Message to Pope from me: Seriously, stop saying things.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_POPE_AFRICA?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This shit doesn't really help.

nothing against the papacy as an institution, but fuck this dude imo

this^

The papacy as an institution = the Pope is god's (inerrant?) representative on earth.

this makes me so fucking angry

the papacy as institution can go fuck itself as well tbh, without that authority far fewer people would give a shit what this evil lunatic has to day

*say

i really owe my parents a phone call but i may just have to wait a few more days b/c if this subject comes up...

...they'll tell you not to use condoms?

like, has the church just spent the last 45 years getting cold feet?

xpost lex's dad is the pope, didn't you know?

why is "have a responsible attitude towards sex" put into a false binary with "use condoms" by these people

http://s5.tinypic.com/28bbgrb.jpg

the pope need to get laid maaaaaan

dear papacy: less insane ramblings, more funny hats

STEP BACK ARETHA

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BB2CEUhgSSY/ScCDPNP8loI/AAAAAAAAEb8/kf0kAWBrZXU/s1600-h/b16biya.jpg

i like that van dyke parks line, 'if you don't play the game, don't make the rules'

People are not analyzing this rationally. Without strict adherence to religious dogma, the Pope doesn't have a job.

One hopes that Africans receive his words like the Italians, who nod, kiss the ring and then do what they want.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/pope.jpg
bareback yall feels great!

ew

"Om nomi nom you don't wear trousers to go swimming in perpetua mori"...

is this about the condom thing? not really surprising or a big deal tbh, this is what we can expect any pope to say ever

still retarded but acting like this is some bomb he just dropped on us is come on

Surprising, no. Big deal, hell to the yes.

given the church's whole position on sex there's really nothing else he can say

yeah, it's like being shocked that the NY Times is a tool of the corporate-industrial complex, instead of the lefty bastion your parents claimed it was.

^ both posts. how do you guys think you get to be pope? progressive modern views on everyday life?

you know, the Church's views on nonsexual issues are pretty "left".

in theory, i guess they are.

yeah, kinda like Obama's, only the Church runs more charities. srsly, WTF

you do know they distribute food and medicine, right? "in theory"

no, i wasn't aware of that! thanks! what else does the roman catholic church do that i might not have heard about?

hand out free crackers and booze every sunday

no cheese with the crackers, wine watered down.

there's usu old ladies in church basement who have free cookies you guys.

they seem to have come around to evolution i.e. "apologizing" for "misunderstanding" Darwin and all.

maybe one day they'll apologize for being dicks about condom use. won't hold my breath because it might be 150+ years (if ever) for that to happen, too

there is more here to be offended about then the condom issue.

yeah like creepy Pope Undead III

yeah i think they should just refrain from making too many huge statements to the int'l press when it's pretty obv that their policies and would cause many million people's deaths, and their ideas on the subjest prob already have in their trickle down...not trying to be polemic, but i don't understand how we should just be like Eh well that's the pope fer ya. and i don't know how he or anyone could, in their own mind, reconcile the likely consequences of their (vocal, powerful) position on some arcane biblical passages about prophylactics against everything else the church strives to stand for (except by completely writing off human nature).

(except by completely writing off human nature)

welcome to "how do I answer my own question" town, population: you

but it's not "arcane biblical passages" it's their entire position on sex/life/reproduction. i mean yeah disagree with it all you want but the bottom line is that they can't say anything else.

It's so funny to me that the Americans tend to be like, "Well, whacha gonna do? Religious people be occasionally crazy" whereas the Brits and EUs freak the heck out about public statements of religion/stupidity. I wonder what it's like to think that crazy people are crazy, instead of assuming that normal people are crazy until proven otherwise.

Fools follow rules when the set commands ya
Said it was blue
When the blood was red
That's how ya got a bullet blasted through ya head!
blasted through ya head blasted through ya head
I give a shout out to the living dead!!!!!

