Religion
Related: About this forumReligious Leaders On Same-Sex Marriage: “No One View Speaks For ‘Religion’”
by Jack Jenkins Posted on April 21, 2015 at 8:00 am
When the U.S. Supreme Court announced last November it would hear oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a same-sex marriage case scheduled to come before the Court next week, both opponents and supporters of marriage equality fired up their advocacy machines for what many legal analysts suspect will be a landmark ruling on LGBT rights. Predictably, a familiar flock of theologically conservative faith groups submitted amicus briefs legal documents sent to the Supreme Court that offer additional information for an upcoming case opposing the freedom to marry. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, longtime adversary of marriage equality, filed a brief rehashing old condemnations of same-sex relationships, as did a group claiming to represent Major Religious Organizations, which included the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest branch of Mormonism.
Meanwhile, a brief from the Family Research Council (FRC), a right-wing advocacy organization that often couches legal arguments in religious language, echoed a trope common among Christian conservatives: America is a Christian or at least religious nation, and since religion is supposedly inherently opposed to LGBT couples, Supreme Court justices should be too.
Believing that God is the author of life, liberty and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian world view as the basis for a just, free and stable society, the brief read. Consistent with its mission statement, FRC is committed to strengthening traditional [meaning opposite sex] families.
But even as this wave of anti-LGBT briefs makes its way to the desks of Supreme Court clerks, a number of religious groups are also submitting or signing on to briefs in support of same-sex marriage. The briefs, once cobbled together by a few progressive faith traditions, now brandish the names of thousands of historic Christian leaders and institutions, each voicing positions that challenge old religious views of homosexuality and highlight just how far Americas theological goal posts have shifted on the topic of same-sex marriage.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/21/3649064/thousands-religious-leaders-urge-supreme-court-protect-sex-marriage/
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Obergefell_v._Hodges
cbayer
(146,218 posts)nil desperandum
(654 posts)to see some people siding with those opposed to discrimination from a moral perspective.
The FRC has more in common with the WBC than they care to admit. It's about time they are exposed for that.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Thousands of leaders? Ok. How many progressive people do they represent versus the Christian jackals attacking these rights, right now in the Supreme Court?
Funny how these articles never really include any useful numbers at all.
And there are more than one kind of 'representation'. Catholics poll fairly supportive of issues like same sex marriage, but as long as they remain a part of the RCC proper, they are members of, and giving money to an org that is lobbying, campaigning, and suing against those individuals interests.
What's the signal to noise ratio here? I've been reading about limited numbers of Christians stepping up for civil rights for decades, but it's never been more than just background noise.
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/16/young-u-s-catholics-overwhelmingly-accepting-of-homosexuality/
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling
Assuming 80 million U.S Catholics, that is between 40 and 50 million supporters of civil same sex marriage in the U.S., counting only Catholics.
Your point here is what, precisely?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"as long as they remain a part of the RCC proper, they are members of, and giving money to an org that is lobbying, campaigning, and suing against those individuals interests".
That's my point. I can copy and paste it again if you need. Even though they may be in favor of same sex marriage personally, as individuals, and even as voters, they are still members of, and giving money to an org that is lobbying, campaigning, and suing against those individuals interests.
Bold. Italic. Red. I can add more formatting to assist.
rug
(82,333 posts)And? Is there anything more to it?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If I wanted to advocate safe storage, registration, and other gun control elements, it would be odd if I was willing to be a member of the NRA, since that would entail giving money to a political entity that actively works against my interests.
Catholics that are active members of the RCC are doing precisely that, if they personally hold the political view that SSM should be legal.
rug
(82,333 posts)Without its redeeming cuteness.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Because the RCC is a political entity. As such, it is actively lobbying, campaigning, and suing to block things like SSM.
Being a member, of a political entity that behaves like that, in the unique condition where base level members don't have any control over the leadership (the NRA members at least have the opportunity to vote for the board members, an improvement over the RCC) is actively working against one's own interests.
rug
(82,333 posts)Comparing it to the NRA means there's way too much brush to clear first. I'm not inclined to do that and you're not inclined to hear it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The NRA offers an array of non-political benefit as well, such as training, safety education, hunter courses, etc. Not drastically different from how the RCC offers other content besides its political activities. Content that can appeal to people on either side of the fence on X issue, (firearms access controls for the NRA, and SSM for the RCC.) and both orgs can and do contain people of either base political persuasion.
