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.

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.

Amviennava, 15 March 2007, 7:41 p.m.

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. Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism are the leading religions of nonviolence.

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.

I do not know the meaning you give “modern.” But historians use it to denote the time after the beginning of the industrial revolution and the development of nation states, modern economics, modern medicine, and modern technology — the time starting at about 1840. The period includes the last 70 years of the Ottoman Empire — Islamic. 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.

How arrogant, you Christians who claim your religion has given the world morality. Just such arrogance promises that if a comparative religion course occurs in a public high school, near-certainly the course will be a show of the superiority of Christianity and the inferiority of all who are non-believers.

I think it is better said that if it wasn't for King Contantine christianity would not have held the special privilige it had. Under his rule people had to convert or die. That's simple enough. It was all arbitary. You all could just as easily been worshipping allah as the bible god. King Contantine saw how obedient the small christian sect was and chose that as the only excepted religion. As a side bar, I've been taking an unofficial survey and found that many people haven't read the bible, aren't familiar with Jesus's sermon on the mount and are basically just going along with what the family expects of them. There are a lot more atheist out there still in the closet because they don't want anger anyone. When I tell people I'm a non-believer some of them say they would never have the nerve to say that even though they are too. So I would deduce there are alot more atheist out there then is lead to believe.

Seeing Meacham and Quinn's smiling faces at the top of this email chain makes me smile too.

Zack said: "Christians must remember that without the Catholic Church there would be no Christianity today."

This seems worthy of further consideration. It holds only an element of truth. 1. If there had been no Jewish religion,--there would be no Christian religion. 2. The truth is we emerge from a very predatory social existence. It is the power of the Catholic Church that must be credited for massive communication of the Word of Christ. 3. This Word seems an awareness of our capacity to love. 4. The Reformation with resultant separation from the Catholic Church suggests this Word is not something that can be limited;--or controlled. 5. It is the secular effect of this Word that released a spontaneous energy, perhaps aptly called the 'human spirit'; that brought us to 'life'; surmounted overwhelming physical obstacles; moving us toward compatibility; and freedom from environmental control; toward recognition of, and resultant antipathy of religious oppression. 6. If Christ had not existed there would be no Christian religion. 7. The hierarchy power control arrangement of the Catholic Church reflects an ancient mentality that determined a course. It seems relative to the survival of Christianity. 8. That Christianity exists today however may be because The Word is REAL. The place Christianity exists is not within the walls of a religious structure;---but in the manner one person treats another!

If that's the case, then they never should have gotten on the boats and come to this country.....the natives would have been better off.

Butch Krichmar @ March 16, 2007 12:34 PM:

I am the "One of the folks" you referred to. You could have used my handle, I would not have been insulted. Please note that I used yours, and I do not believe that I insulted you. Instead I acknowledge you as a person.

This post by you is interesting. You posed several questions, apparently as a rhetorical device. Once you received a response, you are trying a diversion. Since you posed the questions, please continue on the subject. But by trying a diversion, you should not have posed the questions in the first place.

I saw that program Butch,and some of the tribal youth left that village for the big city and got into prostitution and drugs. This tribe will never recover from the crusaders. There should be an international law that says whenever a new primitive tribe is discovered christians have to leave tham alone.

One of the folks posting on this blog made the statement that their god is forgiving.
I don't know which church you attend, but it is taught that if one does not believe that Christ
is your savior then you have a paved road to hell.
I remember some years back a primitive tribe was
discovered in South America, this tribe was an ideal example of "to raise a child it takes a village" each child born into the tribe was considered each tribal members responsiblilty.
This people never saw their own image, they had
no mirrors and the water was too muddy to create
a reflexion.
The deer would come out of the jungle and eat out
of the hands of the inhabitants.
There was no word in their langauge for hate, or
jealousy, it was a loving peaceful tribe.
Christian missionaries learned of existence and
decided to visit the village in an attempt to convert them.
They were given machetes and mirrors and introduced to many modern conveniences. In fact the tribal chief was flown by helicopter to a large city in order to see his reaction to modern
society.
As you can guess this action by these Christians
destroyed the fabric of this tribe.
Non of these people ever heard of Christ, yet as
Christians believe they were on the road to hell
because they did not accept him as their savior.

What does Professor Crossan, an On Faith panelist, and other contemporary religious historians conclude about the historic
reliability of said Catholic Church's foundation/Papal infallibility: (Think ill of Crossan’s work if you want but he has done his homework as shown by the content of the books he has written- See
www.amazon.com for a compilation.

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

John 16:13- not reviewed by Crossan or others that I can find

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb073.html

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since contemporary theologian Father Edward Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of 2 Peter 1:20.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”
more “logic”?

In one of the first responses to this week's question, Butch raises an interesting point which I hope some of the respondees will explore further with me.

Butch Krichmar :
"I have a question for all you Christians....When
did you come to the realization that a god existed? When did you come to the conclusion that
you are a Christian?
Were you given the opportunity to investigate other belief systems before accepting Christianity
as your faith?"
The problem as I see it, is that children are
brain washed from an early age by their parents as
per how to believe, and told that to do other wise
would bring about damnation."

This is delimma I have faced. As an atheist parent, I did not feel comfortable taking my children to church. I could have picked any church in our community to send them to, but I knew that my discomfort with the tenents or more importantly practices of almost every faith could easily get transferred to my children, so I chose instead not to have them participate in any.

Recently someone told me, not knowing my status as an atheist, that children not exposed to a religion from birth COULD not truly believe in a religion or have faith in God. The implication was that there would be so much negative input that the child was unlikely to be able to reject its parents' viewpoints in order to embrace a religion.

Because my huband's parents were religious, we made sure that our children knew that we accepted their religious beliefs just as we accepted them as good human beings to be loved and honored. In our case, we tried to suggest it was alright for them to explore on their own and to visit churches with their school friends. Both of our children were exposed to a very limited amount of "organized religion" and made very different choices for themselves. One embraced religion and practices it with her children, while the other does not embrace any religion.

I have always believed, like Butch, that children raised by religious parents were so "brainwashed" that they could not easily reject their parents' religion, even though I have known many adults who rejected all or most of their religious upbringing. I knew that my strong views were most likley to impact heavily on my children so that they might not be able to have a religious life.

Perhaps the real issue is that religion needs to be introduced to children at a later age to remove some of the "mystique" and make it a real intellectual choice. But then I'm sure those of "faith" would rebel against that idea as it is the "deeper needs" that religion fulfills not the intellectual ones.

I was raised by parents who did not have strong relgious beliefs and did not attend church, but my grandmother was very religious and tried to "convert" all her grandchildren to her religion. I participated as a young adult, found it emotionally scary and rejected my self-chosen "baptism" and later became an atheist as an adult. I would be interested in other views on this issue, especially as the last week's question the panelists responded to was the one of teaching about religion in the school systems.

I wish to make my position very clear. I work in a multi-cultural, multi-religious environment. Every body gets along fairly well although there are those, very few mind you,that, under their breath, have distain for "others" no big problems araise. There is a line of separation between ones religion and societyas a whole . For a healthy society to exist that line must be bold and not crossed because one group wants to dominate. In the USA today there are many high powered organizations with mega-millions that are trying to force their views on the American society. They back religiuos zealots for political office. Once there they start putting thru bills that cross the line giving the religious groups that backed them special privilege in our society. It's not atheist, gays or agnostics that is doing harm in our society, it those that are intolerant. For the most part they just want to be left alone and enjoy life. But christian leaders need a foil and have chosen these people because it is easy to blame them for all ther ills of society. Many of you out there have already proven you believe these christian leaders drivel. Just look at all the crucifix tattoos on imprisoned gang members. These high powered groups have set their sites on our public schools, because if they tethers young people to their dogma at an early age then their power base is assured for future generations. All this being said, I respect those people of faith as many are my friends and family. All I ask is call off the dogs. Go to your churches and rejoice all you want. Just lets keep our society free for everyone to enjoy.

The Pope is not infallible on matters of faith. Nor is he infallible when talking from the Cathedral. Talking in a certain place doesn't make your opinion more or less right just because you're there.

john Paul admitted that the Pope is fallible, and that is good. Only 11 more steps to go I suppose.

--one of thethings i loved about pope john paul was that he stated outright that the pope is a fallible human- hence ending 1700 years of the inflexible idea that the pope is infallible.--

The Pope has never ever been infallible. He is a human and this is understood.

The Pope, however, IS infallible when speaking "ex catherdra" (from the cathedral).

On MATTERS OF FAITH he is infallible.

That should not have been news.

jwest : Obviously it did not help that I pointed out that I was sarcastic. It is also equally obvious that are eager for an argument. I do wish you had addressed what I discussed, but in both your posts to me you did not. Apparently you cannot.

Be that as it may.

Pastor Lyle says:

"What has happened with the Supreme Court's Ruling on School Prayer, the presentation of Christian symbols in public places, etc. is that in subsequent rulings, they have even disallowed voluntary prayer time, etc. while as someone said in one of the posts, allowing the Muslims and others to have their time and space in the public schools."

This is a myth, plain and simple. The establishment of any religious practice in public schools is a delicate balance, but the same rules apply to all; students, either as individuals or in groups, are free to practice their religion as long as it doesn't disrupt the educational purpose of the school. The school itself must not be seen to be endorsing any religion.

In practice this can get a bit messy, and some school administrators may go too far one way or the other, but the idea that Muslims are getting special treatment and Christians are systematically locked is simply not supported by the facts.

As for the ACLU, they frequently take the side of Christian students against the overzealous or poorly informed administrators, and for Christians generally to maintain their freedom to worship.

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/27673prs20061212.html

You need to recognize the distinction between an individual's right to practice their religion and the endorsement of a particular religion by what is supposed to be secular, neutral, State institution.

Regards

A Hermit

It's worth keeping in mind here that secularism was not invented by atheists or agnostics. It developed during the so-called Enlightenment because religious disputes made it increasingly difficult to govern. England had a civil war, in large part, because of conflicts between different Protestant sects.

The framers of the Constitution wisely chose to keep religion out of politcs because it tends to lead to religious persecution and/or civil strife.

Secularlism, in short, is not anti-religious. It's practical.

It's also, I believe, the best weapon we have against Islamic extremism.

AMviennaVA

Silly of me not to equate gays, atheists, agnostics and free women with murders, pedophiles, rapest and all the other dredge of society. Of course you tire of lists, it shows the hate and distrust christians show for others that don't think like them. Your list is long and I can see you add everyone you disagree with as vile people. Your arguements are weak. I don't want you to agree with me or think like I do, I want you out of my business and quite trying to force your way on me thought government fiat. Be free to enjoy your faith and try to live without this self centered superiority complex you all seem to have. I've tired of this long ago. And what do you mean "poor attempt at rhetoric" this is the position of christianity. Anyone who doesn't see it your way you've condemned to fry in hell for eternity. I can't make this stuff up.

I know some of you are wondering why it seems that Christians are being held back in their beliefs while other religon are allowed to practice out in the open. This can be puzzling, but maybe there is a simple answer. Christinas who are mad about this, are the same ones that push it in our faces and try to make up our minds for us. All the other people just want to practice their beliefs quietly. Maybe if you didn't make such a stink about converting and "saving" everybody, you'd get the fair shake back. Until that day, try to reflect on the reasons why you deserve to be shut in. If you can't see it, then you're not looking close enough.

Butch Krichmar : You posted your question twice, but I hope that you will not object if I respond once:

God is not 'amorous' (or eros) because God is not into sex, but love (as in agape). In short, if want to be sarcastic or satirical, please make sure that you select the correct terms.