Just victims of the in-house drive-by
They say jump, you say how high
Just victims of the in-house drive-by
They say jump, you say how high

i mean yeah disagree with it all you want but the bottom line is that they can't say anything else.

but in this case, its the spreading of misinformation that condoms are actually dangerous (i know we can parse their twisted logic but not everyone will) that is infuriating. in the quote in the article it's as though he has positioned the church's issues with promiscuity/wasted seed (ugh, sorry) or whatever so as to conflate them with the AIDS epidemic -- now both under the umbella term "the problem." that's indefensible. it's a complete 180 of logic to say that condoms, presumably by encouraging promiscuity, contribute to the problem, when in fact the net effect is indisputably the opposite. essentially, they see their "moral problem" with condom use and extra-marital sex as being more imp than the "actual problem" that the lives of millions are at stake, which is not just the height of narcissism and fundamentalism run amok, but seems so totally out of whack with what id imagine the big J would advise. then again, not a xtian scholar or anything.

yeah like creepy Pope Undead III

http://www.dethklok.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ravenwood-thumb.jpg

thing is why would people follow the don't use condoms rule if they're not following the no extra-marital shagging rule?

is one less likely to enter you to heaven than the other?

haha "enter you into heaven" was not some euphemism

But, if it was...

Laurel otm. sometimes i think it would be helpful if our elected officials had more balls and were like "hey, we stand by the 1st ammendment and we're not here to tell you what to beleive, separation of church & state etc, but ummm, this is really irresponsible and dangerous and scientifically unsound. please use crazy with caution. thx"

alas, so many of these folks are fucking crazy, too. Even the "normal" ones.

I think Joey Ratz' unstated rationale is the security provided by 'safer sex' will encourage commission of the sin of sex outside marriage, hence endangering more people's immortal souls, which are by definition more important than their lives.

Considering the Catholic Church is generally okay with abortions if carrying to term would endanger the life of the mother, you'd think they might bend a little in the face of a massive AIDS epidemic.

ok taking a look again at the specific quote it is weird and he is way wrong (tho i would like to see the full statement). the "right" thing to say is really that the church's position on this stuff was not constructed with something like HIV in mind--it's really consistent with regard to sex/life/reproduction but yeah it's pretty useless in the face of this epidemic.

generally okay with abortions if carrying to term would endanger the life of the mother

Really? I'm kind of surprised, altho I guess if they keep her alive she can stay Catholic and maybe have some future children who will be raised Catholic.

a plague epidemic is "god, testing yuo"

see their "moral problem".......as being more imp than the "actual problem"

well, i mean, yeah. not trying to conflate with what's already being said, but this is the pope. he believes in an immortal soul, and he believes (presumably) that straying from church doctrine in these affairs endangers it. assuming this to be the case, the moral problem is logically his top priority.

The monsignor at my '70s parish said the docs had to do "their best" to save both mother and child; I really doubt this has changed.

xxp

regarding abortion in the case of possible risk to the mother, see the recent case in brazil- young teen mother is ok to stay in church, doctor and the girl's mother excommunicado.

The solution lay, he said, in a "spiritual and human awakening" and "friendship for those who suffer".

Where to begin?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/03/11/brazil.rape.abortion/index.html?eref=rss_health

The Catholic Church even wants 9 year old rape victims to carry their babies to term, even though delivering would likely kill this poor child.

yeah Matt, "bending a little" is not something the Holy See does quickly except (sodomy joke here)

yeah i guess i hadnt really accounted for the precedence of the immortal soul in his way of thinking. xxxxp

(except by completely writing off human nature)

welcome to "how do I answer my own question" town, population: you

― Wes HI DEREson (HI DERE), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:29 AM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ha yes this seems to be where catholic church finds meaning in life

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/martin.condoms/index.html

I like how this rebuttal is both exactly right and wrong in some blatant places, like here:

Folks, there is nothing in the Bible about wearing a seat belt. But it would be foolish of any pastor not to tell his or her members to use the safety device when driving. Churches all across the country trust and love their fellow members, but you can bet that an accountant is employed by many churches to ensure that no one is stealing the tithes and offerings.

