is.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Here you claimed Richard Dawkins said "raising a child to be Catholic is worse than child abuse":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121871581#post50
And here you claimed Richard Dawkins said "pedophilia isn't that bad":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121894605#post41
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121894605#post60
In both cases, you were challenged to link to where he actually said either of the things YOU put in quotes and attributed to him. You couldn't, because you made those quotes up. And in the second case, you were forced to admit that your "quote" was bogus. So your bluster in threatening to report someone for calling you a liar is just so much crap. Anyone reading those threads can easily judge that for themselves.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And I backed them up. For the first, go here. Now, what is the headline?
Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.
I also went to see what Dawkins himself said:
With regards to the second, there is Alex Gabriel's Free Thought Blog, under the title Richard Dawkins won’t condemn ‘mild’ child molestation. Gabriel takes him to task for saying it. P.Z. Myers says much the same thing here
Can I expect an apology for falsely slandering me?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Dawkins did NOT say what the article headline quoted him as saying. If you're claiming that because a newspaper said it, it must be true (despite it obviously being invented), that's even sadder than I thought. And the Daily Mail writer didn't make that claim here, you did, which makes it yours.
The topper is you yourself admitting that you fabricated a quote:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121894605#post64 Including that same bizarre phrase you use when pretending to quote someone exactly: "IN OTHER WORDS". As noted above, if you're claiming to quote someone, there ARE no "other words", only the exact ones they used.
(BTW, I assume you'll be apologizing to yourself for falsely slandering yourself) 
And I can't improve on my response in that thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121894605#post98
You really are sad, beneath being funny. We're done here.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I give him a direct quote from Dawkins, and he laughs it off. I cite a couple of atheists condemning Dawkins for saying that "mild pederasty" isn't that bad, and he ignores it.
You really are sad, skepticscott. You remind me of those Catholics who claim that the Pope is never wrong. I will agree with you one one thing, we are done here.
BTW, I see I called it correctly when I said you have neither the balls nor the grace to apologize for slandering me.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)
Why isn't GLAAD doing more to end world hunger? What about Mothers Against Drunk Driving? The Audubon Society? The NRA? PETA? Greenpeace?
These are all special interest groups... they are not societies, they are not not churches, and that is the illogical fulcrum on which the article swings.
Why isn't American Atheists mobilizing to address third world poverty? Because American Atheists is not a charitable fund; it is an awareness group promoting the normalization of atheism in the United States. Why doesn't the FFRF get off its ass and get medical supplies to isolated African villages? Because the FFRF is a civil liberties group defending the legal status of nonbelievers and other religious minorities. It isn't that neither organization cares about poverty, but that their organizations are neither equipped nor designed to perform the task the article demands of them.
Besides, we already have the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Doctors Without Borders, Habitat For Humanity, The Peace Corps... there's no shortage of secular charities liberal atheists already happily support.
Condescending and dismissive.
I think I've my objections to the piece rather clear.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)GLADD actually does a significant amount of work in the area of civil rights marginalized populations around the world.
While some atheist organizations have very specific missions, like the FFRF, others do not and are quite vague about their purpose.
Certainly normalizing atheism, helping people who are being harmed because they are atheists, decreasing prejudice, increasing understanding and fighting for separation issues are things that atheist organizations are generally in favor of.
The author's argument is that there is more that could be done in other areas and these organizations are in the position to do them. They also tend to be composed of people that share progressive/liberal POV's, so it seems logical that they might be more active.
He also argues that they could put the money they have to better use. If there is a large enough population that agrees with him, I would predict a growth in atheist organizations that work collaboratively with both religious and secular organizations towards those goals. This can already be seen on college campuses. Whether it represents a trend or not, we will see, but I hope it does.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Are there any specific atheist organizations with nebulous mission statements that you feel could be doing more in terms of addressing income inequality?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's good GLAAD "does a significant amount of work in the area of civil rights marginalized populations around the world."
But they don't have global anti-poverty programs. You *specifically* disparage atheist groups for not doing anything about that - why don't you bash all these other groups, as pointed out to you AGAIN and AGAIN?