The possibilities about God are that (a) there is NO God; (b) there is only ONE God; (c) there are MANY Gods. One attribute of God is that God is all-powerful. That eliminates 'many', because if there are 2 who 'all-powerful' then neither is. That reduces the possibilities to 0 or 1. I CHOOSE to believe that there is 1.

As for the rest, frankly it is none of your affair. It is best for you to examine yourself and find the answers to those questions as they apply to you. Afterall, the unexamined life is not appropriate for a man to live. And the main characteristic of Christianity is that the individual determines his destiny; not the group to which the individual belongs; nor any vengeful God for that mater, because Christianity believes in the Living God who forgives all based on their actions.

There is no discrimination against the Catholic Church. People are just dissatisified with the performance of the Catholic Diocese; pedaphilia. Catholicism might want to look internally regarding how the world views them rather than look outwardly at others, in order to understand the true source of their feelings of discrimination.

People make up an insititution and it is the people that are either good or evil and no more. It is the good or evil that manifests in one's mind from moment to moment that is either good or evil, manifest into cocnrete actions in reality creating or destroying the happiness of others is good or evil, and nothing more.

Zack @ March 15, 2007 8:06 PM:

You posted "Christians must remember that without the Catholic Church there would be no Christianity today." That is a very common attitude by the westerners. You always forget that the Protestants split off from the Catholic church, but the Catholic church split off from the Orthodox church. you left out hundreds of millions of Christians who, frankly, have survived comfortably without the Catholic church.

jwest @ March 15, 2007 7:41 PM

Yes, the 'Christian church' has been a product of the times. In the course of that it did support activities that are deplorable. (I cannot tell from your response whether you ascribe these practices strictly to the 'Christian church' or to human behavior in general, but that is irrelevant right now). But you missed the point that I was making. It is also the Christian tradition (distinct from the 'Abrahamic' religions, or 'religion' as a whole) that also worked to (not yet unfortunately) abolish these practices. Respect for a difference of opinion is not found in the atheistic societies, nor is there allowance for the right to disagree (the primary guide I use in this are the Soviet Union, China, N.Korea by the way). In short, although Christianity has in the past participated in activities that are deplorable, it is also Christianity that has opposed them. Please do remember that slavery is still practiced in parts of Africa to this day!

The rest of your post is frankly a complaint that there are people who disagree with your positions. To that end I find your list to be limited. After all, you left out pedophiliacs, alcoholics, drug addicts, serial murderers, etc. (I hope you can appreciate that I am being sarcastic here. However, I am suspicious of those who enumerate groups of people, if anything because you are bound to omit some subdivision).

Lastly, I will attribute that line "Are you so important in your own mind that only you are right and everyone else is going to fry in hell for eternity." to a poor attempt at rhetoric. Remember again what I said: 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.

I don't recall writing anything that would violate our freedoms in America or the need to be responsible as we exercise our freedom that is granted by the Constitution. What has happened with the Supreme Court's Ruling on School Prayer, the presentation of Christian symbols in public places, etc. is that in subsequent rulings, they have even disallowed voluntary prayer time, etc. while as someone said in one of the posts, allowing the Muslims and others to have their time and space in the public schools. The ones who have been attacked the most over the years have been folks of the Christian faith.
Yes, I am grateful that I can go and worship without fear, but it is getting to the point where I may be disallowed to say anything about my Christian faith in public other than in a Church building, while at the same time all of the other belief structures can go about their way unmolested by the ACLU.

I would like to make a correction to the piece I wrote: In the sixth paragraph from the bottom I accidently put in the word "not" in the first sentence thus making an error of logic. The sentence should read "There really is no way to improve man morally in other words, no obvious direction which we have separated from animal analogies..." etc. etc. I accidently wrote "no obvious direction which we have not separated".

Thank you...

"Atheists, if God were to exist, how in the world would he ever be able to communicate with someone like us?

Note the difficulty and you will appreciate perhaps what is going on in catholicsm, and in the world, differently."

The flying spaghetti monster is omnipotent so there would be no difficulty at all.

"As a Christian, I have read the Torah, Quran and have studied the Far Eastern Religions as well. I listen carefully to my agnostic and atheist friends. My study of others' beliefs only helps me understand my beliefs better and actually strenghtens my own faith in my beliefs."

Oh an expert! So then, how many fairies fit on the tip of a pin?

"Atheists, if God were to exist, how in the world would he ever be able to communicate with someone like us?"

Yes, I have often the very same thing about the flying spaghetti monster.

Hi Sally and John!
I hope you recall our 12/8/06 interview on Washington Post Radio as well as coast to coast.
Well, we'll be repeating it over the same outlets, Wed night 3/21, 10:06-11PM ET.

I had to retire early because of surgery. My employer gave me disability forms to complete. It was a small claim. It was denied. What bothers me even more than the inaccurate explanations for denial,---is the beginning of my file:

"She does not go to Church"

What does this have to do with finding medical reason for disability?

I have always sensed the feeling to not attend Church makes me inferior; will cause 'big trouble'. While still as a child, being given the idea--the church--is in actuality all people.

This superior attitude of Church-goers is in actuality no different than the social discrimination to the poor by the elite.

I feel we have it all wrong! The people I find superior are not those who faithfully follow religious ceremony; not those with magnificent homes and bank accounts; not those with greater physical strength;---not those with multiple academic credentials. Although these gain my respect, I find superiority to be in those with compassion;---those who treat other people in a 'just' manner!

There has always been a variety of physical discriminations,--often leading to atrocities. Solution may be for the people of the world to discriminate against all who try to overpower;---all who are unjust.

And I believe such a discrimination would be against almost every human establishment!

The door to "justice for all" was opened by our American ancestors. The problem is nature seems to have determined that all must enter. As long as one person continues to try to overpower another;--there will always be discrimination and injustice!

Yes, discrimination against Catholics does exist in the U.S. today. And yes, I have been discriminated for my personal religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, I belong to one of the religious groups that is one of the most misunderstood Christian groups in the U.S. and if you go back into history has been persecuted for its beliefs. Discrimination is a bi-product of fear due to misunderstanding. I think atheist and agnostics that are trying to push religion out of public debate of the issues of today do so because of their own lack of faith in their unbelief. Just as the ultra-right Christian conservatives fear the views of those that don't share their beliefs due to their own trembling within their faith.

As a Christian, I have read the Torah, Quran and have studied the Far Eastern Religions as well. I listen carefully to my agnostic and atheist friends. My study of others' beliefs only helps me understand my beliefs better and actually strenghtens my own faith in my beliefs.

As Christ taught, if we would learn to listen more carefully and learn what each other believes we could alleviate a tremendous amount of discrimination and the fear that feeds it.

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, yes the Mormons. I'm grateful to my Catholic friends and the positive element the Catholic Church adds to our community despite recent scandals.

I focus on the person before I focus on their beliefs. I seek to understand their beliefs to better understand them rather than fear them.

There will probably always be discrimination and some small portion of it will be against catholics. The more homogenous a society, the more nitpicky the distinctions; the more diverse, the more clear the distinctions. I am an atheist and hope for a time when religion will be a more personal matter than it is in the US today and not merit this kind of discussion at all.

Catholics are first of all homo sapiens, with all the limitations, ignorance and evil which characterizes this entire infamous species.

Any experience is built on a pre-existing environment of personal and cultural and natural history. Religious experience is no different. Given myriad localizations, there are all kinds of religions, and of manifestations of the same religion, some better, some worst.

Some, not all, catholics believe they have experienced a revelation beyond all understanding, one that is the ultimate foundation of all that exists, and who has incarnated in our species, to lead the way. However, this revelation has been recieved through layers of personal, cultural and historical experience which modifies and may either enrich or distort it. Yet this is how the divine has reached out to us.

Atheists, if God were to exist, how in the world would he ever be able to communicate with someone like us?

Note the difficulty and you will appreciate perhaps what is going on in catholicsm, and in the world, differently.

"its followers who continue to profess a faith when they rarely adhere to its principles."

Are you suggesting that other religions have less hypocritical followers. LOL

First of all, who would discriminate against Catholics except people of other Christian religions? I know people of other faiths who think Catholics are a bit kooky. I was raised Catholic and now call myself a "recovering Catholic".

I believe it is the Church's intransigence when it comes to birth control, marriage for priests, female priests and condemnation of homosexuality that has put Catholicism in the same category as the Salem Witch Trials. It is a religion of old men that is immersed in mysticism and rituals and refuses admit past mistakes and present fallacies.

So, I do not think that discrimination against Catholics is the problem. It is people in wonder at a paternalistic hierarchy so out of touch with its followers. It is curiosity with its followers who continue to profess a faith when they rarely adhere to its principles.

I am Roman Catholic but am no longer willing to defend the Church against criticism from other denominations or those who do not believe. The Church's mean-spirited incursions into politics sickens me. I support the right of the Church to teach and preach on matters of morality. When they work to legislate it, I think they should lose their tax exempt status. Nothing has meant more to me than my identification as a Roman Catholic. Now at 63 years old, I find the leadership disappointing and often embarrassing.

I think one can fit ten fairies on the tip of a pin.
How about you? Wanna fight about it? Of course you do.

You all are crazy...

Discussing this topic is idiotic - you all suck

Francis L. Holland, why do you hate atheists so much? Aren't we taking aboout discrimination against christians and you are showing intolerance towards someone who disagrees with you. As a christian shouldn't you be showing love and understanding to someone you fell inferior to you.

I'm don't have data on this, but I'm sure discrimination against Catholics exists in this country. We discriminate here against at least the following demographic slices: Muslims, Sikhs (right after 911, there were numerous attacks on them because people mistook them for Arabs), blacks, and browns. We don't trust Mormons, and we still don't think all that highly of women. Why should we skip Catholics, historically objects of a great deal of Protestant and Jewish scorn and fear?

B t w, I'm an agnostic Jew. I used to get chased off the playground in my neighborhood in the Bronx by the kids who went to the local Catholic school. When I was a law student, a poor black woman I was helping in a landlord tenant dispute suggested I "Jew down" the landlord. She probably didn't realize I was Jewish; she merely wanted me to take a tough negotiating line with him, and that's how she could easily describe it.

I married an agnostic Catholic girl nearly 30 years ago. We're still married. One of the things that unites is our distrust of organized religion, which, like most other institutions, loses sight of its original commendable spiritual goals when it becomes materially desirable to perpetuate itself.

What needs to be taught in public schools is a course in "Non-Belief in the Super Natural." That should solve all problems.

I see a lot of activist atheism at the DailyKos.com blog. People there say they want to "squeeze religion out of public discourse", and one commenter there said that it "gives him diarrhea" when elected officials speak publicly about their Christian faith. You just have to search for the term "atheist" and "agnostic" at the DailyKos blog to find loads of anti-religious bile at that DailyKos website. www.dailykos.com

So, I looked up the website owner, Markos Moulitsas, and it turns out that he's a self-acknowledged atheist. Just look up the words "Markos" and "atheist" at Google, and you find loads of atheist statements. Markos doesn't believe in God and he doesn't think anyone else should either.

No surprise the atheist bloggers want Democratic Party's leaders to talk about religion less. But should we really be taking our cues from atheists when we decide how much to talk about religion? Absolutely not, and we're not going to stand for it!

Thankfully, the two highest-polling Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are both church-going Christians from way back. They refuse to stop talking about their faith no matter how much it annoys the atheist bloggers.

John Edwards' anti-Catholic blogger scandal (Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen) might really hurt his campaign, particularly if he continues to cozy up to the atheist bloggers at DailyKos.

Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com

It has been my experience that Catholics and other religious organizations are the ones who are prejudice; they are most decrimatory toward all science and logical reasoning that puts man, not a super natural power, as the source of good and evil.

