March 20, 2013

The tent where...

people who choose to assoicate themselves with a belief system they and DU fundamentally disagree with will be called out for their cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

March 20, 2013

A country isn't a belief system...

You don't have belief in a country. To be a citizen of a country you don't have to agree or believe in any of the statements the government puts forth or that are written down in its founding documents.

To be a member of a religious belief system, you do have to believe the belief system. Which is why those that identify with a religion while disagreeing with the belief system are engaging in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, while citizens that disagree with the ruling government are not.

March 20, 2013

For people who are concerned...

with being intellectually honest with themselves and not engaging in cognitive dissonance, UU is a good choice.

March 20, 2013

Right....

being a member of a belief system is the same as being a citizen of a country. The process of leaving one religion and going to another is the same as leaving one country and going to another. We get it, your analogies have no basis in reality.

March 20, 2013

And yet....

they continue to identify with and support a belief system they fundamentally disagree with.

That's called cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty.

March 20, 2013

It's not from an "atheist's" viewpoint...

but from any rational, honest viewpoint, people who choose to identify with organizations that have official bigoted positions are providing validation and support, however indirectly. Islam is quite different in that there are many different sects without one overarching heirarchy like the Catholic Church, but Muslims that support sects that have bigotry as their official position are supporting and validating that bigotry, yes.

March 20, 2013

Which means that...

we can't criticize liberals for being a part of the NRA or other conservative organizations according to your impeccable analogy.

March 20, 2013

It's also not Catholic bashing...

to criticize Catholics for choosing to identify with a bigoted organization. It's perfectly relevant criticsm.

March 20, 2013

I perfectly understand...

having been raised religious and involved in my local church from a very young age. I engaged in all sorts of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance to stay in my church for a long time, because it was tradition, it was community, it was familiar, it was comfortable.

I'm not suggesting or telling people to leave the Catholic Church (or any other religions), people will do what they do. I'm trying to change the perspective of those who choose to remain with a religion they fundamentally disagree with.

Plenty of Catholics HAVE left the Catholic Church, just to rejoin other churches that still provide them with that same sense of community they had before AND also have official positions that align with their beliefs. And plenty of Protestants have done the with their churches.

So why not then individual local parishes "secede" from the Church? That way, some might say, the social structure of the parish is kept intact but it is free from the control of the dysfunction of the heirarchy. Well, I hate to tell you, but that's not going to work, either. Besides the fact it would be incredibly burdensome to do logistically, having countless little splinter churches out there that run the risk of diluting the Catholic identity, especially when it comes to faith doctrine and matters of liturgy. People would quickly lose interest. Despite all its misgivings, the heirarchy does serve some useful function in creating a sense of cohesion, nothwithstanding all its other problems.

You see, it HAS worked. That's what the Protestant reformation worked. Of COURSE individual parishes could secede. The whole Episcopalian Church has broke away from the Anglican Church. The Methodist Church is schisming over gay marriage as we speak. You complain about "diluting the Catholic identity" while simultaneously saying there IS no Catholic identity, all the members have different beliefs and quite a few disagree with the fundamental beliefs of the heirarchy. And people don't quickly lose interest, UNLESS the only reason they were part of the church to begin with was for very superficial reasons (not related to the beliefs or community). The heirarchy DOES create a sense of cohesion, but of course that's what's causing so many Catholics to leave, because they don't identify with the heirarchy.

Essentially, people who choose to go to a church and stay in the church only because of the tradition and community it provides (and that is exactly what you're talking about), even while opposing the fundamental beliefs of the belief system, are engaging in cognitive dissonace and intellectual dishonesty.

When they choose to identify with an organization that is fundamentally bigoted and actively working to spread that bigotry, they are making a trade off. Sure, they may be identifying with and supporting indirectly a bigoted organization, BUT they like the tradition and community the organization provides to them personally. But quite a few on here won't admit that that is exactly the trade off they are making. There are plenty of ways to try to rationalize away identifying and supporting a bigoted organization, and we've seen quite a few in your post.

You can say that you don't identify with the heirarchy, just your local organization. You could say that local organizations can't survive without the heirarchy. These are not good rationalizations. They don't refute the fact that people are identifying with, and, in some indirect ways, supporting an organization that spreads homophobia and misogyny in a trade off for tradition and community. There ARE other ways to have tradition and community.

It seems some would rather like to cover their ears and pretend this wasn't the case. Or just scream "bigot!" nonsensically at anyone who points out these inconvenient facts, attacking the messenger so to speak. Religion has gotten a pass for a VERY long time, as a matter of tradition and community, but it shouldn't. Yes, liberals who identify with a bigoted organization, religious or not, are engaging in cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty of some sort, and pointing that out isn't bigoted.

March 20, 2013

Hispanics vote Democratic more than whites...

is what you're really saying. Catholic whites reflect the general population very well.

All of which is irrelevant to the point that liberals are identifying with bigoted institutions and somehow think they should be above criticism because it's a religious institution. Or they are completely overreacting, taking relevant criticism as a personal attack on their morality or questioning their liberal values.