When will you engage in honest discussion, cbayer? You've clearly backtracked but you aren't addressing the main issues here.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Every time an atheist levels criticism at other atheists he is torn to shreds in this group. This is unfortunate but understandable, as many atheists who participate here appear to feel very persecuted and some have huge chips on their shoulders.
is "Condescending and dismissive." Actually, it is a clear and simple statement of complete fact. As I said above, it should read that anytime ANYONE levels any criticism whatsoever at atheists, he or she is torn to shreds in this group.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Every time an atheist levels criticism at other atheists that is without support in fact or reason he is torn to shreds in this group. That's what happens in an intelligent discussion group, cbayer. Lies and bullshit get demolished.
I mean seriously...you constantly post atheist-bashing articles from an endless series of hacks on Huff Post, Salon and the like, thinking that they're just the most wonderful things in the world and such "great reads", making "excellent points", all the while blithely ignoring the silly arguments, lack of facts, straw men and gaping holes in logic that they use, even when they're pointed out to you over and over and over. You just put your fingers in your ears and pretend.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)1) Be an atheist.
2) Select a specific topic and specific believer to show how smart/polite/knowledgeable/PC/etc. they are about that one specific item.
3) Contrast about how stupid/rude/ill-informed/sexist/etc. atheists are about that item because their "leaders" aren't out there with the same response.
4) Submit to Salon.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Submit to Huff Post
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)He seems be to making a pretty good living doing exactly what you said.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)And what the fuck does this have to do with charity? You do more good donating to Doctors without Borders than to anything remotely related to this man's church.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)atheists are doing themselves a great disservice. 
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)either their reactionary need to defend their church is so deep, or their own bigotry is so ingrained, that they will even defend that.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)something more to Pope Francis and the Catholic Church than bigotry
When will the moderators get rid of fucks (like me) who don't condemn Pope Francis with every breath? Next they'll start saying he's some kind of human and probably does some good things and some bad things. HELLO! He's a bigot plain and simple - and that's all you need to know about him.
Someday I dream of world in which people who defend the pope (like myself) are recognized for the hateful bigots that they are.
Bryant
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)have very similar positions in regards to economics, along with abhorrent opinions on LGBT rights and women.
The major thing that is different is that Cardinal Ratzinger was more involved in the pedophile coverup scandal than Archbishop Bergoglio.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Hmmm. So I worship him because I don't reflexively condemn him when he says things I agree with?
That's setting the bar pretty low for worship isn't it?
As for Benedict vs. Francis - why is Francis getting this message out so effectively compared to Benedict? Why are so many people, liberals included, seeing this as a sharp break from Benedict? Is the answer really that they are all homophobic bigots who look past Francis's bigotry because they share it?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)this year, I linked to his activities in Argentina regarding his fight against same sex marriage there, from before he was Pope, and some people on this board were honestly surprised and it lowered their opinion of him, because they were unaware of it.
Others outright ignore it or try to justify it, which is just sick.
He is a fucking homophobic bigot, one who attacked and will continue to attack the families of LGBT people, and frankly I'm fucking sick and tired of bullshit apologists justifying this fucking asshole.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)or they are bullshit apologists (like myself) - tell me what do you think of Catholicism as a whole - pretty much the same?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I was raised as one, after all, and on of the sharpest critics of Pope John Paul II I knew was my very Catholic mom, and she used plenty of swear words about him. Especially was critical of the church's stance on choice(without artificial contraception, my mother could have died), and LGBT rights.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I mean if there weren't any Catholics, who would care what Pope Francis says about anything?
Bryant
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)good ideas about economics(Distributism).
Many aspects of Catholicism are outright bad, bad for people, bad economically, and when put into action, can lead to some bad shit very easily. Lying about the effectiveness of condoms, or the side affects of hormonal contraception, calling such things abortifients, etc. is fucking abhorrent and this Pope advocates for all of that shit.