There is a strong anti-Catholic mentality in America today. Most people's arguements against the Church are weak and mean-spirted, not very Christian of them. Christians must remember that without the Catholic Church there would be no Christianity today. The Church carried Christianity for hundreds of years and ensured it's survival. People are quick to judge Catholic's, but remember Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II are the face of the Modern Church.

AMviennaVA,
Sorry I didn't include who I was. jwest

I have a question for all you Christians....When
did you come to the realization that a god existed? When did you come to the conclusion that
you are a Christian?
Were you given the opportunity to investigate other belief systems before accepting Christianity
as your faith?
The problem as I see it, is that children are
brain washed from an early age by their parents as
per how to believe, and told that to do other wise
would bring about damnation.
Christians are afraid to question their faith believing that this vengeful god will damn them
to eternal hell.
Why did god name himself jealous ( my name is Jehovah which means jealous ) Why didn't he name
himself amorous meaning LOVE.
Why didn't god say....my name is amorous because I am a god of LOVE, and no matter which god you
choose you will always return to me because I am
LOVE? I have other questions to ask you faithful, but I don't want to bore you with to much at one time.

Citizens true to America's Whig Founder can see Rome's hand in the deaths of Meriwether Lewis, Abraham Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, the Kennedys and Dr. King, as well as the treasonous American Fifth Column finance of Adolf Hitler through Prescott Bush and the Rockefellers, their CFR, the Roman Catholic CIA's Gulf of Tonkin Hoax and 9-11 by a homosexual draft-dodging liar: George W. Bush.

To Samuel Kercheval
Monticello, January 19, 1810

SIR, -- Yours of the 7th instant has been duly received, with the pamphlet inclosed, for which I return you my thanks. Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.

---

All intelligent patriotic Americans agree with Thomas Jefferson: Rome is the real Anti-Christ and the sooner we remove her minions from the halls of power in America the better.

I have a question for all you Christians....When
did you come to the realization that a god existed? When did you come to the conclusion that
you are a Christian?
Were you given the opportunity to investigate other belief systems before accepting Christianity
as your faith?
The problem as I see it, is that children are
brain washed from an early age by their parents as
per how to believe, and told that to do other wise
would bring about damnation.
Christians are afraid to question their faith believing that this vengeful god will damn them
to eternal hell.
Why did god name himself jealous ( my name is Jehovah which means jealous ) Why didn't he name
himself amorous meaning LOVE.
Why didn't god say....my name is amorous because I am a god of LOVE, and no matter which god you
choose you will always return to me because I am
LOVE? I have other questions to ask you faithful, but I don't want to bore you with to much at one time.

AMviennaVA
Where do I begin with this one. Some times i find defenders of the faith very simplistic. I'm not allowed to bring up past injustices when considering the church. First of all it was the christian church that supported slavery in the first place. Second it was the church that would overrun minorities, destroy their culture, history books and anything else that would allow history to identify them and force them into conversion. It was christians who would defend owning slave it the south. It was good men of conscience that opposed slavery. The church had nothing to do with it. Leviticus states it's ok to own slaves as long as they come from another land. You say you are protecting minorities, well what about gays, athist, agnostics, women's rights to reproductive choice, and the list goes on. Why can't you enjoy your befiefs without trying to force them on others. Are you so important in your own mind that only you are right and everyone else is going to fry in hell for eternity. The catholic church has a histroy and you can't dismiss it. And in that history there are autrocities. You should read the world history of the church maybe you would not think so highly of it.

Guess what I saw, I footage of a Muslim-Catholic church in a next to a synagog in a Jewish neighborhood in Cordoba in Spain. These three groups lived as good citizens together for 300 years. If we want to solve the Muslim problem we should go to Cordoba in Spain. This whole war was not necessary if we listened and looked at how the Spanish delt with this problem.

actually steve one of the main factors in determining the new pope was is advanced age-
the votes and proceedings are kept under wraps as they occur- but made available later-

one of the main points in ratzingers favor was his impeccable scholarship- hes not really a warm man like john paul II-

actually- i myself had thought that discrimination against catholics was a dying issue until i read alot of the posts with extremely anti-catholic prejudices-

i always say though-
prejudice is ugly no matter whose mouth it comes out of

EMM- i realized you again may misinterpert my statement-

there really is not an easy way to determine if a pedophile who favors girls is a pontential vocation-

but men who go into the seminary are under scrutiny from their peers and superiors- (as well as obviously being in the company of other men all the time)
and hyper alert for hmosexual nuances.

my years of service to the gay community is long and well established

I have to laugh, hearing anyone talk about bias against any Christian institution, and especially medieval Catholicism.
Christian fascists are trying to take over this country, re-make the U.S. in their own image and likeness, just as they did with their adult Santa Claus. (and I mean FAR RIGHT Christians, not people who try to live their religion as the bible taught them.)
The Catholic Church has a rich tradition of misogyny and oppression. Their constant brainless harping on women to spew as many babies as possible, while opposing birth control, sex education and abortion in a rapidly-overcrowding word, simply nullifies Catholicism as irrelevant.
Many of us are still outraged that the ENTIRE Catholic Church hierarchy, up to and INCLUDING the pope, were involved with moving child-raping priests (ostensibly "called by God" to the priesthood) from one victimized parish to another unaware parish; this should have resulted in child rape conspiracy charges against everyone, including the Pope, and including the current ex-Nazi right-wing jerk of a pope who, laughably, pretty much forced his election upon the rest of the cardinals and the world. The offending priests aren't even the most to blame: the hierarchy that hid those crimes, apparently for over a millenium, shows that no real, all-loving deity would have anything to do with such a criminal, far too rich organization.
To the dip that pretended everyone against the church is "prejudiced against Irish and Italian Americans, and not the church practices," wake up and start actually thinking. Church dogma is so back-asswards to reality that it's relevance is almost as low as that of Christian fascists Jerry Falwell, Richard Dobson and other spittle-spewers of their ilk. Almost.
And for Christ's sake, CC, get rid of that screaming nutcase of an apologist - Bill Donahue, isn't it? Possessed himself, apparently, by "the devil," Mr. Stroke Waiting To Happen reminds one of an uncontrollable, drunken redneck with a gun.
Your church sucks, Bill. And you're a dangerous liar. Using you as a spokesperson for your church is like using Dick Cheney as spokesperson for the Bushies: even believers can't stand you. I expect to see Bill blow a blood vessel and die on the air, while verbally mauling someone that doesn't kiss a chalice and love it.
To those that say, the number of priests actually caught (how many have gotten away with child rape?) is a smaller percentage than the general population, are you kidding me? Your god can't call to the priesthood someone that won't screw up innumerable children's lives?
Sounds like a weak, powerless deity, who certainly deserves no "worship."
Or, maybe, the Church is simply wrong.
Or maybe there is no just god. Some of his believers, apparently, believe that crossing a goal line or making a trillion in business was the result of help by a god who ignores daily deaths from starvation and genocide around the world.
Get real.
As an example, I'd like to smack the next lone survivor of a plane crash who talks about how, "God was with me and saved me," when that same God also killed the other 369 who didn't survive.

That some of most severe critics of the Catholic Church are ex-Catholics is nothing new. Fidel Castro is a good example. I was a liberal and a Catholic for many years and have noticed the way liberals have become increasingly intolerant of Catholics. Extreme leftists want nothing more than to see the judeo-Christian ethic disappear completely especially as it affects sexual practice. Leftists whether they know it or not are heirs of the marxist paradise set up by Lenin and ruled for years by Stalin, both haters of religion. In the nearly eighty years that communism held sway in the world, these atheists murdered 100 million people- all in the name of equality and social justice. Liberals, despite their alleged tolerance, are becoming quite proficient at hating. Just read some of the posts above this one.

ATHENA- sorry- i jumped the gun on you.
my bad.

EMM- you wrote-

***" Unfortunately you a mistaken on several counts. Firstly you never make mention of the abuse of young girls by the Catholic clergy."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