This is a terrible analogy because there is nothing in the Bible where God goes around telling people that they should not drive until they have gone through a ceremony where they ask for God to bless the union between themselves and their cars. Driving is not a sin, ergo the Bible says nothing about seat belts. Extramarital sex is a sin, though.

I think where the church falls down here is in forgetting to acknowledge that people sin all the time and GOD FORGIVES THEM FOR IT. You have not committed a greater sin by using a condom during extramarital sex; it's all tied up in the "extramarital sex" bit. If you're willing to commit the earthly act, you need to be willing to protect yourself from the earthly consequences, then realign with your spiritual center (ie, go to confessional or whatever your denomination's equivalent is). Sometimes it seems that Christianity has gotten so tied up in emulating God's perfection that it has forgotten that it is an impossible task and that the primary role of the clergy is to reassure people that, even though they are imperfect, they will still get to Heaven (usually with the "if you put in a little effort in the form of donating a sizable chunk of yr income to the church" rider).

Perhaps Africa needs more paedophile priests to put people off sex.

Do people really think everyone who is completely ignoring the Pope on everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality is paying attention to him on the "don't use condoms" policy?

I think the worry is that the ones who aren't using condoms already will be able to latch onto this and say "oh well, at least I'm not sinning with THIS".

OK, so say you are living w/ Girlfriend.

If you went to confession and say you did extramarital sex w/condom, and counted 20 used ones, would the bishop add extra pennance for your sin of pride?

maybe if you showed them to him

Not me: 1) Married 2) Not Catholic.

Do people really think everyone who is completely ignoring the Pope on everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality is paying attention to him on the "don't use condoms" policy?

The problem is that their extreme beliefs shape policy: both their OWN policy in terms of missions and relief efforts and putting their weight behind efforts that might be GOOD for people, and also in terms of various governments' unwillingness to DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the Catholic church even in cases where they shouldn't/don't have an official vote.

same generic "you" that (specific) you used, Mark

but my "you" was general, but your "you" you used in specific reply was to me.

OK, time for a "You, five times in a row" thread.

'you, five times in a row' is my favourite pick up line.

you, five times in a row, no condom (it's a sin)

no condom (it's a sin)

more xtian funk band song title ideas pls

pols are loath to contradict religions for the same reason they namecheck Springsteen.

(except by completely writing off human nature)
ha yes this seems to be where catholic church finds meaning in life

You know the line in The African Queen where Kate Hepburn's missionary says "Nature is what we are meant to rise above"? That's the MO.

btw if the Church hadn't scared me into being a celibate teenager I might be long dead, given the doors my appetites would likely have opened.

(ie, just before the mysterious 'gay cancer' started appearing)

is this about the condom thing? not really surprising or a big deal tbh, this is what we can expect any pope to say ever

― moonship journey to 51 (k3vin k.), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:07 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

still retarded but acting like this is some bomb he just dropped on us is come on

― moonship journey to 51 (k3vin k.), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:08 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Surprising, no. Big deal, hell to the yes.

― legendary North American forest ape (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:08 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

given the church's whole position on sex there's really nothing else he can say

― He grew in Pussyville. Population: him. (call all destroyer), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:09 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah, it's like being shocked that the NY Times is a tool of the corporate-industrial complex, instead of the lefty bastion your parents claimed it was.

― Past a Diving Jeter (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:09 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

just to go back to this. of course it's not SURPRISING but that doesn't mean that sane people shouldn't be really fucking PISSED OFF about statements like this and oppose them, call them out, whenever dude drops bombs like this, which encourage and reinforce the worst kind of ignorance.

right. france is sane people.

i think the church backing him up saying 'this is in line with doctrine' misses the point: he maybe, arguably, as stupid as it is, has the right to say 'the church does not approve of condom use': he doesn't have the right to go to fucking africa and say 'condoms are ineffective in preventing aids' (and! suggest that somehow 'faith' is) - beliefs don't enter into it, it's social science on which he's wrong to the point of being delusional and irresponsible. it's something to get up in arms about because not all of his intended audience are kicking back thinking about what a douchebag he is; it reaffirms instead of resolves a conflict that some people maybe experience.