But none of that is why you don't want to make the comparison. You don't want to make the comparison because you don't have a leg to stand on, and the analogy is terrifyingly accurate, which is unusual as analogies/models in political discussions go.
rug
(82,333 posts)In fact, you make an excellent apologist for the NRA.
That said, the comparison is stupid and I have neither the time nor the inclination to demonstrate its stupidity.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you did, you'd know I'm an avid critic of the NRA. Have been for at least a decade. Hard to be an apologist for an org I refuse to be a member of, and consistently attack over easily demonstrable issue positions.
Pretend the comparison is wrong all you want. Let me know when you want to actually support your dismissal.
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Being a gun owner =|= NRA supporter.
rug
(82,333 posts)Having read his posts.
Maybe you should work on your own comprehension.
Now, monger, is there anything else you want to say?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Are you saying that he is lying about his support of the NRA?
Then, once you answer that, perhaps you want to actually go back and discuss the analogy and explain how giving your money to an organization that actively and enthusiastically supports, lobbies for, and sues to stop same sex marriage is somehow, in the bizzaro world you live in, NOT counterproductive for liberal catholics that support same sex marriage.
rug
(82,333 posts)This discussion is about religious support for civil same sex marriage.
I understand you far prefer meta shitfests to that but, que se dice?, tough shit.
And it remains a stupid analogy. Here's a hint. The NRA is a one issue entity.
Considering where you host, "bizarre world" takes on a whole new meaning.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)So let's skip the NRA stuff since it confuses you and gives you a sad.
How is it not counter-productive for liberal Catholics that support same-sex marriage being legal to give money and time to an organization that actively and effectively lobbies, supports, and sues to make sure same-sex marriage doesn't become legal?
rug
(82,333 posts)But I expect this will you.
What amount would you say goes from an attendee at a Sunday Mass to an explicitly political RC organization or PAC?
Take your time.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)More than zero.
Isn't that counterproductive?
rug
(82,333 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If every single liberal Catholic that supports same-sex marriage, stopped giving money to the RCC and gave it to a secular charity that helped the poor, how much of an impact would that have on the RCC and their ability to keep SSM illegal? Wouldn't that be more productive?
And it isn't surprising that once somebody actually brought you back on track to the topic you didn't want to discuss, you lose interest. You are far more transparent than you think you are.
rug
(82,333 posts)And it isn't surprising that once somebody actually asks you a question you didn't want to discuss, you say. "Who cares?". You are far more transparent than you think you are.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If every single liberal Catholic that supports same-sex marriage, stopped giving money to the RCC and gave it to a secular charity that helped the poor, how much of an impact would that have on the RCC and their ability to keep SSM illegal? Wouldn't that be more productive?
rug
(82,333 posts)See, you gave me a sadz.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)replaced. It could certainly eat into other church revenue, meaning, lobbying efforts.
That, or start closing local churches, for lack of funds.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The picture that emerges is not flattering. The churchs finances look poorly co-ordinated considering (or perhaps because of) their complexity. The management of money is often sloppy. And some parts of the church have indulged in ungainly financial contortions in some casesit is allegedboth to divert funds away from uses intended by donors and to frustrate creditors with legitimate claims, including its own nuns and priests. The dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy may not be typical of the church as a whole. But given the overall lack of openness there is no way of knowing to what extent they are outliers.
I'm pretty sure I know who to waterboard to find out, but I don't think you'd appreciate me doing it.
besides, waterboarding isn't very reliable either.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm sure you know where to go for assistance in doing it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)of a very obvious problem with the RCC's phantom finance structure.
In fact, I've already demonstrated your claim that 'money doesn't get shuffled around like that' is... how did you put it? Oh yes, "Bullshit".