because i hesitate to speak about what i dont know about
~~~~~~~and~~~~~~~~~~~

"Secondly, you suggest that the sex scandal originates with homosexuality. Pedophilia is not related to homosexuality, there are pedophiles in both straight and gay men and women.""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i certainly suggested no such thing
that is completely in your own interpertation not my words
also the incidence of pedophilia is extremely rare in gay women 9i just learned that looking stuff up)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~and~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In most cases of pedophilia and rape, the underlying impulses are rooted in the power and control exerted over the victims.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

actually youre confusing rape and pedophilia
they are similar in that they are both sexually coercive

however the power and control are the hallmarks of rape
pedophilia is attended by a desire for sexual gratification not ususally present in rape
these are generalities though

nowhere was there any inferrence that homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia

the reason so much attention is paid to homosexual behavior is because 81% of the cases brought against priest were of that nature

here are the stats if you like

http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/stats.html

as to the actual content- i will be anecdotal

my little brother was gay and his partner of 10 years was an ex-seminarian
i myself am an ex-novitiate and was extremely active in the church at that time

one of my dearest friends in the world is a gay priest who started the AIDs drop in center in pittsburgh-
i was convent shopping for a few years and spent many many hours in priests homes, and missionaries, and also with many gay ex-priests who populated my brothers (and by extension my) social circle.

so i got a kind of before and after inside outside perspective on this particular issue.

now as to your statement-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You state that “no new young ones” are coming into the priesthood to continue these practices. It is far too early to know this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you are correct- i should have said "no new young ones that we know of"
of course there must be a few slippingunder the gaydar.

but the church is really stringently trying to prevent this from happening.
also the conditions which led to young men hiding out in the priesthood have changed dramatically.

Now as to the 'unbiblical' aspect of celibacy-
it is based on Jesus(ata) statement that 'if one must- they should marry, but it is better to follow his way.'

which is a direct reference to his own celibacy-
(as Jesus(ata) was notmarried his celibacy is assuredly implied) from biblical accounts you understand

now you also said-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
". If anything good can come out of the sex scandal of the Church, maybe it will mark the end of the mandatory celibate priesthood. I, for one, hope and pray this is the case."

can we infer that you dont care about the nuns situation because you didnt say youd hope and pray for them?

no, of course not-
the same goes for me.

TONIO-
well actually i did experience a great deal of smirks and patronizing behavior and outright prejudice for my catholicism, but part of that was that i flew sometimes in higher social WASPY circles- so it was my choice to be there-

when i was a young teenager quite simply there just were no young catholics trying to study the bible=- so i was usually with protestants- and sometimes there actually was outright hostility (which is an amazement) but i always took that as a sign that i was in the wrong atmosphere and i cant say it ever really bothered me.
(it did make me quite the apologist for awhile though- and ive always been antipathetic to pauline scripture)

alot of things i wasnt aware of until after they had happened-
(i continue to be blithely unaware of bad intentions)
i have to be honest ive taken more heat from being celibate than anything else.
(im married now- too much information?)

alrighty then
peace

again athena my apologies- i have been likened to don quixote more than once in my life-
i fly off the handle when i PERCEIVE intolerance - or mean-spiritedness- it obviously wasnt there and my mistake.

When Catholics cannot serve in the military, get married, and crimes are committed against them because of their religion, then maybe this could mean something other than another sad attempt to make all criticism of the Catholic church and its
turning of the US into a Theocratic state into poor persecuted Catholics!
Get real, Catholics are the ones doing the persecuting and discrinating and all in the name of the Church and its Dark Ages rules.

If one reads all the comments, carefully, still one cannot discern the question the comments address.

Some comments insist that the Establishment Clause bars teaching religion in public schools. I suppose those comments' writers have not read the first amendment.

The legal problem is not whether religion can be a public school subject, but whether particular religion courses “establish” a religion. Surely, a critical comparative-religion course does not “establish” a religion unless its point is to suggest to the students that one religion is right or best and the others wrong or inferior and, at least implicitly, that all ought follow the “right” or “best” religion or that one is wrong, inferior, or even evil if one has no religion or is an agnostic or atheist.

Some comments say anti-Catholic discrimination is impossible because the Catholic Church has been stupid, oppressive, and even evil. However stupid, repressive, or even evil the Catholic Church has been, every individual Catholic has a constitutional and federal statutory right not to suffer discrimination because of being Catholic — just as even a former Nazi or a Zionist has a constitutional right not to suffer legal detriment merely because of adhering to Nazism or Zionism.

The inmates do not constitute the institution — even if they adhere to the institution's dictates (which they do not generate, unless slaves generate their slavery). One does wrong with one's effective acts, not with one's religious belief or political adherence (though one may do wrong if, by supporting an evil institution or movement, one enables it to do manifest wrong).

For us, HERE, NOW, the socio-political/practical problem is that the Christian Right (Catholicism included) has gained a dominant position it has used to cause others to fear it — as if resisting lunatic Christian oppression were the apex of political incorrectness if not a capital crime. So, Catholicism and other Christian Right sects can infest public education, public life, politics, and government with their beliefs and interests; and, having achieved the infestation, they can bias government ACTION in their favor and strongly against all else.

Witness Congress's bowing to the Christian Right to pass a law interfering with proper judicial process to keep one brain-dead woman artificially alive. For better understanding of this comment, please see also my one other comment, of 8:01 p.m., 14 March 2007.

BEWARE THE IDES OF MARCH BRUTUS

sorry folks- couldnt help myself

(yeah i know- it wasnt said to brutus)

As a former Catholic school child I am far far from Catholic now. The Catholic Church is still in the dark ages, condemning Birth Control in a world with a population problem, opposing individual autonomy by denying the right to abortion to a woman, the Doctrine of Discovery formulated under Innocent and Urban which has led to the genocide and removal of indigenous peoples from lands throughout the United States...teh Catholic Church is responsible for more atrocities than most current nations. There are good people that do good works, social justice and the like...Father Drinan for example, former Congressman and antiwar activist...but by far the institution of the Church has become corrupted. When I visited the Vatican over the holidays, the amount of wealth the Church controls alone makes it criminal...isn't one their teaching to care for the poor...while the Pope's have lived in luxury.

Organized religion of any denomination is a scheme to sell the afterlife. This is your one shot, there is no afterlife. Don't screw it up listening to 2000 year old stories you've heard 100 times before.

Speaking as a heathen-american(can I get a handout check for that?), I'm perfectly OK with people pursuing their religious beliefs. Comma. That is, as long as MY beliefs are also respected, or rather, the lack thereof, specifically pertaining to my capacity to live independently of the direct influence, political or economic, of such religious institutions as might exist. Freedom OF religion also equates to freedom FROM it, else we've crossed the dotted line between being a secular to a religious state.

It bears remembering that the Catholic Church once made common cause with Mexico, during the US-Mexico war, and the news of the day would generally suggest that certain parties in the Church are once again up to their old and fairly well-documented tricks. I'm for open book audits against any religious institution allowed to operate in our country, for the simple fact that it's only fair to the parishoners, as well as the rest of the citizens of our country that some 'sunshine' be reflected in that general direction as well as through the halls of our government. Let the sun shine in, as they say, and let's have the facts(and the financial records, specifically) on the table, there...you can believe in the Great Pumpkin, or the all-powerful Father Tree, or Jesus, or Mohammed, or whatever particularly happens to suit your fancy there, I believe I'll have another beer. Nuff said.

I am a former Catholic. I simply could no longer ignore the horrors committed in the name of God by the Catholic clergy and their loyal minions. History is replete with the institutional horrors of the Catholic Church and those who made it possible. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and complicity in the slaughter of indigenous populations by the clergy, particularly the Jesuits, and the Catholic warriors they accompanied on their conquests. Greed is responsible for the demand for celibacy...not devotion to God, but rather prevention of clerical offspring legitimate or otherwise, from inheriting Church property. What about the raping and pillaging of nations for their wealth and souls? The list goes on and on. In more recent times, how about the Magdalene Laundries, Bindoon in Australia, the place where children as young as three were sent by boat from England by the Catholic Church, Anglican Church, British and Australian governments. Australia received boatloads of white children. Australia had a whites only policy until the sixties. The institutions in England were then rid of the responsibility of caring for these children. The Christian Brothers who physically abused and starved the young boys sent to them forced them to be slave labor used to build Bindoon. These children through they were orphans but many were not. They were not considered Australian citizens and when as adults some of them tried to press their claims for truth and compensation, no government and certainly not the Catholic Church was willing to admit complicity and offer to help. Research SCANDALS AT BINDOON on Google. What about the abuse of males in Canada, again by Christian Brothers as depicted in The Boys of St. Vincents? What about children declared mentally ill vs simply orphans or foster children in Quebec when the Church, who managed all the social services for Quebec, was paid more to house and care for them vs the orphans or foster children. Watch HAND OF GOD on PBS FRONTLINE. Listen carefully to what the Catholic clergy have to say to parishioners who question them. Learn about this particular cover up and how many children were involved. And of course, this child abuse scandal is the tip of the ice burg that’s cost the Church billions. The nuns were complicit, and often directly involved in crimes against those most vulnerable. What about civil rights? I had a parochial education and never heard one word against the evils of segregation. Again, the list goes on and on. Finally, I read the drivel of Robert Novak, a liar and publicity hound who is offended because Catholics are discriminated against! What exactly are his morals or ethical guidelines?? He’d do anything for a scoop…no question there! The Catholic Church is welcome to him!

Concerned,

You said : "Hopefully, Muslims will soon have the same attitude towards the mullahs and clerics who preach that all non-believers should die and all women are third class beings."

We are trying Concerned right across the Muslim world, by challenging and shaming them in public for what they said with counterpoints. It is always the self-designated ulema doing that. Unfortunately or fortunately in Islam, there is no excommunication for cleric espousing and justifying suicide bombings. Only other clerics and Muslims to come out against them.

Easier to counter such clerics in Mulim countries where the mullahs and clerics are not in charge or have power over governments. But they are always some Muslims who share thier views, and the need to get to them too. Of course in Iran and Afghanistan, it is for the Iranians and Afghans to deal with that.

This discussion is silly. All groups experience some discrimination, but discrimination by groups in power has the most impact. The idea that various christian groups are being picked on is preposterous, just like most of Novak's wacky ideas. Who would listen to him any more? Why would a paper like the WPost even carry him.

I'm a practicing Catholic, and I don't feel as if I'm discriminated against. I live in a largely protestant community, and feel welcome and accepted. Some are idiots about my faith, but I care not. I am not prevented from getting and keeping the basic needs of life because I am Catholilc. As for those who criticize and lambast my faith -- they are entitled to their opinion. Again, I really don't care alot. They don't get it or don't care, so it doesn't matter to me. My faith is between me and my God -- not between me and my neighbor. All this talk of discrimination -- blah, blah, blah -- try being wihtout health insurance, a racila minority in the wrong place at the wrong time, try being arabic right now in America, or poor -- now they are discriminated against.

I have found that Catholics are generally far more thin skinned than other Christians about "criticisms" against their particular religion. There is probably an easy explanation for this in that Catholic Doctrine/Dogma is far more extensive and authoritarian. Why? Because it is largely man-made having been created over the past two thousand years and been vigorously enforced as the only "true church" of Christ. There is a lot of skepticism and questioning of Christianity and Christian doctrines, generally, even among professed Christians--and Catholics! And, I think, this is because of the rigid church interpretations and doctrines that have evolved--and been imposed through fear, intimidation, etc., --thru the centuries. This questioning--and criticism--is unlikely to abate but will probaby intensify if for no other reason than people, including Christians and Catholics, want to have a sound foundation for their faith that makes clear sense, biblically and otherwise. No longer are people content to blindly accept the authority of hierarchial church leaders and questionable church doctrine! It is that simple.

jwest : I believe we are witnessing the tyranny of the minority. The western (Christian actually) tradition is to extend protections to minorities. My observation is that minorities use that to protect themselves, and attack any attempt by the Christian majority to express our religion. An example if you will: an openly Christian character on TV will be the subject of ridicule or contempt (this has become the norm on the rare occasions when there is a 'Christian' character), but definitely not an openly Jewish character (that is anti-semitic).

Please spare me the complaints about past injustices - the fact is that freedom and protection of minorities exist only in societies that spring from the Christian tradition.

