Let's Find the Good and Praise It

nrjybae fjhq pfwny iutrm tcguanmdb pomnqyv adbqe

nrjybae fjhq pfwny iutrm tcguanmdb pomnqyv adbqe

Those of us who are agnostics and atheists should not be forced on the defensive if we are sick of the tactics used against for most of the last century, right up to, oh, yesterday. In my view, debasing counterattacks are long overdue.

>>The only thing that atheism (oops anti-theism)is about is HATE and bigotry against traditional Christianity. The only thing that is going on here is that atheists and agnostics are engaging in what Freud called projection, that is, you are projecting your own vile hate and intolerance onto Christians, while giving the crimes of atheism a pass. Atheism=HATE

>>The Great Terror of French Revolution that sent a priest ancestor of mine to the guillotine in the name of Liberty, Fraternity. The millions murdered by the communists in the name of atheism. The murderous atheist regime that rule Spain prior to the fascists. Atheists only want freedom of thought for themselves, not for those they disagree with.

>>I'm sick and tired of bigoted atheists and agnostics working to undermine my religious freedoms and my right of conscience in the name of their worship of the Almighty Orgasm. I have yet to meet an atheist who isn't filled with hatred, anger, intolerance, etc.

>>The U.S. is a free country, so atheists have the right to their opinions, but they don't have the right to impose their bigotry on everyone else.

>>""There are arguments for atheism, and they do not depend, and never did depend, upon science. They are arguable enough, as far as they go, upon a general survey of life; only it happens to be a superficial survey of life." (ILN 1-3-31)" GK Chesterton

>>

The last post is mine.

Staunch Catholic

Read what you wrote again. "I do not want their immoral behaviors codified in secular law. No hatred."

What if I took the position that marriages that are surrounded with superstitious rituals, such as the Catholic mass, are immoral and should not be codified in secular law. This is because I feel that superstitious rituals are immoral behaviors on the basis of history and of my atheist beliefs, which cannot be challenged because I make an absolute truth claim.

I think you might feel hated. In effect, that is the position you are taking only, in reverse.

Your ritual behaviors hurt no one else, they have no effect on me, and they are your own business. My co-worker's homosexual behavior does not affect me either, and it is her business, and why shouldn't she have equal protection under the law, -- including the protections that married couples have always enjoyed?

For Steve in Maryland:

1. I write as one Catholic who is "not ignoring the Church" as you state. If Benedict and I are the last Catholics standing, so be it.

2. I am staunchly against birth control, stem cell research and, ESPECIALLY, abortion. I'm pro-life from conception to natural death.

3. Catholics, myself included, are NOT in favor of making "our LGBT citizens victims of discrimination and religious hatred" as you state. Love the sinner. Hate the sin. I do not want their immoral behaviors codified in secular law. No hatred.

4. The Catholic church IS VERY RELEVANT in the modern age as a guardian of moral truth. It is not irrelevant as you state.

5. The Catholic Church is NOT "bent on imposing it's will" as you state. Members are quite free to (and do) leave. The Catholic church is not looking to join you or compromise itself in so doing. One point one (1.1) billion Catholics worlwide are free to divorce themself of the Church.

6. I enjoyed your second to last paragraph. It is the same ol' tripe folks have been saying for 2,000 years now. The youth you work with are no different. Again, the church is not looking to join these kids. Ironically, in excess of 1 million kids showed up at all of JP II's world youth day appearances in the USA and Europe. Why? Like a father, he spoke truth to them despite truth being inconvienent at times. Many were not Catholic. Irrelevant? Hardly.

7. Regarding your last paragraph .... thankfully, Benedict understands "Truth" and is a pit bull against modern, liberal relativism. There was a good reason why Cardinal Ratzinger chose the name "Benedict" when elevated to the Papacy. Your editor friend and you are correct in that, thankfully, Benedict won't compromise time tested truths in order to accomodate the times.

All the best.

I never see discrimination against Catholics. What I do see is Catholics ignoring the church, and I say "right on". The church's madnesses, e.g. against birth control, stem cell research, their desire to make our LGBT citizens victims of discrimination and religious hatred (along of course with some right wing protestants, and even orthodox Jews) makes the church irrelevant in the modern age. The abuse cases and especially the sweeping under the rug of these problems and their blind support of guilty priests - this is a travesty not upon the church but upon humanity. It's not a church, it is a power structure bent on imposing its will and blinding the heart to using the mind God gave us.

Most Catholic youth I know (I work with many in a part time retail environment) have simply decided that the institution is obsolete. It's name needs to be changed, so at least the name is correct, The Hypocrisy Church. Unfortunately it has to share that name with other right wing protestant groups. Do I ever hear people speaking against Catholics themselves, vs the views of the church, no.

I'll finish with a comment a newpaper editor made to me. The new Pope has slammed the door on the 21st century. The justice is that their people understand it.

Of course this is cultural lag. Of course there are pockets of suspicion. Of course jejune and sophomoric artists do "Piss Christ" and obscene Virgin Mary's (which offend non-Catholic Christians as much as Catholics.
---------------

If they were offended it was because they were ignorant of what the artist was saying.

I know in the Virgin Mary, the artist came from a land where the elephant created the possibility of life being there. In the elephant dung, seeds were carried to spread the wild grasses and trees...He was saying that like the elephant, the Mother of Jesus made sustainance possible. The artist is a devout Christian and to him he was honoring the Mother of Jesus. But people are so quick to anger...they are ignorant. You are ignorant of symbols.../something that jesus would have understood as the ancients knew that symbols and parables were what the soul understood.

To claim to follow a man that taught in parables, and be deaf and blind to it in art is a shame.

Professor

You said : "Good, good things are happening on the ecumenical and interfaith fronts; let's notice them!"

And all those good things are happening in sponsored serminars and conferences organized by think tanks, NGOs, the academia and governments.

And all those who attended are those who genuinely want a dialogue to promote peace and understanding.

And attended by dispassionate academics and scholars too, who are very well versed in the subjects they are talking about.

The real world can be glimpse, even here in the On Faith threads on what people think and feel. We must notice them too, for those in seminars and confernences, those in the academia, has no way to control popular sentiments and perceptions that plays well enough to our fears and prejudices.

Bad news plays well, not good things.

Greg

While Mitt Romney flip-flops on dozens of issues almost as shamelessly as John McCain and Rudy Guilliani, that's not my point.

My point is that there are a lot of people who will not vote for him because he is a Mormon.

These are people who describe themselves as "people of faith".

You mean Romney flip flops? No! Politicians NEVER do that! I mean Harry Reid is a Mormon and he NEVER goes against his faith in DC... Oops lol

You write "I yearn for a day when religious forces can be in the rough and tumble of politics without being met with sacrilegious or debasing counterattacks."

Religion in politics is used as a blunt tool. When you hear the term "people of faith" know that it only refers to people of the "right" faith. Governor Romney, who can be attacked legitimately on a host of different policy issues, is going to discover that the term "people of faith" doesn't refer to his group outside of Utah. He is ultimately going to have a hard time changing the subject, people are going to ask him questions about the marital habits of his distant ancestors, even if he is the only significant candidate in his party who has not been divorced multiple times.

Those of us who are agnostics and atheists should not be forced on the defensive if we are sick of the tactics used against for most of the last century, right up to, oh, yesterday. In my view, debasing counterattacks are long overdue.