Everything I've ever done
Everything I ever do
Every place I've ever been
Everywhere I'm going to

You have not committed a greater sin by using a condom during extramarital sex; it's all tied up in the "extramarital sex" bit.

Is this really right? The Catholic church isn't fond of mechanical birth control within the bonds of marriage either, right?

(I'm with schlump, basically: it's the unimpeachable right of the church to spread its beliefs, obviously, but making dangerous point-of-fact claims about the efficacy of condoms seems like a step too far -- not a message about faith or behavior but an actual deadly lie about the physical world.)

Is this really right? The Catholic church isn't fond of mechanical birth control within the bonds of marriage either, right?

My point was more that you're already sinning by having extramarital sex; you aren't going to win brownie points for not using a condom. Obv condom usage within a marriage is also a sin but sex outside of marriage is a baseline foundational sin that trumps the sin of using a condom since you have to be having sex in the first place for the condom thing to come up.

Okay, totally, gotcha

Haha I'm sure there is official Catholic doctrine on this point somewhere, about sins being cumulative or non-

what makes me most enraged is that i am fairly sure that the pope - an educated man who can't be lacking in basic intelligence - does not actually believe that condoms are ineffective in preventing aids

i don't know. that he's simultaneously waving a blithe hand and reassuring that faith in the church is the answer, it sounds a little like he has no knowledge of the problem. i think 'pope complex' should be a recognised state of mind: he is the representative of god on earth. it's like expecting elvis not to shoot up televisions or something.

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable request, really. Can we get the pope some really strong pills and keep him overfed so he'll chill out?

People w/ basic intelligence believe all sorts of things.

I'm sure there is official Catholic doctrine on this point somewhere, about sins being cumulative or non-

I think it's whatever makes you feel worse.

All of this, btw, ignores the sins of planning to have extramarital sex and wear a condom, and even wanting to have extramarital sex and wear a condom.

I do think it's kind of funny that the Catholic solution to unprotected extramarital sex is "get married!" It's hard to tell whether that standpoint minimizes the important of marriage or inflates the importance of sex.

Some of you make better Catholics than we Catholics.

infallibility is hard work
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00125/pg-18-Pope-AFP-Gett_125842t.jpg

It's easier that way, Alfred! I mean, the Catholic church is so doctrinal and regimented -- it seems easy for people to stand outside it and be pretty clear on the theology, whereas people actually in the church have to develop a really complex and nuanced relationship with everything they are or aren't supposed to do/believe.

i am fairly sure that the pope - an educated man who can't be lacking in basic intelligence - does not actually believe that condoms are ineffective in preventing aids

Yeah, this is the amazing thing -- there are a billion perfectly good ways of taking the position that the church has a better solution, or saying that condoms only camouflage a deeper problem, that they're an incomplete patch on a bigger issue about life and spirituality. And this is what makes me feel like there's not some charitable way anyone should be parsing the statement -- because if it had been intended more charitably, I would have been made that way in the first place. It seems like a blatant untruth, an intentional smear. (Which is actually a bit surprising to me, because the contemporary Catholic church has traditionally been relatively decent about letting science and fact have their place and taking the position that the church is concerned with higher, greater matters.)

haha it would have been made more charitably, not me

I have never come out of the pope's mouth (or in it)

xp Which reminds me: when one witnesses evil, it is a grave sin to do nothing about it.

