MellowDem
MellowDem's JournalYes, all Americans do, however indirectly
But leaving the Catholic Church is a whole lot easier than leaving a country, and guess what, you still would be under some other form of government. You can choose to leave religion completely if you'd like, you can't with governments, and all governments do bad things obviously, but you don't get to choose to live in anarchy.
Comparing leaving a church with leaving a country is a terrible analogy. Quite a few people don't have the resources to leave the country, even if they wanted to. The barrier to exiting the country is several hundred times greater than leaving a church.
And yes, as an American, I do indeed help validate and empower my government, however indirectly, though as I said before, I have far less of a choice in the matter than with religion, and the barriers are far greater.
It's the ease with which one can come and go with religion that makes it less justifiable to remain a member of one that you fundamentally disagree with. At the very least, it's pretty intellctually dishonest.
And at least with the US government I can vote against certain policies. Most religions don't even give you that.
Then you don't know what bigotry is....
It's a perfectly legitimate opinion to claim that those who choose to continue to be members of homophobic and misogynist institutions are enabling them, however indirectly.
Catholics support and validate the Catholic Church...
by continuing to be members. There's no way around that. And as others have pointed out, you don't get to choose where you are born, you do get to choose your religion or lack thereof (obviously, most people were indoctrinated as children, but still, you can leave as an adult).
It's more akin to being a moderate member of the Republican Party, complaining about the leadership but still voting and giving money to the Party. The only difference being that there are a whole lot more choices for you in terms of religions you can choose from than political parties, ones that actually fit one's value system.
The same book from which some interpret liberation theology....
says all sorts of nasty things as well. I know religious people can be quite liberal, but again I'll compare it to libertarians. Libertarians agree with liberals on quite a few policy issues, but the reason why is very different, and is glaringly so when it comes to other policies they disagree on. Religious people have been on the forefront of reform movements and the forefront of opposing reform. I mean, there really were few "out" non-religious people for most of history, and that is only changing in the last couple decades.
Religious people who want to help the poor because they believe God told them to do it will tend to do things very differently than if you're doing it because you have empathy for others and think society works best and has the most happiness when there is equal opportunities and less poverty.
So you can have a Pope that wants to help the poor, in his own way, which unfortunately includes lies about condoms, encouraging archaic gender roles and no birth control, etc. etc. Or Mother Teresa, who only wanted to care for the poverty stricken, not get them out of poverty, much less challenge the system that created it. And of course, the Pope will also be against gay marriages or equality for women, because the same book that tells him to help the poor also tells him those other things.
I agree the membership of the Catholic Church believes little that the leadership preaches, but the membership supports and validates the leadership for as long as they are members, there is no way around that.
Skinner congratulating DU Catholics for the new Pope...
really depresses me. It shows that religion (Catholicism especially) gets a pass on this site like no other philosophy does. I can't imagine anyone here, much less Skinner, congratulaing anyone for the appointment of a misogynist, homophobic leader to a new position without getting some serious hell for it.
Why does it get a pass? Is it just because it's considered so mainstream? Is it just a cynical way to make the DU tent bigger? I don't get it.
Skepticism of religion...
might intimidate religious people because it reveals their insecurities about their beliefs. But criticism and skepticism are not intended to intimidate, they're intended to find the truth, and that's scary for many religious believers. I know, I was once one myself (because I was indoctrinated in it as a child), and I would never question things that didn't make sense because it scared me, and others who did were intimidating, but only because of my own fear, of hell, of there not being a heaven, of dealing with the social consequences of not believing etc. etc., not because of the person themselves.
Believers, especially who subscribe to specific religions, will find their beliefs challenged on DU because it's a discussion forum and those beliefs often contradict liberal ideals. You may find it intimidating, but it's just discussion.
I have no problem with "believers" in general, but many believers subscribe to specific religions that lay out their belief system quite clearly, and those beliefs are in direct contradiction to liberal values many on here hold. I have no problem pointing out this contradiction and the cognitive dissonance it requires.
Non-believers usually don't think humans have all the answers.... so I'm not sure what "elitism" you are talking about. Religious belief, on the other hand, claims to have all the answers, even objective truths. True faith requires no humility. Believing in objective truths based on no evidence is arrogant.
Exactly
You'd think these DUers would be congratulating evangelicals for the appointment of someone like Fred Phelps to some position. They just don't get it.
And worst, they blame "prejudice" when people criticize the stated beliefs of their belief system.
I can only assume it's the only way the can deal with the cognitive dissonance of being a liberal and a member of a bigoted homophobic, misogynist organization.
The very definition of faith...
is the opposite of critical thinking. If a person believes some unproveable or non-falsifiable belief based on critical thought and reasoning, then the reasoning must be pretty poor, and maybe they are relying on very bad evidence. The Creation Museum is a good example of critical thought and reasoning, of a sort, being used to "prove" a belief. But then, that's not faith.
I don't understand how you can say the vast majority of self-identified believers are not the product of childhood indoctrination. Nearly all of them have the same beliefs they were raised on, down to the denomination. That's not a coincidence. Telling a child that God exists, as though it were a fact, is indoctrination. Churches do full-time indoctrination, except for maybe a couple here and there, like the Unitarians.
Community, social pressure, family tradition, threats of hell, promises of heaven, etc. etc. are the real reasons many people continue to identify as believers, even while not believing much of their own belief system.
It's how people who are professed liberals and have thought about their political values intently can still identify with a belief system that is entirely against many of the values they think about. Because they don't actually think about or believe in the many facets of their own belief system, much less the specific parts they don't believe and that conflict with their values, or the large amount of cognitive dissonance, even while identifying with the belief system, validating it, supporting it, even continuing it through their own children.
It's why I and others are dismayed when Skinner offers congratulations for the appointment of a homophobic, misogynist religious leader. It makes absolutley no logical sense, it's just a traditional break religion gets and represents some cognitive dissonance.
"Goodness" has nothing to do with faith...
and no, I don't use faith from the time I arise in the morning. I rely on evidence of various sorts, some good, some poor no doubt. And considering the vast majority of the "faithful" only get that way through childhood indoctrination, it shows why it's a dangerous way to think. Faith lacks any sort of critical thinking. Gullibility is dangerious, and faith is gullibility on steroids. It's why religion gets em young. Young children lack the capacity to critically think. It's a form of child abuse to indoctrinate your child in anything, but with religion it's seen as just fine because of "tradition".
I'm not making a truth claim (unlike religion). I'm stating a preference. I prefer ways of thinking that require logic and evidence rather than faith.
It's why someone who works for 30 years with lepers could also believe that women caused original sin and homosexual marriage is the work of the devil and not bat an eye.
K&R
Seriously, I am sorry you have another homophobic, misogynist Pope. We'll all suffer as a result, Catholic and non-Cathlic alike.
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Jul 24, 2008, 05:59 PMNumber of posts: 5,018
