Discrimination Against Catholics

I was raised Catholic in the South and don’t remember any personal discrimination. I remember being surprised that everyone wasn’t Catholic and I was very proud to be Catholic. We had really cool statues in our church. The priests had more colorful outfits and we had candles and incense and all kinds of secret feeling masses. When I grew up and read the Bible, I realized the Catholic teachings weren’t based on the Bible but on man made traditions which explains all the horrors committed by the Catholic church.

Today I am a Christian and find the media in general gives a lot of coverage to those who claim to be Christian but by their actions prove they are not. The majority of Christians have given Christianity a bad name. The Bible said this would be the situation in our time, the time the Bible calls “the last days”.

2Timothy 3:1- 5:” But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.”

The Bible also said true Christians would be persecuted just as Christ was.

John 15: 20: “Bear in mind the word I said to YOU, A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute YOU also; if they have observed my word, they will observe YOURS also.”

We have seen persecution of true Christians since first century Rome. In modern times Nazi Germany, Hungary, many western and eastern countries and the former Soviet Union persecuted true Christians for their political neutrality.

Today true Christians are still persecuted with prison for their conscientious refusal of military service on religious grounds. These persecuting countries include Armenia and Turkmenistan. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Eritrea and Georgia persecute and imprison true Christians for practicing and teaching their religious beliefs.

The Bible also shows that this persecution is temporary. It will end and all will live under better conditions.

Psalms 37: 9-10: “For evildoers themselves will be cut off, But those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth. And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more; And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be. But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth, And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.”

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web sites:

ALL MISCONCEPTIONS AND FALSE MEANINGS ARE ANSWERED:

1-www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm
2-www.islamalways.com/
3-www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
4-www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
5-www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf.asp

Folks,

I looked on Oprah's web-site and with a little searching, I did indeed find all that is said below to be true. This is one of the most dangerous things for our country and even the world because of her vast following and influence. If you are a believer of the God of the Bible, you really need to read the following:

You really need to read this -

"Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

Many of you, like me, have probably been Oprah fans for a long time. This is very discouraging news to hear about one who has such tremendous influence on the general public. Please ask God to show Oprah the real Jesus Christ.

Just to make sure this was true, I went on Oprah's website and there it is. The below article is very interesting, so I thought I would share.

Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 4:50 PM

Subject: Oprah joins false prophets Bible warned about

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/007/smith-oprah.htm or

"Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

Jesus Christ being reinvented, redefined, and blasphemed and, this false New- Age Christ teaching is about to make huge inroads into the world, with the help of the queen of television talk shows, Oprah Winfrey.

Oprah Winfrey, beginning January 1, 2008, on her daily radio program will offer a year-long course on the New Age Christ , in a lesson a day and completely cover the 365 lessons from the Course in Miracles "Workbook."

Listeners will be encouraged to buy A Course in Miracles for the year-long course, and an audio version, recited by Richard (John Boy
Walton) Thomas will be available on compact disc.

Those who finish the Course will have a wholly redefined spiritual mindset-a New Age worldview that include the beliefs that there is no sin, no evil, no devil. A Course in Miracles teaches its students to rethink everything they believe about God and life, and, bluntly
states: "This is a course in mind training" and is dedicated to "thought reversal."

The Course in Miracles -in reality-is the truth of the Bible turned upside down.

Oprah told her television audience that Williamson's book, A Course in Miracles was one of her favorite books, and that she had already bought a thousand copies and would be handing them out to everyone in her studio audience. Oprah's endorsement skyrocketed Williamson's book to the top of the New York Times bestseller list .

A Course in Miracles is allegedly a "new revelation" from "Jesus" to help humanity work through these troubled times. This "Jesus"-who bears no doctrinal resemblance to the Bible's Jesus Christ-began delivering channeled teachings in 1965 to a Columbia University Professor of Medical Psychology, Helen Schucman.

One day Schucman heard an "inner voice" stating, "This is a course in miracles. Please take notes." For seven years she diligently took spiritual dictation from this voice that described himself as "Jesus."

Here are some quotes from the "Jesus" voice of A Course in Miracles :

· "There is no sin . . . "

· A "slain Christ has no meaning."

· "The journey to the cross should be the last ' useless journey."

· "Do not make the pathetic error of 'clinging to the old rugged cross.'"

· "The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol... It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray."

· "The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself."

· "The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation."

Popular author Wayne Dyer told his PBS television audience that the "brilliant writing" of A Course in Miracles would produce more peace in the world .

The Course in Miracles-based book, Forgiveness, continues to be sold in Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral bookstore as Schuller prepares to host a January 17-19, 2008, "Rethink Conference" at his Crystal Cathedral.
-----------------------

2 Timothy 3 (King James Version)

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Timothy 3:16

"That the Lord thy God may shew us the way wherein we may walk, and the thing that we may do." Jeremiah 42:3

"...We will obey the voice of the Lord our God." Jeremiah 42:6

As the Day of the Lord approaches, we need to take warning of the Words of Jesus in Matthew 24:24-27: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; GO NOT FORTH; he is in the secret chambers; BELIEVE IT NOT. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

The Bible speaks plainly of the coming wrath. Jesus warns us through Luke: "Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them." *** Luke 21:8
"Be not deceived." Many shall come in His name saying they have the anointing. He further said, "As the time draws near..."; many would come to draw you away. We are warned "Go ye not therefore after them."

CHRISTIANS/BELIEVERS.....Take heed - WE ARE IN THE LAST DAYS - READY YOURSELVES BY KNOWING WHAT GOD OUR CREATOR SAYS IN HIS WORD - YOUR LIFE WILL DEPEND ON BELIEVING ONLY HIM FOR HE DOES NOT LIE!!

"Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus" Rev. 14:12

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" Matthew 24:35

And PLEASE pass on this one...

ALL KIND OF POSSIBLE QUESTIONS ASKED BY NON MUSLIMS ARE ANSWERED AT BELOW WEB SITE:

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

CONCEPT OF GOD IN CHRISTIANITY
by Dr. Zakir Naik

I
Position of Jesus (pbuh) in Islam:

(i)
Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh).

(ii)
We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt).

(iii)
We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe.

(iv)
We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh).


(v)
We believe that he gave life to the dead with God’s permission.

(iv)
We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God’s permission.

II
CONCEPT OF GOD IN CHRISTIANITY:

1.
Jesus Christ (pbuh) never claimed Divinity

One may ask, if both Muslims and Christians love and respect Jesus (pbuh), where exactly is the parting of ways? The major difference between Islam and Christianity is the Christians’ insistence on the supposed divinity of Christ (pbuh). A study of the Christian scriptures reveals that Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity. In fact there is not a single unequivocal statement in the entire Bible where Jesus (pbuh) himself says, "I am God" or where he says, "worship me". In fact the Bible contains statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in which he preached quite the contrary. The following statements in the Bible are attributed to Jesus Christ (pbuh):

(i) "My Father is greater than I."
[The Bible, John 14:28]

(ii) "My Father is greater than all."
[The Bible, John 10:29]

(iii) "…I cast out devils by the Spirit of God…."
[The Bible, Mathew 12:28]

(iv) "…I with the finger of God cast out devils…."
[The Bible, Luke 11:20]

(v) "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
[The Bible, John 5:30]


2.
The Mission of Jesus Christ (pbuh) – to Fulfill the Law

Jesus (pbuh) never claimed divinity for himself. He clearly announced the nature of his mission. Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God to confirm the previous Judaic law. This is clearly evident in the following statements attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of Mathew:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
[The Bible, Mathew 5:17-20]


3.
God Sent Jesus' (pbuh)

The Bible mentions the prophetic nature of Jesus (pbuh) mission in the following verses:

(i)
"… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."
[The Bible, John 14:24]


(ii)
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent."
[The Bible, John 17:3]


4.
Jesus Refuted even the Remotest Suggestion of his Divinity

Consider the following incident mentioned in the Bible:

"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’

And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]

Jesus (pbuh) did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. It is indeed striking to note the difference between the words of Jesus Christ (pbuh) and the Christian dogma of salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus (pbuh).


5.
Jesus (pbuh) of Nazareth – a Man Approved of God

The following statement from the Bible supports the Islamic belief that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of God.

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."
[The Bible, Acts 2:22]


6.
The First Commandment is that God is One

The Bible does not support the Christian belief in trinity at all. One of the scribes once asked Jesus (pbuh) as to which was the first commandment of all, to which Jesus (pbuh) merely repeated what Moses (pbuh) had said earlier:

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adonai Ikhad."

This is a Hebrew quotation, which means:

"Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."
[The Bible, Mark 12:29]

It is striking that the basic teachings of the Church such as Trinity and vicarious atonement find no mention in the Bible. In fact, various verses of the Bible point to Jesus’ (pbuh) actual mission, which was to fulfill the law revealed to Prophet Moses (pbuh). Indeed Jesus (pbuh) rejected any suggestions that attributed divinity to him, and explained his miracles as the power of the One True God.

Jesus (pbuh) thus reiterated the message of monotheism that was given by all earlier prophets of Almighty God.

NOTE: All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.

III
CONCEPT OF GOD IN OLD TESTAMENT:

1.
God is One

The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses (pbuh):

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad".
It is a Hebrew quotation which means:
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]


2.
Unity of God in the Book of Isaiah

The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:

(i)
"I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]


(ii)
"I am Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 45:5]


(iii)
"I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]


3.
Old Testament condemns idol worship


(i)
Old Testament condemns idol worship in the following verses:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]


(ii)
A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]

INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM
by Dr. Zakir Naik

(I) INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM:

Judaism is one of the important Semitic religions. Its followers are known as Jews and they believe in the prophetic mission of Prophet Moses (pbuh).

(II) CONCEPT OF GOD IN JUDAISM:

(i) The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses (pbuh):

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad"

It is a Hebrew quotation which means:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]

The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:

(ii) "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]

(iii) "I am Lord, and there is none else There is no God besides me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 45 : 5]

(iv) "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]

(v) Judaism condemns idol worship in the following verses:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]

(iv) A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]

In Judaism too, we find the same thread of monotheism, that is seen in other religions.

(III) MUHAMMAD IN JEWISH SCRIPTURES (THE OLD TESTAMENT):

1) Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the book of Deuteronomy:

a) God Almighty speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

b) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is like Moses (pbuh):

i) Both had a father and a mother.

ii) Both were married and had children.

iii) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime.

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment.

v) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people.

vi) Both died a natural death.

c) Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac. The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

d) Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from God Almighty he repeated it verbatim.

Deuteronomy (18:18):

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

2) Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, ‘Read this, I pray thee’; and he saith, ‘I am not learned’.

"When Archangel Gabriel commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying ‘Iqra’, he replied "I am not learned".

3) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon

chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehrace Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: ye, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughter of Jerusalem."

All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians (H Q. 61:6).

Ladies & Gents:-PLEASE be real; Let us discuss the ONLY Issue about Discrimination TODAY in US.

We MUSLIMS(approx 22% in USA; as 99% of Blacks were all MUSLIMS, before they were at Gun-Point FORCED to become christians), are being Hounded & Discriminated & Harassed & Arrested & Economically-tortured & practically treated sometimes even worse than the slaves(as 200 years ago Blacks were treated in the South).
Best Regards, Arshad Ali Khan, UMMAA-Broadcasting, Rolla, Missouri.
[Listed under media at Rolla chamber of Commerce at
http://www.rollachamber.org ]

Elaygee writes:

"People who worship dead Jews on a stick and then torture and murder his relatives and descendants deserve anything they get."

Thank you so much for your wonderful post! You made my day!! Today, I saw a parking dispute in which one (Jewish) party responded to the other's racist provocation with a barage of epithets, among them "pope sucking, child f'er." I confess I have been no slouch in calling the christians, catholics, whatever, as I see them, but I would never have come up with that language on my own. (I'm doing my best to pass it on.)

We lack their infinite capacity for hatred, which has deprived us developing the hate speech repertoire we so desperately need. These things are strategic. You use them until you get the job done. We have also always preferred the exercise of morality and intellect over fists. But we need fists. You don't fight a conflagration with a cup of water.

The times, after 2000 years, they are a-changing. Hopefully, they will change enough before the christians, regardless, of their denomination stop their savaging of the earth.

Thank you, Elaygee. I hope to read more of your posts.

Elaygee writes:

"People who worship dead Jews on a stick and then torture and murder his relatives and descendants deserve anything they get."

Thank you so much for your wonderful post! You made my day!! Today, I saw a parking dispute in which one (Jewish) party responded to the other's racist provocation with a barage of epithets, among them "pope sucking, child f'er." I confess I have been no slouch in calling the christians, catholics, whatever, as I see them, but I would never have come up with that language on my own. (I'm doing my best to pass it on.)

We lack their infinite capacity for hatred, which has deprived us developing the hate speech repertoire we so desperately need. These things are strategic. You use them until you get the job done. We have also always preferred the exercise of morality and intellect over fists. But we need fists. You don't fight a conflagration with a cup of water.

The times, after 2000 years, they are a-changing. Hopefully, they will change enough before the christians, regardless, of their denomination stop their savaging of the earth.

Thank you, Elaygee. I hope to read more of your posts.

People who worship dead Jews on a stick and then torture and murder his relatives and descendants deserve anything they get.

My family recently experienced discrimination within Cub Scouts of all places. We are Catholic and my son is receiving his sacrament of First Reconciliation and this falls on the same day as his pack's Pinewood Derby. The person in charge of the Pinewood Derby stated that because my son would not be able to fully participate in Pinewood Derby that we were not fully committed to Scouting. We have chosen to not participate at all because of this situation. Frankly, I can't imagine participating in something where my family's religious beliefs and obligations are equated to a conflicting sporting event.

The Boy Scouts of America talk about duty to God and I believe they, as an organization, truly believe in that. However, this little man in this little pack doesn't believe Catholicism belongs in Boy Scouts. We'll probably try to find another pack for my son but it's sad that we have to do that simply because our religious beliefs are not the same as his.

My family recently experienced discrimination within Cub Scouts of all places. We are Catholic and my son is receiving his sacrament of First Reconciliation and this falls on the same day as his pack's Pinewood Derby. The person in charge of the Pinewood Derby stated that because my son would not be able to fully participate in Pinewood Derby that we were not fully committed to Scouting. We have chosen to not participate at all because of this situation. Frankly, I can't imagine participating in something where my family's religious beliefs and obligations are equated to a conflicting sporting event.

The Boy Scouts of America talk about duty to God and I believe they, as an organization, truly believe in that. However, this little man in this little pack doesn't believe Catholicism belongs in Boy Scouts. We'll probably try to find another pack for my son but it's sad that we have to do that simply because our religious beliefs are not the same as his.

Do you know that our founding fathers called the HOLY BIBLE the cornerstone for American Liberty? it was put in our schools for light. Our country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Since we have eliminated God from the equation from American life, we have thus eliminated the reason this nation first began.We've staked our future in our ability to follow the 10 commandments with all our heart. You cannot have national morality apart from religious principle. Right now we have nearly 150,000 kids in t hese war zones we call public schools. When you eliminate the WORD OF GOD from the classrooms and politics, you eliminate the nation that word protects. Now america is #1 in teen pregnancy,drugs,violent crimes and illeteracy. Everyday we have a new holocaust of 5,000 unborn dying,while pornography floods our streets like open sores. when people would rather come out of the closet than clean it the judgement of God is going to fall.do you realize God will be returning one day in all His glory.Be bold and tell the world tht you must be saved.If you want to see kids live right then stop handing condoms out in schools and start handing out the Word of God in schools. we need to stand up and say THAT WE NEED GOD IN AMERICA AGAIN!!!!

I am a devout Christian and I do NOT think religion should be taught in school. I don't want anyone teaching my child about religion. I think that is my responsibility. I take what he is taught very seriously to a point that I don't let him go into just any Sunday School classroom or any other church function where he will be taught unless I know what they are teaching and believe what they are teaching is the truth. I also don't think evolution should be taught in schools because, in my opinion, it is a belief that the world evolved (a religion I don't believe and don't want thrown on my child). You can say it's not a religious belief but I think anytime you believe something that has not been proven to be the only true and right idea it is a religion. Athiests think religion is based ones belief in something that can't be proven (at least the athiests I know). If that is true one would have to say evolution is a religious belief and since it is still theory and not proven and therefore it should not be taught in schools.

Again, I believe it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children about religion, not the school. I believe in God and I believe He will hold me accountable for what my son is taught and because of that I take teaching Christianity serious. My job is teach my son, it's up to him whether he accepts what he's been taught.

m995k

I was baptized a Catholic, and am the beneficiary of a first-rate Catholic elementary and high-school education. I have nothing but good things to say about the nuns and brothers who taught me. I also have what can only be described as utter contempt for the Vatican, a conviction that arose out of the official Papal reaction to the clergy sex-abuse cases in Boston. Repugnant, repulsive, and unforgivable ...

I don't recall ever being aware of anti-Catholic sentiments being expressed in my presence - but I doubt I would have cared. Having found the institution of the Church to be irrelevant to my life at the age of 12, I walked away and never looked back. (I do sometimes miss the Latin Mass, and I'm partial to Gregorian chant. But the Papal Mafiosi are insufferable ...)

Religion should not be taught in school except as part of a course in human psychology where fables and myths and their effects on human behavior are discussed. Religion itself should be abolished as it is a complete scam.

Matthew chapter 7 says, Judge not that ye not be judge, it all points to God i was raised a Catholic and there is nothing wrong with it

I am a practicing Catholic and have been my entire life. Being a Catholic has brought some discrimination my way, but not much. Being Catholic in America has not brought nearly the level of discrimination that I've studied or seen given to other groups - sometimes, even through my own foolishness.

If I may suggest, for me, three things - Catholicism, the suffering of others, and my own imperfections - have taught something of both humility and arrogance. Our beliefs and perspectives puzzle over intangibles, over what we cannot prove – but do sense and pursue, regardless, in a sometimes insatiable quest for meaning. As one little person in a very big and crowded Earth, I can only imagine that my sense for meaning is but a sliver, a glimmer of some great intangible that is more than just my own individual person or take on things. Billions have had, do have, and will have their own glimmer too (be it from the perspective of anyone who exists). Ponder a galaxy, a relationship, an injustice, quantum theory, a catastrophe, a birth, a disease, liberation, etc. Who am I to discriminate or discount a person's glimpse and reconciliation with the meaning of these things? So long as their meaning is not harmful to others or themselves...

Rather, could we help one another toward a greater understanding of our existence? Not merely relative to the individual's experience, but honoring and sharing in one another's lives – a shared experience - a community? This blog is a great example of that, in all it's tone and color – for the most part, a little victory of dialogue over indifference and intransigence.

In my journey, if Catholicism teaches me nothing else but this - let it be Jesus' sermon on the mount - the beatitudes - that all meaning is tending toward Love, and should.

I'm coming to this debate late... how did it turn into something about education and why are people only interested in discrimination in the United State and Europe. I'm sure the Chaldean nuns that were murdered in Iraq last month would like to hear about the pedophile priest scandal and how stupid the Pope is... if they were alive that is! Thousand of Catholics are killed every year simply for being Catholic. The KKK murdered and tormented Catholics in great numbers as recently as the early 20th century. Am I discriminated against here in the US??? sure I am, but I don't complain because at least I can practice my faith without losing my life. Compared to others my slights are very small.

BTW Public schools in the US actually boast a higher rate of pedophile predators than the priesthood, (priests number about 1.75% which matches the general population while educators believed to be about 10%) but that isn't such a good story. The priest story is a way to point out how wrong the Catholic Faith is... hmmmm discrimination perhaps?!

If you want to talk about culture wars, the worst thing you could do is teach religion in the public schools. They do this in Saudi Arabia, the demand for power is endless, and you have a nation where the only exports are what they found in the ground, and terrorists. Here, the various groups would be vying for pitching their truths. It would be a disasterfor society and tolerance. Should we teach a Jim Jones religion, or a spinoff of the 7th's day adventists known as the Branch Davidians, or perhaps Wahabi Islam.

I'd suggest a different course. We need to teach how brainwashing works, how people come to murder in the name of God, how Christianity is guilty of Genocide, and how religion, which has no proof except in the minds of the believers (or should we say brainwashed) has been in many ways the curse of civilization. I've always felt that deep down the real believers fear they are wrong, and only by finding more converts can they get into a comfort zone. Try for instance how Bush has played to the religious right, who don't want to teach about condoms, for they want people to fear sex, because fear is all they really have to sell. Think of how this impacts our trying to gain control of the AIDs epidemic in Africa, where infection rates are 25 to 40% in some countries, All this in the name of God. It is all hypocrisy, some day people will look back on the age of religion as just superstition that brought mankind some of its worst disasters.Beware, Beware, Beware, just say no.

Historically, the Catholic Church has done some terrible things. No one denys that. However, the faith itself is alive and well. Many Catholics I have met are more knowledgeable about the history of their faith and are more open in their views than many Protestants. If you do some research on the second Vatican Council, which took place in the 1960's, you will find that Pope John Paul II recognized light and value in other religions. Members of the Catholic Church have been engaging in more interfaith dialogue. Visit the Pope John Paul II Center in Washington, DC. You may be pleasantly surprised.

As a Catholic, I do not feel that I have been specifically discriminated against, but I do feel that there are certain stereotypes and prejudices which are inevitably brought up when religion is discussed. For example, the sexual abuse scandal. The Catholic faith does not rest on the very human sins of a few priests. The vast majority of Catholics was just as shocked and horrified by the scandal as the rest of the world. Catholics have been painted as the evil institution for so long, and changes have been made in the faith in recent years.

As in all matters of faith, I feel that it is imperative that we educate ourselves about what it is we are criticizing before we make judgements - if we even judge at all. After all, it is God and God alone who will judge our faith.

Victoria --Yes, I am aware of that christianity is 'oriental' (a presumptuous western concept), middle easterner, to be more precise. Thank you however for taking the time to point this out.

However, I was referring to religions that originated in China and India: hinduism, buddhism, taoism.

ENRIQUE-
you wrote
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my understanding, this is one of the differentiators between my faith and oriental religions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you ARE aware, are you not, that YOURS is an oriental religion?

Dear Leonard,

Thank you for your comments. You and Victoria are right: I am presumptuous about my faith and do not regret it, for at a certain point in my life I experienced Christ's presence in a remarkable manner and, while my perception fluctuates constantly, it has not left ever since.

Yet that should not extinguish the possibility of friendship with others who have not had this experience. If it does, and the others authentically want friendship, then there is a problem with how I present my faith to those others. Jesus mastered this art and I presume that some day I will improve.

You commented: "especially because your presumptuousness (perhaps even arrogance) included your notion that you might help me by moving me toward your faith. How could you think such thought after reading my posts criticizing those of AMviennaVA and some of my other posts?"

That is because I am certain of the Resurrected Christ. Zeal, yes, but not arrogance I assure you.