Calling LGBT people intrinsically disordered is homophobic and awful. Calling their love for their SOs a sin is also just fucking cruel and sick.
Actually I find the concept of sin itself to be abhorrent and atrocious.
I'm refraining from using the word evil because it becomes far too loaded, but I'm going to have to pull out a thesaurus soon enough.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)It doesn't lie when it calls oral and other type of contraceptives abortifients?
How is calling LGBT people intrinsically disordered NOT abhorrent?
Are you going to try to do that whole "outside of marriage" cop out you always pull when we talk about LGBT relationships? Oh, hey, I have a question for YOU, rug, do you think LGBT people are intrinsically disordered? Its a yes or no question, so answer it.
rug
(82,333 posts)it attempts to describe. It would be hard to eliminate the taint of bullshit from whatever follows.
Whether or not a medication can or cannot be an abortifacient is a matter of pharmacy not theology. You certainly have not set a standard of credibility on that subject. Frankly, I find your rhetoric on the subject as overwrought as any Cardinal's.
And of course LGBT people are not intrinsically disordered, a fact that APA itself did not acknowledge until 1986.
As to the rest of your post, I'm refraining from using the word bigot because it becomes far too loaded, but I'm going to have to pull out a thesaurus soon enough.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)would you like me to link to quotes from your Church leaders about this subject?
Basically you just admitted that your Church doesn't care about facts, after all, you disagree with the Catechism of your Church on some issues, apparently, and I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised at this.
rug
(82,333 posts)The RCC is not a monolith.
The article addresses the bishops' biologically uninformed statements. Bringing a bishop to a biology discussion is like bringing a staple to a gunfight.
But to avoid the simplemindedness that a prejudged mind engenders, no one has said the Church doesn't care about facts. Despite the obvious political intransigence that exists in an organization of this size, age, and scope, it has indeed shown resilience as new facts are established. It may be the resilience of plate tectonics rather than grasshoppers but it is there nonetheless.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)have a tendency to stick to their guns despite evidence that contradicts their positions, and, of course, they are in positions of influence and power over even non-Catholics on boards of hospitals and such.
rug
(82,333 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)So again - wouldn't the world be better off if the Catholics decided to stop being catholics - taking what few good things about Catholicism into their new lives, and leaving everything else behind, including their bigoted pope?
Wouldn't they be better off?
Bryant
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)into their lives."
Bryant
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)but the baggage that is in the Catholic Church and its hierarchy. You can leave the organization without leaving your faith, at least technically.
If you notice, I didn't mention women priests, or even same sex marriage as a Sacrament of the Church, because I don't give a shit what happens inside the Church as long as its lawful. What I do care about is the Church trying to affect the secular world in any way. Lobbying against same sex marriage, or choice, or access to contraception, running health system, those I care about.
Frankly, call yourself Catholic till your blue in the face, just don't support the Church until it removes its influence from the secular world.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)Without a say in creating or changing the "rules".
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)anti-contraceptive positions.
If you are talking about women priests, that's a different matter, an internal matter for the Church. I care about when the Church tries the influence things outside of it.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)she was Catholic in the sense that she loved Jesus and worshiped him, she refused to go to Mass, and refused to give any money to the Church, mostly due to the reasons I outlined. But, when she was put into hospice at the beginning of this year, she did not request any religious counseling at all, they asked if she wanted a priest to come, and she said no. I don't know what that means.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You might mean well, I guess. I don't really know your motives. But that doesn't change the fact you are an apologist for a bigot.
There is no other way to see it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The man is a bigot. Period.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)atheists are doing themselves a great disservice.
Atheists do themselves no good when they come off as unpleasant arseholes. I know, "accomadationism" -- which seems to mean saying anything nice about any religious figure or admitting that religious people do a lot of good in this world -- is a mortal sin among many atheists.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'll continue to state the truth no matter how much it bothers you.
Your pope believes that homosexuality is sinful. He thinks that gay marriage is from Satan. He's a homophobic bigot.
Your pope has stated that any discussion of women having equality within your church is off the table. He's a misogynistic bigot.
