Vatican to debate teachings on divorce, birth control, gay unions

[Kelvin Mace]

66. Again, not comparable

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Sexism was rampant in the anti Vietnam War movement even absent an overarching institution.

Hypocrisy in an anti-war movement would be to advocate war as a means of achieving your anti-war goals. Sexism, while deplorable, would not be hypocritical in an anti-war movement. It would be hypocritical in a civil rights movement.

That said, there was NEVER an institutional anti-war movement in the same way that there were "pro-war " institutions (The War Department, the U.S. Navy, Army, Air Force and Marines, the State Department, etc. Arguably the Peace Corps would count as an anti-war institution were it not for the deep suspicion that it was simply a propaganda arm of the pro-war U.S. government).

American Atheists, Incorporated (would you consider that an atheist institution?) opposed the Star of David on a Holocausr Memoorial in Ohio less than a year ago.

Once again, a group of people setting themselves up as an atheist organization does not in any way mean they speak for all atheists. The Catholic Church, especially the Pope, speaks for, and makes the rules for, ALL Catholics, since being Catholic involves agreeing to be subject to the rules, dogmas, leaders and teachings of the Church. Once you disagree with that view, you are subject to expulsion from the Church, denial of sacraments, and, according to dogma, eternal damnation.

The actions of this particular group of atheists is boorish, stupid, and non-sensical, rather than hypocritical. They believe, and arguably are, cleaving to their view that religion has no business in a "public" facility. This view is illogical since the religion, specifically Judaism, was a key reason for the Holocaust in the first place, and therefore entirely appropriate contextually to history, and thus a museum of history.

I disagree with their action. The penalty for my disagreeing with them (or conversely their disagreeing with me), is purely academic. One atheist (or atheist group) disagreeing with another atheist (or atheist group) rarely, if ever, has any repercussion on life, limb or liberty.

An atheist disagreeing with a religious faction, or a disagreement among religious factions on the other hand, has ALL of those potential repercussions.

Certainly, anyone can be a hypocrite to their beliefs. However, the hypocrisy of institutions is a different matter, since an ethical person who is a member of that institution must call out that hypocrisy and risk retaliation up to, and including, death. A policeman who points out lawbreaking within the law enforcement institution risks a bullet in the back. A minister who disagrees on racial equality risks having his church burnt to the ground or lynching at the hands of his fellow believers.

The impetus to this discussion was the actions of individual Catholics in regard to the hypocrisy of their Church's actions as an institution acting in their name. I stated that it was this hypocrisy that drove me from the church (since I could not be part of their unethical and immoral acts in contradiction to their professed teachings) and embracing of atheism. Atheism has no "institutions" thus there can be no "institution" that can legitimately claim to speak for me. By rejecting the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church, I chose to remove myself from the institution rather than be expelled/disciplined according to their rules. Most importantly, by leaving and repudiating the institution, its teachings and beliefs, I denied them the right to speak for me.

Within atheism, there is no "institutional hypocrisy" since there is no actual institution as there is with Catholicism, or indeed Christianity as a whole. My repudiation of the ignorant actions/beliefs of a particular atheist, or group of atheists, does not preclude my being an atheist. whereas my repudiation of ignorant actions/beliefs within the Catholic Church, or indeed the vast majority of Christian sects, precludes my belonging to those institutions.

Yet when some in a given community act and speak as if they are the face of that community they will in short order be seen as representative of that community.

The Pope, along with the cardinals, bishops, etc, ARE the LEADERS of that community, in fact. There is no ambiguity.

There is no "Pope of atheism" or equivalent.