You commented: "I feel or sense that your faith is peculiar to you because of your special character".

Undoubtedly, there is a personal dimension to my faith, and a cultural one, etc. In my understanding, this is one of the differentiators between my faith and oriental religions. I become more fully and truly me through partaking of Christ. Paradoxically, that means I have to let go of egotism, vanity, of any attitude etc that may offend Him, as the earliest gospels attest; yet that does not make me less me, but more.

You question: "Why do you insist that all can achieve your faith by accepting Christ and receiving the eucharist?"

I have not 'achieved' my faith. Christ touched me. Prior to that I had restricted myself to praying the 'Our Father', but not believing that Christ was "I am who am"; rather, that he was a holy man, somehow touched by God. God, was a mystery that I understood little of; indeed, just prior to my experience, I questioned whether true love even existed. I was resigned that 'beauty' (aesthetic or moral) was 'as good as its gets'. After my experience, I sought Him in the Eucharist and found Him. I insist that He is objectively there and that anyone who sits, without even being a Catholic, in His eucharistic presence, may be touched, if He so chooses, for the Holy Spirit is (also) a living person. I find it odd that some people who believe in a spiritual universe consider themselves capable of personhood, which is quite an advance in evolution, yet deny "I am who am" the possibility of that level of depth and intimacy.

Furthemore, I insist that if one addresses Mary, the only primary human source on the Incarnation event, she will also become manifest.

You observe: "You ought to be able to commune with the Lord in your closet and there receive his peace."

The resurrected Christ is everywhere. Sometimes I pray and it is like talking to myself or to a wall. Yet other times, he makes himself more detectably present, wherever I pray. Other times, His presence manifests and I am not even praying, although He is always at the center, even if in the background.

In the presence of the Eucharist, for some reason, he is more consistently present, even if I say nothing. It is the converging point for all Christians, indeed, for the whole cosmos. Yet Eucharist is also whereever his love is found; wherever 2 or more are gathered in His mane.

I realize however that there are Catholics who do not seem to be aware of this; who do not seem to experience the Eucharist as I do. I had always felt His presence in the Eucharist (even before the experience), but had not really appreciated as fully as I should have what it meant, what was really taking place. I attribute having always felt it that to having been baptized.

I believe total reverence and humility is required; but that a non-catholic who just sits in His presence with a respectful and open mind and wishes to start a frienship will be welcomed, as he promised. An empty church is a good idea; many people often make me want to leave; I detest any irreverence in His presence and I often see that when there are other people.

I hope I have been clear. Thanks again for your comments and for the friendship which I hope will remain possible.

Enrique

Discrimination against Catholics?

Certainly there is some good in the teachings of the Catholic church. But the more I learn about it, the more I see the dangers. I certainly don't discriminate against Catholics, most of my good friends in life have been Catholic.

On the other hand, one only has to look at the history of the church, both past and recent. The church, along with others who consider themselves infallible, have been a blight upon mankind for millenia. The crusades of the middle ages, the whole dark ages itself - 1000 years of a civilization trapped in darkness and hundreds of years of war. The Witch trials - perhaps a million women denounced and burned to death, it was almost the sport of the day, as to Romans were the gladiators battles, and Lions vs. Christians, etc. yes I recognize that these crimes existed in other religions as well, e.g. the Puritans in New England and their Salem witch trials. Then there was, and it still survives to some extent the crimes against Jesus' own people, the Jews, encouraged by Christianity.

Then there is the clash of Science and religion. The Inquisition was simply about science, e.g. Galileo and lots of others who dared challenge the church of infallibility. No one knows how many died. Recently, the abuse of children by priests all over the country - certainly a terrible crime, but the very worst part about it was how the church hierarchy swept the problem under the rug for decades, for this hiding of the problem was necessary to maintain their 'infallibility' . Of course now we know.

So let's not talk about discrimination against Catholics. I don't think I've ever seen discrimination against Catholics during my lifetime in the USA, though it did occur earlier and Northern Ireland was a good example of discrimination by two groups against each other.
Let's instead talk about lies, pure and simple, an institution whose primary interest is its own continuation of power. Lets talk about how the Church tries to dictate America's social policy, and how when religion combines with Government, terrible things happen. Constantine about 200AD decided he could use the church rather then fight it, and the net result was the horrors of the middle (or dark) ages I've enumerated above. Look at extremist Islam as another example. The more religious a nations government is, the worse it becomes for the people.

Until the Catholic Church gets modern, wakes up, questions itself on every front, it is going to suffer. Better it then mankind.

AMVIENNAVA- youre asking me why mans inhumanity to man exists? that is a bigger question than i can answer- as i stated on the other post- i try to always substantiate my information with appropriate sources- jewish historians for jewish citations etc--
while youve provided a histroy by the orientalist john balfour baron of kinross- that is your prerogative-

as to me posting on past and present practices-
i try to stick to this ideal-

teeny tiny minds talk about things
mediocre minds talk about people
great minds talk about ideas

i try to keep my conversation in the realm of ideas

i have no interest in pointing fingers at the wrongs of others i history or tearing up any one elses beliefs or the practices of their co-believers

(except when it comes to zionism- but that is quite current and very overwhelmingly pervasive to my well being and the well being of the world)

and then i only present numbers and figures and still not delve into judgements

i hope this satisfies you

what country did you grow up in?
do you live in vienna now?
i know the turks were stopped at vienna in their surge europeward- theres a big statue there isnt there?

if you want to talk about islam- there are discussion (and much bashing) on muslim panelists posts

sorry i dont have an answer- but by your own post you stated that such a practice has been stopped- although i have never heard such a thing accused of the shia and sunni- ido remeber vividly the destruction of a mosque at te beginning of the war-even a un rep was killed-

as we speak 100s of 1000s of iraqis are streaming out of iraq taking refuge in syria and jordan- they estimate the total will top 1 million today

to date after 4 years of war the united states has absorbed a total of 33 iraqi refugees

In all the posts one comment on Islam caught my eye.

"We should take a honest look at our religion and reform its defects."

This is something we should take to heart on all religions and even the generic term spirituality. Are we (humans) so arrogant to think that in our relatively limited existence that we have determined the ultimate truth in ANY religion?

With all of our advances we have yet to master the science of the physical realm. What makes us think we have a greater understanding of the metaphysical and spiritual realms? At least in the physical we can prove or disprove things with science and even then the accepted “truth” is later proven to be wrong.

Yet we are willing to concede ultimate truth based on what we have heard from other people’s interpretations of old writings; Bible, Koran, Bhagavata, Buddhist scripture) on something that can not be proven but only taken on faith. Even the sum knowledge of all the teachings may be incomplete.

Faith, religion, spirituality is a continual journey and we are a long way off from the total truth. I think the truth is far greater than we even imagine. One of the gifts from our religions is their differences as they help us explore and evolve our understanding. Some people use the differences to separate us rather than bring us together.

Paraphrasing a quote from Dr. Wayne Dyer…”The goal is not to better than anyone else it is to be better than I was yesterday”.

Let your religion, faith or belief make you a better spirit. Discrimination on any level does not serve this purpose.

In all the posts one comment on Islam caught my eye.

"We should take a honest look at our religion and reform its defects."

This is something we should take to heart on all religions and even the generic term spirituality. Are we (humans) so arrogant to think that in our relatively limited existence that we have determined the ultimate truth in ANY religion?

With all of our advances we have yet to master the science of the physical realm. What makes us think we have a greater understanding of the metaphysical and spiritual realms? At least in the physical we can prove or disprove things with science and even then the accepted “truth” is later proven to be wrong.

Yet we are willing to concede ultimate truth based on what we have heard from other people’s interpretations of old writings; Bible, Koran, Bhagavata, Buddhist scripture) on something that can not be proven but only taken on faith. Even the sum knowledge of all the teachings may be incomplete.

Faith, religion, spirituality is a continual journey and we are a long way off from the total truth. I think the truth is far greater than we even imagine. One of the gifts from our religions is their differences as they help us explore and evolve our understanding. Some people use the differences to separate us rather than bring us together.

Paraphrasing a quote from Dr. Wayne Dyer…”The goal is not to better than anyone else it is to be better than I was yesterday”.

Let your religion, faith or belief make you a better spirit. Discrimination on any level does not serve this purpose.

victoria @ March 22, 2007 9:58 AM:

For documentation you may reference The Ottoman Centuries by Kinross. There are other documents, including the histories of the subjects of the Ottomans.

For someone who likes instructive posts about Islam (I grew up in an Islamic country by the way), you are not informative about past and present practices.

I was looking for an explanation, and would still appreciate one, however.

hank you jeff - it takes a big man to come back and retract

amviennava-
you got a response there- on the other blog-

i have no fascination with orgiastic blood sprees-

as i answered you elsewhere-

there is little point to your post other than defamation or misrepresentation-

if you want to join the ranks of muslim-bashers youre welcome to join them on muslim panelists responses- where it is a normal occurrence-

in the main blogs- such accusations seem to detract from the main conversation

Victoria or V or any Muslim poster:

(I first posted this on the wrong blog ... apologies).

The blog has taken an interesting turn. There is a clarification I would like from Muslims:

A trait of Ottoman rule was to hold their Christian subjects in the cities hostage. Every 15 years or so, on Fridays, the gates would be locked, and after Friday prayers, the faithful would engage in an orgy of massacres lasting from 1 - 4 days. (Those must have been very persuasive sermons delivered by the muezins). It served to keep the 'slaves' in the countryside obedient, since they tended to have family in the cities.

Granted the Ottomans empire is gone, but I have noticed similar events in Iraq, especially in the early days of the insurrection: following Friday payers, the faithful would engage in some atrocity against those of the other sect (Shia or Sunni).

My question is WHY still?

(I realize that the past year or so, by which time Iraqi society has become essentially segregated by sect, the practice has abated).

March 22, 2007 9:05 AM

My Bad,
Not the same Victoria.
Jeff

whoda thunk it? newscynic gallantly coming to the defense of the catholics- ( know newscynic you are fair)

jeff reed- i really DO try to keep pastes down- sometimes when im hounded by CTCNL i get that way- or if i think a really false or malignant idea (not that its been done here) is being propogated-

but most of those posts that are really looongare my own insensate babblings-

also, like eric burden- i hate to be misunderstood (well- the ideology of my religion actually) and thats only because im trying to swim against fox news and their pervasive influence-

i had a point but---

o yes- enrique-

i call it the 'god loves me more than you syndrome'

the last and greatest hurdle in ones spiritual journey is spiritual pride-

i am not accusing you of it- but there is no place in making assumptions about the state of anothers soul-

if your path is truly the right one- that is wonderful- (for you as it can only be)

judgement only comes from god

possibly youve encounterd st john of the cross' dark night of the soul?

i reccomend it for anyone no matter what their religion or non-religion-

possibly youre not aware- but when you ask your lord and savior to save people- you are implying that you yourself are in a position to judge their souls and have decided they need something you have- and if they do or dont- its not really our place to say-

judge not lest ye be judged and

in islam we believe that we will be judged with the mercy with which we have judged others-

it is a great incentive to be lenient

its not my place even to say this-but im just letting you know that it bruises feelings

its kindly meant and i hope kindly taken-

Marco polo, A Hermit, & Candide

Marco Polo: You wrote to Christians: "try to reflect on the reasons why you deserve to be shut in".

I have reflected and I believe I have the answer! It is because they disagree with you right?

said, "The Catholic Church, next to the Nazi SS, is the most evil institution in history."

I am not even Catholic and that one hurt my head. How can you get away with saying that unless you know nothing of the Aztec priests, the Assyrian army, the Scythians, the Thuggee of India. Mao probably killed more people alone than the Catholics did in the last thousand years. As bad as the Spanish Inquisition was it was small potatoes next to the Cultural revolution. Now that's world class terror!

It seems Candide is guilty of taking advantage of modern society's moral blind spot. It seems were are to be open minded and fair to everyone unless they are Catholic. Again I am far from being Catholic but the blatant unfairness of this offends my sense of justice. Go ahead and nail the Catholics (and every one else) when they are wicked, but don't trash all Catholics and their history because you don't like how they think.

The Catholic church has a long history and it is often tainted with blood and gold. No human is perfect and every church (and every corporation and every nation) is made up of people. Has the Catholic Church done much “evil” in god’s name? I would say yes, but last time I checked Mother Teresa was catholic as well.

A Hermit: Your points about the ACLU and freedom of religion are as before SPOT ON. Thank you.

Sorry. I did not intend repeated posts of the same message I wrote to Enrique. A computer error or this website's error explains the repetition.

Dear Enrique;

The problem is not offense, but presumptuousness. And that is a problem not because it hurt me (for, it did not) but because it inteferes substantially with free exchange and possibility of friendship, especially because your presumptuousness (perhaps even arrogance) included your notion that you might help me by moving me toward your faith. How could you think such thought after reading my posts criticizing those of AMviennaVA and some of my other posts?

You deny that your faith is what I described in my first post treating the matter, the post that carried my confession that I respected your faith because of its innocence, like that of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith. But, still, I feel or sense that your faith is peculiar to you because of your special character, that it is not available to just anyone who accepts Christ and receives the eucharist.

Why do you insist that all can achieve your faith by accepting Christ and receiving the eucharist? Perhaps (I cannot know) the reason is that otherwise you would lose faith in the Roman Church's regime that prescribes the rituals that are central to your faith.

But if your faith rests on a "reality" of Christ and his function, then the Church ought to be irrelevant. You ought to be able to commune with the Lord in your closet and there receive his peace.

Respectfully,

Leonard

Dear Enrique;

The problem is not offense, but presumptuousness. And that is a problem not because it hurt me (for, it did not) but because it inteferes substantially with free exchange and possibility of friendship, especially because your presumptuousness (perhaps even arrogance) included your notion that you might help me by moving me toward your faith. How could you think such thought after reading my posts criticizing those of AMviennaVA and some of my other posts?

You deny that your faith is what I described in my first post treating the matter, the post that carried my confession that I respected your faith because of its innocence, like that of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith. But, still, I feel or sense that your faith is peculiar to you because of your special character, that it is not available to just anyone who accepts Christ and receives the eucharist.

Why do you insist that all can achieve your faith by accepting Christ and receiving the eucharist? Perhaps (I cannot know) the reason is that otherwise you would lose faith in the Roman Church's regime that prescribes the rituals that are central to your faith.

But if your faith rests on a "reality" of Christ and his function, then the Church ought to be irrelevant. You ought to be able to commune with the Lord in your closet and there receive his peace.

Respectfully,

Leonard

Dear Enrique;

The problem is not offense, but presumptuousness. And that is a problem not because it hurt me (for, it did not) but because it inteferes substantially with free exchange and possibility of friendship, especially because your presumptuousness (perhaps even arrogance) included your notion that you might help me by moving me toward your faith. How could you think such thought after reading my posts criticizing those of AMviennaVA and some of my other posts?

You deny that your faith is what I described in my first post treating the matter, the post that carried my confession that I respected your faith because of its innocence, like that of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith. But, still, I feel or sense that your faith is peculiar to you because of your special character, that it is not available to just anyone who accepts Christ and receives the eucharist.

Why do you insist that all can achieve your faith by accepting Christ and receiving the eucharist? Perhaps (I cannot know) the reason is that otherwise you would lose faith in the Roman Church's regime that prescribes the rituals that are central to your faith.

But if your faith rests on a "reality" of Christ and his function, then the Church ought to be irrelevant. You ought to be able to commune with the Lord in your closet and there receive his peace.

Respectfully,

Leonard

Leonard,

I assure you there was no intent to offend.

However, given the tone I perceived on parts of your comments on mine, I erroneously pictured you as a young person. I should have been more careful as that presumption shaped the tone and content of my response.

The intent was to share that which I believe to know is most precious, something I believe I am obligated by faith to do. As is unquestionably your prerogative, you have rejected what I have offered as Truth, but which you consider a delusion. Accordingly, there is nothing left for us to discuss at the level of faith.

Hopefully this will clarify the matter but please let me know if it does not.

Enrique

Victoria

I have commented critically on numerous religions, but not Judaism. Like you, I cannot tolerate Zionism, perhaps the greatest scourge of our time. Still, Zionism is not Judaism. Jews are of many varieties, most not even Semite or related to the Hebrews of the ancient promised land. Judaism is not a single religion, just as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are not.

One forum contributor suggested that Jews were smarter than others, or more talented. Then why are so many Zionists?

Still, I shall submit a little comic fable that treats the matter. For, if Jews are the best, then perhaps we ought to discriminate in their favor, not against them. [Positive thought, right?]

THE VIRTUE OF MOYLISH PRECISION

The time was an era of feudal Japan, a century before the emergence of the Tokagawa Shogunate. The emperor's weakness encouraged wide and bloody strife among the always-feuding feudal feuds.

One war-lord was closing-in on obtaining preeminent power. But suddenly his General died, and the stunned baron worried sorely for needing a new chief Samurai. So he issued, world-wide, a noble notice that he sought the finest swordsman of all, for command of the great feud's army.

A year passed, and on the day designated for trials, three candidates appeared: a (Japanese) Ninja, a Chinese soldier-monk (Shaolin priest), and a Jewish Samurai (whose appearance looked like an oxymoron, more than his title may seem).

The war-lord asked the Ninja to demonstrate why he ought to be head warrior. The Ninja opened a diminutive pouch, and a bumblebee blurted out (like a miscast argument). Whoosh sliced the Ninja’s sword, and the bee dropped dead, cut perfectly in half. The war-lord observed: "That IS impressive!"

The war-lord asked the Shaolin priest to display his skills. The deft monk (somewhat a visionary) opened a miniature match-box, and a fly buzzed forth. Swish, swish, the Shaolin’s blade flourished, and the fly fell dead in four very small pieces. The war-lord exclaimed: "That is VERY impressive!"

The war-lord requested the Jewish Samurai show why he ought attain the Gereralship. The bearded mercenary tapped his round black hat and opened a tiny vial. A gnat streamed free. "Shalom," the master whispered, and his sword flashed twice, but the gnat remained alive and continued flying. Disappointed, the war-lord asked: "But haven't you failed miserably? Why is the gnat not dead?"

The Jewish Samurai's eyes smiled as he answered: "My lord, circumcision does not seek to kill."

From Victoria,
"i try not to take over these boards with looongposts and use links instead"
Sorry sis, since when?
:)
Jeff

Enrique [21 March 2007, 7:04 PM]

You wrote:

"If you are going to read philosophy or theology, be fair to yourself, and consider also studying Augustine, Aquinas, Teilhard, Lonergan or even (Anglican) Whitehead, and most importantly, and carefully, the gospels.

I have studied all those you name, even the various versions of the various gospels, even those excluded from the Roman "Bible."

I did not expect you were capable of such presumptuousness.

You wrote:

"Thus you may be able to balance the field of influences to which you are subject, and hedge your bet, or better for you yet, change it altogether, for it is your existence that you are betting, young as you sound."

I do not hedge bets. I do not bet. I act on feeling (including empathy but not emotion) spontaneously or on logical analysis determinatively and irrespective of outcome, comme l'Etranger or the Knight of Faith (though the Knight's premises were not like mine).

Surely, I would not hedge a bet with belief in a delusion like God or a delusional structure like Catholicism or any Christian religion. I would not suggest that you change your existence or your perspective of it. I did not expect you were capable of such presumptuousness.

I am 66. I was a law professor 26 years. My published works include major essays and minor treatises concerning law, philosophy, history, anthropology, economics, statistics, logic and symbolic logic, and forensics.

My "youth" owes itself to two matters: (1) I eat according to Chinese Medicine, and I adjust my experience according to Yin/Yang of Tao, not a religion or philosophy or anything spiritual, but the essential physical dynamic of the universe and all its events. (2) I was born with extraordinary energy, like light.

I did not expect you were capable of such presumptuousness.

You wrote:

"In any event, I hope you don't become stuck in one perhaps endlessly fruitless loop, and at least open your heart, as you may already be doing, to the poor and most vulnerable and oppressed. May you seek sincerely and intelligently as evidently you are doing, but with humility, awe in the face of mystery, and reverence. May Christ have mercy on your soul."

I did not expect you were capable of such presumptuousness.

Alas, you are a proselytizer, too. I am disappointed.

Enrique @ March 21, 2007 7:04 PM: We are essentially in agreement.

insha'alla

i try not to take over these boards with looongposts and use links instead-

http://www.submission.org/women/equal.html

ive read both pickthall and ali and have never been overly impressed with their intentions as translators-

go look at the outrageous translation of 4:34 in particular (my own gauge of a persons mentality)

now im a very responsive person- so even in the wake of extreme aggressive offense (it occurs with regularity on the panelists who are muslims or muslim friendly like armstrong or esposito)
since most americans have a cursory fox news concept of islam i take pleasure in busting these hoaxes and misunderstandings-also i see the danger of continued ignorance of what it actually teaches-

as for the first posts- well, what?

we are FASTING!
from food, drink, sex, chewing gum-
it is not meant to be a party- its intention is to help us control our urges- our baser natures- to instill compassion in us for those who dont have food or drink or their physical needs met-

( i still balk at their translation of apparel etc- a good translation is 'covering')

now im sorry i cant respond at length now because i have to go right now-

also id say that i am probably a good deal more on the mystically orientd side than enrique there-

o- as far as a healthy mind not needing to defend itself- well- thats right.
peace i shall return

AMNVIENNAVA -- Right, I do not believe that the United States, by any stretch of the imagination, is, or has ever been interested, or qualified to help, let alone save the world. One only needs to consider how the country itself was originally inhabited and constituted; the lands it seized, the reservations, slavery, the multitude of countries were it has intervened or invaded shamelessly alleging defense of 'national security' only to appropriate natural resources, along with whole economies and cultures. Obviously the corrupt architecture of the imperialist capitalist system that it shamelessly promotes guarantees that the best of intentions will ultimately result in an aggravation of poverty. While I am not a Marxist for several fundamental reasons, one does not have to be one to recognize that world capitalism guarantees ever increasing inequity.

The extreme poor however cannot way until US or world capitalism is rejected and a new economic system is structured, or for the US and Europe to recognize its historically consistent and barbaric plundering of the world and justly indemnify. Christ proclaimed that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to the poor. So Catholics need not only evangelize, but also simultaneously promote a national and global examination of conscience and of structures, while continuing to organize to unconditionally provide life sustaining assistance where it is most needed, in conjunction with other Christians and ethical people where viable.

LEONARD --As Hamlet protested to Horatio: “There are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt up in your philosophies”. It is convenient and even fashionable to lump all religions and all religious experience into one category, but not objectively true. If everything is equally true, than nothing is true.

Some will argue that ultimately religious experiences are all decipherable and fully explainable as cognitive structural dynamics and physiology yield their secrets and full significance or senselessness; or ultimately reducible to each other: 'suchness', 'satori', 'ínternalized tao´, losing one's identity in the 'merge with the absolute'... or even Reich's orgone. No doubt all paths lead somewhere, but where? No doubt the brain is a circuit, but what is the Significance?