Sorry the truth hurts - perhaps you should choose a church with more tolerant leaders.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)But if I did, I know you would report me and I would be kicked off this thread. It's interesting, though: I was once called a bigot, and I reported it, but the post was allowed to stand. Clearly, a double standard exists. Indeed, two double standards -- the second is that atheists can make bigoted statements and that's acceptable, but saying "your statement is bigoted" is not acceptable.
The Pope is not a "misogynistic, homophobic bigot". He believes that all sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful. Tell me, do you approve of adultery? He has called for a greater role for women in the governance of the Church. For a number of reasons that you probably don't care about, he cannot really go beyond this.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I am well aware of the apologist tactic you are using - "oh, all sex outside marriage is wrong" - and then your church has no avenue by which a homosexual person can get married. Oops, how convenient. Why not offer homosexuals the sacrament of marriage?
Oh yeah, because your pope said :
He is a BIGOT. No matter how much vitriol you throw my way, that's not going to change.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)they would be showed the door very quickly as a troll.
Just because he's the pope, doesn't mean we have to pretend he isn't a homophobic, misogynistic bigot. He's not a progressive. Get over it.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)is no reason to call the Pope "a homophobic, misogynistic bigot". He is not. Get over it.
Tien1985
(920 posts)"Homophobic bigot?" Or "mysogonigt"? In general, what does "bigot" mean to you?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Be sure to post the gems about gay marriage being from Satan and that women will never have a role in the leadership of the church. Be sure to indicate those are good things that you support. Are you telling me the Pope wouldn't get kicked off DU?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)how he feels about right wing fundamentalist trolls.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)including in the cowardly and backhanded way you're doing now, without the posts being hidden, so your continual whining about a "double standard" still falls flat.
Just be glad that the hosts like you and what you do here.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Francis just has a better PR team than Ratzy.
Warpy
(111,302 posts)Like this: http://www.kiva.org/teams
Religious people boast of their charity, but most of it goes to their churches and is just a bit on the self serving side. Atheists have invested over 13 million dollars in the world's poorest with no guarantee of payback, although the poor tend to be more honest than the rich.
Pope Francis says a lot of things that people have been craving from a religious leader. It's just a pity his own church will never listen to him and make the necessary changes.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I mentioned Doctors without borders, there's also habitat for humanity, red cross, etc.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Habitat's ministry is based on the conviction that to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, we must love and care for one another. Our love must not be words only— it must be true love, which shows itself in action. Habitat provides an opportunity for people to put their faith and love into action. We bring diverse groups of people together to make affordable housing and better communities a reality for everyone.
The economics of Jesus
When we act in response to human need, giving what we have without seeking profit, we believe God magnifies the effects of our efforts. We refer to this perspective as "the economics of Jesus." Together, the donated labor of construction volunteers, the support of partner organizations and the homeowners' "sweat equity" make Habitat's house building possible. By sharing resources with those in need, Habitat volunteers and supporters have made decent, affordable housing a reality for more than 800,000 families worldwide.
The theology of the hammer
Habitat is a partnership founded on common ground— bridging theological differences by putting love into action. Everyone can use the hammer as an instrument to manifest God's love. Habitat’s late founder, Millard Fuller, called this concept "the theology of the hammer." "We may disagree on all sorts of other things,” said Fuller, “but we can agree on the idea of building homes with God's people in need, and in doing so using biblical economics: no profit and no interest."
They pray before getting started, but they didn't send me packing when I didn't participate in the group prayer.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Of the Church's total expenditures, some 3-4% actually goes towards charity. There's also documented evidence donations made at the diocesan level with specific instructions for disbursement are spent in any way the diocese so pleases (the article makes note of a donation made with instructions to disburse to a specific parish should the need arise, which was instead used to pay off a sex abuse settlement). Some dioceses have gone as far as to divert money from worker retirement and benefit plans to pay off sex abuse victims.