You've made a claim that cannot possibly be defended. The Church has been struggling with accounting irregularities, lack of transparency, and other bookkeeping problems for decades. I can link you article after article about it. Have done so in the past, yet you pretend that dollar on the plate for candles doesn't in any way ever bolster the church's social activities, such as lobbying. You can't possibly support that.
I think that economist article speaks for itself.
(Waterboarding doesn't work as anything except punishment, that was a dark humor joke.)
rug
(82,333 posts)You brought up waterboarding.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"But this nonsense that even some old person putting a coin in a box to light a candle is complicit in oppression is complete bullshit."
That sounds an awful lot like you are saying money goes where it is intended to go. I linked you an article on in depth allegations that this is not the case, that money does get re-directed for other uses.
And as I said, the waterboarding thing was a bit of dark humor. I don't believe in torture because it is proven to get bad info. I will leave jokes like that out in the future, because it somehow doesn't come across with you. And that's fine, it doesn't always. If one has to explain a joke, it wasn't funny to begin with.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)and the RCC itself admits the books are not formulated in such a way as to enable anyone to actually look and find out.
Worse, there are credible accusations that this isn't just fog of accounting, but rather, by design.
And an amusing little coinky-dink for my NRA/RCC analogy; today an article in CNN broke the story that the NRA is doing the same shit, funning funds for XYZ purpose, to RNC candidates. Just food for thought.
(The NRA has always publicly disclosed money that goes to politicians whether R or D, based on their pro-gun-edness, though anyone who glanced at the numbers could tell, the split was not equal. This allegation is worse, redirecting funds from non-lobbying purposes, to lobbying, and again, biased to RNC candidates.)
rug
(82,333 posts)What I called bullshit on is how much of the political cash comes from the parishes and the ridiculous notion of individual complicity in corporate malfeasance.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That the prosperity of the individual is viewed as god's blessing in the first place, so giving it in tithe is giving it back to god, and misuse is a sin on the heads of the people in the church tasked with using it properly, not on the person who donated it.
Yet.
That admonition of course, comes from people who work for the church. It's a clever diversion.
I'd call it a great stinking scam, call it a day and walk away, except that money can and does get used for political purposes. So, fair game for things like boycotting, or withholding tithes. I know the very idea seems to outrage you, and that's cute and all, but it's an effective weapon against the "political and craven purposes" the church engages in. (Your words.)
Even if the RCC could actually prove that every single dollar donated at that level goes nowhere else, and used on nothing political, one could still induce alarm/pressure in the org to change, by withholding money. It would have to reverse cash flow from other activities, like lobbying, to local upkeep, or wither.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm not going to get into the weeds with you on whatever you want to call the various ways money moves from hands to church.
rug
(82,333 posts)I did see this, though:
Our church makes fresh donuts Sunday mornings that are available after the Sunday masses during the school year.
A pretty penny indeed! I will send them a stern letter immediately.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm on my cell. I'll find a better link later.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If the entire value of the tithe goes to the operations of the local church, then that is cost the upstream hierarchy of the church no longer has to pay, leaving it free to go lobby and campaign on issues.
Just because that dollar doesn't make it to the pope's desk, doesn't mean it doesn't offset or free up a dollar that does.
(and yes, the 'pope's desk' bit is a simplification for the ways and means money moves through the RCC structure, into the hands of lobbyists and lawyers operating at its behest.)
I'll refrain from calling it political money laundering, but... kinda looks like it.
rug
(82,333 posts)In particular, the accounts of the USCCB, if your immediate concern is the American church.
Here's a start: http://www.usccb.org/about/financial-reporting/
You'll have to dig further for a complete answer but this canard that the Papists are attempting to control the government is a hangover from the nineteenth century Nativists and the JFK campaign.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Really, copy/paste is disabled out of this file? Fuck you Adobe.
Ok then.
"Local legislative initiatives fund, 2010: 155,413, 2009: 155,413"
I'm going to assume that's salary/operating cost outlay for the people who actually disburse legislative dollars, because the USCCB spent $30,000 on the fight to keep Physician Assisted Suicide illegal in Washington state, that year. Pretty sure they didn't spend 19% of their budget on one issue in one state that year.