In the modern world, the greatest oppression of minorities has been from atheistic and other non-Christian societies. On the other hand it is the Christian societies that worked to eliminate slavery, as well as protect the rights (religious and otherwise) of minorities.

It practices pedophilia on children and breaks its own dictates of celibacy, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

WOW- You mean my brick Church molests children??? You mean that the Sistine Chapel has done that?

No- MEN have done that to children. HUMANS. Not the Church. MEN who represent the Church but have sinned against it by committing the very acts that go against what it stands for did those acts.

No one can be that ignorant.

And if you think that the Catholic Church has cornered the market in that arena- you are a true fool. Pedophiles come in every make and model.

Candide wrote:
The Catholic Church, next to the Nazi SS, is the most evil institution in history.

Gee- everyone is so open minded here!

Seriously- WHY DO YOU NON CATHOLICS CARE??! WHY? What does the Church play in YOUR life? Don't worry about it. If Catholics feel discrimated (maybe because we here things like "Catholic Church is evil", "priests are all pedophiles") and other opinions that show that people think ill of our religion- so what?

I do not wild comments about people's beliefs or non beliefs. I am not going to change their minds and they are not going to change mine. Most of your have wasted your time- you have shown yourselves to be closed minded, low classed, heartless and ignorant.

It practices pedophilia on children and breaks its own dictates of celibacy, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

WOW- You mean my brick Church molests children??? You mean that the Sistine Chapel has done that?

No- MEN have done that to children. HUMANS. Not the Church. MEN who represent the Church but have sinned against it by committing the very acts that go against what it stands for did those acts.

No one can be that ignorant.

And if you think that the Catholic Church has cornered the market in that arena- you are a true fool. Pedophiles come in every make and model.

Candide wrote:
The Catholic Church, next to the Nazi SS, is the most evil institution in history.

Gee- everyone is so open minded here!

Seriously- WHY DO YOU NON CATHOLICS CARE??! WHY? What does the Church play in YOUR life? Don't worry about it. If Catholics feel discrimated (maybe because we here things like "Catholic Church is evil", "priests are all pedophiles") and other opinions that show that people think ill of our religion- so what?

I do not wild comments about people's beliefs or non beliefs. I am not going to change their minds and they are not going to change mine. Most of your have wasted your time- you have shown yourselves to be closed minded, low classed, heartless and ignorant.

It practices pedophilia on children and breaks its own dictates of celibacy, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

WOW- You mean my brick Church molests children??? You mean that the Sistine Chapel has done that?

No- MEN have done that to children. HUMANS. Not the Church. MEN who represent the Church but have sinned against it by committing the very acts that go against what it stands for did those acts.

No one can be that ignorant.

And if you think that the Catholic Church has cornered the market in that arena- you are a true fool. Pedophiles come in every make and model.

Candide wrote:
The Catholic Church, next to the Nazi SS, is the most evil institution in history.

Gee- everyone is so open minded here!

Seriously- WHY DO YOU NON CATHOLICS CARE??! WHY? What does the Church play in YOUR life? Don't worry about it. If Catholics feel discrimated (maybe because we here things like "Catholic Church is evil", "priests are all pedophiles") and other opinions that show that people think ill of our religion- so what?

I do not wild comments about people's beliefs or non beliefs. I am not going to change their minds and they are not going to change mine. Most of your have wasted your time- you have shown yourselves to be closed minded, low classed, heartless and ignorant.

Rich, sometimes the truth hurts.

1) More Jews died in Catholic Poland during WWII. Also, the Jasenovac camp in Croatia, where not only Jews but Orthodox Christians were slaughtered, was run with the full knowledge of the Croatian Church. (warning, graphic images in following link)

http://www.jasenovac.org/exhibits.php

2)If you are a Muslim or Jewish or Christian you can probably have an after school program as long as the school isn't running it. Anyone can pray in school, you just can't force my kids to say your prayers.

3) The "war on Christmas" is a myth invented by media loudmouths like Bill O`Reilly to prop up his ratings by spreading lies like this one:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/14/silent-night-fraud/

The people at that school got death threats and had to hold their Christmas concert (that's right, it was a CHRISTMAS concert) under police guard.

As a seventy year old practicing atheism for some 57 years,it has often occurred to me that most of what passes for religious discrimination in this country would instantly disappear if those professing beliefs in a religion such as Christianity followed the tenets of that religion in their everyday life.
We here in the US have a population that is 87% professed Christian. Yet we have 40% of our population with no access to real health care. Poverty and homelessness continues to rise, as does the wealth of the top 5% of our nation. The list goes on: capital punishment for youngsters and the mentally ill, preachers telling their congregations that they deserve to be wealthy, etc.,etc. If we became a nation that acted as Christians should according to the words of their Lord and Saviour instead of a nation of professed Christians who don't want to be left behind with their SUV's, I don't think we would have to be concerned about religious discrimination.

It is said that 80% of the country is christain. Therefore, it is christians doing the discriminating. So what is to be done with the problem. I got is let's teach this discrimination in our public schools. That'll solve the problem

Right on Peter. Add Brutus' post from earlier and you got the jist of it.

Here's my personal faith-based story: Six years ago, opportunistic politicians cynically used the rhetoric of faith to dupe a gullible population into granting them unprecedented powers. Since then, they have used this power to destroy America's standing in the world, massively erode the quality of life of needy Americans, and kill, maim and systematically disrespect thousands upon thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens.

Maybe we ought to be talking less about how religious groups are so oppressed in this country (which they are not), and more about the role religion has played in the enabling of the most damaging administration in US history. Don't we owe at least that much to the dead and wounded men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the cowardly men and women of the Bush admininstration?

One person's reasoned judgement against a belief system is another person's discrimation. I believe a person should be judged within the context that justifies our examination of them. I personally, am in theory, against all organized religion as a cesspool of cruelty, agressive promtion of scientific ignorance and a source of attacks on good, ethical agnostics and aetheists. Yet I have good friends who are religious and who act in a reasonable manner. For instance, becasue of his ridiculous statements concerning the supposed immorality of homosexuality, General Peter Pace should be discriminated against and dismissed immediately for damage to the armed forces and to the country.

D. Arnold

I pray that the slimy, demagouging Bob Novak will shut up.

I find many of the comments bigoted and untrue.

1) More Jews died in secular France during WWII then in Catholic Italy and at least 300,000 Italian Catholics died in Hiltler's concentration camps.

2)If I were a Muslim or a Jewish I could hold an after school program that involved prayer but if you are a Christain prayer in school is forbidden.

3) In 2006 thousands of towns banned Nativity scenes and chritmas tree but I know of only one instance where a non Christain holiday celebration was cancelled and it was only cancelled to remove a chritmas tree from the town square.

Beth-

Will you please tell me the last time you were unable to get a job or buy a house because you are Christian? Are you afraid to go to your place of worship? Are you allowed to have a place of worship? If you die while serving in the US military, will the military refuse to put a cross on your headstone?

Or are you being discriminated against because you cannot impose the articles of your faith on American society at large?

I usually have very little sympathy for Christians who claim discrimination while living in the U.S., but you may be the first to deserve it. Let me know.

It also says that we as apeople can change our own government if we see that the government is abusing its power. Maybe we should do that. Oh wait, can't, we'd all be shot or put in prison. dang.

Rev Lyle,
The Consitution does not give you permission to impose youe religion on me or anyboby else in the country. You are free to practice it without interference from the government, but not free to take into the public square as you wish. It is as long as your nose, then your freedom ends. What is so hard about understanding that. Go to your church and praise up a storm but don't expect everyone else to bow to you.

The Supreme Court's role is not to agree with the majority of the nation, but to protect the minority. As someone affiliated with Christianity, I doubt you could empathize with those of us who feel alienated or uncomfortable when religion (any religion) oversteps its bounds and enters any part of the Constitution or government. I would rather have atheism as the legal 'religion of the land', and an ensured freedom to practice any religious beliefs, than the anachronistic idea than the Constitution should enshrine Christianity as central to the legal identity of America. In popular and cultural terms, Christianity is clearly associated with western nations, but to associate it with the Constitution ignores the millions of Americans for whom this doesn't apply.

A true statement is that anti-Catholic propaganda is on the rise, but probably only at the same rate of increase anti-anything propaganda. The Internet's becoming the primary forum for the stupid is to blame for this.

Yes, there is considerable prejudice among the evangelicals, such as the followers of John Hagee who spend a lot of time equating Catholicism and Naziism. However, Catholic League president Bill Donohue is exactly the sort of person who is a political ally of Hagee. GOP politics puts Donahue in bed with people who until recently called the Pope the AntiChrist.

Some countries have elective, or even manditory, HS classes that offer a survey of world religions. The idea is to spread understanding and tolerance. It sounds good in theory, but I wonder how it would work in a country that still has government leaders insisting on posting the Ten Commandments in public spaces.

If we could have a national, voluntary curriculum, I think it could work. If the curriculm is generated in each state or school district, I would fight it tooth and nail because of the inherit bias that would be built into it. I assure you that a Salt Lake City curriculum would be vastly different from one in Macon, GA, or San Francisco, or Boston. We would find our school districts mired in legal battles, that would be expensive and not meet the desired goal.

It seems to me that everyone needs an education on the Constitution. The word "Separation" does not occur anywhere in the text of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a State Religion, but it also protects our rights to the free expression of our personal religion. It doesn't say when and where we can express our faith structure. What we have in this country is a Supreme Court that violated the Constitution over and over again when they side with the ACLU, better dubbed as the "Anti Christian Legal Union," in my opinion. Congress is not allowed to pass any law to restrict the free expression of our religious faith, but the Supreme Court has and in effect set Mrs. O'Hare's religious preference "Athiesm" as a quasi law of the land.
I have said this was wrong from day one, and former Chief Justice William Renquist agreed with me in a conversation we had one Sunday after church when he was in Vermont.
Thank you all for giving me this opportunity to try and set the record straight.

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

I am Roman Catholic and I wish I could give solid evidence of having been persecuted against. Unfortunately my entire life has been one of being persecuted for thinking. I have always been at odds with family, educational system, religion, political party, etc. I pretty much buy my books, listen to music and live a solitary life.

I find it a flat out piece of perversion for a religion a billion or so strong as Catholicism to complain of persecution. The human race should want collective organizations such as religions, political parties, etc. to constantly be broken down toward truly gifted individuals.

In the United States groupthink is so bad we have a political party (the liberals) considered more highly educated than the Republicans (certainly more enlightened) but the insights and behavior of the liberals are such as to make us wonder if education exists at all and is not instead a myth. How can it possibly be the nation is divided into the "more intelligent" (liberals) over the "less intelligent" (Republicans)? Instead of a vertical development into intelligence it seems we have a constant laterality into this group or that.

As for the Roman Catholic church, for the life of me I find it difficult to understand (according to what is explained to me) how Jesus could have suffered at all, for he knew all along he was the son of God. In short, Jesus had no faith, he had direct knowledge. Furthermore I find it difficult not to believe Jesus' act was a deliberate act of suicide and that in fact Judas demonstrated by committing suicide in turn that he was truly the first Christian. In general I find the cults people call the craziest to be the most logically consistent (according to Christian beliefs). In short we are told by the Church that we should not sin (seven deadly sins), but for the life of me I find it difficult to understand why suicide would be a worse sin than constantly committing all the others...

In general the concept of morality itself confuses me. So far as I can tell man has never been moral in a truly unique way which distinguishes him from the animals in the way he is distinguished from the animals by intelligence. Take a thought experiment and imagine to yourself what a truly moral man would be like. In what way would he be different from the gentleness of a rabbit or the loyalty of a dog or the grace of a horse? And has any human been as moral as a plant? Plants, of all obvious life, are the lifeforms least likely to feed on other life--to sin in the most fundamental sense in other words. Plants feed by photosynthesis, drawing up minerals, etc. in other words.

There really is no way to improve man morally in other words, no obvious direction which we have not separated from animal analogies or a complete repudiation of life (by repudiation of life I of course mean mortification of the flesh and a hatred of existing because existence is sinful). The way in which man is truly unique and is clearly separated from the animals is in his intelligence--and in fact we can calibrate levels of intelligence according to I.Q. tests, etc. We have a direction toward intelligence in other words which makes man more man that we do not have with morality.

My belief is that far from trying to improve morality in man we should be trying to improve intelligence and let morality take care of itself. Or if you prefer, take the indirect route to morality by the path of intelligence because there is no direct route to morality which clearly separates man from animal now in existence. All of morality is a type of herd instinct so far and nothing more. We have this group or that and ironically when we speak of individuality far more often than not this is just another pretext for a group to just gallop, barge, bray or moo over everyone.