Scientific researchers can now control the wills of pigeons and rats through remote control, and thus presumably eventually ours to an extent too. Yet, are all influences ultimately controllable by us?

Leonard, I have not attained anything as you claim. I reiterate that what I have been given is available fully to all who surrender their wills and destinies to the living God, through Jesus Christ, who has authority over all, can forgive all, can redeem all and promised to redeem many; and sent Peter on a unique mission. Living as the Sermon on the Mount proclaims then becomes truly and fully possible, not mere moral code.

Consider how B. Russell and A.N. Whitehead coauthored “Principia Mathematica” and then drifted into significantly different conclusions. Consider how Heidegger (supposedly a Catholic) and revered by many (still) as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century succumbed to the temptation of power and became the Nazi party's chief ideologue. Consider how and why Wittgenstein shut down.

Consider why Jesus said that John the Baptist was surely the greatest of men, yet the smallest in the Kingdom of Heaven was greater than him.

Philosophy is a method, not an end; only Christ is an end, 'the way, the truth and the life'...where, as Teilhard and Paul coincided 'all converges'...and 'no one reaches the Father except through him'.

If you are going to read philosophy or theology, be fair to yourself, and consider also studying Augustine, Aquinas, Teilhard, Lonergan or even (Anglican) Whitehead, and most importantly, and carefully, the gospels.

Thus you may be able to balance the field of influences to which you are subject, and hedge your bet, or better for you yet, change it altogether, for it is your existence that you are betting, young as you sound.

In any event, I hope you don't become stuck in one perhaps endlessly fruitless loop, and at least open your heart, as you may already be doing, to the poor and most vulnerable and oppressed. May you seek sincerely and intelligently as evidently you are doing, but with humility, awe in the face of mystery, and reverence. May Christ have mercy on your soul.

Victoria

Thank you for disclosing parts of your history. Our lives have been similar in some important ways. You are a person I should appreciate knowing.

You mention a prescription requiring men to lower their eyes and act in a modest manner (presumably in regarding a woman). But that prescription does not limit what men wear or their being immodest in other matters.

Below are quotes that show Islam's scriptural sex-repression, approval of slavery, and discriminatory treatment of women.

002.187

YUSUFALI: Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves; but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you, and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast Till the night appears; but do not associate with your wives while ye are in retreat in the mosques. Those are Limits (set by) Allah: Approach not nigh thereto. Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men: that they may learn self-restraint.

PICKTHAL: It is made lawful for you to go in unto your wives on the night of the fast. They are raiment for you and ye are raiment for them. Allah is Aware that ye were deceiving yourselves in this respect and He hath turned in mercy toward you and relieved you. So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn. Then strictly observe the fast till nightfall and touch them not, but be at your devotions in the mosques. These are the limits imposed by Allah, so approach them not. Thus Allah expoundeth His revelation to mankind that they may ward off (evil).

SHAKIR: It is made lawful to you to go into your wives on the night of the fast; they are an apparel for you and you are an apparel for them; Allah knew that you acted unfaithfully to yourselves, so He has turned to you (mercifully) and removed from you (this burden); so now be in contact with them and seek what Allah has ordained for you, and eat and drink until the whiteness of the day becomes distinct from the blackness of the night at dawn, then complete the fast till night, and have not contact with them while you keep to the mosques; these are the limits of Allah, so do not go near them. Thus does Allah make clear His communications for men that they may guard (against evil).

002.222

YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.

PICKTHAL: They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.

SHAKIR: And they ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves.

002.223

YUSUFALI: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.

PICKTHAL: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).

SHAKIR: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.

See also 23:6, 33:50, 33:52, 70:30 — concerning slavery and having sex with slaves.

Enrique impressed me much, because his faith condemns and then transcends all the dangerous and harmful tripe and repressive doctrines of the Roman Church. His faith is simple and innocent. Much it is a special peaceful feeling he attains through receiving the eucharist.

Perhaps your faith is like Enrique's, despite his partakes of Roman Catholicism. If so, you would be happier and utterly beyond even this iconoclast's questioning, if you stopped defending Islam (as a healthy mind does not defend itself) and simply felt your faith.

LEONARD- because the literal meaning of polygamy is marriage to many spouses (non-gender specific) we use polygyny for its specificity to the situation-

but i appreciate not using words that some arent familiar with- its so much vroader to try to appeal to everyone than trying to speak over heads-

i am very used to dealing with people who speak english as a second language- (not just muslims by any means) and i have a tendency in conversation to use many synonyms at a time until i see that light of clarity- my favorite thing to tell people is to please ask if they dont know a word- my laundromat owner whose been here 30 years from burma considers me her personal walking dictionary- it must be awful to not understand when people speak or respond with eloquence becuase of language-

o- i am known for my short attention span-

i was born in milwaukee wisconsin- raised in pittsburgh pennsylvania- lived all over america live in new york now (just moved from 5 years in chicago)

mom was agnostic- dad was an atheist-
my interest in religion is lifelong from childhood andcompletely self-imposed-

i was a novitiate for the franciscans in my late 20s early 30s (i turned 46 on 311)

i am irish-french (bit of english i think) my dads mom came from germany but the blood is french so on his side i was raisd ina german atmosphere- but no one is really german- i didnt even know this til my 20s so i have little identification with frenchness- and prettymuch always identified with my 3/4ish irishness-

ive been a spiritual tramp most of my life and have worshipped with and studied - buddhism-hindusim-judaism-wicca-sufism-(which i barely connected to islam) umm- and of course christian mysticism-

i hope i didnt leave anyone out- o yes i spent 2 uears with native americans and dabbled but that was a wiccan stage also- (theyre pretty omplimentary)

what was the question?

o i revertd to islam over 8 years ago- (before 911) i was a dinosaur actual practicing church every morning legion of mary catholic before that-

ive never really vibed to nihilism or existentialism or any philisophical schools(although in my early 20s i decided that the thing that ws constantly exhorted to be 'overcome' in revelations was the need for religion as a crutch and did a foray into agonsiticism,but never with conviction- for me it is not feasible to separate myself my connection to ALLAH (god))

o im white white woman with blue blue eyes and dont look the part - i startled the bus driver whom i see every day the other day- visibly- when i looked at him and hed never seen my eyes i guess- i like to do that sometimes cause it creates a shock on occasion- it is a most mild form of rebellion or messing with peoples preconceptions-

i wear hijab (headscarf) and never have bad hair days hee hee

i did NOT marry into islam- as a matter of fact i didnt know any muslims when i became one but did it through prayer and reading so i went through a culture shock when i encountered them-
i always say that- once in chicago i said it a an african american man and HE stated that HE didnt become a muslim in prison!
and we laughed and we laughed!

of COURSE i am victoria and i will always be!

often muslims ask me when im going to change my name to a muslim one-
i say - i am muslim therefore my name is muslim with a lovely meaning-
and i didnt become an arab!

there are mixed reactions to this
(some people have no sense of humor)

ok-
actually there are only 2 small ayats (verses) in the quran that deal with dress at all-
men are commanded to lower their eyes and act in a modest manner-

hadiths compel modest dress for men and women

so theres no disobedience of scripture on their part (or women for that matter)it comes form hadeeth and sunna (sayings and actions of the Prophet(pbuh) and so it might be construed as disregard for hadeeth or sunn- but that is their business-

i always say islam is not a fashion statement- (im sure the designers of the world heartily agree on this) but it is what is inside the heart that matters and ALLAHUALLUM only god knows

peace leonard

also the long post wasnt SO MUCH directed at you but at CTCNL who i consider my own personal test of patience-

Victoria

Below are quotes that indicate prescriptions concerning women's dress. The first set's premises include modesty. I have not found any such prescription concerning men.

Note the language referring to slaves. The language implies, necessarily, that Qur'an permits slavery. Actually, Islam has practiced slavery from the beginning until right now. See also 2:177, 4:3, 4:24, 4:25, 4:36, 5:89, 8:67, 9:60, 16:71, 23:6, 24:31, 24:33, 24:58, 30:28, 33:50, 33:52, 33:55, 47:4, 70:30 — all treating the matter of slavery and some authorizing it.
--------------------

024.031

YUSUFALI: And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

PICKTHAL: And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.

SHAKIR: And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful.

033.059

YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

SHAKIR: O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
----------------------

Now below are some “clothes” related quotes that underscore my sense of Islam's repressiveness.
----------------------

022.019

YUSUFALI: These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water.

PICKTHAL: These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads.

SHAKIR: These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads.

022.020

YUSUFALI: With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins.

PICKTHAL: Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;

SHAKIR: With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well.

022.021

YUSUFALI: In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them.

PICKTHAL: And for them are hooked rods of iron.

SHAKIR: And for them are whips of iron.

022.022

YUSUFALI: Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!"

PICKTHAL: Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.

SHAKIR: Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.
----------------------

In many Qur'an passages (some above), one sees something like this: "Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." But one does not need God's forgiveness if one does not believe in God. More important, God creates sins in people when God represses them and they break the repression. Remove the God and you remove the sin and the God's power of granting or withholding forgiveness.

Why believe in and worship or fear a thing (God) that can make you a "sinner" only because you believe in and worship or fear the thing? Why believe in a thing that says you are a sinner so you can fear the thing lest it not forgive your sin?

Adam and Eve did not wrong. They followed their nature. God made them sinners. Then God punished them for their sin. Then God said he would forgive them if they feared him. A hard father threatens a child that if the child does not yield to the father's wish or rule, the hard father will punish the child, and the child yieds, and yields, and yields, and soon becomes emotionally ill and character-warped.

How very, very sick is believing in such "forgiving" Gods! Such is the God of Judaism and Christianity. Such is very much the God of the Catholic Churches (Roman and Orthodox).

So, one does not "discriminate" against Catholics if one says: Keep your faith away from me and my society. Your faith is a pathology that oppresses and causes massive harm.

Victoria [21 March 2007, 2:21 PM]

No, Victoria, it is EITHER polygamy, OR polygyny. Polygamy is from the Greek πολνγαμία, meaning oft-married (but in a culture that would countenance only one man's marrying several women, not vice versa), THENCE the French "polygamie," ce qui signifie le mariage d'un homme avec plusieurs épouses ou un système social où un homme peut avoir plusieurs conjointes légitimes (so, marriage of one man and several women).

Polygyny IS the more specific term, since it cannot mean anything except marriage of one man and several women. But I do not use the term, because very few people know it.

You wrote: "there are certainly proscriptions for the modest dress of men as well- possibly this summer you might note the muslim-looking men you see with longer sleeves and long pants in the summer."

But you did not quote Qur'an, and the matter is whether Qur'an prescribes, expressly, that men be modest of dress and conduct. My own experience is not what you describe of Muslim men, but I do not know whether th reason is the men's disobedience of scripture.

As your quotes show (and as I wrote in the post I addressed last to you), Qur'an does prohibit gender discrimination and double standards. But that general prescription does not, itself, imply that if Qur'an says women must dress or behave modestly, men must do likewise despite Qur'an does not actually express so.

I cannot avoid gathering that you are Muslim. Were you so by birth? Your name (if it is your actual name, Victoria) makes me wonder whether you converted. If so, why, and what, if any, faith did you follow earlier?

In which nation do you live? In which nation were you born? In which nation did you pass through childhood, then adolescence?

Cheers,

Leonard (Godless and of no faith. Not even atheism.)

Leonard- thanks for the nice words-

just to clarify for your edification-

atually its polyGYNy- but everyone makes that mistake-
there are certainly proscriptions for the modest dress ofmen as well- possibly this summer you might note the muslim-looking men you see with longer sleeves and long pants in the summer,

EQUALITY OF MEN & WOMEN

"All people are equal, as equal as the teeth of a comb. There is no claim of merit of an Arab over a non-Arab, or of white over a black person, or of a male over a female. Only God-fearing people merit a preference with God."

"Their Lord responded to them: 'I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another. 3:195

"The believing men and women are allies of one another.9:71

"GOD promises the believing men and the believing women gardens with flowing streams, 9:72

"The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense."

Heres a short ayat on polygyny-

"If you deem it best FOR THE ORPHANS, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship." 4:3

"You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else). If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 4:129

the ayat dealing with polgyny states you must deal equally in all ways (financial-emotional-time etc) then this ayat states one can never be equitable- many scholars interpet this to mean that such a difficult situation should be avoided in order not to incur further sins-

these were short short short-

also the view of the mystic sufi that sex is = to filth is definitely not an islamic idea-
theres no original sin- only original grace-
sex is celebrated and even considered worship

ONE OF MY FAVORITES
O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the desires (of your hearts), lest you swerve, and if you distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well acquainted with all that you do. (Qur'an 4:135)

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Quran

By Omar Edaibat

Al-Jazeerah, April 30, 2004

The following is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted on December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The attempt of this analysis is to show how each of the fundamental human rights guaranteed in this declaration were already established in the Holy Quran.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/April/30%20o/The%20Universal%20Declaration%20of%20

Human%20Rights%20and%20the%20Quran%20By%20Omar%20Edaibat.htm

Douglas [March 21, 2007, 8:32 AM]

“My grandparents came to the USA because of the Ottoman destruction of Armenia.”

The Armenians suffered genocide in Turkey. But the Ottoman Empire was not responsible. The “Young Turks” were.

At the time of the Genocide (1915), the Ottoman Empire was in political ruin — virtually nonexistent — because of not much earlier Russian and British military actions occurring in and around the Caucasus and then because of the First World War. Russia took much of the Caucasus region, including nearly all of the Armenia [“East Armenia”] located there. Turkey's Armenia [“West Armenia”] was located in Eastern Anatolia, still part of the Ottoman Empire. But the Istanbul area [European Turkey] Armenian population was probably greater than that of West Armenia.

In 1894, West Armenia Armenians engaged in a military insurgency in Sasun [or Sassoun]. The Sultan trounced the Armenian insurgents. Afterward, to punish the offending Armenians, the Governor of Mus [or Mus district, East Anatolia], NOT the Sultan or the Emperial government, stirred Turks to mount a pogrom against West Armenians, but not against Armenians of European Turkey.

The pogrom took at least 80,000 Armenian lives in West Armenia. But it was not an Ottoman action or even an action of the government forces of the Governor of Mus, and it did not take lives of Armenians living in European Turkey, where, still, Armenians were regarded respectfully and had integrated neatly into Turkish society and become leaders of business, banking, and the professions, rather as had Jews in Germany before WWII.

Then, in 1896, another Armenian insurgency stormed, and tried to capture, the Ottoman Bank located in Istanbul. The Sultan's forces prevailed, and THEN the Sultan had Ottoman forces punish the insurgency by slaughtering more than 10,000 Armenians, not only in European Turkey, but also in East Anatolia and elsewhere. Still, the massacre was not the “genocide.”

In the last decades of the 19th Century, the Sultan abolished the Ottoman Parliament, effectively abolished the Ottoman Constitution, and in other ways assumed a corrupt and despotic rule of Turkey. In 1908, the Young Turks conducted a successful revolution that reestablished the Parliament and the Constitution. The result left the Sultan little power other than his title.

The Young Turks included sundry factions, many at least not anti-Armenian. Turkish Armenians enjoyed a brief period of peace. But a First World War event altered the Turkish Armenians' fate much for the worse.

In 1914, in the beginning of the First World War, the Young Turks tried to capture Baku. To do so, they had to pit the Ottoman military against the Russian army stationed in the Caucasus. The Russians nearly annihilated the Ottoman military — destroyed about 90% of it.

The Caucasus Russian army included many East Armenian troops. Some West Armenian irregulars had conducted a guerilla action to aid the Russians and to pursue possible independence.

The Young Turks feared they would lose power and the Empire crumble because the Turkish People would lose confidence in a regime that blundered so badly. Their solution included creating a scape goat — Turkish Armenians. They blamed the Armenians for the Russian trouncing of the Ottoman military and fomented more pogroms. Concomitantly, the Young Turks designed a death march (called a relocation and deportation) for the Turkish Armenian population.

At first, the design related just to Armenians living near the Russian frontier at the Caucasus — the Armenians that had fought the Turks and aided the Russians. That design made some sense — as both punishment of treason and as a profilactic device that would prevent East Anatolian Armenians' mounting further insurrection and prevent their aiding the Russians again.

But apparently the Young Turks imagined that they would need a bigger, better scapegoat. So they propagandized against all Armenians, even the most valuable, who lived in European Turkey — rather in the way the Nazis did against the Jews. (Actually, the Young Turks' design and methods influenced the Nazi's design of the Jewish holocaust.) Then the death march took in most Armenians of the Ottoman Empire (not just Turkish Armenians).

The Sultan was not the leader, nor was the action one of the Ottoman Empire, which, by then, had crumbled thoroughly and metamorphosed into the regime of the Young Turks. The genocide's leadership was a small group of the Young Turks, perhaps the most responsible being Mehmed Talat Pasha, a grand vizier, .

I do not mean to diminish the horror of the Armenian genocide. I mean only to get history straight — so that the right culprits suffer blame and the blame does not spread where it does not belong.

Until Abdul Hamid became a corrupt despot, the Ottoman Empire was one of the few havens of relative liberty and non-discrimination. Surely the Empire was not perfect. But until about 1840, I would have chosen being an Armenian or Jew in the Ottoman Empire rather than an Indian in British India or a Vietnamese in French Indo China or a native of any of the British, German, or French colonies of Africa or a Black or Jew or Irishman living in the US or a Jew living in Catholic Poland or Hungary, or a Protestant living in the Catholic France of the Sun King and Cardinal Richelieu...

Today is not only the start of spring. It is the birthday of one of the greatest-ever humans — Johann Sebastian Bach. Yes, Victoria, rejoice.

Victoria [March 21, 2007, 1:55 AM]

“our religion [Islam] is beautiful as it is- the defects are in the imperfect hearts that misinterpert it for their own ugly purposes”

And

“there are no islamic teachings that oppress women- as a matter of fact- it is the first philosophy and relgion to give total equal rights to women- muslims know this- the stupid fundamentalists that dont are like the jerry falwells of america-“

In one post, I wrote that Christianity and Islam are among the repressive religions. Victoria sees Islam differently.

Surely, the actual original Muslim holy texts (Mohammad's writings) rather prohibited unequal treatment of women and religious discrimination and other intolerance. Mohammad's wife was not only the head of the household but also a brilliant commercial trader and businesswoman. Mohammad admired her much as, apparently, he loved her. When Rome sent emissaries to Mecca, Mohammad opened the great mosque to the saying of Roman mass. Mohammed welcomed Jews, for they were the source of Islam and much good learning and philosophy.

But the consistent Muslim reality has been very different, just as consistent Catholic reality has been very different from whatever Jesus actually taught. In the past few decades, we have seen much of the worst aspects of Muslim reality. We do not see much influence of the finer Sufi inclinations. (But, then, some writers and Sufi groups insist that Sufism pre-dates Islam, and much actual Sufism involves a mix of Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism.)

Islam — actual, original Islam — permits polygamy but not polyandry. Islam prescribes that women be “modest” of dress and behavior but makes no such prescription for men. I am informed that it assigns a special semi-hell, like purgatory, to dead infidels who did not know Islam and another hell to infidels who knew Islam and rejected it or did not embrace it.

But the worst troubles are more subtle, therefore more harmful. I mean the prescribed morality and limits of sexuality and other natural behaviors and prescribed fear of God, even the prescription that one believe in a God and, worst of all, inculcating such limits into children's minds and characters. Even Sufism causes such trouble and harm.

Sufism designs “the reparation of the heart and turning it away from all else but God.” Shaykh Ahmad Zarruq, “The Principles of Sufism.” Ibn 'Ajiba said Sufism is "a science through which one can...travel into the presence of the Divine, purify one’s inward from filth, and beautify it with a variety of praiseworthy traits." What is “filth” — sexual lust? What are the meanings of “beautify” and praiseworthy traits — deprive of sexual lust and not being lustful? Why is good only what is praiseworthy? Are we good if we act to be praised? Why must I travel to the presence of the Divine — to be beautiful or praiseworthy or good?

I am sorry, Victoria. You seem a lovely person. I wish I could agree that your religion is beautiful. Untrammeled empathic freedom is beautiful.

But this blog's question is anti-Catholic discrimination. What a silly question. Surely, one is wrong if one discriminates against another merely because the other is a Catholic. But one is not paranoid if one curves one's action according to the statistically sound premise that a likely any Catholic will want to impose Catholic values on society or will perceive (even if just silently) that a non-Catholic as somehow wrong or misguided or even inferior. Why?

The reasons are many. Some are: Catholicism has a history of empire, which makes it feel great. Catholicism is a proselytizing or evangelical religion. Catholic morality resolves into “grace” which is predestined, not earned. The Roman Church was the first big Christian Church and won the big Christian religion-wars, like the Arian/anti-Arian war or Homoiousianism/Homoianism/Heterousianism war or the consubstantiation/transubstantiation war. Other reasons abound.

But the critically important matter is the statistical one dependent on centuries of prolific actual hurtful, oppressive, and obtrusive behavior. Then, too, consider that our Supreme Court's membership includes five Catholics, all of whom tend to vote for oppression, against liberty, civil rights, and due process, against protecting the environment, and (despite they call themselves conservative) in favor of monopolistic business and big government.

So, when I learn a person is a Catholic, I shift into to mode of trying not to expect that the person will make me uncomfortable. Though I respect Enrique's faith, still I wonder whether even he would make me uncomfortable because his faith tends to move adherents to make non-believers “better.”

Leonard : "I did not say I would not ever rebut another of your posts." You tease you....raise my hopes and then bring them crashing down!

I grew up catholic and I experienced discrimination but I would put it on the same level as the discriminiation blondes experience (have you heard all the blonde jokes lately?). Being discriminated against is going to happen no matter what you are or do. People are stupid, remember that. People, by nature, do stupid things without thinking. I would be surprised to find anyone who was never discriminated against. Even "popular people" are discriminated against. Ask any junior high school kid.

Now there are levels of discrimination. Blacks around the world suffer discrimination as do women in general at a high level. Athena gives a good comparison above showing that discrimination has levels and varying effects. Catholics in America feel little discrimination, probably below the average discrimination that average people experience. As another poster pointed out, you are probably more likely to be discriminated against because of your ethnicity (Irish, Italian, etc) rather than your Catholic religion. Now the UK has some real discrimination while in Italy it is a problem if you are NOT Catholic.

So anyone who is Catholic and feels they have been discriminated against stop whining. The discrimination you feel as a group is truely minor and below the average level of discrimination people in the USA feel every day. Suck it up and if anything work to not discriminate against anyone, even blondes. MLK had it right, judge people on the courage of their convictions and not on color or religion. And as one of my favorite comics once noted: "Why hate people for their color or religion when there are so many good reasons to hate people."