*eyeballs the 116 million in National Collections*
Next biggest chunk is government contracts, for income, and that's for services rendered. (outsourcing government social services to USCCB entities)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)How, exactly, is the NRA being a 'one issue entity' (your words, not mine) different from the RCC again?
Please be precise.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Can you name some examples?
rug
(82,333 posts)It promotes material charity, "the corporal works of mercy". It emphasizes the dignity of each human being, regardless of status, race or disability. It opposes capital punishment. It supports the cause of migrants and workers. It opposes the amassing of capital and exploitation of workers. It opposes the despoliation of the environment by industry. To name of few.
Here's a summary: http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/THE-COMMON-GOOD-AND-THE-CATHOLIC-CHURCH_1996.pdf
I suspect you'd agree with much of it, but for the bogeyman of religion.
Where it goes wrong, imo, particularly in the areas of gender, sexuality, and reproduction, is when it attempts to use its power and influence to direct legislation. This is no more than an attempt at forced social behavior.
There is no religious mandate for that. When the institutional Church attempts that, it can and should be opposed. In short, when they do that, they are ignoring "My kingdom is not of this world."
A boycott is not the solution, even were it viable.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Entity as well.
And that is precisely why I asked that question.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I have been plenty critical of the NRA here and on facebook. That's not even slightly funny for you to say.
rug
(82,333 posts)Nor do I stalk you.
Is it correct you are an avid supporter of gun rights and that you support the NRA's position in that?
Because you don't have to be a member to be a defender.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is actually directly leading into my comparison of the NRA and the RCC.
I am a 'believer' in the sense that I am a gun owner/enthusiast.
I diverge from the largest organized institution for that 'belief' in that I am a strong supporter of a wide variety of gun restrictions and legal penalties for misuse. Rather than hold my nose and become a member of that org to access certain benefits that membership entails, I go my own way, and work with groups that are in keeping with my values.
It would be of measurable benefit to me, personally, to be a member of the NRA. The NRA has a political and non-political wing, and the non-political wing has a lock on access to liability insurance providers, gun ranges, hunter safety education which is REQUIRED by state law to obtain a hunting permit, etc. However, I refuse to be a member of an org that holds some of the political positions that the NRA holds. There is not enough benefit in the world to cause me to violate my principles.
And that is, again, a tidy map to the comparison I made earlier. The RCC holds access to certain benefits, does it not? To a believer along the lines of the catholic faith, membership has its benefits.
But to access those benefits, one must hold their nose and become a member of a political org that continually stonewalls and attacks legal recognition of same sex marriage worldwide.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you support its definition?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If you'd taken time to read my previous post, I detailed many ways in which I not only diverge, but specifically attack them.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Easy enough to determine who is right if we can see links.
rug
(82,333 posts)See it? Now use it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)First post:
The NRA is schizophrenic. It has two wings. One is a functional, rational, single-issue entity that seeks to keep Americans armed and capable/competent. The other wing is a bat-shit insane political entity that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. It really hurts their credibility, I think, but on this particular issue, the NRA as a firearm safety advocate, is on the correct side of the issue, and the accidental gunshot/death rate decline over the last 50 years reflects it.
Boy, I'm really defending it there.
I don't see how that's supporting the NRA. (Discussion WRT Heller vs. DC.)
Third link I point out the value of the NICS background check system, which the NRA actually supported the passage of (Brady Bill). Not really an endorsement of the NRA, rather, an endorsement of NICS, which is not the NRA's legislation. I pointed out one of the times the NRA did something beneficial in the area of gun control, to piss off the poster of the OP.
Etc.
You got some search results that show me actually supporting the NRA?
rug
(82,333 posts)Is that a denunciation?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Did you really just try that? Wow. Feeble.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"The RCC holds access to certain benefits, does it not? To a believer along the lines of the catholic faith, membership has its benefits."
There, I even quote mined the shit out of it for you.
Membership in the RCC has non-political benefits for believers. (I didn't define them specifically because I didn't want to quibble on minutiae, so I simply acknowledged it. I defined some specifics about the NRA because you seem to disagree with the comparison) That's a thing that believers clearly desire access to.