I really wish I would be persecuted for Catholicism. Instead I have been kicked in the teeth for every attempt at honest thinking. But this is to be expected. So far as I can tell the historical process itself is constant exile from group thinking--no matter the group.

The sadness is that America, the land of individuality par excellence, is being shown up as a sham more and more every day. There really is very little individuality. One day the liberals barge in. Next the Republicans. Then this religious group or that comes whining along. Then the posse of this atheist leader or that. All of them not worth a damn. Not a one of them founded on the belief that the true hope of mankind is in the direction of greater genius.

I have very little sympathy for this group or that. My sympathy increases as a group moves toward intelligence. But a group rarely does such. This is the province of individuals. But sometimes a group does demonstrate intelligence higher than the average and does promise something of a collective step toward an increase in intelligence. I am ashamed that I am not talking about Roman Catholics but Jews...

I was born into the Roman Catholic religion but I have found my martyrdom through being alone. Strange that being alone has never been considered a religion.

I like Butch already. He's a good guy. I'll buy you a beer mate.

Organized religion is the WMD of this planet.
This god that people believe in destroyed it's
own creations by flooding the earth, killing
women, children, the elderly, the sick and infirmed. Then this idiot god of yours proclaims
"Thou shalt not kill" the hypocricy is stunning.
This god of yours named itself Jehovah.. " My
Name is Jehovah which means jealous, for I am a jealous god and there shall be no other gods before me"
Jealousy is a flaw in character and a sure sign of
insecurity, so the claim that your god is perfect
is a flawed description to say the least.

A proverb for you to consider:
If you fear your own godliness you will create
a god that you fear.

GABY- one of thethings i loved about pope john paul was that he stated outright that the pope is a fallible human- hence ending 1700 years of the inflexible idea that the pope is infallible.

GABY- one of thethings i loved about pope john paul was that he stated outright that the pope is a fallible human- hence ending 1700 years of the inflexible idea that the pope is infallible.

I think an optional "BIBLE" class is fine. ONE nation under GOD.

We are a country that says freedom.
Freedom to learn about anything.
Why not God

Christians are discriminated against in this liberal culture with "value free"education in schools and a fragmented culture that accepts everything weird and perverse except conventional values, including belief in God. You can be a Palestinian lesbian truck driver, Hindu transvestite or a crazed terorrist who kills for a living, but, God forbid you express your CHristian or Catholic values and belief in God or organized religion. You'll be shouted out of the auditorium or sued by an offended Muslim. This is only a free society if your not Christian and don't believe in God.

Christians are discriminated against in this liberal culture with "value free"education in schools and a fragmented culture that accepts everything weird and perverse except conventional values, including belief in God. You can be a Palestinian lesbian truck driver, Hindu transvestite or a crazed terorrist who kills for a living, but, God forbid you express your CHristian or Catholic values and belief in God or organized religion. You'll be shouted out of the auditorium or sued by an offended Muslim. This is only a free society if your not Christian and don't believe in God.

I say they need to have a major overhaul. I can't go for a Pope that claims Harry Potter is evil. That's just plain wrong.

I like your proposal of casue and effect Tonio. It actually seems to be the overwhelming thread of the world when you think about it. I know of a few religions that actually preach that.

If there are doubts about cause and effect, just go to a prison and see how long a child molester lasts among the inmates.

"Everything we believe in is based on self-evident truths from the earth we think we stand on to air we breath. Everything. These truths stem from our senses which we trust absent of any other evidence."

Doug, what about the scientific principle of testing the natural world through cause and effect? Shouldn't that eliminate (or at least reduce) subjectivity in discussions of natural phenomena?

You have a point when it comes to religious discussions. But I do think it's possible to adopt a neutral (not necessarily objective) position among the competing religions. Maybe the way to do that is to assume that no religion's truth claims are self-evident. As another poster noted in the Religion in Schools discussion, science cannot deal with supernatural phenomena because that cannot be tested. To me, that means that all religions are on an equal footing when it comes to claims about the supernatural, that no one claim has any more validity than any other claim.

Discrimination against Catholics? Why not? They fund and support the world's most successful pedophilia network - the Vatican. Their midevil churches litter the world, while their clergymen rape children right here in America and beyond. Yes, discriminate against anyone who knowingly supports organized pedophilia.

Of course, just forcing religion on a child is abusive too. It's sometimes just as harmful too. Plus telling the world that condoms don't work, don't use them makes the supporters of the Pope all guilty. They do all that harm - without having to pay any taxes. So we all have to pay higher taxes, to compensate.

It's time to shut down the Catholic Churches of the world under RICO laws. Organized crime to the extreme should be stopped.

Sadly as some of the comments here have already shown. There can be NO objective discussion of religion. Why? Because ultimately faith in a religion and it's ideas are based on self-evident truths which are non-logical, but truthful (to the believers).

Everything we believe in is based on self-evident truths from the earth we think we stand on to air we breath. Everything. These truths stem from our senses which we trust absent of any other evidence. Faith stems from somewhere else. People trust in the truth that faith provides and is just as real to them as the earth they stand on.

The very IDEA of having a discussion that is objective in regards to one's own faith (religious self-evident truth) is insulting because faith in a single truth does not ALLOW for others to exist.

I wonder how many of these highly educated people giving their opinion could even give you the definition of religion from the Latin root without looking it up ?
I took a course in college in the sixties "the world's seven major religions" and found it very interesting.
The universal laws appear in all religions, like the law of attraction, like attracts like. It's really too bad that something so good has been used to divide people and is the basis for so much bigotry.

I'd like to point out that the basis of historical anti-catholic discrimination in the united states actually sprang from a secular concern. The reason that no catholic was elected president of the US until 1960 was largely due to the belief that a catholic president would inevitably become a tool of the pope. In essence, it was a loyalty issue. Catholics are expected to respect the authority of the holy see over that of secular authorities (whatever happened to "reddo ceasar ceasaris..."?), and as a result may well find themselves in a conflict of loyalties. Beyond a reasonable (if misguided) reluctance to allow them to hold positions of secular authority due to perceived loyalty conflicts, however, I fail to see any indications that catholics are now or ever were descriminated against in this country.

Well, I would no objection to using the Bible for a fine example of propaganda, brain washing techniques, and so forth. I was going to say fiction, but unfortunately it is not a very good fictional story as it is full of contradictions, pointless excursions into unrelated material, completely hopeless in its transistions, obviously the editors were poorly trained as the literary styles change in mid sentence, and the metaphors are equally obtuse as the point they are intended to represent. The many translations have rendered whole sections meaningless and without reference to any larger theme.

Even as a fictional concept, the Heaven on Earth theme seems to be contridicted at every turn and the stories of the Hero, God sublimated as a lowly worker in a suppressed society, seem to be ignored in the behaviors of the purported fellow workers after the Hero is brutally martyred.

Religion. The worlds longest running ponzi scheme!

Should read: out of my kids head.

Teach religion? What does that even mean? If you want to "teach it" in a mythology class then fine otherwise keep that trash of my kids head.

Teaching religions is a no-no according to our Constitution.

What might useful would be to explore with students why people have invented religions with their myths and claimed rewards and punishments for "good" and "bad" behavior.

A scientific approach would also explore the effects of religions, good and bad.

The costs of religions should also be discussed.

Jihadist,

Catholic priests in the USA are not protected by the law. Many priests are serving time for their bad behavior. Unfortunately many priests escaped prosecution due to their bishops covering up the transgressions. This has cost the Catholic Church in the USA over a billion dollars to settle lawsuits. Catholic priests to say the least are no longer considered to be next to God. Hopefully, Muslims will soon have the same attitude towards the mullahs and clerics who preach that all non-believers should die and all women are third class beings.

No, there is not discrimination against Catholics or the Catholic Church in the US or in the world.

The Catholic church is allowed to be represented in the United Nations. It has Holy Sees in many, many countries (equivalent of embassies with full diplomatic privileges and immunities).

And for what I have been reading, an on this, please correct me Americans (for news can be spinned out of proportions) Catholic clergy are protected from being persecuted under law for bad behavior.

No other religious denomination has that privileges at the national and international level.

By the way, following Pope Benedict's speech about Prophet Muhammad PBUH a few months back that there must be reason in faith etc, and the ensuing flap in the Muslim world, a friend from the Middle East related his country's ambassador meeting with the Pope.

The meeting was supposedly a gesture reach out to Muslims after all that huffing and puffing in the Islamic world.

Less than 20 envoys from Muslim countries were present at the Pope's summer residence for the meeting called by the Vatican. The meeting lasted much, much less than an hour. The Pope greeted the envoys with a few words, and left most of the talking to another who was present while he sat on a throne like chair.

Needless to say, the Muslim envoys were very confused by the symbolic purpose of the whole meeting. How are we Muslims supposed to know that the Pope is also like a monarch apart from being infallible?

Courses on religion should be allowed in school when mandatory courses on superstition, legends and fairy tales become mandatory. Courses on ethics, citizenship and compassion would be much more worthwhile. There is nothing wrong with believing in the unbelievable if it gets you from one day to the next without causing you to burn down your neighbor's house. It is fine to develop your own theory of why and how we all got here if your theory does no harm to others. But being the creatures that we are we cannot behave and leave each other alone so reinforcing a belief in an organized religion by teaching it in school only adds to the world's woes. It is the great paradox that the world has not gotten one bit better in the last 2000 years despite the teachings of all of the religions in the world combined. Just look at the civil war in Iraq for the most recent example. The great marketers of the worlds religions knew that dogma would be the dog and pony show that would mesmerize the masses to the point of violence. Pity is that we still think that religion is a good thing.

I suggest you all read beliefnet.com and check out the dialog between Andrew Sullivan, a self confessed homosexual, conservative Catholic and Sam Harris, a self confessed Atheist.

It is very revealing and makes the ultimate case for whether religion -any religion- should be taught in schools or should even be allowed to continue to proliferate in the midst of our modern society.

Fascinating and a must read!

And why shouldn't discrimination against Roman Catholics exist?

It tolerates no dissent or differing opinion, which clearly violates all the tenets of the founding of our Republic.

It has an arbitrary ruler that can make any decision, no matter how stupid, that everyone has to follow without debate or question, which until we had President Bush, also violated all the precepts upon which our nation was founded.

It does not recognized proven facts until 300 years after they have been known and recognized by everyone else in the world (the earth revolves around the Sun, the Moon is NOT PERFECT, etc.) so Gallileo, Copernicus, and others were persecuted or excommunicated for recognizing facts and not kowtowing to a stupid doctrine known to be in error, that by the way has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ.

It practices pedophilia on children and breaks its own dictates of celibacy, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

Anyone that follows such a faith without question or protest obviously is not engaging their brain nor using what gifts of reason with which they were endowed by their Creator. How dumb is that?

How can you respect anyone that is that dumb or stupid?

Get real, it you think, you have to be discriminatory against the concept of such a religion and you will, regardless of your good will, be biased against those that are so silly and unthinking. They are not worthy of respect, and frankly, in a rational society, should be deprived of their right to vote.

"Americans know surprisingly little about their own religions..."

"But this isn’t just a religious problem; it is a civic one."

FALSE!!!

If religious Americans know little about their own religions it is ENTIRELY a religious problem. I'm a Methodist. I attend service about 1 Sunday out of 3 (I'm currently working at least 1 Sunday out of every 2). I can tell you that the services I have attended have taught me VERY little about Methodism, or Christianity, or how either is relevant to life in modern America. Who's fault is that?

I hold that it is my Pastor's fault, and my congregation's fault, for not holding him accountable.

The bottom line is contained in the first phrase of the first amendment to the Constitution: "the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." which by law separates the any church from our national state. No debate is warranted, regardless of your beliefs or wants.

School is not the place for religion to be taught, especially with tax dollars. And which religion?

If you want religion taught, tithe in the church of your choice and send your children there. End of story.

Quit trying to foist things onto the school system you are too lazy to address in your home or church. If you believe, truly believe, then teach it where it should be taught, in your congregation.

And Well Done to Candide, but keep an eye on Israel, it is coming up fast on the outside and my soon outpace the Nazi SS, from which it learned the lessons well that it practices on its neighboring Arabs, Persians, and other ethnic Muslims. No wonder the Muslims hate us: we condone and support Israel's actions and what does that make us?

Who thought up this laughable question?

Roman Catholics are said to make up 25% of the U.S. population.

Five of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are Catholic.

No group is less likely to be discriminated against than Catholics.