Like you said, nabisco (and somebody upthread), lots of people live with the contradictions. Mom is a Rush Limbaugh conservative and a practicing Catholic, yet is pro-choice. Go figure!

xp Which reminds me: when one witnesses evil, it is a grave sin to do nothing about it.

i have some issues with some of the things in this thread, but can't really involve myself because i think it's basically opposition to texts being used for instruction rather than guidance, whether it's biblical commandments or procedure for stoning or legal precedent or whatever. and the inherent pedantic contradictions of the bible kill me. i'm always on the verge of spitting TO THE PURE ALL THINGS ARE PURE to overwrite every picky snipe in the bible, but i find that those things don't hold up to the specific teachings they want to impart, and crumble under the weight of 'oh well, except ...'.

Like you said, nabisco (and somebody upthread), lots of people live with the contradictions. Mom is a Rush Limbaugh conservative and a practicing Catholic, yet is pro-choice. Go figure!

― The Screaming Lobster of Challops (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:19 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

prob just agrees w/them more than she disagrees - imo not really a contradiction - no one lines up w/any person or institution 100% - the catholic church in its particular dark ponderous genius seizes these disagreements as an opportunity for deeper indoctrination

right. france is sane people.

i think the church backing him up saying 'this is in line with doctrine' misses the point: he maybe, arguably, as stupid as it is, has the right to say 'the church does not approve of condom use': he doesn't have the right to go to fucking africa and say 'condoms are ineffective in preventing aids' (and! suggest that somehow 'faith' is) - beliefs don't enter into it, it's social science on which he's wrong to the point of being delusional and irresponsible. it's something to get up in arms about because not all of his intended audience are kicking back thinking about what a douchebag he is; it reaffirms instead of resolves a conflict that some people maybe experience.

― deveraux billings (schlump), Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:26 PM (1 hour ago)

^this

Also, the church and its dogma are not static and have in the past been revised, Ratzy is the only person with any real power and it just annoys me that the church is such a boys club that elects the most trenchantly conservative members to rise the ranks. Shit like this completely overrides the central messages of the bible, you know, all that stuff about loving each other. Jesus never preached tactics of disingenuousness. The church kinda picks who it wants to speak out against, and doesn't really have a very good record in being partisan and shutting up when its easier. The point is, its actually lying which is a specific ten commandment type sin, not like condoms (my bible doesn't mention durex ONCE!)

actually lying which is a specific ten commandment type sin

for the record, this is not accurate

well yeah, capitalism isn't in the U.S. Constitution, either. xp

False witness = mere subdivision of lying

I just read something where a rabbi said, We appreciate your promotion of the Ten Commandments, Christians, but why are you appropriating a code God made with the Israelites?

^^^haha for realz

the whole Christian theological tactic of cherry-picking stuff from the Old Testament is so very wtf

ass-fucking = ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD
eating pork and shellfish = hey that's okay, Jesus said we didn't have to follow that rule

It's because christianity as preached by Jesus is pretty anti-hierarchic and doesn't really support things like, well, the church, so you need to pad a bit.

I dunno, that's pretty much the civic relationship we have with, say, the constitution (only with amendments instead of a messiah)

was gonna say

That's not the best analogy, necessarily, but I don't think it's entirely incoherent to have faith in something as foundational but moved on from in whatever ways it felt important to move on from it ... it might require a few clever theological patches, but religion is lived so much more culturally than theologically, yadda yadda yadda

the fastest smackdown of fundamentalists is You believe every word of a Book that contradicts itself regularly.

btw as far as I understand the "infallibility" doctrine ... all it means is Il Papa speaks with authority on doctrine when he issues something official (like those "bulls"). ie, he is not supposed to be real-time perfect Godhead every time he opens his trap.