Now, I will copy and paste that paragraph with a slight change to illustrate ways in which the two entities are alike:
Membership in the NRA has non-political benefits for gun owners. That's a thing that gun owners clearly desire access to.
None of this is a positive endorsement or defense of the NRA or the RCC.
rug
(82,333 posts)Is that the best "favorable data point" you can muster?
Look at the picture in the OP if you need help.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I see. Tell me more.
I didn't specify the exact nature of the benefits because I am not as intimately familiar with them, being an outsider. I can only relate what I have observed, and to restate those things opens the door to quibbling about the nature of the benefits.
Suffice to say, people of the catholic faith have an interest in being members of the church, yes?
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You're putting me in the uncomfortable position of enjoying mocking you, while being uncomfortable that I might be perceived as mocking Fr. Greg Reynolds, which is not the case. I have a great deal of respect for him, taking one for the team on progressive issues, and getting thrown out of the RCC for it.
I think that illustrates the desire for believers in the catholic faith to be members of the church, without delving into the nuts and bolts of why. Will you accept that comparison?
rug
(82,333 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma_(magazine)
To quote myself, "There's a bit more to it than that."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121895534#post1
Yes, he is a supporter of gay causes but he was excommunicated for giving Communion to a dog, among other things.
To avoid anyone's discomfort, I will restrain from commenting on the progressive aspects of giving Communion to dogs.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)http://ncronline.org/news/global/australian-priest-advocate-womens-ordination-excommunicated
BTW, the type of excommunication involved, latae sententiae, is an automatic one, not the result of a church trial. It is a declaration by a diocese that someone has removed himself from communion with the church by an action.
It is not an expulsion per se but an acknowledgement that someone has left the RCC. I would imagine that you applaud that.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)is different from what the archbishop said.
rug
(82,333 posts)As did Henry VIII.
Theologcally speaking, they may have been, but not ecclesiastically..
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Though the Melbourne archbishop and others have characterized the group's liturgies as "illicit" on several occasions, Harts criticism of Reynolds liturgies did not reference the dog incident."
You said:
To avoid anyone's discomfort, I will restrain from commenting on the progressive aspects of giving Communion to dogs."
Except that not only does he deny having anything to do with it, the archbishop said nothing about that alleged incident when he suggested 'illicit' liturgies.
That looks like a cheap smear. You said that was why, 'among other things'. Please support that claim.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)He didn't offer the dog communion. Allowing the dog at the altar was his error. Seems harsh to consign a man to excommunication (does that translate to eternal damnation according to Catholic doctrine?) for showing a pet owner a small kindness.
rug
(82,333 posts)Read up on him.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Throwing him out for supporting equality for women instead of supporting same sex marriage doesn't help your position any, I don't think.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Did you read your entire source?
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And you can see that in the board of directors they elected.
If not for Ted Nugent, they'd probably be blaming rock music too.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101792706
Fucking shame on me. Look at that misspelling.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I keep clicking through these search results, not finding a lot of these posts you claim to have read wherein I defend the NRA.
You 'bout ready to walk that accusation back?
rug
(82,333 posts)How long were yo a member of the NRA?
And if you're going to defend yourself, know the accusation.
You do not need to be a member to support the NRA's position on gun rights.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I quit for the reasons I specified. Because of the NRA's political activities.
In doing so I gave up access to a lot of non-political resources that are of interest to me, but it was worth it.
Basically I walked the talk, when being a member of an entity that engages in political lobbying and lawsuits did things I didn't agree with, I withdrew my financial support, my membership, and I sought greener pastures even at personal cost.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I agree membership isn't required to support the NRA's positions. That's why I linked you a bunch of other posts where I also detail specifically how I differ from the NRA on items inclusive of 'gun rights' positions.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And another
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014377486#post7
"fuck the NRA"
lol
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Oh look!
The ad hominem attack....clearly demonstrating you know you're out of ammo and have lost the argument but won;t back down.
Ego? Fear?