Over the past couple of days I have been reading posts to the question of religious discrimination? Very few posts answered the question and most were furthering the right to discriminate for religious reasons. Some have decided that if you believe in a god you can't be a free thinking individual. That's stupid. Some have tried to use the history of a few to show the decent and hypocrisy of a whole collective that never had anything to do with such history. Many have defended their faith by showing direct prejudice against any who seem to oppose them. Christian's( catholic,protestant,eastern orthodox,coptic),Hindu, Buddhist, Muslem, Athiest, Humanist, Wiccan, all believe only they got it right. No time for decent discussion, no time to just answer the question gotta pound my belief into you so you know I'm the greater person.

To answer the question yes I have seen religious discrimation in my own life. I live in 'Mormonville'. Although most mormons can't get past the stereotype many have been open enough to tell me how much they hate me, some how much they enjoy conversing with me. Still in order to be employed I can't apply at a mormon owned company. Glad I have'nt needed to find a job in a long time.

My grandparents came to the USA because of the Ottoman destruction of Armenia. I have a terrible time believing the Muslem are tolerant of anything but I do make a conscience effort to not hate middle eastern people (grandma was Assyrian) because of the choice that one group of people made to further their religious agenda. I was raised in a Lutheran church and I disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrine but I also disagree with the way Protestants conduct themselves according to their moral code.