Next time, genius question writers, try Jews, Wiccans, Moslems, and Nonbelievers. Meantime, take a public school course on religion, discrimination, and question writing.

this same debate has been roiling our local school board. i have no particular feeling either way, but i have come to the following conclusions: first, those most vehemently in favor are pushing an indocrination to their liking rather than a fair and objective inquiry. second, the typical high school teacher is ill fitted to teach the subject. it is simply too comprehensive to be fairly handled by a math or history teacher doing part time duty, who would likely fall back on the simple minded platitudes taught in the sunday school at the local sheet metal tabernacle. it is a subject best left to the serious student or the T.V. huckster, flogging his own agenda.

Go ahead and bring the bible into our public schools and the next growing industy will be psychology. It will take an army of professionals to try to straighten out our youth. The confusion and guilt that will follow them for years to come will be impossible to overcome for some. Today the the christian right has taken sex education out of our high schools and in my daughters school alone there are over 50 pregnant students. They are punished by the school by not beng allowed to graduate (walk) with there class. Unqualified teachers can only refer to how they interpret the bible and that would be so dangerous to the mental stability of youth. Christianity is a mega-dollar making business and our taxes would sky rocket to try and satisfy the insatible thrist christianity has for money. Just look at the mega-churches today. The bible mentions money more then it does love, so it would not be difficult to slant lesson plans to concentrate on giving until it hurts. Today could be the beginning of the end of a free country, as far as religious freedom is concerned.

Barry Lynn is a wise man.

Pick at random any community in the US. Add up the number of public schools, then add up the number of churches. The churches will outnumber the schools. If people want to provide religious instruction - do it in a church. Keep it out of public schools. People who insist on forcing their beliefs on others are inviting a backlash. Let it happen. I am a product of 16 years of Catholic education where religious education consisted domineering, threatening, and intimidating us. When that didn't work a set of knuckles against on the back of the head would do. All done, of course, according to the instructions of Jesus. On this subject Marx was correct: religion is the opiate of the masses.

No knowledgeable, carefully analytic lawyer would deny that the first amendment lets public schools teach religion — if in scholarly courses of history, philosophy, social studies, or the like, not in furtherance of any religion or religious doctrine or perspective. No intelligent, educated, rational person would deny that social, political, and international tensions might diminish if everyone understood and tried to respect everyone else's religion or religious perspective (unless the religion or perspective pursues violence or seeks social, political, or international domination).

But too few teachers, school administrators, school board members, and legislators have character-structures that permit them, really, to respect others' religions or agnosticism, atheism, secular philosophies, or non-religious life-views. Especially since Reagan, too many would warp religion-studies into pseudo-sophisticated Sunday School classes that further Christian Right faiths, decry other religions, and condemn agnosticism, atheism, secular philosophy, and humanist-rationalism.

Non-evangelist teachers and administrators FEAR evangelist political and administrative forces — FEAR them GREATLY. Just so, public school teachers FEAR challenging Creationism and FEAR teaching evolution or realistic sexual biology or legal principles the Christian Right opposes.

So, public-school religion-courses will tend to be vehicles of Christian evangelism and denigrators of everything else. If we were sublimely lucky, the worst evil would be that comparative religion courses would not mention atheism, agnosticism, or secular humanism, but just compare all non-Christian religions with Christian ones — as if Christianity were THE “God”-given STANDARD and God an inarguable fact.

Witness Supreme Court Chief Justices asserting that lawyers would be nuts if they said the Establishment Clause is violated each time a court clerk says “God bless this honorable Court” or a minister or rabbi starts a House or Senate session with a Christian or Jewish sermon.

MHR -- People who are ignorant of the Greek and Latin classics are also going to miss the point of much of Western culture. Where do you think Ulysses S. Grant got his name? Just because something is important doesn't mean that everyone should be required to study it. There aren't enough hours in a day or years in a lifetime.

Alex -- I read the debate. Prothero is not just talking about a world religions course. Few would see that as a threat. He is also talking about a compulsory course on the Bible. It's entirely reasonable to fear that that would turn into compulsory indoctrination. Even if we could be assured that the courses would be taught in a neutral fashion, it's reasonable to ask why schools should give such courses so high a priority. Prothero's comments lead me to suspect that he wants students to study the Bible so that they will be better Christians -- according to Prothero's definition of the term. Hence his bizarre concern that "Americans know surprisingly little about their own religions." This makes sense only if you assume that there's a correct version of each of the religions that Americans profess and that it's somehow the government's responsibility to make sure that they know more about it. Nonsense. Americans are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe, whether their knowledge of the Bible lives up to Prothero's expectations or not. His attempt to link the Bible to political discourse doesn't help his case. If people want to use Biblical references to make their political points, it's their responsibility to use them in a way that their audience will understand. Religion belongs in courses on history and general culture, and that's where it should be taught. It should have to compete for time with all the other topics that belong in such courses, though, not be given a special place in the curriculum

Anyone who is completely ignorant about the Bible is also ignorant about Western culture. The speeches of Abraham Lincoln are replete with references to the Bible- "a house divided against itself cannot stand, being one that comes quickly to mind. The name Abraham itself is from the Bible. The works of Shakepeare also contain many biblical references. "The Grapes of Wrath," is the title for a novel that Steinbeck found in the Bible. "East of Eden" is another. "The Sun also Rises" is a Hemingway title from the Bible. I would support a course named The Bible in Literature. The difficulty is that many radicals have no desire to see Western culture survive. They want an end to books written by what they call "dead white men." To them Western culture is a history only of racism, imperialism, war and death. They should go live in Zimbabwe.

Volt Rare,
i agree that Bill Donahue is about the last person in the world that should be representing the Catholic church. I haven't seen his kind of anger in a long time. Listening to him is like listening to a person about to go mad. I was raised a catholic and there is a certain peace about the service but i've turned to reading and studing other thoughts and have found other philosophies make more sense to me. And Karen I agree with everything you have to say. The nightmare that teaching the bible in puplic school will produce is too much to think about. THe Air Force football programs motto was team jesus until they were finally made to qquite using it years and law suites later. It would not be stretch for high school teachers and coaches to go that route once teaching the bible became mandatory. One other thing, it would be the goverment ordering, ordering, yes I'mn saying ordering the teaching of the christian bible in public schools. Even those of you with your heads firmly in the ground will have to concede this in violation of the eastablishment clause. The federal government ordering the citizens of this country to read and be tested on the bible. With this supreme court in place right now I'm afraid of all of this.

I think many people are completely missing the point, and frankly some of your grossly misinformed and historically distorted insults directed at Christians are just more proof that something like this needs to happen. It's almost like a majority of you didn't even read the entire dialogue and just decided to hop into what you thought was an all-too familiar debate.

The point is not to PREACH the values or beliefs of the various religions, like some of you are so vehemently against, but rather to educate America's future generation on the various groups of world religions and their basic tenets, and to prevent widespread ignorance of who these people are and what has driven them historically. The historical and political context is key to expanding our knowledge, the philosophical context is not and should not be the central issue here. THESE COURSES WOULD NOT BE ABOUT DEBATING THE VALIDITY OF THESE BELIEFS. This should NOT be a philosophy or religious course in any way whatsoever, and definitely not a forum for debating one religion over another.

Whether you like it or not the role of religion and race in world politics is often strongly intertwined and a huge player in world history, and to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not important enough to merit academic study on a nationwide level because of the morbid fear of some vague threat against separation of Church and State... well it's paranoid foolishness and a travesty against our future generations to stubbornly maintain a tradition of ignorance for the sake of personal comfort and extreme political correctness.

I'm a theologian by training and I anticipate a nightmare. From what I have read, the proposed curricula are too vague about what's permitted and what's not. Are the teachers qualified to teach it and respect the various inputs from the students?

There is an asymmetry between student and teacher that would give the teacher's view weight that may be inappropriate. We already know that a teacher can mess up badly as witness the New Jersey case of a teacher who used the classroom to teach conservative Christianity and speculate about whether students were bound to Hell if they don't believe in Jesus. How much crazier will it get in a class on the Bible.

I see it as a horror in the making.

Karen

As a non-catholic, I was very impressed by community spirit and togetherness, when visiting my aunt and uncle, I joined them at their Catholic mass.

The message I took from such experiences was one of peace and community.

When I see and hear right-wing Catholics such as William Donohue spout hatred and extremely belligerence on TV, forcing their views, I get quite another impression. -- Especially when putting such belligerence in the context of the Catholic Church's extremely checkered and often brutally evil and corrupt medieval past (for which it has made some efforts at atonement.)

I admire Catholicism for the good they have done for educating the children and the poor, their adovacy for the poor, the good work in bringing together a peaceful and mostly non-political community spirit.
In addition, I feel that Catholicism has a more scholarly, humble and peaceful interpretation of Christianity -- and this also has my admiration.

However, the right-wing views repel me. Also, the celibacy policy seems to have caused some sexual desperation & dysfunction in a small minority of priests. And since the Catholic church is such a large, powerful, and unified organization, I would guess that when this organization takes sides and acts politically, the backlash or apprehension is understandably stronger than when it comes from a smaller organization.

As an independant, I respect Catholicism, and thus feel no bias or favoritism against it. And I don't think the Catholic Church has much to fear from persecution. It, along with any religion, should most fear more for its own "soul" -- such that its own deeds and attitudes, if descending into intolerance, ignorance, egomania, tribalism, and hatred, would gnaw away itself from the inside.

The movement of many American Christians away from Biblical and doctrinal literacy is a social and historical phenomenon in which the government and the schools have no business interfering. Neutrality requires that the state treat the religious views of such believers as no less legitimate than those of any other person. It prohibits the state and the schools from seeking to "educate" them in order to change their beliefs or bring them into line with someone's notion of normative Christianity.

THe webmaster is sending the bible school blogger to this page

I am a bonafide idiot.

No religion unless the religious course includes astrology, a practical art whereby you can know something about a personality.

While the Chinese are graduating engineers like crazy, some religious wackos believe that Americans should learn about one group's imaginary friends.

America is truly in a steep decline away from science and reason.

TO ALL THE COMMENTERS ON RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

You are in the wrong threat, this one discusses discrimination against Catholics.

By all Means! Teach them that Intelligent Design is from Aristotle (a pagan) not the Bible, the Easter Bunny is a pagan fertility symbol, the story of Armageddon is Zoroastrianism, Santa's reindeer are Norse, the "Maji" were Persians, being "Born Agian" is Egyptian, and that there are lots of excellent guides to the Old Testament which were all written by Jews.

There are two aspects of religion that are appropriate to teach in public schools. The first is comparative religion; and, this must general in nature, and must be taught by impartial persons. The second is the scope of death and suffering visited on mankind throughout the ages because of religious differences; and, this too must be taught by impartial persons. Then, people should be free to choose and practice a religion in private.

Personally, I feel that there is a lot to be gained by increasing cultural literacy. This involves teaching history, religion, philiosophy and economics in a 'world civ' course. The course should treat all religions equally and may look for common threads. For example, did you ever notice how Greeks heroes gained 'legitimacy' when their unwed mothers were visited by a God? Where have I heard that story before?

I am a little amazed at the outpouring of religious bigotry that strays so far from the central theme of the original debate. It does however highlight the extreme views that make it impossible to even consider teaching a "Bible Only" class.

The ignorance of our political leaders is their and their advisors, failings. The notion that this nation entered into a conflict in Iraq without understanding the underlying religious divides simply demonstrates once again the short-sightedness of this administrations foreign policy. If one is intent on following a career path to the Foreign Service, it is their responsibility to educate themselves in all facets of the societies they hope to interact with, and that includes the religious aspects as well.

There is nothing wrong with a true comparative religion class. It helps to dispel ignorance and illuminate the fact that most religions are actually more similar than not. There must, however, be a distinct difference between examining broad concepts and actual proselytizing.

There is no place in public schools for mandated courses on any specific belief. If there are, I agree, send in the lawyers!

When,oh when will the post edit the comments it posts. Such hipocracy to state that you edit offensive comments.

Apparently the terms "Sunday school" or "vacation Bible school" are not in Stephen Prothero's lexicon.