Ultimately, as the article notes, dioceses have actually moved away from donations and have begun soliciting state governments for funds to cover expansions and renovations. And so the "charitable" Catholic Church is actually relying on tax payer dollars... you know, taking money away from people rather than giving it to them.
The pope can talk all he wants, but unless he actually does something about this, it's just hot air.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)is personally responsible for every new infection due to RCC teachings against use of condoms.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Because he said something about helping poor (while doing absolutely nothing to actually help them)?
What is it that he DID, that makes you ignore his homophobic bigotry, for starters?
What excuse does he have for NOT CHANGING RCC position on condoms? Shit, that alone would help poor by lowing abortion rate, slowing spread of STDs, and preventing even more children to be born into poverty so they can die from starvation and perfectly preventable infections like HIV.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Obviously I more or less agree with him on his bigotry or i'd be attacking him right along with you.
I suppose I just need to own my homophobic bigotry, rather than trying to hide it.
Bryant
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)no thanks to RCC and pope's bigotry.
Catholic Church Expels Priest for Endorsing Same-Sex Marriage
by Denis Culum, 12 April 2013
http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromargentina/catholic-church-excludes-priest-for-endorsing-same-sex-marriage/
Alessio responded to the decision by the Vatican, where his fellow citizen, Pope Francis occupies the throne of the worldwide Catholic Church. “I expected this. More than 30 years serving the people and God meant nothing to the Catholic Church. To get rid of me it was enough to have a different opinion than the Archbishop. It was my civil opinion [about same-sex marriage],” stated the expelled priest.
Alessio was suspended in August 2010 after publicly defending gay rights. Back then he pointed out: “Homosexuals have been discriminated, stigmatised and mistreated for centuries, as a dangerous, deviant, sick group of vicious people. But as for me they are just human beings, as normal as any of us, I think we should defend them from these attacks loaded with prejudices.”
Father Simón denies that Alessio has been punished just for “thinking differently”. He claimed that since 2010 there have been a lot of accusations against Alessio, including “those about giving the sacrament of marriage, in a way contrary to the Catholic doctrine. Specifically, for having married same-sex or divorced couples.” The judicial vicar added: “He [Alessio] always had the opportunity to defend himself but has always rejected it.”
The dismissed priest promises that he will continue with his life mission, regardless of the ruling. “For the Church it is like that. But if I perform a baptism or marry someone they will have to admit it, because they cannot erase who I am: a priest. Even if a doctor gets fired, he is still a doctor,” Alessio said.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)As a homophobic bigot I don't think I can support that.
Bryatn
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)why don't you even bother to post something about such an admirable person.
Or some other non-bigoted catholic priest. There are a lot of them out there and they are the ones who deserve support, not the homophobic forced-birther you are trying to defend.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Life is simple when you have the proper labels.
Bryant
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)I an still curious though why you spend so much time promoting a bigot who says a lot of pretty but empty words instead of someone who actually DOES something to right the wrongs.
There are a lot of people of different denominations who deserve a lot of support and publicity. Quackers, Reformed Jews, Liberal Muslims, non-bigoted Catholic priests, Anglican priests, just to name a few. They don't talk, they DO.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)who praises or defends Pope Francis are homophobic misogynist bigots. Also we are effectively pro-Pedophilia.
Bryant
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I know it's hard to be optimistic about this, but I think you refer more to the institution than the individual. Although what we have seen so far has been primarily a change in tone, I think there is the potential for more here.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Yet he supports outright LIES instead of doing the right thing.
I am sorry, I can not see how anyone who is willing to let others die a horrible death can be deserving of any support.
It's obvious he doesn't give a shit about actual real people, otherwise he would have told his followers ages ago to use condoms for prevention.
For that alone he deserves condemnation. That alone proves to me he doesn't give a flying fuck about poor, and all his pretty rhetoric is nothing more than a hypocritical PR campaign.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)up anything regarding his position on condom distribution.
He has, so far, remained silent on some issues, but I am willing to give him some time.
I am interested in looking at anything you might have that indicates that he has taken a stand on the condom issue.