I despise the fact that in this country we demand and require our schools to teach that grandparents and parents are neolithic thinkers because they don't buy into scientific theories of evolution. But I do look forward to reading posts by the atheist, agnostic, humanist writers and posters on the web.

~~~~~~~HAPPY SPRING YOU LOVELY THINGS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bounce bounce leap cavort frolic caper sproing

CCNL- i had ade no connection to you and the phony pretend muslim poster until you copied it- now im almost sure it was you-

do you not find some irony in the fact that mr patels question dealt with muslim-bashers and you follow here dragging my name into your favorite activity?

honestly liberated- look at this through others eyes---

and then again CCNL- youposted the samepost on that site and this brother made this comment to you-

Ibn abdullah: (which means son of the servant of ALLAH_ victorias note)

Jihadist was right in implying. "Ibn Allah" is not a Muslim nor does "Ibn Allah" knows Arabic or Islam enough to call himself "Ibn Allah". Jihadist was mocking him.

Posted March 21, 2007 12:16 AM

it is remarkable that adfter ANDREW commented on youre questionable comments tome that you actually come and prove his point liberated-

you really must read what people write-

i am having a suspicion that you are the one that posted this question to begin with-

in the future- no muslim would say this-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To improve our image we should:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

what kind of stupid person would publicly state they are so dishonest as to worry about image like a politician?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Ask what we, as Muslims, can do to win the hearts of non-Muslims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

my answer? be a good human- not a weasel politician trying to manipulate the feelings of people

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) We should take a honest look at our religion and reform its defects.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

no muslim would say that- YOU CTCNL might say that- as a matter of fact youve made countless posts to that effect

our religion is beautiful as it is- the defects are in the imperfect hearts that misinterpert it for their own ugly purposes

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3) We should not deal with imams and countries that oppress women in concert with Islamic teachings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

what?
there are no islamic teachings that oppress women- as a matter of fact- it is the first philosophy and relgion to give total equal rights to women- muslims know this- the stupid fundamentalists that dont are like the jerry falwells of america-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4) We should swear to uphold the US Constitution and not allow sharia to take hold."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this is clearly an american christians anxiety-
this particular idea had never entered my head or any muslim has ever suggested such a thing-

so were to believe this is some kind of schizophrenic islamophobic muslim afraid the sharia is oing to "take hold"in america?

or more likely a paranoid delusion

okay concerned the chrisian now liberated- youe had your fun- all eyes are on you again-

now would you pretty please with cherries on top let the good people get back to their discussion?
peace all and sorry for the interruption

then this sister commented-
Jihadist:

Ibn Allah?:)

Son of God? That is what you monicker means in Arabic. No Muslim would use that:)

Nice try:)

liberated - if youd have read our posts youd have noticed how we debunked this poster-

for instance- the name is an imaginary one that no mulsim would ever take-

to call oneself the (ibn allah) son of ALLAH would be against our religion-

this is obviously a fake poser pretending to be a muslim- we get them all the time-

for instance- its probably a christian -(the son of god thing)

Finally a Muslim with some concern and common sense

As per Ibn Allah noted at the Dr.Patel commentary:

"To improve our image we should:

1) Ask what we, as Muslims, can do to win the hearts of non-Muslims.

2) We should take a honest look at our religion and reform its defects.

3) We should not deal with imams and countries that oppress women in concert with Islamic teachings.

4) We should swear to uphold the US Constitution and not allow sharia to take hold."

Maybe Jihadist and Victoria will someday make the same suggestions!!!

With respect to #2, I recommend having Professor JD Crossan clean out the defects of the Koran just like he did for the NT.

i havent seen bad manners on leonards part-

muslim-derived claims?

anti-west?

because leonard has presented some non-western tings in a positive light- it doesnt necessitate ANTI-westernism

i have found him to be anti-elitist

you think intolerant of intolerance is inconsistent with any other posts ive made?

ive only been intolerant of one thing on these boards and that is zionism

being FOR something doesnt automatically mean you are AGAINST something

i am honestly not sure what claims ive made, but youre welcome to copy any inconsistencies here as it would only help me to examine my self objectively-

if someone came on here making claims of eastern superiority theyd get the same response

Victoria:

As for intolerance of intolerance, are you serious? I have read many of your posts and this is not at all what you have proclaimed. You have refused to respond to people who have adressed you in a manner that you have described as disrespectful. Fact is, if you had posted any of your Muslim-derived claims, he would have treated you as he has others here, and you would have taken the same stance with him as you have with people like CCNL. Possibly even with good reason.

Could it be that you are identifying with L because you like his anti-western stance?

I am not ripping you here, I think you are respectful yourself, but your last post just does not fit with your previous ones.

i think in this i can alogn myself with leonards thinking-

what im getting is that hes intolerant of intolerance-

i dont find that to be at all arrogant -

also anonymous- when posting under anonymity -
i personally view such posts with some disregard-

if a person has smething valuabel to say- they shouldnt need to hide their identity-

the same goes for strange misrepresentational names-

ps= sal adin also sent his physician and a fine horse to richard when in battle-

that is graciousness personified

good manners can be expressed by any person anywhere

AMviennaVA

I did not say I would not ever rebut another of your posts. I said I doubted I would. Truly I hoped I would not. But I cannot resist objecting to your libeling me.

In your post of 20 March 2007, 2:55 PM, you wrote: “Lastly about what 'Leonard' and a couple of others have posted. They are certainly not shy about making broad and sweeping statements. ... I did not post that Hellenic and western thought created all that is good. Phrasing it that way is dishonest and meant to produce a single result. ... That is a false statement, and a LIE to boot.” [My emphasis and my ellipses. Leonard]

On 15 March 2007, 8:51 PM, you wrote: “It is the Christian tradition that has created the circumstances and frame of mind that allows people to oppose these deplorable conditions. I will take it a step further: in the modern world, opposition to these conditions is found ONLY in the societies that spring from the Christian tradition.” [My emphasis. Leonard] The “deplorable conditions” included slavery and other lacks of liberty and self-determination.

So, you DID “posit” that ONLY Christian tradition created all that you called good. You did not allow even that Hellenic or non-Christian Western thought created any such good.

Later you underscored your meaning: “My position still remains, that it is the societies based on the Christian tradition that tolerate and encourage dissent (and by consequence have overwhelmingly improved the human condition).” Yours of 16 March 2007, 5:42 PM. And “My position is that it is the societies, countries, based on the Christian tradition that tolerate and encourage dissent, and are actually primarily responsible for the improvement in the human condition.” Yours of 17 March 2007, 8:14 PM.

Then, I and at least one other (Phaedrus) observed that ancient (pre-Christian) Greece enjoyed democracy and other virtues you deem critical. Your reaction was to change your position.

“Phaedrus: Indeed, I also believe that the Hellenic influence is responsible for the tolerance of dissent by sociteies [sic] based on the Christian tradition. Let us not forget that Christianity is the combination of two schools of human thought: the Judaic of course; and the Hellenic, from which spring the concepts of individual responsibility and salvation.

“That is why I cringe whenver [sic] I hear the 'PC' crowd talk of our 'Judeo-Christian' tradition. By rights they should talk of our 'Christian', or 'Greco-Judaic' or 'Judeo-Hellenic' tradition.”

Yours of 18 March 2007, 7:20 PM.

I did no more than hold you to your original position — which exposed your Christian arrogance and the arrogance of Christianity. I did not misstate your position. I did refused to permit you to wriggle out of the position you took initially — your true position.

So, by asserting that I lied (misstated your position intentionally) you libeled me. Also, either YOU lied or YOU misrepresented MY posts' contents.

Now your assertion that I have posted “broad and sweeping statements.” Your assertion describes YOUR posts, not mine. My posts are laden with detailed proofs of my propositions and detailed examples of histories that rebut your broad, sweeping (and false) assertion that liberty and other such goods are peculiar to societies of Christian tradition. See, among others, my post of 19 March 200, 5:33 PM (responding to a 19 March 2007, 2:41 PM post of “V”). That post collects here-pertinent excerpt of various of my posts criticizing your absurd, Christian-arrogant assertion.

And the Lord Leonard spake:

"And, alas, you read poorly. The Websters definition makes two necessary conditions of application of the term “arrogant.” One condition is “a feeling of superiority.” It is NOT “a manifestation of (actual) superiority.” Another condition is that the “feeling of superiority” be “manifested in” either (a) “an overbearing manner” or (b) “presumptuous claims.”

The Webster's definition does not indicate an antecedent condition ( the superiority being true or untrue) giving rise to the feeling, but merely the feeling. You invent the antecedent and insert it into the definition to suit. tsk tsk. And a "manifestation of actual superiority" would be a noun anyway, as opposed to an adjective.

I will leave it to the rest of the folks to determine for themselves whether your actions are "overbearing." (unpleasantly or arrogantly domineering.) Presumptuous? (though only one of the two is required,) I vouch for that on personal experience. Yep, you are one arrogant human being.

Oh, and about the "fear" thing, and the numerical advantage nonsense. You strike no fear in my heart, and therefore I need no advantage, numerical or otherwise. You make me laugh right now, but, I wager that if I actually knew you, and found that the personality structure matched what i see in your posts, I'd likely pity you Leonard. Narcissism is almost never attractive at close range.

One thing that you do seem to have discovered though is something to believe in: your superiority.

Oh, and have you noticed that your personal behavior on this thread bares striking resemblance to what you deplore about the attitudes and actions of this country?

Good bye, Leonard

Anonymous [20 March 2007, 6:51 PM]

You wrote:

“No one gets to make up definitions as it suits them either. To claim that "arrogance" applies solely to false claims one makes about themselves is inaccurate. ...

" 'Arrogance,' From Webster's: 'a feeling of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims.' Your manner is nothing if not overbearing, in my view. As to the presumptuousness of your claims, I would leave that to the individuals you have made claims about. You can arrogantly assert that you are precisely what you happen to be, but you were still arrogant when you said it."

You make a "point" of your attending an Ivy League university. You say your professors are laudable, some even Nobel Laureates. But your own ability does not alter or rise toward heaven because of your being an Ivy League student taught by some fine minds.

Your writing is ungrammatical and syntactically illogical or misrepresentational. I shall put two examples.

First example: “No one gets to make up definitions as it suits them either.”

I will eschew criticizing all but one aspect of the faulty form, grammar, and diction and the illogic of the "no one gets to make up" part of your sentence — because the criticism would use too much space. The one aspect is: "no one gets to make up [definitions]" implies a rule that no one can have power to create definitions. The power-lack proposition is doubly false. (1) It is empirically false, since some do have effective power of creating definitions. (2) It misrepresents my conduct, since I did not create (or "make up") any definition (and I shall show so below).

Your sentence suffers number disagreement — “No one [singular]...them [plural]. Do not try to defend on political correctness or feminist premises. The pertinent ones are illogical and logic-destructive, and they and their effects are unnecessary, since always a fine mind can find means of stroking feminists without destroying language and logic.

Also your sentence suffers illogical and redundant syntax and incoherency. In “as it suits them,” what is “it”? What is the antecedent of “as”? What is the function of “either”?

Second example: “To claim that 'arrogance' applies solely to false claims one makes about themselves is inaccurate.” Again, number disagreement — “false claims one [singular] makes about themselves [plural].” Also, what is the subject of “is”?

(Note, too a related, important super-linguistic matter: I wrote that "arrogance" involves attributing to oneself virtues one lacks, so that the false claim must be not just false but one that aggrandizes the claimant. So, you attack me for writing a statement I did not write.)

And, alas, you read poorly. The Websters definition makes two necessary conditions of application of the term “arrogant.” One condition is “a feeling of superiority.” It is NOT “a manifestation of (actual) superiority.” Another condition is that the “feeling of superiority” be “manifested in” either (a) “an overbearing manner” or (b) “presumptuous claims.”

I do not FEEL superior to you and AMviennaVA in aspects or ways pertinent to the exchanges you two and I have posted in this forum. I AM superior in such aspects or ways.

My posts have not been overbearing. They have been irreverent, sometimes harshly so. But they have dealt scrupulous criticisms supported by solid and sufficient fact and unassailable logic. When my posts have criticized language usage (diction, grammar, syntax), they have been correct, unlike yours.

I have not put “presumptuous claims.” I have supported my points with numerous factual, logical, legal, historical, geographical, and language-analysis premises. No one has been able to show my premises false or insufficient.

AMviennaVA has asserted that I have misrepresented (even lied concerning) a rather fatal statement AMviennaVA posted. But, as I will show in a separate post referencing AMviennaVA's statement and recent libel of me, I did not misrepresent AMviennaVA's statement. Rather, AMviennaVA misrepresented AMviennaVA's statement to avoid suffering accountability.

Now consider other definitions of “arrogant” — better than the Websters one you quoted. First an etymologically accurate definition of “arrogance” that I take from The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology: “aggressive presumption” or “lay undue claim to” Clearly arrogance does not occur unless the aggression is presumptuous — unfounded — or the claim is undue (false). I do not offer that Dictionary's definition of “arrogant” because that Dictionary defines only the noun “arrogance” (since the adjective “arrogant” follows the meaning of the noun “arrogance”).

Now the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “arrogant”: “Making or implying unwarranted claims to dignity, authority, or knowledge” or “aggressively conceited or haughty, overbearing.”

The term “unwarranted” limits application to cases of false claims. The term “conceited” limits “haughty” to hubris, because of the “or” that occurs between “conceited” and “haughty” — an “or” that makes “conceited” and “haughty” virtual equivalents. The term “overbearing” follows a comma not preceded by a conjunction, and in the particular syntax, that fact makes “overbearing” stand in apposition to “haughty” limited by “conceited” — so that overbearing means “conceitedly overbearing” and, so, overbearing illegitimately or without legitimating premise.

You do not like my pouncing on people's tripe. You feel threatened, because I might pounce on your tripe. So, you join with those I threaten. You seek safety in numbers. But numbers do not supply legitimate factual or logical premises. They supply only what larger armies enjoy when they face numerically lesser forces.

Leonard:

No, I think that Bill has made an accurate characterization regarding the manner in which you have addressed your points and your "opponents." No one gets to make up definitions as it suits them either. To claim that "arrogance" applies solely to false claims one makes about themselves is inaccurate. It brings to mind Muhammed Ali's famous line; "It aint braggin if its true." That was funny because it was actually an untrue statement, and so is yours. Ali was a funny guy though, and you, well, no evidence of that here.

"Arrogance," From Webster's: "a feeling of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims." Your manner is nothing if not overbearing, in my view. As to the presumptuousness of your claims, I would leave that to the individuals you have made claims about. You can arrogantly assert that you are precisely what you happen to be, but you were still arrogant when you said it.

I am also a non-believer. I have been the recipient of many unkindnesses at the hands of believers. So have most others who deviate from this country's religiosity. I hear many claims regarding the "satanic" nature of evolutionary science and those who espouse it in classrooms etc. But, this is only boorish behavior in defense of closely held beliefs, usually based in fear. I know that if I returned it in kind, then I only add to the charges of those believers who claim that all people like me are arrogant and solely interested in showing off our intellect. After all, I may be the only atheist they meet, who is willing to admit it anyway.

I like to think though, that my responding to their remarks with graceful, yet firm "reasons" for why I believe as I do, may make it that much easier for the next atheist they encounter. Attacking their intelligence, even when they say something that demonstrates remarkable ignorance, accomplishes nothing aside from the hardening of that ignorance. And, of course, atheists say ignorant things as well, don't they?

I attend an ivy league university and am surrounded every minute, it seems, by truly brilliant people. Some of my professors have been the recipients of the world's highest honors for intellectual acheivement, Nobel laureates, Field's Medals kind of stuff. NONE of them, not one, has, or would, show the kind of contempt for the opinions of others that you have shown here. They assert and defend their positions with great energy and emotional passion, but they never dismiss someone with a "Go take a remedial reading course" kind of comment. That is simply boorish. And you make it that much harder for the rest of the non-believers out there by making sterotypes come alive.

This thread is about discrimination, and I see its emotional and cognitive building blocks here on both sides of this belief-divide. Every believer who acts like the atheist's "believer poster child" (you're all going straight to hell!!") reinforces the stereotypes that you are all stupid, poorly educated, and fearful. And every atheist who invites someone to "Go take a remedial reading course, moron!" reinforces the sterotype that we are all Leonards. Neither is accurate, both equally wrong.

This has been a brief respite from my educational mandates, but I learned some things btreezing through here.

Best wishes all,

The stereotype of Catholic priests as pedophiles is a form of discrimination. But Catholics have come a long way since, say, the 1920s when Al Smith lost the presidential race, or even 1960 when Kennedy had to distance himself from the Vatican. Now, many hardline Catholics find common cause with rightwing Protestants on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Muslims, on the other hand, are still seen by many Protestants as being either "alien" or terrorist suspects. Like the Catholics decades ago, Muslims are moving into communities that are not familiar with them. This results in tensions and false stereotyping.

(And no, I'm neither Catholic nor Muslim, but I know people of both persuasions.)

Bill P [March 20, 2007 8:17 AM]

You wrote:

“Leonard:

Your impressive degree of arrogance may be topped only by your childish hostility. Your posts, though reasoned, convey a "look at me" tone that, I think, ultimately overpowers what factual content they contain. Please feel free to respond with your usual condescension.”

One is not arrogant if one trashes nonsense with means it deserves. One is not arrogant if one reacts harshly to arrogance that causes or helps explain the myriad injustices — often violent or hugely injurious injustices — that religious institutions or their adherents commit. One is not childishly hostile if one reacts harshly to the kind of nonsense and falsehood that religious institutions or their adherents have used to “justify” or “excuse” those injustices. One does not condescend if one demonstrates irreverently the idiocy of thought, premise, or assertion that participates often in causing those injustices.

Injustices? I do not mean only flagrant social, legal, or political ones or the injustices of war or socio-economic oppression or imperialism. I mean also “tiny” but equally horrific injustices like warping a child's mind with the nonsense of obtrusive religions, like Christianity and Islam, so the child is deprived of liberty of thought, choice, and pleasure. Such injustices make me ANGRY, not arrogant. Such INJUSTICE reflects THE MAKER'S arrogance, which explains my criticisms of AMveinnaVA's posts.

You acknowledge that my posts are reasoned. You do not join issue with any of my post's propositions. You do not put any facts or arguments concerning ANYTHING. Instead, you wage AD HOMINEM attack that states no premise, just your assertions.

Arrogance is attributing to oneself (expressly or by implication of words or conduct) some virtue one LACKS. Consider whether “arrogant” fits YOUR post.

My posts tend not to criticize their objects politely. They criticize irreverently — sometimes even harshly. Still, unless you can show that my criticisms are not valid or are sloppy or weak, you misapply the term “arrogant” to my posts.

I do not react unkindly to innocent, harmless nonsense, illogic, or factual error or to a harmless, innocent, statement of harmless sincere belief or faith. Witness my 19 March 2007, 9:29 PM post reacting to Enrique 2's post of 19 March 2007, 9:21 PM.

I react harshly to DANGEROUS nonsense, illogic, and falsehood — the kind that formed part of the motivation and explanation of the arrogant and monstrously brutal 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Crusades and the Holy Land's viciously oppressive, near-genocidal Christian rule that Saladin ended. Some marvel at Saladin's maintaining chivalrous honor and, occasionally, showing a little compassion in his treatment of the Christian occupiers and Christian armies of the 3rd Crusade. But I marvel at how brilliantly Saladin attacked the manifest evil of the Christian invaders, who, especially in the 1st Crusade, inflicted their cruelty not just on Arab and Turk Muslims but also, massively, on Jews.

My posts have criticized harshly also the falsehoods and illogics of posts that, like mine, OPPOSE Christianity or public school religion courses. See my posts of 17 March 2007, 8:07 PM (criticizing Phaedrus's post) and 15 March 2007, 5:31 PM & 14 March 8:01 PM (both criticizing sundry posts asserting that the first amendment bars public school religion courses) We risk doing harmful injustice whenever we press ANY social, political, or legal position with nonsense, illogic, or falsehood.

Smilen Al:

I agree that Christians, Muslims, Mormons, atheists etc should be shown the same personal respect as anyone else, and that they have the right to believe as they see fit and to behave accordingly, as long as no one is victimized. (For example: I do not believe that a parent should be able to refuse their child life-saving medical care on religious grounds, because it is not the life of the believer that will be lost, it is the child's.)

But, religious "truth-claims" are like any other, and should be debated on their merits as vigorously as any other. I do not agree that claims regarding Jesus' resurrection or Muhammed's flight to Jerusalem, or Joseph Smith's reports regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon should be granted a sort of deference which is not accorded to other "truth-claims" like punctuated equilibrium or cold fusion.

Ideas, and claims based on them, are not people. So, being disrespectful to Christians as people is unjust, but subjecting their beliefs to scrutiny is quite appropriate.

victoria (also v) : You addressed me, so I shall respond.

enrique posted what is probably a rhetorical question. It can be interpreted many ways, so I asked for a clarification. For all you or anyone else knows I agree with enrique. But first I want to know what is his position. However, evidence you post to me, there is a tendency by many here to attack or be didactic, or whatever. If I was you, I would have let enrique respond.

I left aside enrique's comment about Bush. I believe that is a topic of its own, primarily because in my opinion Bush is a hypocrite who uses the label 'Christian' to suit his needs. So do many of our politicians in the US, unfortunately. That is a reflection on THEM, and not on Christianity.

Lastly about what 'Leonard' and a couple of others have posted. They are certainly not shy about making broad and sweeping statements. They have also reserved for themselves the right to judge others. I did not post that Hellenic and western thought created all that is good. Phrasing it that way is dishonest and meant to produce a single result. Very much the way Bush presents the choice as his way or complete defeat in Iraq. That is a false statement, and a lie to boot.

As others have pointed out, there is an arrogance and intolerance paraded here by posters such as Leonard (not the only one by the way). There is a plethora of pompousness, arrogance, ignorance, and most of all intolerance of differing opinions. For starters I suggest that you review the personal attacks on this blog, and whom they originate from, and interestingly how quickly those posters resort to the personal attack.

LEONARD- ok good then i understood your posts-

i didnt want to put words in your mouth or paraphrase yur words possibly innapropriately

AMVIENNAVA- i dont think anyone (enrique) is suggesting that the usa is responsible for curing the ills of the world-

however you seemed to miss his point that the extraordinary hypocrisy of this administrations self- definition as christian- and their actions-
and the support of a christian based philosophy constituency is a fair comment-

id say most people in the world arent looking for america to rescue them-
they just want america to stop killing them and stealing their resources under the banner of "liberating" them

i sincerely hope my government never decides to start "liberating" the muslms in america of their life and property.

i have always respected catholic charities as one of the really redeeming aspects of the catholic church- i evenposted that at the begininning

AMVIENNAVA- you seem to have gotten off point-
the point isnt the scholarship or beiefs of LEONARD (which i continue to enjoy)

but the point is that you presume that hellenic and western thought created all that is good-

he has been consistently giving examples of humans who arent westerners and the value they have-

it this arrogant attitude that makes many in the other hemisphere fear and hate us-

it has been noted quite often that bush's arrogance and lack of humility have started our current war- (almost started a conflict with china as i recall)

is say the west is on an accelerated program of empire decline-

I encourage people to peruse the reponses to religious articles. It is scary to see the names, taunts, and many assumptions people have for Christians. They are equated to terrorists & murderers, and are often believed to be completely ignorant, and NOT WORTHY of having an opinion/voice. In the past few years I've seen a large increase of these sentiments. All of the people who hold these views, including those who do not share them on an internet site, are out there, and there are many people listening. I've had people clearly and boldly assert that Christians cannot reason, are hateful, and are the cause of most of the worlds troubles without knowing anything substantial about their religion or history. And it has been mostly in pseudo-intellectual atmospheres. I say pseudo-intellectual because people are not acting truly intellectually honest or impartial, despite their standing in academia. Each person wants to seem intellectual and many mistakingly assume that intellecutal means anti-religious. This IS gaining large momentum in the academic/intellecual world. The ramifications of this behavior in an atmosphere of higher learning are enormous; people absorb this bigoted thinking as they learn, and it transforms our society into a hateful one. Its very pervasive; I have had teachers who openly have double standards, and mock Christians. It is not uncommon. Friends have had undergrad and graduate classes where they were afraid to let their religion be known, and where their God was made fun of. We should learn how to consider a point-of-view humbly, and how to properly disagree, without dehumanizing the other person or group and considering new facts as they arise. In the NY Times, one reader wrote that Christians shouldn't be allowed to practice science, and some were sympathetic to his opinion. I had a homosexual teacher who I complained to once about people being unfair and he indicated that it is good that Christians are discriminated against; finally its their turn. Some people may horbor a personal vendetta against the religion, whether fact-based or not, and undermine it when they can. Lately, some confuse political parties with religious groups, therefore when they oppose a party and attack it they will blindly oppose and attack a religion too. Lastly, there is a pervasive ignorance about the Bible and the ignorance of the enormous positive Christian influence in history. People make assumptions based on the non-factual claims of others. This is the scarist aspect to me is the level of ignorance and the mob-mentality that follows. I see people largely defining Cristians as always ...(insert ignorance here) and they will not examine or ask a Pastor for themselves. They are like people who say Jewish people are always gready for money, or foreigners always stink, or Afician-Americains are stupid, etc.. The ignorance of the Bible and of what Christians believe, with the hate-filled comments increasingly spewed towards them is completely chilling.

Let me include a long preface to lend to the interpretation of what I write:

I am not any variety of christian, nor a member of any large (or medium-sized... or small, actually) religion that is formally recognized in the USA. I am an independent soul who has a lot in common with some of the generic neo-pagan religions that are floating around in the American culture, although I do not believe it is necessary for me to join a like-minded community to validate my beliefs. I also seem to have much in common with secular humanists and can relate to the concept of athiesm, as I do not believe in a concept of an "entity" god. But I do have "religous" beliefs, and they are very strong and a vital part of my life.

As such: I cannot normally discuss my beliefs socially at work, as they are subject to derision. (Actually, I feel no need to do so, but other people seem insistant on asking personal questions of this nature.) In one specific case, when directly asked by my supervisors in front of others, I related my take on a personal matter that involved my beliefs. Relations with her have remained frosty on her side for several years - partially because I have learned that she has passed on her memories of that conversation around to others, with the added interpretation that I'm "some kind of nut case" as a bonus. I guess it's all a matter of perspectives, but mine are not as valid, apparently.

I do not normally share my beliefs while at work. I have found that if one is not readily classifiable into a mainstream group and refuses to discuss their religion at work, however, one is immediately put on the "suspect" list - try it and see. It's a catch-22 scenario.

You talk about discrimination. I cannot take days I consider the equivalent to mainstream "holy" days off unless thay are taken from my allocation of vacation days, and I've been denied because I "didn't have a ~real~ religion" and they needed me at work on a "normal" work day to handle things. That issue never comes up at Christmas, I note. Or during Lent or Easter. Or on Jewish or Moslem holy days. Obviously, without the political clout of a group to leverage benefits, one's beliefs are inconsequential, in the USA. (I'd like to believe it was different elsewhere, but doubt it.)

I work at a major university in California that values "diversity" - but not of my variety, apparently. If I was a faculty member, perhaps there might be a little more leeway. But as staff member there's precious little of it. Thankfully I can retire soon. I will be happy to put it all behind me as I move on.

I do not expect others of mainstream religions to have to understand or accept my beliefs as "truth", but I would appreciate the same courtesy that they exchange with each other. I was born into an Irish Roman Catholic family and am, believe me, very familiar with that religion (it was never mine). I also spent a considerable amount of time in the Bible Belt, and had various fundamentalist christian beliefs shoved down my throat on a regular basis. I've done some reading of other religions - probably not enough, but enough to have a general feel for them, I think.

My personal experience is that the people who claim loudly to follow a particular religion and set of beliefs tend to be those least likely to have either read them, understand them, or truly follow them. There seem to be a large number of people who are threatened by the thought that someone may not agree with them - and they base their "validity" and being "ok" and "belonging" on being agreed with in that aspect - and then lash out at those whose existence makes them uncomfortable. I haven't encountered a religion yet that didn't have some people like that professing to it.

But, in the end, I find the proposal that anyone of any large mainstream sect of christianity faces significant, widespread discrimination against them in the US of A to be... farfetched.

Catholic Teachings on Discrimination:

The equality of men and women rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.40

Let's end discrimination together!

Catholic Charities USA Launches Campaign to Reduce Poverty in America