Oh yeah... it "too stupid". Which must also be a synonym for "accurate" in Rugspeak.
rug
(82,333 posts)Albert, why do you have such a dim view of his sincerely held belief?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Are you feeling all right today?
rug
(82,333 posts)Although I was posting in haste earlier. I had to go to my daughter's lacrosse game.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Huh?
Who "he"?
The Pope?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)AC doesn't support the NRA because he's a liberal who disagrees with their goals.
So why do liberal catholics who claim to be pro-lgbt/women's rights still support the church?
rug
(82,333 posts)unless you prefer indirect, unchallenged passive-aggression.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Why do liberal catholics who claim to be are pro-lgbt/women's rights still support the church?
rug
(82,333 posts)Because the RCC is more than a one issue entity.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But this nonsense that even some old person putting a coin in a box to light a candle is complicit in oppression is complete bullshit.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Basically the 'man sauce' leaves you hurting for 1 day, for every tablespoon you eat. It's not a happy formula.
I'm not going to follow you into casual humor dismissal though. This is a serious issue. The RCC is heavily involved in lobbying against gay rights, against basic health care for women, not just in the US, but worldwide. This is as serious as it gets for our generation.
The RCC actively lobbies, nationally and locally, to block same sex marriage. It has to stop. Dropping membership, and denying it revenue is certainly one way to tackle the problem.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I think the "no authority" argument is weak as the Vatican not only gets face time with world leaders, but holds at least some (sometimes much) authority with parishioners to vote the church's conscience.
rug
(82,333 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Or is the hierarchy integral to Catholicism?
rug
(82,333 posts)In Catholic theology, they are the means of the transmission of the sacraments and are, as you say, integral to Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
That doesn't prevent them from being used for political and craven purposes.
It was much worse a thousand years ago when simony was rampant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony#Catholic_church
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)While I might agree that simony is less rampant in today's church, the potential for exploiting parishioners remains. Do you think members are somewhat less gullible today than they were back in the day?
rug
(82,333 posts)Catholics may come and go, as this thread demonstrates, but the RCC explicitly states its teachings are based on scripture and tradition.
But I do not agree either that Catholics are exploited by the Church (for what reason?) or that they are gullible. Those are condescending and unsupported views. I don't think the 57% of Catholics who are Democrats are gullible.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)The authority of the church can play on people's gullibility. I am not making the claim that religious people are more gullible than the general population, but take the antivax folks, for example. I would assume there is a fair representation of that sort of mindset in the church. And yes, I do think the church is in a position to exploit that mindset. You've demonstrated that you're aware that parishioners have been exploited by the church in the past. I don't share your certainty that it isn't happening and/or won't happen again. That would take more faith than I possess.
rug
(82,333 posts)So, in that sense, I'd say Catholics are less gullible, although a more precise phrase is less deferential. The Church's suthority is actually quite limited.
For the record the RCC is not anti-vaccine.
pinto
(106,886 posts)These look to be from Dignity New York. There are about 45 chapters nationwide -
https://www.dignityusa.org/chapters
nil desperandum
(654 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If one of them means remaining a member of an organization that actively lobbies to suppress gay rights, you might not be supporting gay rights.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I don't give money to any part of an organization that goes around hurting people in the courts, with lobbyists, and with proposed pet legislation.
Wish you would do the same. Not like there aren't similar churches that could substitute. I understand the Episcopalians are on the right side of the major issues we've been talking about.
rug
(82,333 posts)If and when you post anything bearing a semblance to truth, I'll let you know if it hurts.
I'll light a, no, two candles for you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)In any event, the nose doesn't lie.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I wear a lot of hats in my line of work, and one of them is supporting corporate finance.
So, got a pretty good nose for financial bullshit myself.
rug
(82,333 posts)I bet there's a lot of financial chicanery in there but not the type you think.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I also happened to have historical context around the I-1000 fight in WA, and I highly doubt they spent 19% of their lobbying monies on that one issue for one year.
Then again, maybe Michael Douglas's principles aren't violated cheaply. Hard to say.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)To witness someone respond to almost every post in a thread while saying nothing. And they say miracles don't happen.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I mean, not really, but gold star for trying