^^^MOrbz is correct - people make way too much of the "infallibility" thing

people in misunderstanding catholicism shockah

catholicism is not really understandable tho

do you find that to be the case w/all religions?

no

religion is lived so much more culturally than theologically

I agree and this is totally true in terms of how people live their day-to-day lives. But when we're talking about using theology as a tool for determining public policy and making political decisions (such as with issues of public health, like AIDS or abortion), it seems entirely legitimate to me to point out that something as internally incoherent as theology should have no place in the public discourse.

x-post

uh

does it seem entirely legitimate to you to have tea parties with unicorns and pixies, because it seems just as likely that will happen as a conversation on public policy that has zero influence from theology (whether said influence is supportive or reactionary)

well we do pass a lot of laws without using the "it's in the bible!" justification for them

I am also infallible, part-time. I am not disclosing which part, however.

it's your rules for listening to music, isn't it!

I dunno, Shakey -- theology only plays a role in civic discourse exactly as far as that theology is believed and lived and acted on by actual people, right? This may seem like hair-splitting, given that anything the pope says is inherently meaningful in the beliefs of millions of people. But it's why you can't just banish something from civic discourse on grounds of being "theological," because it's not on theological grounds that the thing is part of the conversation -- it's on the grounds that many many people incorporate the idea into their values and opinions as citizens. I.e., their actual cultural living-out of religion.

I would like to point out that the US has a pretty rich tradition of avoiding using "its in the Bible" as a basis for its laws. That's all I'm getting at.

Uh. It does?

I would also like to point that the US has a pretty rich tradition of elected officials using "It's in the Bible" as a basis for laws.

guess which tradition I side with

that doesn't mean you get to plug your ears and say the other side doesn't exist

I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying that they're wrong and that I don't agree with them. And, frankly, I'm reasonably certain that you, Alfred, nabisco, Laurel and most of the other posters here don't agree with them either so wtf with getting on my case about this.

I mean I know nabisco can't help equivocating about every little thing but gimme a break y'all

Sorry -- I saw my liquor cabinet and remembered the 18th Amendment.

I wasn't trying to get on your case! Just pointing out that middle step:

1. religion dictates something
2. that something is believed culturally by actual citizens
3. that something is part of civic discourse

We probably agree that it's sometimes disappointing when #1 leads to #3, but the reason I can't entirely gainsay or proscribe it is because of #2

xpost - okay well now I will get on your case, because that's not equivocation, that is recognizing that you live in a world with other human beings

okay well now I will get on your case, because that's not equivocation, that is recognizing that you live in a world with other human beings

OTM

right. well when those other human beings privelege religion (and, more often than not, the doctrine of specific religious denomination) over reason then I reserve the right to point out that they're being stupid and counter-productive.

ie I prefer Roger Williams to Cotton Mather

This image really can't be posted often enough

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/6/9958184_1d3029f0e7_m.jpg

he looks so happy there

he's thinking about all the awesome barebacking he did last night

catholic guy on the radio this morning said pope was right because Uganda is the ONLY country where aids has gone down since the 90s sometime and it's also the ONLY country which wholeheartedly embraced and promoted an abstinence/no condoms programme. I'm sure this is some kinda bullshit but the guy they had on to oppose him was not very good at rebutting, and also catholic.

shakey i admire ur stubborn belief that between a person using religion to help frame important civic questions in his lives, and a person declaring vast swaths of the population "stupid" without ever have met those people, its the religious person who is "counter-productive"

thx for the false binary max but I would hope you know me well enough to know that I do not equate "a person using religion to help frame important civic questions in his lives" with someone who demands that laws be passed in strict accordance with a specific Biblical scripture (like, say the homophobic passages in Leviticus, or the more obscure passages used to justify anti-choice legislation)

like, there is a world of difference between those two people.

(ie the former could be a perfectly cool, reasonable person and the latter is more like the pope)

what I am equating with stupidity is the priveleging of narrow interpretations of selective passages of scripture over rational argument, public health concerns, the rights of others (including non-believers), etc.

but hey everybody pat yourselves on the backs for defending fundamentalists' right to oppress you! good job!

bro if thats what u mean maybe you should be more clear w/ ur words... when u say "as a tool for determining" well... that could mean a whole range of things! including "i use it as a metaphorical brain-tool to help me figure out where i stand on an issue"

Well but Shakey, if we take these two things as you just phrased them ...