Catholic Charities USA’ s Campaign to Reduce Poverty in America is a new multi-year initiative to cut poverty in half by 2020, urging Congress and the Administration to give a much higher priority to the needs of the 37 million Americans living in poverty in budget and policy decisions on issues such as health care, housing, nutrition, and economic security. This broad effort that will involve partners in social service agencies, the faith community, and other groups in a sustained effort to convince government officials of the importance of making systemic changes in government programs to help the poor and most vulnerable in our society.

The worst discrimination is that vs. atheists; they of all groups have the least chance of being elected to office. Yet they are usually the most honest, the most moral, the most truthful, the least hypocritical. Go figure.

Leonard : "I doubt I shall reply to any message you post after now."

Thank You.

Leonard:

Your impressive degree of arrogance may be topped only by your childish hostility. Your posts, though reasoned, convey a "look at me" tone that, I think, ultimately overpowers what factual content they contain. Please feel free to respond with your usual condescension.

Enrique 2 March 19, 2007 9:21 PM:

One item caught my attention: "...consider that 75% of US Americans are christian, 25% catholic, that this is the richest and most powerful country in the world...and yet 20% of humanity does not have access to drinking water....while this ´christian' country, led by a Christian president, invests half a trillion dollars per year in the military."

Are you advocating that it is the responsibility of the US, or any well-off country to 'save' those who are not well-off? People and countries being what they are, that type of action leads to domination, and disaster of some sort. A good recent example was the US intervention in 1992 to Somalia. Our intentions were reasonable to begin with, but they expanded until failure became the only option. At least we had the good sense to get out before too long. Too often, however, stubborness, a sense of prestige, or whatever descend. So although I agree that defense expenditures are too high, the desire to intervene is misplaced.

But playing it safe and going "balanced" on your investment portfolio is not the way successful investors play the game

There is no discrimination that I know of against Catholics, but we are made fun of a lot. Then again, some of our beliefs and customs are pretty humorous...

Will Jones,

Just more sputtering of the KKK cult crazies.

Enrique, post of March 19, 2007, 9:21 PM

I understand your faith, though I have none and believe in nothing. I credit your faith, for exactly the reasons you state, though they resemble symptoms of schizophrenia, as did the ineffable calm and vision of The Stranger, of Camus. Your integrity is impressive as your faith's earnest, pre-conscious naivete that is like the innocence of Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith. Your faith resembles internalizing Tao or reaching Cha'an or Zen enlightenment. It parallels the awakening and peace that comes from experiencing a true orgasm (like an epileptic convulsion) after completing Orgone therapy.

I knew, very well, two women who held like faith. They, too, were respect-worthy. Their faith helps me understand yours.

I wish you well, though you are a fool. But kings respected fools — as the Sioux appreciated "contraries."

Protest as you will the contrary, however, you are not a Catholic.

Cheers,

Leonard

the below post is mine.

Re:
Concerned The Christian Now Liberated :

Will Jones,

What part of the KKK do you belong to?? The Rogaine apparently has gotten to your brain!!!

March 19, 2007 2:28 PM

You waste your ad hominem or any other logical fallacy employed on behalf of that which My Nation's Founder correctly regarded as "the real Anti-Christ." Read Goldhagen's "A Moral Reckoning" and try refuting it. Divini Redemptoris was Rome's trigger for Kristallnact. Hitler synonymized Jew and Bolshevik in bestseller "Mein Kampf," Divini Redemptoris equated Bolshevik and Anti-Christ to be killed freely. Rome committed the Holocaust. Hitler, like the JFK-killing Nixon/Bush/CIA and Bush now, was merely a catspaw. You wish to defend the indefensible. Poor choice - G_d knows. Vengeance is His. Annuit Coeptis.

Forget Bertrand Russell and South America. Jesuit Georgetown University was founded on the profits from the slave breeding camp-brokerage Jesuits owned. They did not work them, they bred them to sell them, all with provincial approval. If that is not enough for any rational being to stop believing, consider that 75% of US Americans are christian, 25% catholic, that this is the richest and most powerful country in the world...and yet 20% of humanity does not have access to drinking water....while this ´christian' country, led by a Christian president, invests half a trillion dollars per year in the military. Whatever happened to the gospel of love proclamated by the incarnation of a God professed to be infinitely merciful? Only a desperate irrational soul can believe.

Yet, I believe.

I believe God is love and incarnated as Jesus Christ, both totally human and divine.

Not only do I believe that, I also believe he is alive and present in the sacrament of the Eucharist, available to all who believe or who wish to convert.

Everything tells me not to believe: the lies, the cover ups, the horribly sinful Christians and Catholics, the United States christians, the abuse... where does the list end?

Yet his presence in the Eucharist fills me with a peace and joy, beyond my understanding, when absolute revulsion is what I should experience. It is not a peace that comes at will...more like a gift he bestows when He wants.

The fact that I consistently experience this, yet in a way that I cannot control, and in the face of irrefutable evidence of extremely grave Christian and Catholic sin, contradicts all reasonable expectations, and confirms the gospels.

The Georgetown slavery link: http://www.georgetownvoice.com/2007-02-08/feature/the-jesuits-slaves

Twenty some years ago, a man I knew from work found Jesus. One of the things that he continually spoke about was that the “Dragon”, was in actuality the Catholic Church. Granted, I have had issues in the past with Catholics, and to this day do not understand how they demand their clergy to sacrifice the most important of any God’s gifts--the closeness of another human being, yet, I am finding that even though at most times the Pope must remain somewhat staunch, their extremities are trying to think outside the envelope, where the evangelicals cannot. Old mistakes are exactly that, we need to move forward for us to survive. The Catholic Church reminds me of (I believe) an Old Chinese saying of “This too will pass”. What they must, and I believe they will, or have, come to understand--the saying also applies to themselves.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

Bertrand Russell was not infallible. [Witness Goedel's proof.] But he was not merely a philosopher. He was, also, a scientist, mathematician, logician, and historian.

I did not offer more cites, because, really, the matter is somewhat common knowledge among historians familiar with the Conquistadores and the clergy who accompanied and abetted them and because I shall not waste my time on digging through my stored, dust-covered book-boxes to find other book-references. The matter does not deserve my repeating the research I did about 50 years ago — partly because the matter IS somewhat common knowledge of historians.

I know enough Jesuits (whom I respect, intellectually) who have admitted the matter, with shame. Ask some, yourself.

Notice that, concerning the same matter, Russell wrote (as you quoted): “No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, ALTHOUGH ALL NOWADAYS DO SO.” [My emphasis.] So, in or before 1930, Russell encountered Christian condemnations of the practice (or do you wish to suggest that he did not encounter them but is lying?). Those Christians would not condemn a practice that had not happened.

Why do you resist, so hard, accepting the fact of the practice? Surely you do not deny the equally horrific or worse and longer and more widespread practices of the Inquisition? Knowing that the Roman Church committed the atrocities of the Inquisition, how can you feel such doubt concerning what the Jesuits did to American aboriginal infants?

If I emigrate, I shall go to France. But, now the US is my country (that of my birth), and I criticize it because it embarrasses me and because I will not abet my country's many wrongs by witnessing them silently.

Oh, I did not find Russell's book by Googling. I have a bound copy. But, for your convenience, I searched out an internet link that would make the text available readily to you.

AMviennaVA

You wrote [today, 19 March 2007, 4:34 p.m.]: “Leonard : I am always impressed by grammarians, especially when they wish to teach me. However, allow me to quote your post from 'March 16, 2007 8:45 PM', last paragraph where you posted "I believe in NOTHING — not even atheism, which makes the mistake of thinking any asserted “God” is worth even being opposed.". As you can see, you said that you believe in nothing. perhaps you meant to say that believe nothing, but again, you put that little word, 'in', there.”

The “believe in” versus “believe” matter is not grammar, but diction. You need a remedial reading course. I did, surely (and quite intentionally), write “believe in” rather than “believe.”

If one “believes in” an idea, one makes it a matter of one's faith or takes it as true without having proof or despite the idea is not logically/empirically provable or has been disproved or vies with respectable opposing propositions. So, people “believe in” religion, God or gods, myth, transubstantiation, Christ's resurrection, astronomy, the goodness of humankind, Creationism, or even the Big Bang theory.

But one can “believe” (NOT “believe in”) a testimony because it rests solidly on logically/empirically proven premises or on logically compelling, objective evidence not controverted by anything or on results of experiments validly conducted and not falsified despite decades of earnest, scientifically sound, falsification-attempts. So, I believe — take as a sure fact — the existence of gravity (though I do not believe that science has grasped gravity thoroughly, yet); and I believe that all creatures die, but I do not believe any creatures reincarnate or go to a heaven or a hell.

The Confucius spelling matter? Surely transliteration is often a matter of taste or accidental preference. But, conventions occur and become proper. “Confucius” is the long-standing convention of spelling that philosopher's name, and it is a convention followed just about universally in learned fields and among learned people. Conventions are very useful, if their use makes communication efficient but does not diminish the quality of thought.

I do not respond to all you write, because you write little worth rebutting. Mostly you write silly bare assertions or gobbledegook, like the rest of your message (including the aspects this messages addresses above).

I doubt I shall reply to any message you post after now. Your participation's utility lay in your writing the absurdly Christian-arrogant assertion that began my set of rebuttals. Your assertion exposed and put on the table perhaps the most dangerous attitude of Christian religions and their followers. For that, I thank you.

Leonard,

Apparently you could not find any reference to the Jesuit bad behavior you referenced since you supposedly are a man of education and know how to "googlize".

And if you are so unhappy with being a USA citizen, i.e. millions of violations of various amendments and the Bill of Rights, and do not want to emigrate to Vietnam, I recommend Canada or Mexico.

Hmmm, citing Bertrand Russell the philosopher as an expert on South American History?

Your citation: " The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so.(-Hmm, odd comment, they did not now they do-). In countless ways the doctrine of personal immortality in its Christian form has had disastrous effects upon morals, and the metaphysical separation of soul and body has had disastrous effects upon philosophy."

Note Mr. Russell, the atheist, had a "axe" to grind and without referencing his source of information regarding Spaniards bad behavior, boldly states it as fact.

Actually in the reference you cite, there is not one reference but I guess the comments of philosophers are not to be questioned.

"For most of his adult life, however, Russell thought it very unlikely that there was a God, and he maintained that religion is little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects that religion might have, it is largely harmful to people. He believed religion and the religious outlook (he considered communism and other systematic ideologies to be species of religion) serve to impede knowledge, foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war, oppression, and misery that have beset the world."

To V : Concerning your message posted March 19, 2007 2:41 PM

Victoria wrote: “i think leonard's point is that there are no real superior governments mentalities philosophies - they are all subject to the goodness of those who propagate them”

You replied: “wait thats not leonards point thats my point!”

But I DID make the point. For your convenience, I shall collect, below, SOME probative EXCERPTS of five of my earlier messages. If you read them very carefully and logically, you will see that I made the point.

FIRST SET OF EXCERPTS, taken from my post of earlier today, March 19, 2007, 3:28 PM

Concerning constitutions versus actual practice, consider the administrations of GW Bush (our current glorious leader), Clinton, Reagan, Lyndon B Johnson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Harding, McKinley, Harrison, Polk, and Jackson, and the manifest politics of the US South. Consider also Christ's teachings versus the actual conduct of the Roman Church. Then consider that, as all investigations indicate, the Vietnamese enjoy actual democracy, much actual liberty, actual due process, and very notable actual widespread prosperity.

* * *

I offered examples of other nations and even other empires (since the US is imperial) only to show you that democracy, free speech, religious freedom, right of privacy, due process, and other such goods are not peculiar to the Christian West, which, even recently in the cases of the US, UK, Mexico, and Columbia, has shown itself anti-democratic, speech-suppressive, Christian Right preferring, privacy invading, and due process denying.

* * *

One can add other modern Christian West examples, like that of pre-1990 Argentina, pre-2002 Romania, and pre-2000 Serbia.

* * *

SECOND SET OF EXCERPTS, taken from my post of March 18, 2007, 10:48 PM

This comment continues to debunk AMviennaVA's Christian-arrogance-premised false assertion that democracy, freedom, justice, and other such goods have occurred only or near-only where Christianity is the dominant faith because Christianity fosters such goods as other faiths do not. This comment puts just one more example — Vietnam. But other, obvious East Asia examples abound, just four being India, South Korea, Japan, Thailand.

In earlier comments, I put other examples of the Far East and Near East, and Muslim Spain (especially AD 850 - AD 1240). In my last comment, I put ancient examples — ancient Greece, ancient Hindu North India. Five other ancient examples are the Roman Republic until the first Emperor and pre-Christian Gauls, Irish, Teutons, and Vikings (all of whom elected their leaders, limited their leaders' power with elected councils or other such devices and with a form of impeachment and consequent ouster, and had laws protecting individual property and liberty and guaranteeing a kind of due process).

Below are excerpts of the current constitution of Vietnam. The current constitution consists much of the first North Vietnam constitution, adopted 1946, and the 1960 and 1980 constitutions. [I shall not recopy the constitution-excerpts here. But they, too, make the point.]

* * *

North Vietnam grew much from, and as a reflection of, Vietnamese hatred of French rule, French culture, and French values, which had oppressed the Vietnamese for 100 years. Except French intruders, Vietnam's population consisted of various indigenous and near-indigenous peoples, and also Chinese, because before the French invaded Indochina and colonized it, Chinese interests had gained much commercial influence in Vietnam.

... The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong revolted partly against the intrusion of French Catholicism and Christianity, because French colonial behavior taught the Vietnamese that Christian “morality” equaled arrogance, contempt, oppression, and abuse.

Most Vietnamese remained Buddhist, many following mixes of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, and, sometimes, also ancient Vietnamese animism and ancestor worship. Unlike Soviet Russia, Communist North Vietnam did not ban religion or maintain that religion was bad. The North Vietnam leadership remained mostly true to a Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian faith — which is not repressive, judgmental, or God-fearing (but godless) and which encourages compassionate, socially responsible individual liberty and also fits the Vietnamese style of Socialism.

* * *

THIRD SET OF EXCERPTS, taken from my post of March 17, 2007, 8:07 PM

[To] AMviennaVA

“...can you envision a 'first ammendment' [sic] in China or Saudi Arabia?” Why Saudi Arabia rather than Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, or the Ottoman Empire — all permitting free speech and free religion much as does our real, effective law. China? See below in this comment, and see also my earlier comments discussing Chinese attitudes concerning religion and different ideas.

[To] Phaedrus

“To posit that the greater freedoms from religious excesses seen in western nations, as opposed to Islamic states for instance, is due to the Christian underpinnings of their cultures is simply specious.”

... I gathered that “specious” refers to AMviennaVA's absurd assertion that freedom, decency, compassion, justice, and other such goods occur only in Christian nations. But the assertion is simply a patent falsehood, not specious. ...

* * *

“It is the secular forces unleashed during the enlightenment to which the west owes its greater openness, recognition of individual and minority rights, rule of law based upon human reason as opposed to divinely-derived fiat, etc.”

AMviennaVA and I did not join issue just concerning the morality of the West, but of the World. And our issue was whether only Christian nations develop fine morals or democracies or protections like our first amendment, NOT whether Christianity is THE cause of fine morals or good government. So, even if you state the true cause of the West's various advancements, you do not address the issue AMviennaVA and I joined.

... In the West (Europe and America), Christianity was the dominant general influence. So, in the West, much moral advancement is attributable to Christianity: (a) Christianity moderated feudal and other oppressive socio-political forces, so that secular socio-political improvements were more possible. (b) Some core Christian values (Christ's values) survived the Roman Church's corruption and affected believers' behaviors. (c) In reacting against the Roman Church's offenses, people developed morality that otherwise they might not have entertained.

“These things were accomplished in part, because courageous and brilliant people challenged the religious tyranny of the medievel [sic] period and forced an adaptation.”

* * *

Other than genetic forces, what explains the brilliance and courage of the people who challenged the “tyranny.” Was it the milieu Christianity created — a milieu of the glory of creative work (even if ostensibly the glory sought was that of “God”)?

[Distinguish the matter of what motivated manifest expression of the brilliance and courage. In the West, the motivation was, very much, the Church's economic investment. Villard d'Honnecourt would not have perfected the gothic arch and flying buttress without the entreaty and funding of the Roman Church. But that fact is irrelevant to the matter of the relation of the Church and modern Western morality, unless morality is a just a synonym of cold economic principle.]

From 2000 BC until the 19th Century Chinese science and technology were very far greater than Europe's. What were the causes? Genetic structure? Accident? Religion? Philosophy? Imperial greed? Necessities of war? The age (length of history) of the civilization or culture?

In the context of religion-focus, a salient question is whether the population's behavioral inclinations explain its religion(s) or its religion(s) may explain its behavioral inclinations. And in that context, science, technology, art, economics, brilliance, and courage are irrelevant parameters or immaterial considerations. The question is whether a people's religion explains the people's morality or vice versa.

Are proper Hindus non-violent and compassionate because of Hinduism. Or is Hinduism a religion of non-violence and compassion because its creating people were non-violent and compassionate and codified their morality in a religion called Hinduism?

I cannot supply answer. I know that Hinduism resulted from the warlike Aryans' invasion of the rather pacific, technologically advanced pre-Aryan Indus Valley civilization. So, surely Hinduism is not an expression of the Aryan Invaders. But it may be an expression of how the indigenous civilization influenced the Aryan invaders.

But no matter. If Hinduism was an expression of the morals of Indian morality, still it took form that, in turn, influenced the morality of believers. Always, such relationships are dialectical. So is the relationship of Catholicism and the morality of the cultures that have adopted it.

* * *

The South China Empire had a government of bureaucrats who were not nobles but experts risen from the masses. They became bureaucrats only by passing the world's first civil service exams. Their responsibility included listening to the people's statements of problems and finding effective solutions. Their duty was to serve both Emperor and general population.

The arrangement was not a democracy. But it did permit and encourage free speech and made government legally accountable to the governed. It made insight, invention, and useful performance — not birth — the premises of social and economic position.

The concept was Confucian. The means and effects were much Buddhist and Taoist. But perhaps the system could not have occurred except for the mentality and root culture of the South China people, who made the Tao a practical morality and altered Buddhism into Cha'an (which became Zen in Japan), a Buddhism of realism and compassionate determination.

* * *

FOURTH SET OF EXCERPTS, taken from my post of March 16, 2007, 8:45 PM

[To] AMviennaVA

[AMviennaVA had tried to make a point by referencing the brutal suppression of the Tienammen protest.]

Tienammen is irrelevant. Or it proves my point or disproves yours. The violent oppression was the work of a small but powerful dictatorial government and, primarily, the tactic of one megalomaniacal man. But the protesters showed the true Chinese moral metal. They protested for freedom and democracy and decent treatment of ordinary folk. The protest was massive, and it did not yield even to real threat of death and even, for a while, in the face of mass casualties. The protesters were, mostly, Buddhists and Taoists manifesting the active, fearless non-violence that is the Buddhist/Taoist creed.

* * *

[AMviennaVA had asserted that in Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian Imperial China, ordinary folk were "expected to live in misery, without any dissent — in absolute obedience."]

Ordinary folk were not "expected to live in misery, without any dissent — in absolute obedience" (as you assert). Ordinary people knew and practiced Confucian morality — and Buddhist and Taoist (since, lacking arrogance and worshiping utility, the Chinese absorbed good from every good faith or philosophy, as Chinese Medicine takes good from any source).

The South China empire — the great Chinese Empire — valued peasants above all others and created an EFFECTIVE (and uncorrupted) bureaucracy for the purpose of furthering peasants' interests. In the 15th Century, the South China Emperor feared that South China (the world's foremost sea-faring nation) was investing too much in sea trade and not supporting agriculture and peasant life. He decreed that sea trade stop and that the related resources be reallocated to agriculture and the support of peasants.

* * *

FIFTH SET OF EXCERPTS, taken from my post of March 16, 2007, 4:33 PM

[To] Amviennava...

You wrote: “It is the Christian tradition that has created the circumstances and frame of mind that allows people to oppose these deplorable conditions. I will take it a step further: in the modern world, opposition to these conditions is found only in the societies that spring from the Christian tradition.”

How arrogant Christians are. The Inquisition and witch-hunts are obvious retorts — as are the Jewish quotas or absolute bars of 19th and 20th Century American universities, especially Medical Schools and Law Schools and the more general manifest Christian antisemitism of the United States.

But the more important consideration is the Christian arrogance that dismisses the active compassion of other faiths and their followers — and of agnostics, atheists, and rationalist/humanists, whose morals are aspects of character, not fragile coatings painted by religions that teach predestination, original sin, and salvation earned just by baptism, confession, and “holy communion” (a bizarre cannibal-rite of eating Jesus's flesh and drinking his blood).

Shanghai has a sizeable Jewish population, as do other towns of Shanghai's region. How? China rescued tens of thousands of Jews during the holocaust. The Chinese are, and were, mostly, Taoist and Buddhist, and (less) Confucian.

Before Jesus lived and Christ was invented, Confucius taught fairness and justice and Buddha and Lao Tsu taught empathy and compassion, for all creatures, not just humans. ...

Gandhi personified the core tenets of Hinduism. When post-British India suffered violent Muslim uprisings, rather than fight, Hindu India cut off two great parts of its land and yielded them, voluntarily, to those Muslim Indians who wanted an Islamic nation. When Bangladesh was suffering overwhelming natural disasters, massive starvation, disease-epidemics, and radical Islamic oppression, Hindu India rescued Bangladesh, not for empire, but from compassion.

... The Ottoman Empire practiced religious tolerance far more than any other empire or nation except those of post WWII Western Europe (except Spain) and Canada and, since ancient times, India and China (except Maoist) and most other nations of the Far East.

The Inquisition began with Ferdinand's and Isabella's expelling Muslims from Spain. The expulsion occurred not just as a military campaign but as massive slaughters and torturings of Muslims. But the expelled Arab and Berber Muslims had established a system of absolute religious tolerance and laudable civil justice given to all present in Muslim Spain — whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, or aught else.

Soon enough, the Spanish Inquisition slaughtered and tortured Jews. Initially, Jews could avoid the Inquisition's wrath by becoming Catholic. But later the Inquisition decided Jews were inherently evil heathens and could not convert. Meanwhile, Moroccan Muslims rescued Spanish Jews and held them dear.

Then came Fascist Spain and Italy, Nazi Germany, and fascist Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Catholic Church supported the Fascists and Nazis because they promised to bar Communism. The Church knew, well, the murderous practices of the fascists and Nazis. But the fascists and Nazis would secure the power of the Church. Protestant Christian churches behaved likewise in Germany. The SS, Gestapo, and death camp guards and administrators were Catholics and Lutherans and other Christians. Now reconsider the Shanghai Chinese rescue of tens of thousands of Jews.

* * *

Does discrimination against Catholics still exist in this country today? If so, why?

I am Roman Catholic and I would have to say far more than being persecuted for being Catholic I have been persecuted for being a man of thought.

Certainly I will make no friends among my fellow Roman Catholics.

I will now offer a few thoughts on my differences with the Roman Catholic church I was born into--a type of freewheeling improvisation which I readily admit will be accomplished in all carelessness.

Ever since I was a boy I have been puzzled by the conception of the trinity--the whole concept of Christ. For the life of me I find it difficult to understand how Christ could have suffered for he had direct knowledge of being the son of God. Furthermore I believe according to what I have been given to reflect upon, that Jesus far more than opening the gates of heaven and taking sin upon himself actually showed the way to heaven--that in fact his actions were perfectly consistent with a type of noble suicide to escape the sins of the world. Furthermore I believe Judas was the first Christian because Judas did have faith and did commit suicide in the name of Christ. In other words Judas follows the pattern of Christ but is not God and therefore had to have faith...

Why I have been only reinforced in the above views is because of a protracted meditation on the concept of morality. For the life of me I see no truly human morality distinguished from animal life in the way human intelligence is distinguished from animal life. In fact many animals are morally superior to man being prey species rather than predators. In fact man has never conceived of morality without making analogies to particular animals. Christ is called the lamb of God for example, and we all speak of the loyalty of dogs or the gentleness of rabbits, etc.

Man quite simply is a liar to claim to be morally superior to animal life and the Roman Catholic church totally supports the view of man's moral superiority. In general animals are viewed as beneath man and man prefers to compare himself to the predator species (the Russian bear? The American eagle? How many flags have predator species on them? How many men want to be lions?).

And what about Roman Catholic Spain and bullfights? Here we have man considered a hero for slaying fundamentally a prey species...

And I hesitate to mention plant life which is so morally superior as to feed by photosynthesis and by the drawing up of minerals...

In short, for man to truly be superior in a moral sense from animal life he has to either A) commit suicide--totally repudiate life--or B) work immensely on improving his intelligence to become a responsible steward of the entire earth.

The Roman Catholic church is stuck somewhere in the middle, not at all advocating suicide (in fact the church encourages us to breed and hates homosexuals) and is just as hostile to a true intelligence being born (the trial of Galileo is legendary).

I view Christ as an ambiguous figure. On one hand I view him as advocating suicide--that he was showing the way out of the dilemma of life--and Judas was a true hero of faith. On the other hand I view Christ as a champion of intelligence and an unexampled model for art (Leonardo, Rembrandt, etc.). But the Roman Catholic church is beneath the above dilemma I have been describing. The Roman Catholic church neither calls for a brutal renunciation of life (although many figures perceived Christ in such a fashion) nor does it take the example of Leonardo and Rembrandt and try to improve human intelligence as something of an indirect route to moral improvement and the goal of man being the steward of the earth.

Quite simply there is no direct road to moral improvement for humans. Our eyes face forward like the predators we are. No pope or saint has had eyes on the side of his head like a rabbit or a deer. Humans are condemned to being quite immoral in comparison to all too many species of life. The only hope is in a constant improvement of intelligence and the possibility of a measure of self-control.

These are just some of the reasons I reject my Roman Catholic heritage and in fact why I believe the Church should be persecuted. The Roman Catholic church as it now stands is no better than Islam. The morality of it is nothing more than what will get man to just breed and more or less not kill his fellow man. Pathetic when a person begins to ask what the murder rate among cows or deer or rabbits or any of a number of species happens to be. In general human morality has been nothing more than what will get the species to reproduce out of control.

Once again, man is not a very moral animal. At best he is a thinking animal. In fact he has no conception of a truly human morality distinguished from animal life. Is he to be a predator species? A prey species? How is he to act which is to truly be superior to animal species?

There is no direct road to such action. All a man can do is think and try to move the human species to a resolution of the dilemma.

Christ taken to the extreme of a suicidal, life-renouncing figure is one resolution. The other is the path of thought and just suffering down the centuries not really being a moral animal.

I choose the latter and therefore can no longer be Roman Catholic. But even if I were to choose the former I would not be Catholic--in fact the former is considered the path of a madman...In fact the path of the latter is considered the path of a madman as well.

But Jesus did walk on water...

It would seem not too much to ask we take a few steps of our own.

Leonard : I am always impressed by grammarians, especially when they wish to teach me. However, allow me to quote your post from 'March 16, 2007 8:45 PM', last paragraph where you posted "I believe in NOTHING — not even atheism, which makes the mistake of thinking any asserted “God” is worth even being opposed.". As you can see, you said that you believe in nothing. perhaps you meant to say that believe nothing, but again, you put that little word, 'in', there.

As for the rest of your post, you are not replying to anything I posted, but are merely venting your frustrations. I do not by any means consider the 'western' world perfect. I wish it was; I wish it did live by its fine constitutions. The difference between my position and yours centers, apparently, on the point that you view other countries' constitutions as reality, but discard the constitutions of the societies you have experienced. It may be a case of the 'greener grass'. I actually do not care what the cause is. I, on the other hand, tend to look at the human condition. I also look for similarities and differences between societies. It may lead to invalid cause/effect relationships; there is always the likelihood of a random occurrence (Phaedrus' position on why societies based on the Christian condition tolerate and encourage dissent more than others). Something like that must be demonstrated, of course, as well as why an apparent causal relationship is not valid.

Lastly, a word of advice: tone down your posts. Believe me, you are at least physically in no position to lecture anyone. I have also noticed that you are selective on what you respond to. Case in point, you attempted to lecture me on the correct way to spell a Chinese word, but have so far ignored my response to that. That is just an example.

AMviennaVA

Please learn diction and how to read logically. “Believe in” connotes an idea different from “believe.”

Concerning constitutions versus actual practice, consider the administrations of GW Bush (our current glorious leader), Clinton, Reagan, Lyndon B Johnson, Franklin D Roosevelt, Harding, McKinley, Harrison, Polk, and Jackson, and the manifest politics of the US South. Consider also Christ's teachings versus the actual conduct of the Roman Church. Then consider that, as all investigations indicate, the Vietnamese enjoy actual democracy, much actual liberty, actual due process, and very notable actual widespread prosperity.

I do not respect any nation more than any other. Nations and empires are the trouble. Decent government occurs only when government is small and related just to a small locale's people who control the government.