Thanks.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)He had more than enough time to do something about this extremely controversial issue that resulted in international condemnation of RCC. I can hardly believe pope is not aware that simply reversing RCC's position on condoms vs STDs will greatly help him and his beloved church. Yet he chose to do absolutely NOTHING about it.
Of course, why do anything at all if empty words about "helping the poor" got you all the admiration you ever want.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)While I would like to see him correct the ills of the past, not having done so at this point is not the same as an endorsement.
He has to move slowly and pick his battles.
Again, I am willing to give him some time and I am not convinced yet that there will be any substantial change.
But the change in tone is a good sign and it's still very early
I can understand your position, I just don't share it.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Condom issue is the easiest one to correct, he can do it any time he wants. Assuming he does.
He has means to help slow spread of HIV. Not just infections, but death of who knows how many thousands of people who get infected BECAUSE OF RCC DOCTRINE. Those are the very poor people he so cares about. Yet he does absolutely nothing.
I am sorry, I can not see any change coming from someone capable of such a monstrous act.
rug
(82,333 posts)There are lots of places within the organization, even as structured, that this can be discussed. There are the global and national synods, there are the various Congregations within the Vatican, and there are numerous other religious groups in communication.
The only definitive statement on condoms as a birth control method is in Humane Vitae which, while authoritative is not ex cathedra.
In fact the late hated Benedict XVI himself nudged the door open slightly in 2010 when he said, "It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms".
The problem with Catholic-bashing, as with all forms of bigotry, is that it usually gets in the way of getting to the root of the problem.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Framed as
"Condoms are extremely effective in prevention of spread of HIV & other STDs. Teaching otherwise is no different than condemning thousands of Catholics to needless death. This disproportionally affects poor, the very people we as a church should care about. We must do everything possible to alleviate their suffering, and teaching them to use condoms for protection against STDs is our moral obligation"
Now, please take your accusations of "catholic-bashing" and stuff it were it belongs. Didn't take you long to resort to insinuations of bigotry, just long enough to realise you are defending the indefensible.
This pope is a homophobic forced-birther who chose to do nothing to right the terrible wrong his church committed when it decided to spread lies about effectiveness of condoms in prevention of HIV. Deal with it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Talk about condoms and STD all you want but don't presume to bring up doctrine unless you know what it in fact is.
It seems you'd rather type "homophobic forced birther" instead of discussing - factually - a very serious issue.
And don't give me that bullshit about stuffing it. If you want to resort to bigoted, inaccurate name-calling, start a thread on it.
I really have zero patience or tolerance for this kind of bullshit.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)he managed to announce that he fully supports Universal Human Rights.
There is nothing to discuss beyond the simple fact: he could denounce his predecessor's lies about effectiveness of condoms at any moment, he chose not to do so.
RCC chose to lie about effectiveness of condoms, that has nothing to do with doctrine.
You might be willing to settle for "he has to chose his battles", I don't. Hypocrisy and empty words is all that I see. I definitely don't expect anything else from this man at this point.
If you have zero tolerance "for that kind of bullshit" than don't bring that bullshit into the conversation.
rug
(82,333 posts)Your dishonesty on this reeks. The fact is you don't like the Pope, you don't like the RCC, and you're too prudent to say what you think of Catholics.
The Pope could walk into St. Peter's Square with a condom over his head and you'd still find some bullshit to prattle about.
Now if your pattern is to bring this bullshit into every post, you will soon find yourself covered with it. Use protection.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)There are some Catholics who oppose RCCs asinine homophobic bigotry, stance on family planning, treatment of women, and protection of paedophiles.
I am proud to admit that I am "intolerant and biased" against homophobic bigots, forced-birthers, and protectors of institutionalised paedophilia.
I am equally proud to admit that I support Equal Human Rights for all. If this makes me "one issue poster" I am very proud of it too.
Unlike others I don't give a pass to bigots because they managed to employ a good PR team. That would make me a hypocrite. You are welcome to that.