- a person using religion to help frame important civic questions in his life

- someone who demands that laws be passed in strict accordance with a specific Biblical scripture

... what do you want to bet that a whole lot of the people you think are doing the second actually feel quite strongly that they're doing the first?

I dunno, this might not be worth getting into much of a thing about -- upthread, I was mostly responding to the temptation (which I totally understand and sometimes have, btw) to say a viewpoint is theological and has no place in civic discourse -- because of course the whole role of religion is that the theological transfers out into culture and worldview and how people frame the world, and I don't know that it can be neatly quarantined. (I also don't know that we have any huge monopoly on "reason" that religious people categorically don't; a lot of the time the difference is just that their premises and goals aren't the same as other people's.)

NB this is not "defending fundamentalists' right to oppress," unless we have gotten to that point in a disagreement where we just pretend other people are saying whatever strikes us as most reassuringly wrong

To be honest I'd feel a bit more like I'm arguing against Shakey's temptation to hypothetically and rhetorically oppress others

to put this all in perspective and perhaps clarify my thinking a bit, perhaps it is useful to point out that the issue that sparked this whole thing is the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Bible as forbidding contraception - even though there is NOTHING in the Bible that specifically references contraception (and yes there were forms of contraception - and abortion - in biblical times). This is the kind of shit I'm complaining about - when people take a given theological stance, and in particular ones that are logically inconsistent and have been developed specifically for political reasons (ie, in the case of contraception and the Catholic Church, or the Mormons the goal is increased membership in the Church), and then use them as the bases for affecting the political debate on issues pertaining to the public good. I don't see how this is defensible - its idiotic and dangerous.

x-posts

defending fundamentalists' right to oppress you

Oh plz.

You say, "theology should have no place in the public discourse," and while I agree that no law should be defended strictly with scripture, generally agreed-upon standards are *always* the basis for laws. Which is all dan, nabisco, et al are saying.

If you're going to get uppity about that point, may I ask what the alternative is?

even though there is NOTHING in the Bible that specifically references contraception

Onan was killed for pulling out.

I also don't know that we have any huge monopoly on "reason" that religious people categorically don't; a lot of the time the difference is just that their premises and goals aren't the same as other people's

here's a relevant example - there is clear scientific evidence that condoms reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS. This has been proven incontrovertibly in study after study, and the results can be reproduced for any and all who care to investigate. Anybody using their own rational faculties can verify this. However, in spite of that, the Catholic Church declares that a particular aspect of their religious dogma (which was specifically and quite obviously developed for the political expediency of increasing their numbers and their coffers) is more relevant than the scientific evidence in the debate on the public policy of AIDS. The Catholic Church is making a rational decision here in terms of their self interest as an institution, but not in the interests of the general public. And why I should accept their dogma as being more legitimate (or even AS legitimate) as the scientific evidence... well, my position is fuck that.

Onan was killed for pulling out.

no, Onan was killed for deliberately shirking his brotherly duty to give his deceased brother an heir

I agree with you on this example, Shakey, much like I was saying above -- I think it's immoral and lacking in humility for the pope to go beyond just teaching his church's position and make untruthful criticisms of competing ideas.

Thankfully, I don't feel like there are too many US civic issues where there's a big pull of pure theology. A lot of US issues where people's viewpoints are informed by religious/cultural values, definitely, but in a lived-religion way and not a theological one. And I disagree with those camps, but I don't object to their being part of the discourse, etc.

no, Onan was killed for deliberately shirking his brotherly duty to give his deceased brother an heir

Which is more ridiculous?

Maybe the worst thing about the Onan story is that it gives the impression that pulling out prevents pregnancy. :/

"Thankfully, I don't feel like there are too many US civic issues where there's a big pull of pure theology."