I offered examples of other nations and even other empires (since the US is imperial) only to show you that democracy, free speech, religious freedom, right of privacy, due process, and other such goods are not peculiar to the Christian West, which, even recently in the cases of the US, UK, Mexico, and Columbia, has shown itself anti-democratic, speech-suppressive, Christian Right preferring, privacy invading, and due process denying.

I had two reasons for not offering more examples of the Christian West's oppressive governments and cultures.

(1) Well-educated, well-read, open-minded Westerners ought to know well the extent and duration of oppressive regimes of the Christian West.

(2) The matter was showing you that your assertion is simply and vastly false: The non-Christian world has had — and has now — much democracy or other popular-welfare-seeking, liberty-assuring, due-process-supplying political structures you treat as if they were peculiar to the Christian West.

One can add other modern Christian West examples, like that of pre-1990 Argentina, pre-2002 Romania, and pre-2000 Serbia.

Concrete examples? I have offered MANY (in three or four comments). You have offered NO examples or evidence or even substantive argument — nothing but your utterly unsupported assertions.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

The Jesuit practice is well known among well-educated people. But here is one source: Bertrand Russell, “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?” (1930), which observed that “The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven.” You can find the text on the internet at www.solstice.us/russell/religionciv.html. Other sources indicate that the culprits were Jesuits.

You, too, need to learn how to read logically. I am not “enamored with Vietnam.” I wrote nothing that can imply I am “enamored with” ANY nation. I offered a little of Vietnam history and demographics and a taste of Vietnam's constitution only as one more example (among many examples) of non-Western, non-Christian nations and societies that have the political virtues AMviennaVA's Christian arrogance finds only in the Christian West.

With your suggestion that if I like Vietnam I ought to emigrate there, I might compare a White bigot's telling “uppity” Blacks to go back to Africa. While the two suggestions, themselves, are not parallel, your suggestion reflects a mentality sloppy and irrational as the White bigot's.

I might suggest that the US would benefit from adopting some of the provisions of Vietnam's constitution. But the suggestion would be naive, because the US government and US Christian culture would violate or disregard such provisions just as millions of times they have violated or disregarded the Bill of Rights and the 13 and 14th amendments.

wait thats not leonards point thats my point!

i havent seen leonard make any statements that he thinks that every society is a free one but the west- he is simply making the point that the west doesnt have a monopoly on freedom, morality, ethics or progress-

i think it can be assumed that most people here are familiar with the west and its constitution-
why would he comment on it? not commneting on what is common knowledge as a given isnt any condemnation or denial.

heres from the posted constitution of vietnam-
Article 52

All citizens are equal before the law.

in america we actually had to amend our own constitution to include women! as it stated all MEN are equal.

see? were not perfect- greeks arent perfect-
many people in other parts of this big world also have long histories and philosophies -
and are valid!

while we are top dog right now- i say the way were running around the planet klling people different than us- we better pay attention to leonard-

what happens when the chinese become a superpower?

do we replace muslim-hating with chinese hating?

(does anyone remeber i think it was april of 2001 when those usa spy planes crashed into chinese mainland and bush demanded they return the planes and never did apologize for our illegal intrusion?)

arrogance of the strong is nothing nw-
weve taken our opportunity to export something ideologically valuable and wasted it on grabbing for greed and power-

when the statue if saddam came down my dad (who yesterday asked me if i ever visited the fox broadcasting company in times square-he kind of lives in denial of my politics) asked me (i was teaching ESL at the iraqihouse at the time) if my iraqi friends were celebrating at the liberators-
he really believed there would be a congratualtory party for the americans-
i said no they were more worried about family memebers staying alive- because it was true.

i used to collect maps- i had a map from the beginning of the 20th century-
the united states took up almost a whole hemi-sphere!

i think leonards point is that there are no real superior governments mentalities philosophies-
they are all subject to the goodness of those who propogate them-

id say we are identified worldwide by our incredible arrogance- not by our freedom-

keep it up leonard- i like learning not just spouting off (like im given to)
peace

Will Jones,

What part of the KKK do you belong to?? The Rogaine apparently has gotten to your brain!!!

Maggie: The Roman Catholic Church did not "condemn" the Holocaust because the Roman Catholic Church CREATED the Holocaust. Read Goldhagen's "A Moral Reckoning." Do you really want affiliation with an organization carrying around that much unconfessed sin and unrepaired evil...particularly since America's Founders knew it is the "real Anti-Christ?" Bush and Cheney work for the Rockefeller Pyramid which is founded on creation of Roman Catholic BIG OIL through unredressed murder and arson (find a First Edition of Tarbell's "History of the Standard Oil Company"). The Democrats are the "good cop" part of the equation. One-third of Congress is Roman Catholic...in both parties and they know why the Roman Catholic CIA has yet to be brought to justice for killing JFK to keep us in Vietnam, and why they have taken "off the table" impeachment for Bush and Cheney...who obviously committed 9-11. Watch "Loose Change 2" and read "The New Pearl Harbor" if you continue to study and learn.

Maggie:

There are ususally two separate questions that appear on these threads, and often get merged, to the detriment of both:

1. Do the "truth-claims" of the belief system measure up to what is currently "known." (I put "known" in parentheses because it can be, and is, defined quite differently, as can "truth.")

2. Do the practices of the followers of the belief system, both currently and historically, contribute to personal and/or social welfare or not, depending upon how one defines these terms as well.

Wonderful discussions result from differing views on either 1 or 2, but not when the questions cease to be held distinct from one another.

You seem to be taking the second question, and concentrating largely, though not entirely, on the personal benefits you experience. I would have to actually "be" you to disagree. Since I am not, I take you at your word.

On the historic aspects of number 2, and on the more general actions of the church through the years and into the present day, we likely disagree on some points. This is not to say that there are not many many Catholics who contribute mightily to the social good every day though.

You bring up a valid point..."goodwill" and "at heart" are overly broad phrases. However, to many Catholics, this is exactly what they take from their religion. They do not delve into the underlying intricacies and failings of the institution, but use homilies and concentrate on good works and other teachings of Jesus Christ to lead them through their daily lives.

Maggie:

You write of Catholicism: "...a religion that at its heart, preaches only goodwill."

I think that it is your use of the word "only," as well as disagreement as to your likely definition of "goodwill," that are the bones of contention on this thread. These, and the nebulous concept of what anything might be "at its heart."

Hey there Leonard,

Please verify your accusations about the Jesuits with some references. Sure members of the Catholic Church got a bit fanatical at times in history past but don't embellish it with lies. These fanatics definitely were not following the sayings and ways of Jesus.

And if you are so enamored with Vietnam, why don't you emigrate there? It appears the religion of capitalism has taken over the country so democracy will be thriving there shortly assuming the citizens have free access to news and the Internet.

I am a young, Catholic, adult and I would have to say that I have never once been discriminated against because of my religion. Granted, I live in Massachusetts and have never strayed too far out of the Northeast, but no one has ever criticized me for my faith. I also attended a fairly liberal Catholic college in Vermont and was surprised about how open it was in discussing issues and problems of the Church. We discussed how stories should NOT be taken for face value and how much of it is a parable. We learned about the absence of the Catholic Church in condemning the Holocaust. We also had a Gay Straight Lesbian Bisexual Transexual Alliance on campus. I suppose that I'm naive, because I have really never felt discriminated against for being a Catholic until I read this blog. I was unaware that people could harbor such hatred for a religion that at its heart, preaches only goodwill.

Leonard: For someone who believes in NOTHING, your choice of words, you certainly do place much credence on documents. Please do keep in mind that just about all constitutions guarantee many rights that are violated in practice.

However, from your posts, I conclude that you view every society, but the western ones, to be a free one. I respectfully disagree. But I am always open to concrete examples.

victoria : I cringe because 'Christian' includes 'Judeo'.

Any wondering if America's Founder and Prophet, Thomas Jefferson, was off the mark in his regarding Rome as "the real Anti-Christ," circa 1819, should really read Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's "A Moral Reckoning." In it the author of "Hitler's Willing Executioners" proves that two popes and the Roman Catholic Church are morally, legally and ethically culpable of the Holocaust! Smart man Jefferson. With convicted pedophile priests in each of the 188 Roman Catholic U.S. "dioceses," who still claims to be Roman Catholic? Go figure.

This comment continues to debunk AMviennaVA's Christian-arrogance-premised false assertion that democracy, freedom, justice, and other such goods have occurred only or near-only where Christianity is the dominant faith because Christianity fosters such goods as other faiths do not. This comment puts just one more example — Vietnam. But other, obvious East Asia examples abound, just four being India, South Korea, Japan, Thailand.

In earlier comments, I put other examples of the Far East and Near East, and Muslim Spain (especially AD 850 - AD 1240). In my last comment, I put ancient examples — ancient Greece, ancient Hindu North India. Five other ancient examples are the Roman Republic until the first Emperor and pre-Christian Gauls, Irish, Teutons, and Vikings (all of whom elected their leaders, limited their leaders' power with elected councils or other such devices and with a form of impeachment and consequent ouster, and had laws protecting individual property and liberty and guaranteeing a kind of due process).

Below are excerpts of the current constitution of Vietnam. The current constitution consists much of the first North Vietnam constitution, adopted 1946, and the 1960 and 1980 constitutions.

North Vietnam grew much from, and as a reflection of, Vietnamese hatred of French rule, French culture, and French values, which had oppressed the Vietnamese for 100 years. Except French intruders, Vietnam's population consisted of various indigenous and near-indigenous peoples, and also Chinese, because before the French invaded Indochina and colonized it, Chinese interests had gained much commercial influence in Vietnam.

French Catholic “missionaries” participated in French domination of Vietnam, after having infiltrated in the 17th century and endeavoring for 200 years to convert the Vietnamese. They worked to “save” the Vietnamese.

Recall that Jesuits “saved” American aborigine infants by baptizing them and then slamming their heads on Catholic altars, so they would go straight to heaven. Surely, French Catholic missionaries were much more subtly brutal to the Vietnamese. They showed the Vietnamese that they would remain “inferior” unless they became Catholics, and they informed the Vietnamese that their new French colonists conditioned economic and social betterment on conversion.

Not many Vietnamese (about 6%) converted. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong revolted partly against the intrusion of French Catholicism and Christianity, because French colonial behavior taught the Vietnamese that Christian “morality” equaled arrogance, contempt, oppression, and abuse.

Most Vietnamese remained Buddhist, many following mixes of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, and, sometimes, also ancient Vietnamese animism and ancestor worship. Unlike Soviet Russia, Communist North Vietnam did not ban religion or maintain that religion was bad. The North Vietnam leadership remained mostly true to a Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian faith — which is not repressive, judgmental, or God-fearing (but godless) and which encourages compassionate, socially responsible individual liberty and also fits the Vietnamese style of Socialism.

The Vietnamese Constitution establishes a one-party system. The party is the Communist party. But various individuals compete for each office — so that the electorate chooses individuals and their qualifications, proposals, and characters, not political parties. Perhaps you recall that when George Washington ended his Presidency, he warned the United States against a multi-party system, because it would foster corruption and harmful accumulations of power. How prescient.

Now the Vietnam Constitution excerpts:

Article 5

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is the unified State of all nationalities living in Vietnam.

The State carries out a policy of equality, solidarity and mutual assistance among all nationalities, and forbids all acts of national discrimination and division.

Every nationality has the right to use its own language and system of writing, to preserve its national identity, and to promote its fine customs, habits, traditions and culture.

The State carries out a policy of comprehensive development and gradually raises the material and spiritual living conditions of minorities.

Article 32

Literature and art contribute to fostering the personality and nurturing spiritual nobility and beauty of the Vietnamese.

The State shall make investments for the promotion of culture, literature and art; it shall create favourable conditions for the people's enjoyment of valuable literary and artistic works; it shall give its patronage to creative talent in literature and the arts.

The State shall promote diversity in literary and artistic activity; it shall give encouragement to mass literary and artistic activities.

Article 52

All citizens are equal before the law.

Article 53

The citizen has the right to participate in the administration of the State and management of society, the discussion of problems of the country and the region; he can send petitions to State organs and vote in referendums organised by the State.

Article 54

Regardless of nationality, sex, social background, religious belief, cultural standard, occupation, time of residence, every Citizen shall obtain the right to vote when reaching the age of eighteen, and, upon reaching the age of twenty-one, obtain the right to stand for election....

Article 55

The citizen has both the right and the duty to work.

The State and society shall work out plans to create ever more employment for the working people.

Article 56

The State shall enact policies and establish regimes for the protection of labour.

The State shall establish working times, wage scales, regimes of rest and social insurance for State employees and wage-earners; it shall encourage and promote other forms of social insurance for the benefit of the working people.

Article 57

The citizen enjoys freedom of enterprise as determined by law.

Article 58

The citizen enjoys the right of ownership with regard to his lawful income, savings, housing, chattel, means of production funds and other possessions in enterprises or other economic organisations....

The State protects the citizen's right of lawful ownership and right of inheritance.

Article 59

The citizen has both the right and the duty to receive training and instruction.

Primary education is compulsory and dispensed free of charge.

The citizen has the right to get general education and vocational training in various ways.

With regard to school students with special aptitudes the State and society shall create conditions for them to blossom out.

The State shall enact policies regarding tuition fees and scholarships.

The State and society shall create the necessary conditions for handicapped children to acquire general knowledge and appropriate job training.

Article 60

The citizen has the right to carry out scientific and technical research, make inventions and discoveries, initiate technical innovations, rationalise production, engage in literary and artistic creation and criticism, and participate in other cultural activities. The State protects copyright and industrial proprietorship.

Article 61

The citizen is entitled to a regime of health protection.

The State shall establish a system of hospital fees, together with one of exemption from and reduction of such fees.

Article 63

Male and female citizens have equal rights in and fields - political, economic, cultural, social, and the family.

All acts of discrimination against women and all acts damaging women's dignity are strictly banned.

Men and women shall receive equal pay for equal work. Women workers shall enjoy a regime related to maternity. Women who are State employees and wage-earners shall enjoy paid pre-natal and post-natal leaves during which they shall receive all their wages and allowances as determined by law.

The State and society shall create all necessary conditions for women to raise their qualifications in all fields and fully play their roles in society, they shall see to the development of maternity homes, paediatric departments, creches and other social-welfare units so as to lighten house work and allow women to engage more actively in work and study, undergo medical treatment, enjoy periods of rest and fulfil their maternal obligations.

Article 69

The citizen shall enjoy freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, the right to be informed, and the right to assemble, form associations and hold demonstrations in accordance with the provisions of the law.

Article 70

The citizen shall enjoy freedom of belief and of religion; he can follow any religion or follow none. All religions are equal before the law.

The places of worship of all faiths and religions are protected by the law.

No one can violate freedom of belief and of religion; nor can anyone misuse beliefs and religions to contravene the law and State policies.

Article 71

The citizen shall enjoy inviolability of the person and the protection of the law with regard to his life, health, honour and dignity.

No one can be arrested in the absence of a ruling by the People's Court, a ruling or sanction of the People's Office of Supervision and Control except in case of flagrant offences. Taking a person into, or holding him in, custody must be done with full observance of the law.

It is strictly forbidden to use all forms of harassment and coercion, torture, violation of his honour and dignity, against a citizen.

This is a bit too much eh? Some white folks contending they are discriminated against because they are Catholics in the US.

I wonder what is is like for an Abyssinian Jew in Israel, a Filipino Catholic in the US, or a Bosnian Muslim in Serbia. Oh wait, we really don't have to wonder do we?

Next topic please - religious bigotry perhaps, encompassing race.

phaedrus- a baptism is by the very act a conversion of the soul towards christianity- itis the act which confirms ones conversion (in that respect- catholic children when they reach about 13 undergo a sacrement called 'confirmation' where they dedicate themselves as adherents to catholicism- as obviously babies cant choose for themselves- catholic babies are baptized at about a week or later)

as far as the batism/conversion of constantine- it is generally accepted (but like everything subject to debate when it involves seeing into anothers heart for their intention) that his baptism (since when becomes baptized they are in a state of sinlessness) was his way of stacking the deck for admission to whatever afterlife he believed in-
from his perspective its believed he viewed it as a magic ritual to purify the state of his soul.
this is definitely not a chrisian reason to become baptized and a questionable bargaining chip as far as im concerned but only god knows.

AMVIENNAVA- the fact that you have such a dramatic reaction (like cringing) to any whose opinion gives credence to a chrisitan-judaic ideal must leave you in a perpetual state of apopletic distress.

Phaedrus: Indeed, I also believe that the Hellenic influence is responsible for the tolerance of dissent by sociteies based on the Christian tradition. Let us not forget that Christianity is the combination of two schools of human thought: the Judaic of course; and the Hellenic, from which spring the concepts of individual responsibility and salvation.

That is why I cringe whenver I hear the 'PC' crowd talk of our 'Judeo-Christian' tradition. By rights they should talk of our 'Christian', or 'Greco-Judaic' or 'Judeo-Hellenic' tradition!

Kara & 'E Favorite': Yes the tone of the posts is revealing. Interestingly, the absolutist ones are from those who accuse Christianity of intolerance

Lets not confuse criticism with prejudice! The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for going back centuries.

Although the church might have reformed somewhat since the inquisition let there be no doubt that it is an archaic institution holding onto ancient superstition and mythology.

Unfortunately the Catholic Church appears to have a privileged voice on the international stage and I for one find the pope, his utterances and all that he and his church represent repugnant.

Lets not confuse criticism with prejudice! The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for going back centuries.

Although the church might have reformed somewhat since the inquisition let there be no doubt that it is an archaic institution holding onto ancient superstition and mythology.

Unfortunately the Catholic Church appears to have a privileged voice on the international stage and I for one find the pope, his utterances and all that he and his church represent repugnant.

Kara - I'll second what phaedrus said, and add a comment of my own in reaction to your comment:

"And the more vitriol and lies I hear against my beloved Church and Faith the stronger I become in my beliefs, because Jesus said His True Church would be persecuted and hated just like He was."

Please keep in mind that any comment Jesus might have made about persecution was not about the Catholic church, because it was not formed until the 4th century, long after Jesus' death.

Also, Jesus, who lived and died as a Jew, would not have belonged to any church.

I just wish to know - will the created course discuss the fact that all the major, "modern," religions are BOD (better off dead) theologies, in the sense that practitioners of any of them are to work and suffer for a reward when they have shuffled off this coil and on to wherever? Will it then discuss the nonsense that in some sects (you know whom you are)suicide is sinful?
Will it include the fact that humanistic philosophies are not that way?
If the course ends up just about the bible, will it be written to exclude discussion of the way it is selectively read by many - (ignorance of, "Thou shalt not kill," and "Turn thine other cheek," by supporters of capital punishment and the admonition about the camel and eye of a needle - rich man entering heaven by posturing plutocrats)
Just wondering.
David Thompson

Kara, that was jwest who posted thta last comment. My remember info doesn't always remember.

Kara
I was a catholic before I "converted" to non-belief. It hasn't been easy. As a catholic I never experienced discrimination but I do today and by catholics. Friends no less. There were many people of good conscience thoughout history that did great things for the civic causes so spare me all the "only" religious people are capable of good things. It's time to refute that myth. I would watch people go to mass, communion and confession on Sunday then go out and fornacate, lie, cheap steal or otherwise "sin" and not think a thing of it. because on Sunday they would be forgiven. The churches influence was totally lost on their actions. I have to find my way and one thing is for sure I can't depend on you and people like to help me. You were obviously disappointed with yourself and found a new way so don't judge people who are trying to find theirs. The pope is not a nazi and i disagree with who ever said that. Pope Paul had the courage to admit the church commited sin and ask for forgiveness, I admired that man and I don't know much about the current pope except to say everything I've read indicates a lot of politics came into play on his selection. And that'S what as a gropup it all boils down to, politics.

Kara - I'll second what phaedrus said, and add a comment of my own in reaction to your comment:

"And the more vitriol and lies I hear against my beloved Church and Faith the stronger I become in my beliefs, because Jesus said His True Church would be persecuted and hated just like He was."

Please keep in mind that any comment Jesus might have made about persecution was not about the Catholic church, because it was not formed until the 4th century, long after Jesus' death.

Also, Jesus, who lived and died as a Jew, would not have belonged to any church.

Kara:

All of these threads have their more rabid partisans on both sides of an issue, but there are also those with more thoughtful critiques. These are not usually based in complete ignorance, and you can find many of these points of view on both sides of each issue as well. By focuing soley on a denunciation of the more extreme posts, it is possible to sidestep the more reasonable critiques and challenges though, shold that be one's aim.

I can't believe the absolute, rabid venom displayed against the Catholic Church on this page. The utterly ignorant comments show how little people truly know about Catholicism and the Catholic Church apart from what the highly biased media tells them. It's really tragic.

When I read things like this:

"including the current ex-Nazi right-wing jerk of a pope"

I think how lonely someone must be to be so full of hatred for someone he doesn't know.

It doesn't matter to this person that membership in the Nazi Youth was mandatory and that the young Josef Ratzinger DEFECTED, which was punishable by DEATH. No, it doesn't matter to people like the person who posted that. They are so blinded by their pride and hatred; so quick to notice the speck in someone else's eyes while ignoring the plank in their own.

Every religion has bad people in it. Catholicism is no different. What about the Mother Teresas? What about the priests, nuns and monks who go to dangerous places in the world to be with people MOST of you don't even give a second thought to. Have you ever considered those CATHOLICS? Probably not. That's okay, Mother Teresa and those like her don't want or need your consideration or approval. They have poor, helpless human beings to take care of.

I'm a convert into the Catholic Church. I took the time to learn for MYSELF what the beliefs are, I didn't listen to people who didn't know anything about it, and certainly not the media. No one FORCED me to believe, it was my free will choice. And the more vitriol and lies I hear against my beloved Church and Faith the stronger I become in my beliefs, because Jesus said His True Church would be persecuted and hated just like He was.

Pax Christi.

Victoria:

Thanks for the response. Is it your position that the bulk of the intrigue was on the Arians' side of the conflict? Or do you see it as more bi-partisan?

Also, note that I did not say that Constantine underwent "conversion," on his deathbed, I said he was baptised. Perhaps this is a semantic thing? I know that you have a Catholic background, and I do not, so I am intested in your thoughts on this.

Most of my information on this sugject comes from Charles Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind," which made an obvious impression. The information about the commonality of early Christian deathbed baptism comes from that source. Another excellent treatment of this topic is found in "God Against the Gods," but I cannot recall the author's name at the moment. My information on Greek culture and thought is more widespread, and contains more personal content, as is probably apparent.

As for your reference to Bush, McCarthy et al. It is true that personal freedoms wax and wane slightly, concomitantly with the assertion of governmental authority, but they do so within fairly narrow parameters in republics and democracies as a rule. In fact, some of the more restrictive presidential initiatives have been carried out by such sainted figures as Lincoln, Adams, FDR, and Jefferson. But, these are almost always in response to temporary conditions, and so are relatively short-lived.

I can also see that our opinions are quite similar regarding the White House's present occupant though.

Best wishes,

while constantine did discontinue the heathen practice of sacrifice- he also had an overt dislike of superstition-
it wasnt because he was a christian - he also made into law forbidding the abduction of girls and other humane treatments-

christians were a small population of those he ruled- in his life he never disclaimed his allegiance to the mithran invinceable sun- one of his sons remained strictly non-christian and continued to follow his fathers heathen religion-
the other son did become christian- but he was an arian christian-

the arian controversy

The Arian Controversy which held the belief that Christ was to be esteemed neither truly divine nor truly human, neither God nor man; but a being intermediate between the two. Arianism was considered a heretical doctrine and was driven out by the Church.

The founder of arianism, Arius, was on his way to the council of nicea in 381, when he was "struck down" reportedly by the prayer of Athanasius- his highly suspicious death (and subsequent voicelessness)was the reason the athansian creed was adopted.

Under Constantius, the semi-Arians were still more influential; indeed, they advanced to an apparent ascendency. Their ascendency, however, corresponded to the means by which it was obtained, and was rather external than internal and substantial. The testimony of such witnesses as Athanasius, as well as other evidences, makes it quite evident that in this controversy the opponents of orthodoxy were peculiarly distinguished by craft and violence. Milman, notwithstanding his lack of fervent admiration for the Athanasian cause, assents to this conclusion. "The Arian party," he says, "independent of their speculative opinions, cannot be absolved from the unchristian heresy of cruelty and revenge. However darkly colored, we cannot reject the general testimony to their acts of violence, wherever they attempted to regain their authority." an overweening confidence in external means, and was far less distinguished by a truly religious interest than the Nicene party. "On the side of the Arians," he says, "the religious and dogmatic interest was ever subordinate to the political, and, as the whole period covered by the reigns of Constantine and Constantius shows, was interwoven with a whole series of machinations and court intrigues." [Dogmengeschichte.]

The tyrannical pressure of Constantius drove the Nicene party into the shade.

It is the common verdict of historians that the government suffered a marked deterioration under the successors of the great Emperor. With a moral standard no higher than his, they united less ability and discretion. The first days of the new administration were stained by a cruel massacre within the collateral branches of the Constantinian family; and, though the soldiery was the instrument, there was not a little of suspicion that Constantius had a guilty responsibility in the tragedy. A pretended testament, affirming Constantine's belief that he had been poisoned by his brothers, was the excuse that was pleaded for the bloodshed.

So , you could say that the son constantinus did become a christian of sorts- although his methods of retaining power were marked by cruelty and violence.

also the famed deathbed conversion of constantine is generally attributed to his idea of a magic absolution before death (so he could die in a sinless state)
and hardly constitutes an actual status of constantine as a christian.

as to where you have the information that deathbed conversions were the norm at the time, i m not familiar with this phenomenon.

as for a country being as free as its leader allows it to be- consider the patriot act.

that was exactly my point- america under mccarthyism, and america under bush- is somewhat different than america under JFK for instance.

so i stand by my statements.

The tone and content of much of this blog sort of answers the question, doesn't it?

Phaedrus

I've never read anything by Dawkins before but I think I'll go get his book. These are the conclusions I've come to long ago on my own. Funny how I'm finding out others think I like I do without any of us having ever spoken. The defenders of their faith had the same defenses that I've tired of. 3000 year old dino bones indeed. The Hubble telescope has discovered proto solar systems that we can watch develope. According to religious mythology these proto systems shoulds start developing inhabital planets in say oh two years. What I heard in the crowd was a lot of yound people that realize the were tethered to their parents religion at brith and had absolutely no choice and are afraird to confront the family with their true feelings. I feel sorry for them but more for those that can't except them. As I,ve stated before more people are athiestic in their thinking that will ever admit it. Fear, it is all based on fear.

To focus on physical explanations and details will not bring solution as to the existence of God.

God is a pure personal conscious realization. Experienced by uncounted millions. As more and more people acquired this personal knowledge, we began to separate from a master-slave social world; and escape from intermittent deleterious physical events. It is not physical, but conscious evolution that needs to be explored.

The mind acquired from environmental appearance through body mechanics is oppressive; just varies in degree of social acceptance. Buried within each of these minds exists a capacity to love; a desire and means to tolerance and respect for personal worth. This would seem our true conscious nature, as to realize such a social state seems the goal; and just a rudimentary social allowance extended by the American founders released a human potential and progress toward common welfare like no other period in history.

Everything in the human mind has a REAL source. This intrinsic need for love is a natural endowment; as seems the need for everyone else to share the same reality,--to agree, or 'think as I do'. That there is still intolerance is because we still have not realized truth.

It is separation to different points in time, place and person that forms variable realities. Deep within personal thought exists a common place we all need. It is a world of justice.

We hold common emotional and physical needs; but exist in a world where satisfaction is not an equal arrangement. Due to defect in human anatomy and physiology, physical environment or social structure. What our history shows is that within us is the ability to correct this state; and the means is 'to come together' in deepest thought.