"Opt-out" isn't a good solution and causes discrimination. In junior and senior high while I was growing up in Utah, the school board and the Mormon church had a class during regular school periods called "Seminary" Albeit it was off school grounds in classrooms owned by the church, there was discrimination and stigma for those who didn't include "Seminary" in their class periods. Teachers and students both ask "What period do you have Seminary?" or "Why don't you go to Seminary? Non-mormons were at the very least made to feel uncomfortable if not suffer outright discrimination.

Whether or not people are literate in their own religion is NOT a problem for the schools. It is a problem for the churches. The argument that Prothero advances that much of our national debate comes from religion is a bright red herring, several weeks old and blatantly dishonest to boot. The national debate is not based on religion. People in the debate are twisting religion to advance their own secular causes. Teaching a different interpretation of religion in school will not have any effect, first, because it will not be accepted if it contradicts what people want to believe, and second, because the religious right will never allow anything to be taught that is at odds with their own warped concepts of religion. To start teaching religion in the public schools will be the final blow to what was once a proud American democracy.

Keep religion in the churches for 30 minutes or an hour on Sundays where it belongs and that's it!
Until I hear directly from God himself, this is how it must be to preserve peace and order in America.

"Choosing to focus on France rather than Monaco in a European history course is not a political position any more than choosing to focus on Islam instead of Santeria in a world religions course is a theological position."

Choosing which version of Christianity to study is much different than that, because most people in this country are Christian and most feel very strongly that theirs is the "correct" version. Whatever is decided in each classroom or school district, it will inevitably offend a number of people, and I think that ultimately this debate would do more harm than good, because people are so irrational when it comes to religion.

I also agree that having an entire course just on the Bible would be unconstitutional. A course on religious texts that includes the Bible alongside the Koran, the Torah, the Upanishads, etc., on the other hand, wouldn't be. If religions are to be studied in public schools, it is important, in a largely Christian nation like ours, to include minority religions as well.

The Catholic Church's cover up of child molesting priests is abhorrent.

However, there are many other reasons why I criticize the church.

The Pope is human, he has no more a direct line to God than any other human being.

The celibacy of the priesthood is archaic, to say the least.

Their rather strange attraction to the Mother Mary, their numerous Saints, their confession practices where another human being (priest) can absolve you from the sins you committed, are dubious to say the least.

Their insistence birth control (other than abstinence and the counting method) is immoral.

Plus, the secrecy the Vatican portrays is suspect to me.

I'm sure there are many other churches who have their problems (thank God I don't belong to any of them), but the Catholics are a breed of their own. It's about time they come out of the dark ages and revise some of their policies.

While unbiased teaching of religions seems like a good idea, I for one would dread a Southern Baptist or a conservative Catholic teaching my children any religion course. There is no way anyone with those or similar religious views could teach an unbiased course. (I was a mostly practicing Catholic for my first 54 years.)

Unbiased teaching of religion sounds like many other ideas: fine in theory but not in practice. This reminds me of a what I read once -- to say that something is fine in theory but not in practice means it is a lousy theory.

B16 continues to show weak leadership which will probably lead to added discrimination against Catholics. A strong leader would have banished Cardinal Law and his fellow "silent" cardinals and bishops to the lockup of rehab centers for the remainder of their stay.

A strong leader would delete Limbo and original sin from Catholic theology and thought.

A strong leader would ban homosexuals from the priesthood.

A strong leader would eliminate the rule of priestly celibacy.

A strong leader would permit women to become priests.

And a strong leader would admit that the Bible has myths and embellishments and tell us what they are.

When all religions in the United States agree to give up their tax exempt status and agree to pay taxes, then and only then would it be proper to debate teaching religion in public schools as a non elective subject. However, being that this will not happen anytime soon, best to leave it as an elective subject and one that teaches a comparative history of all of the worlds religions while insuring that each religions litergy isn't foisted upon the students. Better to leave that to the Sunday school of thier choice.

Stephen Prothero states that the U.S. “is overwhelmingly religious” and simultaneously knows “surprisingly little about their own religions, or those of others.” If we are really so religious, how do we know “surprisingly little” about our own religion? Both statements cannot be true. The truth is we aren’t nearly as religious as Prothero would like. Studies consistently show that when you look at Christianity as a whole in the U.S. church attendance, donations and vocations are all declining. People like Prothero like to claim we are a Christian nation, but some studies suggest over 20% of the population is atheist or agnostic (a lot depends on how you ask the question and who you poll). Further, as Dr. Diana Eck and Dr. Peter Berger etc. have shown, the fastest growing religions in the U.S. are Buddhism and Islam. Teaching religion in public schools in formal classes is absurd and dangerous-for our constitution, future and the various world religions. Prothero and his ilk are just trying to make us more religious and advance their own agenda and beliefs. As for discrimination against Catholics, or any other Christian denomination, Christians dominate the Presidency, Congress, various Governorships and Supreme Court. If someone ran as an atheist, Hindu, agnostic or Buddhist their religion would be a huge liability in our supposedly open society. By the way, the Roman Catholic Church is the richest non-profit organization in the world, despite all their settlements for the raping of children. Also consider how they skirted the law in this shocking arena for decades! Discrimination? Give me a break. Rev. David Zuniga, MDIV, MA

Whether we need to teach religion or not in the public school system is a controversial subject. While it seems harmless to send in a religious practicer into the class room to teach your son or daughter the faith you adhere to - I see an even greater need -and that is too teach a basic sense of ethics or civility to our children. Recruiting and training individuals who understand basic ethics and can teach children the difference basic principles of good moral conduct would be a good start. If that works out then we can talk about religious education. Lets take it one step at a time. While the public school system was originally a system of christian schools so there is nothing constitutionally wrong for the school system to teach religion, we have allowed our culture to be influenced by Hollywood's need to sell - and the attractors they use to sell are violence, sex, and fear.

I will fight the teaching of religion in public schools with my last breath.

Keep this superstitious idiocy out of the public schools.

The world will be a better place indeed when all the world's religions are where they belong, on the scrapheap of history.

The problem is determining if the criticism is based on something vaild like the RC handling of of the molestation scandal or just venom like the post above. I have my issues with some stands the RC takes and on others I agree with them. I do believe that the RC church because of its size and history gets (and at times deserves)a large amount of criticism that then sadly spills into outright hatred.

I was born and raised Catholic, albeit in a heavily Catholic city. I wasn't laughing at people that were claiming discrimination. I was laughing at the topic in general.

There's discrimination and discrimination. "Anti-Catholic comments" are one thing. Having your kids being taken away from you because of your "weird" religion, or being placed on the no-fly list, or your house of worship desecrated with graffiti, or essentially barred from holding political office are quite another. Anybody who wants to claim discrimination ought to talk to Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, atheists, etc. before crying discrimination.

Victoria : “NOW- before anyone gets on some crazy rant about pedophilic priests-

The generation of priests who fell into this category are dying out and no new young ones are stepping in and continuing this abominable act-“

*** Unfortunately you a mistaken on several counts. Firstly you never make mention of the abuse of young girls by the Catholic clergy. This is a quite common misrepresentation in the coverage given to the sex scandal in the Church. Many of the victims are girls. Secondly, you suggest that the sex scandal originates with homosexuality. Pedophilia is not related to homosexuality, there are pedophiles in both straight and gay men and women. You state that “no new young ones” are coming into the priesthood to continue these practices. It is far too early to know this. The only substantive changes being made are all related to homosexuality and as I’ve already stated, homosexuality is not really the issue. In most cases of pedophilia and rape, the underlying impulses are rooted in the power and control exerted over the victims.

I would suggest that the mandatory celibate priesthood of the Catholic Church is a fundamentally flawed institution. It is unbiblical and is unnecessarily discriminatory against women and all married people. It arbitrarily discounts the call of most potential aspirants and leaves the Church diminished in the process. Finally, and most importantly, it attracts to the priesthood a disproportionate number of sexually troubled men, both straight and gay. It is long since past the time to correct this systemic flaw in the Church. If anything good can come out of the sex scandal of the Church, maybe it will mark the end of the mandatory celibate priesthood. I, for one, hope and pray this is the case.

"Personally tonio- ive gotten grief from protestants over theological issues- the devotion to saints- icon worship-"

Victoria, thanks for the information. Was the grief directed at you personally? In other words, were they treating you as inferior because of your beliefs? Or were the Protestants simply venting about the doctrines without holding them against you?

Does discrimination against catholics exist today?
I would reply yes. Very much so. I am not catholic, but I have seen and heard anti-catholic remarks on TV, on the radio, and the newspapers, and at school from teachers, students, at work, politicians, etcc.. And its gotten old. At least for me. And what is really pathetic is that many of these hateful statements come from so called educated people. Whats worse though? The person who makes a blatant hateful statement, or the person who makes a hateful statement disguised as "constructive criticism". I think the discrimination exist now as it has since the formation of churhes and religions. You have people who just hate religions of any sort, and blame everything on the religions. Then you have other religions who think their religion is the only right religion, and yes some catholics think this way too I would suppose. You have others who think that the government is the answer to all the worlds problems and that any religion is a threat to government. And then you have the people who hate religion because the religion will not change for their own beliefs. I think these people are the most insecure of people, they need and want the religion in question to validate their beliefs. If the religion refuses to change, they start to attack the religion. Their are as many reasons to hate a religion as their are people unfortunately.

wowo candide you have issues- there still is prejudice against catholics but thank god it is diminishing.
Athena- i take it youre not catholic, so how would you know? go look at susan jacobys goofy rant and youll see discrimination in action.

Personally tonio- ive gotten grief from protestants over theological issues- the devotion to saints- icon worship- admittedly there is a lot of superstition in the catholic relgion.

NOW- before anyone gets on some crazy rant about pedophilic priests-

The generation of priests who fell into this category are dying out and no new young ones are stepping in and continuing this abominable act-

heres why- in the mid 20th century (especially italian and irish) families that had a homosexual in their midst had 2 options-
bear the public embarrassment( look i didnt create the situation- its just how it was) and own up to their sons proclivities- or push the boy off to the seminary and get the social distinction of having a son who is a priest (among catholic mothers- more staus building than a son whos a doctor) AND the added benefit that the parents of a priest get automatic admission into heaven!!!
(not i believe a teaching of the church but a strong tradition).

Well guess what alot of people chose?
We know now that pedophiles are often (if not always) victims of child molestation themselves-
also we know that child molestation has confused many young men into believing they were homosexual(another issue- but a valid point)
this phenomenon instituted the practice of not allowing young seminarians (future priests) to even walk together in 2s- but always groups of 3 or more.

so thank god the issue is dying.
(also no one ever points out the instances of embarassing seduction by protestant pastors- but it certainly happens)
any betrayal of a position of authority is a reprehensible act.

ATHENA- laughing at someone isnt exactly the most tolerant of gestures- anyone who experiences discrimination suffers for it-
bias against african americans isnt as overt as it was in the 50s- but that doesnt mean it doesnt hurt the people it touches- as a white woman in america im not in a position to belittle their life experiences.

salaams and peace peoples
(candide i take it your an ex-catholic?)

an ex-irish catholic novitiate (franciscan)

Discrimination against Catholics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's a good one. Are Catholics singled out for extra attention by TSA when they fly? Do they get harassed by the police and other members of their "Christian" community for their religion? Do people barge into Catholic masses and start yelling for them to convert from their "evil" religion? Do politicians throw a hissy-fit when Catholic lawmakers swear an oath on the Catholic Bible instead of the Protestant one? Do Catholics have to hide their religion for fear of harassment?

If all of these are true, THEN talk to me about discrimination. Because these things really have happened to Moslems, Wiccans, and atheists within the past few months.

In each religion, there are some believers who falsely equate criticism of the religion's doctrines with hatred of the believers. Catholicism is not exempt from this - occasionally I read statements from Church spokesmen who accused the Church's critics of being closeted bigots.

Among the people I've met who are truly prejudiced against Catholics, all of them have also harbored prejudice against Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans. They don't make a clear distinction between the heritage and the religion. They simply regard the religion as another part of the "otherness," as something immigrants or their descendants should give up in order to be "truly American." There many be many people who discriminate against Catholics purely over theological differences, but I have never encountered them.

I grew up knowing almost no Catholics. Until college I didn't know what "Ash Wednesday" meant on the calendar, and I didn't know that Mardi Gras had anything to do with Lent.

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