You are also welcome to take rest of your opinion of me and stuff it up the same hole it came from. 
rug
(82,333 posts)It's pretty obvious that your concern that trumps all others is your pride and your self-perception.
Frankly, I would rather discuss the life cycle of a mosquito than who you think you are, what you are proud of, and who, ironically, you consider intolerant bigots.
Issues are far more compelling than personalities, especially petty, self-absorbed and repellent ones.
Response to rug (Reply #137)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)You've done it repeatedly. It is as juvenile as trying to hide your intentions with smileys.
The only nerve you've hit is the olfactory nerve.
Now, let's just flush you out.
Are you calling me a defender of "bigoted homophobic forced-birthers and protectors of institutionalised paedophilia." Come on, idwiyo, you can do it. A simple yes or no, with or without a smiley, is all you need to do.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)and protector of institutionalised paedophilia?
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)logic you've devised there. You get that off a memo, or did you arrive at it yourself?
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm not surprised in the least that you don't get it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't attack Catholics as people in any way. In fact, I pointed out something intrinsically good about them downthread.
Shitting on bigoted dogma, and institutionalization of said bigoted dogma, isn't bigotry. Period.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lol.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But of course, you won't be able to, without simultaneously attempting to misconstrue.
rug
(82,333 posts)But I do find it interesting that the comments were made about another's posts but you felt the need to deny it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But I suppose you weren't actually accusing him of it when you slipped that in there, eh?
rug
(82,333 posts)Now who's engaging in defending bigotry?
Why, it's you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So um.. Reading comprehension for the win?
(Unless he engaged in some of that OUTSIDE this thread where I wouldn't be aware of it.)
rug
(82,333 posts)misogyny and homophobia and share in the condemnation.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)official RCC positions. They do not give any monetary or other support to the church. They remain Catholics even though they are typically excommunicated. I support and admire their effort to bring change. One of those people is mentioned in my post #69, Father José Nicolás Alessio.
Catholics like him, Quakers, Reformed Jews, Liberal Muslims, some Anglican congregations (just to name a few), have my support for trying to bring a change and make a real difference.
Hypocrites who pay lip service to Universal Human Rights while singing accolades to bigots deserve all the scorn they can get.
PS I am "she" and I am a proud atheist. And commie.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I didn't look at your profile. My bad. I hate it when I do that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And would he not need some kind of approval to do that?
He is coordinating a conference of the bishops. Hopefully this is one of the issues that will be addressed.
I'm not as up on this as you appear to be, but didn't Benedict say that the restriction on condom use could be lifted in cases of disease prevention?
I don't want to be in the position of defending either the pope or the catholic church, as I find many of their actions and positions completely unacceptable. However, I'm not yet ready to condemn him and will continue to watch closely.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)He can speak ex cathedra whenever he wishes. He's the Pope.
pinto
(106,886 posts)People have mentioned a wide range of opinions about condom use, yet none, in my experience, referred to the RCC doctrine. I've spoken with literally hundreds of people at risk for HIV and other STIs. It was my job. My venue was limited to one CA county so I can only speak in that framework.
That one would have stood out and ended up being discussed in a staff team harm reduction meeting.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)that indeed that horrible message is contributing to spread of HIV. Call it anecdotal evidence if you want, but it's out there and it's killing people, like it or not.
pinto
(106,886 posts)So I could see how that may be. No first hand experience either.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)at play in this horrible situation.
Access to condoms, education on correct use, men's attitudes towards condoms (and women, for that matter), lack of access to treatment once infected - they all play a role.
As for the RCC, when I was in east Africa, catholic organizations were providing services for infected women that no one else was providing. This may not compensate for their role in the lack of condom distribution, but they were there and it was overwhelming to visit some of these places.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Once RCC has done so, I will give a due respect to their efforts to help people infected with HIV.