These needs and direction are contrary to the overall predator-prey environmental activity. If this desire for justice does not reflect the WILL of God, where then is its REAL source? Further, that the intrinsic arrangement of planet earth, the human body and personal thought holds basic needs for harmonious inter-relationship; does it not suggest a natural need for compliance?

Religious Mythologies are worthless unless one comes to the conclusion that being loving is the way to a peaceful heart. Love and service should be the basic teaching. They want clones and financial contributions. Their hook is life after death. More members, more clones and more money with that promise. There is great prejudice against anyone who is not a true believer. I find this rather arrogant. What bothers me most is the use of the word "Spiritual" in connection with Religion. Religion cannot afford to be Spiritual. Spiritual is attraction rather than promotion, loves all things(including people) and would not shoot anyone. Spiritual would not ask for money, build great buildings (no need) or regulate anyones life. It would be respectful of and responsible to all. A Religion just cannot do that. At least Religion as we know it today cannot do that. Do not forget to love one another.

I'm not so much concerned about a particular denomination being discriminated against as I am the put down and discrediting that comes to Christians who follow the leading and wisdom of Jesus Christ. When the world recognizes the difference between a true "Christian" and those who only place their hope in a religion-----------that will be the day you'll see the wide gap between those two factions. I think then you'll see even more of a problem. History gives us a pretty accurate picture of that even to this day.

A few references recommended for review with respect to the historic Jesus, basic founder of the Catholic Church but remember only with the help of the "necessary accessories". i.e.

1. Pilate (He did not have to crucify Jesus. He could just as easily sent him to the salt mines),

2. Joseph of Arimathea(No tomb, no rock to roll back, no angels and weeping women),

3. Paul, (Did he raise Jesus from the physical dead with his epistles or did he simply raise the sayings and ways of Jesus? Most contemporary NT exegetes believe the latter scenario).

4. Constantine's Sword (no explanation needed).

Jwest

IF you go to Richard Dawkins website there is video of a speech he gave in Lynchburg, VA. Apparently there were several students from Liberty University (Falwell's school) in the audience and there are several interesting exchanges between Dawkins and Liberty's questioners. One of them indicates that Liberty has dinosaur bones in it's museum that they purport to be only 3000 years old. You might enjoy Dawkins' response to this.

The questioned asked, are catholics discriminated against, can be extended to are non-believers being discriminated against. The answer is a resounding yes. Christianist, catholics included gleefully discriminate against non-believers in public. Presidential candidate Romney stated when asked about his faith stated it is important that a man of faith be elected president. Here is a Mormon openingly discriminating against non-beleivers. There are more non-beleivers in this country then we are led to beleive and they need to come forward and be counted. Christians have also been the oppressers throughout history and continue today. If given their way science will be outlawed. As it is many teachers are afriad of teaching evolution for fear of reprisal from their christian community. Biology teachers are being confronted by the students whenever they mention evolution so more and more teachers are just not teaching it. Get over it this planet is over 4 billion years old and dinosuars weren't house pets. Certain species fossels haven't been found in mesopatomia, where the ark was suppost to come to rest and the earth in giving more and more secrets everyday. Christianist are fighting just as hard to disprove scientific findings with disperation. I hope non-beleivers will take their rightful place in this "free" society we supposedly live in and be counted. No folks sit is and always has been the christian that does the discriminating.

A few references recommended for review with respect to the historic Jesus, basic founder of the Catholic Church but remember only with the help of the "necessary accessories". i.e.

1. Pilate (He did not have to crucify Jesus. He could just as easily sent him to the salt mines),

2. Joseph of Arimathea(No tomb, no "rock and roll" , no angels and weeping women),

3. Paul, (Did he raise Jesus from the physical dead with his epistles or did he simply raise the sayings and ways of Jesus? Most contemporary NT exegetes believe the latter scenario).

4. Constantine's Sword (no explanation needed).

I have one comment to contribute to the discussion concerning the rise of tolerance in Western "Christian" countries.

The observation was made by J. S. Mill that it was the eventual multiplicity of religions, or Christian sects, in the West that encouraged tolerance. It was then in the direct interest of most believers not to allow one of the other sects to become official and oppress the others. In times and places where a single Christian sect became dominant it tended toward religious intolerance.

If this argument is valid, and it seems reasonable, then the West's modern stance of religious tolerance is not derived from Christian sentiment, but from Christianity's fractured history.

While it is true that Constantine delayed his own baptism until only hours prior to his death, he had already had his three sons baptized and raised as Christians, and is reported to have considered himself to be the "bishop of those outside of the church."( Deathbed baptism was not an uncommon practice for early Christians anyway.) At any rate, however one wishes to conceive of Constantine's personal conversion, his conversion of Rome itself is apparent.

Victoria: It is not Christianity alone that served to create the conditions that were ultimately rebelled against, it was the combination of Christianity and the power of the state.

And, I agree that it is arrogant to suppose that America is the first and only society to have enjoyed free discourse. But, your statement about a society being as free as its ruler allows it be is questionable. History has many examples of enlightened rulers who tolerated individual freedoms, who were then followed by other absolute rulers who did not. Absolute power in the hands of a single individual creates short shelf life for societal freedoms, as a general rule.

i always wonder where people get the idea that constantine converted to christianity-
(theres the rumor of a deathbed conversion- but that seems like an add-on justification and only seems to be known by christians) actually he lay in state for a month after his death and "ruled" and was consulted by his 'advisors', a great way to hang onto power after the king is dead i guess.

he took a disparate group of cults and coalesced them into a more easily governable constituency.

i am thoroughly enjoying leonards lectures.

phaedrus- were you suggesting that it was a reaction to christianity from secularists that produced a more freely dissenting atmosphere in the west?
(actually the initiating catalyst would still be christianity in that case)

it seems outrageously arrogant to posit that america is the first and only society that has spawned free discourse-
i think any society is as free as its ruler allows it to be-
the people at the top of any society always imagine that the priveleges they enjoy extend down to the bottom of the social ladder-

im really enjoying leonards expansive worldview.

Leonard:

My apologies for not making my meaning more clear. I will try again, though the need for brevity forces a definite simplification:

am's logic is tortured in that she appears to be arguing that the social advantages that you mention in your post to me have their foundations in christianity, when this is obviously untrue. It does not take much historical knowledge to trace these things back to the Greeks, as I will argue.

AMviennava's statements are "specious" in that they are likely to be attractive to a western christian readership, though false, as you state. However, "part" of her observation is accurate in that the west "is" more tolerant of opposing points of view than most other parts of the world, although not all. You make this case. Where I disagree with her is in her attribution of these western conditions to christianity itself. In fact, I find that the opposite is true, and that much of the credit should go to the ancient Greeks, who gave birth to the "reason" on which our intellectual heritage and governmental system rest.

When Constantine converted to christianity and laid the foundation for the alliance of government with religion, the Greek intellectual tradition was one of the casualties. Were it not for the relative openness of the Islamic world at the time, we would not have many of the Greek literary masterpieces and philosophical works that so influenced the enlightenment thinkers coming later. By preserving these writings, the Arab world performed an enormous service for the western mind, as well as their own.

In the effort to establish rigid orthodoxy and stifle diverging points of view, early Christian leaders (4th-5th centuries) retarded the progress of human understanding of the natural world, as well as reason itself. The Greek thnkers' appeal to the natural world as providing a basis for the discovery of "truth, was intolerable to the church, who viewed the mundane as close to profane. Paul had begun this process in his attacks on intellectual understanding, e.g. "...the empty logic of the philosophers." The late Roman Empire placed the might of the state behind such sentiment. The Platonic tradition survived in modified form however, because of its focus on the transcendant (the forms) as opposed to naturalistic observation and inductive logic. Scientific understanding was stopped in its tracks. Thus, an oppressive political system supported a religious heirarchy that asphyxiated the Greek intellectual tradition.

Although it is true that byzantine monks did a service by copying some of the Greek texts, the intellectual process that gave rise to the writings themselves was lost. It was not until Copernicus risked his life in the 16th century by taking ancient Ptolemaic observations and reinterpreting them in a heliocentric model that science began to reassert itself in the West. This scientific reawakening was loosely paralleled by social changes that ultimately led to the separating of church from state that we enjoy today. (I will not try to trace the course of the Rennaisance and Enlightnment periods, for reasons of length)

So, my position remains that what intellectual and societal freedoms the west enjoys today are not due to the Christian tradition, but that of the Greeks.

AMviennaVA

“...can you envision a 'first ammendment' [sic] in China or Saudi Arabia?” Why Saudi Arabia rather than Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, or the Ottoman Empire — all permitting free speech and free religion much as does our real, effective law. China? See below in this comment, and see also my earlier comments discussiong Chinese attitudes concerning religion and different ideas.

Phaedrus

Your comments are mysterious.

“You make valid points in the face of some rather tortured logic.”

Who submitted tortured logic? What was it?

“To posit that the greater freedoms from religious excesses seen in western nations, as opposed to Islamic states for instance, is due to the Christian underpinnings of their cultures is simply specious.”

After reading your sentence twice, I saw that I had to diagram it to try to find its sense, if any. I gathered that “specious” refers to AMviennaVA's absurd assertion that freedom, decency, compassion, justice, and other such goods occur only in Christian nations. But the assertion is simply a patent falsehood, not specious. Perhaps AMviennaVA derived her assertion from specious logical analysis. We cannot know. AMviennaVA does not supply premises adequate to support inference.

“The observation and comparisons themselves are valid, it is the causal analysis that is flawed.”

I cannot discern your point. Whose comparisons? If AMviennaVA's are “valid,” then you lose the rest of your argument, at least because it is fatally inconsistent with your concession of the comparisons' validity. What causal analysis? What causal question?

“It is the secular forces unleashed during the enlightenment to which the west owes its greater openness, recognition of individual and minority rights, rule of law based upon human reason as opposed to divinely-derived fiat, etc.”

AMviennaVA and I did not join issue just concerning the morality of the West, but of the World. And our issue was whether only Christian nations develop fine morals or democracies or protections like our first amendment, NOT whether Christianity is THE cause of fine morals or good government. So, even if you state the true cause of the West's various advancements, you do not address the issue AMviennaVA and I joined.

Also, YOUR position is specious for omitting necessary considerations or premises. In the West (Europe and America), Christianity was the dominant general influence. So, in the West, much moral advancement is attributable to Christianity: (a) Christianity moderated feudal and other oppressive socio-political forces, so that secular socio-political improvements were more possible. (b) Some core Christian values (Christ's values) survived the Roman Church's corruption and affected believers' behaviors. (c) In reacting against the Roman Church's offenses, people developed morality that otherwise they might not have entertained.

“These things were accomplished in part, because courageous and brilliant people challenged the religious tyranny of the medievel [sic] period and forced an adaptation.”

You assert falsely that the medieval European period was one of tyranny — at least if one is rational enough to understand that “tyranny” is a complex relative matter. [In many respects, ordinary medieval European folk enjoyed rights and working conditions better than Americans do today. Medieval European technological advances were immense and, relatively, greater than those of the renaissance and the “enlightenment” period. Consider just Gothic architecture and, especially, the cathedrals of Chartres, Rheims, Rouen, Amiens, Strassbourg, Cologne, and Paris.

Other than genetic forces, what explains the brilliance and courage of the people who challenged the “tyranny.” Was it the milieu Christianity created — a milieu of the glory of creative work (even if ostensibly the glory sought was that of “God”)?

[Distinguish the matter of what motivated manifest expression of the brilliance and courage. In the West, the motivation was, very much, the Church's economic investment. Villard d'Honnecourt would not have perfected the gothic arch and flying buttress without the entreaty and funding of the Roman Church. But that fact is irrelevant to the matter of the relation of the Church and modern Western morality, unless morality is a just a synonym of cold economic principle.]

From 2000 BC until the 19th Century Chinese science and technology were very far greater than Europe's. What were the causes? Genetic structure? Accident? Religion? Philosophy? Imperial greed? Necessities of war? The age (length of history) of the civilization or culture?

In the context of religion-focus, a salient question is whether the population's behavioral inclinations explain its religion(s) or its religion(s) may explain its behavioral inclinations. And in that context, science, technology, art, economics, brilliance, and courage are irrelevant parameters or immaterial considerations. The question is whether a people's religion explains the people's morality or vice versa.

Are proper Hindus non-violent and compassionate because of Hinduism. Or is Hinduism a religion of non-violence and compassion because its creating people were non-violent and compassionate and codified their morality in a religion called Hinduism?

I cannot supply answer. I know that Hinduism resulted from the warlike Aryans' invasion of the rather pacific, technologically advanced pre-Aryan Indus Valley civilization. So, surely Hinduism is not an expression of the Aryan Invaders. But it may be an expression of how the indigenous civilization influenced the Aryan invaders.

But no matter. If Hinduism was an expression of the morals of Indian morality, still it took form that, in turn, influenced the morality of believers. Always, such relationships are dialectical. So is the relationship of Catholicism and the morality of the cultures that have adopted it.

But even the last considerations are immaterial. The sole matter is whether only Christian nations reach democracy, guarantees of free speech, and something like systemic compassion lavished even on outsiders. The answer is negative.

One proof is ancient Greece and Athenian democracy and compassionate or at least respectful diplomacy vis-a-vis Sparta and other Greek city states. Another proof is the South China Empire of about 200 AD to the Manchu takeover.

The South China Empire had a government of bureaucrats who were not nobles but experts risen from the masses. They became bureaucrats only by passing the world's first civil service exams. Their responsibility included listening to the people's statements of problems and finding effective solutions. Their duty was to serve both Emperor and general population.

The arrangement was not a democracy. But it did permit and encourage free speech and made government legally accountable to the governed. It made insight, invention, and useful performance — not birth — the premises of social and economic position.

The concept was Confucian. The means and effects were much Buddhist and Taoist. But perhaps the system could not have occurred except for the mentality and root culture of the South China people, who made the Tao a practical morality and altered Buddhism into Cha'an (which became Zen in Japan), a Buddhism of realism and compassionate determination.

Ancient Athens and the South China Empire are not the only such examples. But two ought suffice, here, a blog comment, not a treatise.

This will be my final comment. Other, pressing matters demand all of my time.

I submit, as I stated in my first post, that it is the greater openness created by governmental reforms in the west that promoted secular advances of a scientific, technological, comercial, philosophical, educational, and artistic nature. It is secularism in all of its forms, that fuels the advance of western civiliztions, which has occurred at the expense of the more primitive dosctrines and practices of Christianity.

Jwest: Who is 'she'?

Phaedrus (and jwest & Leonard): At least you acknowledge that the observation is valid. You question the cause/effect association. That is valid. That is how discussion takes place. To determine whether there is a causal relationship you look for similarities and differences. Based on that, I have conclued that the Christian tradition encourages societies to tolerate and even encourage dissent. If I am wrong, there must be another cause. Please enlighten me.

The flaw in the arguments I have encountered is the insistence on a moral statement on my part. I do not know (?) if an atheistic-based society is best, or for that matter a Muslim-based one. Actually, I was raised in a Muslim-based society, and I find the western tradition much preferrable. Not perfect, but definitely preferable at least to me.

Other points are also valid: the first ammendment is the enemy of the fanatic. But we are not all fanatics. For that matter can you envision a 'first ammendment' in China or Saudi Arabia?

It is easy for me to understand why Catholics are being persicuted...still to this very day. It almost seems like it is part of our history as a nation. The whole reason Maryland is a state, is because it was a "safe haven" for Catholics.
My Religion is still, like the Catholics, very much persecuted and hated. It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Maybe one day, Americans can put aside its bigatry and come together respecting any religion in existance.

Jwest and Leonard:

You make valid points in the face of some rather tortured logic. To posit that the greater freedoms from religious excesses seen in western nations, as opposed to Islamic states for instance, is due to the Christian underpinnings of their cultures is simply specious. The observation and comparisons themselves are valid, it is the causal analysis that is flawed. It is the secular forces unleashed during the enlightenment to which the west owes its greater openness, recognition of individual and minority rights, rule of law based upon human reason as opposed to divinely-derived fiat, etc. These things were accomplished in part, because courageous and brilliant people challenged the religious tyranny of the medievel period and forced an adaptation. It is not the catholic church's sudden realization that witch-burning was unjust that ended the practice. It was not the Pope's love for and understanding of scientifically-derived cosmology that forced Galileo's ultimate "pardon."

There is a reason that Jefferson, the great exemplar of enlightenment values and acheivement, and the author of the ultimate declaration of freedom from tyranny of both the earthly and divine forms, refused to allow clerics any place in the faculty of the great university he founded here in the Old Dominion.

As a Catholic who has studied history a little bit, I think I can confidently say that discrimination against the Catholic Church and Catholics in general is not something that occurs any longer, at least not in the U.S. That is different than the anti-Catholic sentiment that is alive and well today. Catholics in the past were discriminated in the workplace, social and political circles, etc. The existence of the Knights of Columbus owes itself entirely to the discrimination endured by Catholic immigrants in New England.

I think the question was wrongly worded. Of course Catholics are no longer discriminated against. We are far too numerous and in far too many positions of power to even be seriously considered as targets of discrimination. We remain however, big targets of prejudice and hate. A lot of anti-Catholic sentiment is due at least in part to the actions of our own. Considerably more is due to great misunderstanding of our faith and our practices by non-Catholics and Catholics alike. Non-Catholics don't correctly understand why we do what we do. At the same time many Catholics can't correctly articulate their faith. Simply put, we get attacked, yet many don't know how to defend the faith.

Leonard
I think she gave us an F and dismissed us. I have found that certain people on these forums take a superior attitude towards others. Dismiss all their points as drivel and inject themselves as the only authority. Legends in their own minds. A posters point that only christian nation are good is not entirely true. It is Men and Women of good conscience that do not allow others to do harm that happen to live a in predominately christian society. One last time..if the christian leader had his/her choice many people would suffer. It is the laws of the land that were developed to insure a free society. The founders knew this and never mentioned religion or God or Christianity in the constitution because they already knew how distructive that would be. The first amendment is the enemy of the christian right. They are denying it separates church and state. If they were to somehow eliminate the first amendment all hell would break loose and and freedom in this country would dry up. Ergo theocracy. Laws would change and one would be hard pressed to see the difference between this country and any other theocracy in the world. If any body doubts this just look up the law suites going through the federal court systems today brought on by all these heavy moneyed christian groups.

Leonard @ March 16, 2007 8:45 PM:

I am very impressed that you can correctly spell a Chinese word in English. I know 5 languages, and even when they share the same alphabet, the end-result is often not phonetically correct.

I note that you believe in nothing.

Lenard & jwest: One last time.

My position is that it is the societies, countries, based on the Christian tradition that tolerate and encourage dissent, and are actually primarily responsible for the improvement in the human condition. That is not a statement that they are perfect or that the Christian churches have not in the past tolerated or advocated practices that are, now at least, considered deplorable. But I do advocate that it is the communities, countries if you will, that spring from the Christian tradition that have even examined those practices from the moral and ethical point of view. (If you doubt that please go back to about 1990, when the East Asian countries were very dismissive of 'western values, and advocated 'eastern values'. That lasted only until their economies collapsed by the way).

At no point have you pointed out to me a society, other than from the Christian tradition, that actually encourages free discourse, for the masses. The support you offer for your positions is that of the US right-wing, which frankly most of us reject. They are those of a sect that enjoys support only in the US, and is not representative of Christians even in the US. Shall I base my opinion of non-Christians by the Chinese, and advocate that non-Christians believe in forced abortion? That is what you are doing.

The island of Ireland is united on two things at least, rugby and Alcoholics Anonymous. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland use the same AA General Service Office in Dublin. Fair play to them! Dan, a happy sober guy with Irish, German and American roots living in Belgium.

Now lets tackle the situation with god and Moses.
God sent Moses to confront the pharaoh demanding
the release of the Jewish slaves.
So what did this loving god of your's do? He
inflicted all sorts of plagues and infestations, including the death of the first born.
The citizens of Egypt had no say, had no knowledge of the impending punishments that were
about to befall them, yet this god punished the population for the decisions that the pharaoh made.
This god of your's didn't isolate his wrath against Ramsies because he was the only one that had the power to release the Jews, but punished
all non Jews.
There weren't any newspapers with banner headlines " A terrorist god is going to kill your first born if the jews aren't freed". There weren't any voting booths for the people to express themselves whether or not they wanted to
lose their crops, have their water turned to blood, etc. and this god didn't give a damn punishing innocent people that had zero power
to express their views.
Hey....great god you folks adopted!

Pete --God is omnipotent but humans are limited in how much they can receive and how. Thus, the distortions in revealed truth. You might ask why did omnipotent God not create us so that we could communicate at his-her level. Consider that the best of all possible worlds does not mean that God can create any world (e.g. a square circle); that omnipotence does not mean God will necessarily use power in any way, any more than a reasonable human would. Respect for a pesron's freedom appears to weighs heavily in God's activity in the world, and in our developing 'as humans' in one way or another.

God is limited in his-her attempt to communicate with us because of our limitations, given the best of all possible worlds, not because of his-hers.

For example, how would not a few humans react to the presence of an all good, all vulnerable, yet all powerful God, in human form? Would they beleieve he was God or would they abuse him, as Christians believe actually happened.

In any event, it seems to me that the bias against catholics is tied to the one against God, and in the case of Catholics, to our exceptionally outrageous (revealed)faith based claims on the divinity of Christ. One can hardly discuss the sociology of the matter without reference to the controversial content of the Catholic faith.

Jwest,

you say: "It is not me saying these things about Israel, it is very powerful christian leaders."

I heard this same thing from a professor of old testament studies at a Protestant seminary. She says Israelis are happy to receive the financial support of fundamentalist Christians who are working toward the rebuilding of the temple needed to bring on armageddon. The Fundies think the Jews will have to convert or die and the Jews know that's foolishness. A perfect parternship.

Amviennava

Your reply fails much to respond to my comment, bears much that is irrelevant even to your position, puts many false assertions and falsifying omissions, and fails, utterly, to support your point. Were you my law student and your reply a course submission, I would flunk you.

Tienammen is irrelevant. Or it proves my point or disproves yours. The violent oppression was the work of a small but powerful dictatorial government and, primarily, the tactic of one megalomaniacal man. But the protesters showed the true Chinese moral metal. They protested for freedom and democracy and decent treatment of ordinary folk. The protest was massive, and it did not yield even to real threat of death and even, for a while, in the face of mass casualties. The protesters were, mostly, Buddhists and Taoists manifesting the active, fearless non-violence that is the Buddhist/Taoist creed.

You show you know nothing of traditional China. You show that you do not understand (and apparently have not studied or even read) Confucius's philosophy or teachings. Even do you misspell Confucius's name.

Ordinary folk were not "expected to live in misery, without any dissent — in absolute obedience" (as you assert). Ordinary people knew and practiced Confucian morality — and Buddhist and Taoist (since, lacking arrogance and worshiping utility, the Chinese absorbed good from every good faith or philosophy, as Chinese Medicine takes good from any source).

The South China empire — the great Chinese Empire — valued peasants above all others and created an EFFECTIVE (and uncorrupted) bureaucracy for the purpose of furthering peasants' interests. In the 15th Century, the South China Emperor feared that South China (the world's foremost sea-faring nation) was investing too much in sea trade and not supporting agriculture and peasant life. He decreed that sea trade stop and that the related resources be reallocated to agriculture and the support of peasants.

But even such a matters are irrelevant to our debate. The matter is a comparison of Christianity's manifest immorality and China's non-Christian manifest morality (Buddhist and Taoist, not just Confucian) vis-a-vis your idiotic arrogant assertion that Christian morality explains what is good of the modern world (and, "modern" denotes not just the past 100 years, but at least the past 167, though enough historians say it denotes all time since the start of the renaissance or even the high middle ages).

Oh, I do not live in an “Earthly paradise,” but the US. I am not Chinese, but Magyar, Cossack, Ukranian, Lithuanian, and either Semite (Jewish or Hebrew variety) or Khazar. I believe in NOTHING — not even atheism, which makes the mistake of thinking any asserted “God” is worth even being opposed. Your “Earthly paradise” tripe is irrelevant, silly, sub-sophomoric sarcasm.

Amviennava, I didn't include who I was in my last post.jwest

AMviennaVA
Your very dismissive of my points. But you can't refute them. You can only attack me. It is not me saying these things about Israel, it is very powerful christian leaders. Are you saying I can't argue against them because it upsets you. Thousands and thousand Americans attend these mega-churches like Hagee's each week and this is what they hear. It's a mainstream tenet of christianity . The return of christ to the holy lands. I'm glad you disagree with the likes of the religious right and yes they are the people I direct my voice towards. But you are just too dismissive. I take it these forums are in place to discuss different ideas. You on the other hand are extremely condescending. Argue the points with your know facts but quite dimissing people. It's off putting.

Leonard (and jwest): That is an interesting ennumeration, but does not address what I mentioned. By the way, the 'modern' world, tends to be that last 100 years or so.

I gather from your list that you live in the Earthly paradise of China. It is highly tolerant of dissenting opinions from what I hear. But if you are religiously inspired, perhaps you live in that other Earthly paradise of Saudi Arabia. It is free of Christian influences, I hear.

My position still remains, that it is the societies based on the Christian tradition that tolerate and encourage dissent (and by consequence have overwhelmingly improved the human condition).

You mentioned two specific examples: Confuscius taught many commendable things, that were reserved for the upper crust. The masses were expected to live in misery, without any dissent - in absolute obedience; and to this day I have heard no comment from the Chinese about Tienammen. As for the US, to be sure it has an anti-semitic tradition. I personally believe that is the reason the US supported the founding of Israel - so 'they' would not come here. What you will make of the US today, as it has swung in the oppositre direction, is an interesting question.

So, considering your position that Christianity is so intolerant, please do tell me which Eartly paradise you hail from. Obviously it is not the America's, or Europe, or Australia/New Zealand, or other such place. I am curious to know where the Earthly paradise is so I may visit. I may even want to stay there.

jwest : You posted "I would like to add that todays christians expects to take over the Holy Land", that is to say Israel. Kill all muslums and Jews that don't convert and wait for the second coming. Christ won't come back until Israel becomes whole."

To be sure there are some very vocal ones in the US, especially, who hold these positions. But that is NOT the Christian position.

I understand you hold strong positions. But the way you phrase them, frankly is no different than the way the right-wing nuts here in the US state things. It is just as irrational. To tell you the truth, the only one yo will get to pay attention to you is one who agrees with you.

That is not my view of a discussion.

Just for the record catholicism in NOT christianity. They are two differnt religions. No where in the Bible does it talk about a pope, worshipping Mary, and among other acts of practice. If anything, the catholic church is the "woman that rides the beast", in other words the antichrist. Now, is there discimination against catholics? There should be but unfortunately catholicism is the leading religion in this world and is the religion that gave true Christianity a bad name among all non-believers. The Bible clearly states (and proves) that Christianity is the way to God, not catholicism. And historically it was the roman catholic church that persecuted all other religions, including Christianity. I could write an essay on historical facts, but that would take too long but I know from studying history and the Bible that these are true.

Very well said Leonard. I would like to add that todays christians expects to take over the Holy Land", that is to say Israel. Kill all muslums and Jews that don't convert and wait for the second coming. Christ won't come back until Israel becomes whole. Christian groups like John Hagee's ministries send loads of money to Jewish settlements in the West Bank to try and hurry it all along. I heard this with my own ears and was shocked at the suggestion that they will be able to kill those that don't convert to christianity. I'm sorry but there is a certain amount of insanity to all this. The John Hagee ministries will send you literature on how you can help.

History lesson 101:
The Roman Catholic church did not break away from the Orthodox church - the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. And the issue was over caesaropapism and statutes. The Roman Emperor in the east still welded tremendous clout over the eastern church until the turks overran Constantinople while the Roman Catholic church was essentially free from political interference.