Huh?

sorry, xpost, I'm not sure I agree with the following:

the Catholic Church is making a rational decision here in terms of their self interest as an institution, but not in the interests of the general public

whatever the Catholic church is doing here or how we want to consider its motives, its contribution to civic discourse here only exists insofar as there are followers of the Catholic church who believe in its teachings -- who choose to see the world through the lens the church provides them. (the pope is only significant as a leader of others, really.) nobody is asking you to accept the dogma as being as legitimate as scientific evidence -- obviously everyone here has the opposite opinion! -- but the fact that various humans do accept the premises and goals of their religious culture gives those things a place in public discourse, right?

what I meant about the "monopoly on reason," by the way, was just that because religious people often have different (very basic) premises about the meaning of the world and the goals of society, they can very logically/reasonably come to conclusions that are going to be very different from mine. (abortion being one very vexed example of this.)

xpost - yeah, Alex, I actually mean that -- in terms of the distinction we were making upthread between religion as pure theology and religion as a lived/cultural thing! I think most of the US civic issues with religious aspects are way more about culture and "lived" religion (even if people might turn to religion as the first way of explaining their viewpoints)

i think my problem (and my tendency to say fuck 'em) is that fundies are often unwilling to meet folks half way, or part of the way, or .001% of the way. and while many secular progressives can seem just as dogmatic at times, i think that by and large they see the benefits of compromise, and are consistently willing to make concessions on certain principles for the sake of progress. and asking the same from the biblical inerrancy crowd (an annoyingly large voting block in the usa imo) is beating your head against a wall. it's exhausting.

Is this one of those threads where you explaining this "distinction" is going to make my eyes bleed?

its contribution to civic discourse here only exists insofar as there are followers of the Catholic church who believe in its teachings -- who choose to see the world through the lens the church provides them. (the pope is only significant as a leader of others, really.) nobody is asking you to accept the dogma as being as legitimate as scientific evidence

well this is true that the Pope's pronouncements don't mean anything to me, but he IS telling his flock to behave in a manner that places theology before scientific evidence - and in this particular issue that is dangerous to the public health. Because Catholics don't just fuck other Catholics, and HIV/AIDS doesn't care what religion you are. So in that sense this injection of theology into the public discourse - into a public health issue - is dangerous and wrong.

no, Onan was killed for deliberately shirking his brotherly duty to give his deceased brother an heir

Which is more ridiculous?

oh they're both ridiculous but y'know the Hebrew God is a jealous vengeful God and all that...

xp No arguments here.

willing to make concessions on certain principles for the sake of progress

should really say "concessions on certain principles for the sake of republican democracy", since "progress" is more or less a dirty word for so many ppl

yeah, no disagreement on that front, Shakey

obviously the Pope has a whole other level of moral culpability for the way he frames these things, way beyond what it would mean for a given person to just have a religious worldview

Why would anybody be paying attention to someone who once thought Hitler was a good idea enough to join his Boys Club?

are you retarded?

I thought the whole world new by now that Hitler Youth membership was mandatory and that the whole "old benedict was a nazi!!! OMG" shit was over.

i am disabled but able to rock

I'll defer this to Nuclear Assault:

I defer nothing to those dudes, on the grounds that the dude on the left looks like he's about to tow me, and the dude next to him looks like Leo Sayer.

No wait, not that picture. This one:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i191/fluxion23/Picture1-2.png

The Pope also said both Gulf Wars were unjust, and we see how American Catholics unanimously embraced that.

ohhhhh dearrrrrrrr

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/Chantal2.jpg

Who is that on the right? Some kind of papal Carmen Miranda?

Chantal Biyi, the First Lady of Cameroon. I tried to post this landmark moment in fashion yesterday but the jpeg was photofuckit and upthread the caption MOVE OVER ARETHA or somesuch is all there was...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R054bYs_S5U/SciCKeC7ibI/AAAAAAAAAqg/fEiEIuBJEOs/s1600/_45592766_angola_ap.jpg