As of right now my respect and donations are reserved to
Médecins Sans Frontières:
http://www.msf.org/diseases/hiv-aids
Marie Stopes International:
http://www.mariestopes.org/
http://www.mariestopes.org/what-we-do/hiv-stis
http://www.mariestopes.org/where-in-the-world
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You argue that because you have never run across something in your (narrow) experience, that constitutes evidence that it's not occurring or doesn't exist. But if you truly cared about the issue, instead of apologetics, it wouldn't be that hard to educate yourself about what goes on the real world, outside of your bubble.
pinto
(106,886 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and it would be accepted as truth by the overall church (and a contingent of American catholics that DO support family planning).
So no, he doesn't have to move slowly on things like this. The hard liners would actually be overruled by mainstream catholics on this issue.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)
Not very spectacular.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)3% ain't that.
But, before you go off on a tangent, your link indicates 58% of Catholics support contraception coverage compared to 55% of non-Catholics. Pretty much belies your post 107.
Thanks for the link.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The only relevant point from that link was that 58% of American catholics support contraceptives.
meaning, hard liners would be overruled. That's people in the church that ALREADY support contraceptives, and in no way includes the numbers that oppose them now, but would obey an edict from the pope that is contrary to their current position.
So yes, you'd be spectacularly wrong. (This is not a measure of the difference between catholics and non-catholics, no matter how much you'd like to distract from what I actually stated.)
rug
(82,333 posts)That whatever a Pope says "would be accepted as truth by the overall church".
Freedom of conscience is a value in the RCC, as your link demonstrates.
If he did issue an encyclical explicitly improving condoms (let's call it Salus Primus) 42% would ignore it, as your link demonstrates.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do you seriously think NONE of that 42% would shift position? Either way, the statement remains true, it would be accepted by the overall church/hard liners overruled.
rug
(82,333 posts)Given that the fight over contraception is essentially political, I think that few would change their position.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"42% would ignore it, as your link demonstrates."
You just assumed none of the 42% would flip upon direction from the Pope.
rug
(82,333 posts) AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Considering how the rw is apopleptic about his suggestion that poverty is bad, I'd say you're wrong."
You're just running in circles now, trying to avoid your error. The majority of the church supports contraception. 58-42 is a spectacular delta IN MY FAVOR, given the issue, and the church's reputation on this issue.
I love that I said something nice about the church and you STILL have to deflect, make shit up and quibble about it.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)trying to explain lack of action from pope, and why they attack anyone who points to their hypocrisy on this issue.
They indeed KNOW he is a bigot and that he has no intention whatsoever of changing RCC or he would have started doing so already.
Sad really.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)when I fought for same sex marriage in my home state.
Fuck the pope. I don't give a shit if his stopped-clock-right-once-a-day approach to capitalism happens to be friendly to my position on that issue, he is a bigot and an asshole that uses his invented position of political power to HARM PEOPLE willy-nilly.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)i do believe in an afterlife and reincarnation. i like pope francis.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)All Atheism is, is the rejection of the claims that God's exist. You can believe in an afterlife and reincarnation and still be an atheist.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)that being said, i believe everyone has the right to worship or not worship as they please as long as they don't try to convert me.
phil89
(1,043 posts)Atheism has nothing to do with a stance on poverty. Bizarre article.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)But I am watching for action even more closely.
snot
(10,530 posts)Helping the poor is a goal that most religions would acknowledge as within their mission, although not their main one; but atheism is not a religion and has no mission. Atheist organizations exist mainly to combat the discrimination that the author admits atheists suffer at the hands of the majority who "distrust" them. Does the author think the ACLU, NAACP, NOW, or gay rights activists should also devote more of their resources to helping the poor?
And on a per capita basis, I suspect atheists individually do just as much for the poor as the average religious person – I certainly think I do.
Is the 1% running short of other bases on which to try to divide us?
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)When the church starts acting morally, they can provide me guidance.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)beyond the idea that there is likely no God. There are atheists very involved in charity and movements towards making the country and world a better place. Some are exclusively atheist groups, while many more are involved in secular movements. There's no atheist fundamentalist group to call out. I'm not sure what group is getting criticised. There's no atheist Pope or Vatican calling the shots, or even a common book to point towards for atheist beliefs.
