More Prejudice from the Elite Than From the Street

What really needs to be changed is the Catholic Church's stance.. on the worship of Christ Himself. The emphasis that it originated as a church of the true concept of "God", trying (and suceeding) to convert followers AWAY from Christ &/or His disciples (except Peter?) & into more natural 'pagan' origins, which are not contrary to God the Creator's ways.
Christ should still be worshipped, but as for what He actually WAS for once..
And to point out that his death was necessary in the selfless sacrifice to humanity for 'screwing up in the 1st place' with the 10 commandments, forgetting to clarify *it* when preachign to the broader masses - the 'gentiles' etc - or perhaps his scribes/disciples/apostles, in their scriptures, hence why i believe Jesus's quote about "scribes! hypocrits!" - he was probably angry at them not the High priests & the High Priests mucked up, thinkign Jesus was their enemy?, hence why only one person ended up his 'beloved' & why the others hated Him..... as in not notifying that these rules were only there previously in the days of Moses for the Israelites of the time to keep things kinda organised while making their silly little Exodus & , as the Hebrews were always terrible in judgement without them as a race, as God made them that way. This is not racist, but a acknolwedgement that each of different races have their collective positives & minuses, the way The 'Father' created us (humanity).
The Catholic Church also needs to be more open on its roots that it is a Church that worships many different dieties & sees neither Christ nor the Devil as principalities in "black or white" that any should be loathed, to speak , except that Christ or His disciples were evil to introduce such an unclear teaching as to their Gospel message - and that John of Revelations was insane because he was caught in the crossfire, and that Revelations be disregarded as a book of The Holy Bible. such ditch a thousand rules/canons, and make an official statement so as it sits in favour with world - considering many would not be part of a Church that has such a history of change from Pope to Pope, but that it was necessary for the particular eras as supreme ruler or whatever under God. watering down or adding to its original state & motive, which these Popes did & are not rellivant to today. miracles like mary blood tears (except little old ladies) don't work anymore either. & peopel won't be Catholic & regular church attendance, to hear boring stories of the past when their is no creation or message about the future - a focus, a vision.

Marc Halo.

thee above was Marc Halo

QUOTE WILLIAM J. BYRON: "....typically grounded in skepticism and an unwillingness to accept the compatibility of faith and reason."

The "compatibility" of faith & reason in *itself* comes down to a matter of skepticism & faith lol -a totally HEALTHY balance, than just believing
anything!
One must have an open, yet logical, mind, and personal experience in a field (especially the supernatural) before confirming to oneself, - which is the danger you have already now done to yourself, your VERY SOUL, sir, your OWN inner TEMPLE!!, to take the resurection of Christ as *fact*. I'm not meaning to be cruel, any one of us at times can slip offguard into this reasoning of just excepting anything because you "love God" or anything. - It's your polluted un-disconnected nature you've grown accustomed to that makes you so stubbornly sure that faith & reason go together, when really they are quite opposites.. and equals why you have just accepted to yourself that He was risen, when none of us really knows. It's what we've been told.

I figure you're one of those who just believe anything if it's to do with your faith &/or religion. That's how Christianity & a lot of religions trap people & provide a following to the same old same old deception that has been placed over humanity. That's why it must all go. It diseases the minds of godbodies / humankind. It halts the progress of the world. It is ungodly.

In the end, who should care if Jesus was actually raised from the dead or not? Or if his ressurected body was one or the other - flesh or just substance thats transparent (spelling?).
It's too far from the actual time to really piece it together, without it being guesses or downright deception/lies.

Barfa:

I hardly need to add to this discussion. In many ways the church has been, and to some extent still is an instrument of oppression, selling an insurance policy - paradise after death, or eternity burning in hell, depending on whether you toe their line. In any other venue, it would be shut down as a scam. Stories from thousands of years ago, a time of universal ignorance and superstition just don't cut it.

Certainly there are some good teachings in the church, but their history, is one of horror. The most recent ones are not just the sexual abuse, but the criminal conspiracy to hide it for decades. Also, the church's attempt to rule our nation - e.g. stem cell issue - think of what Altsheimers does to someone - they fall deeper and deeper into memory loss, confusion, and ultimately may spend several years as a vegetable before mercifully they die, either naturally or from removal of the feeding tube. Tell me that those victims lives are less valuable then a clump of cells that can't have the least shred of awareness, and most likely are the excess fertilizations resulting from helping people who can't have children have them. Normally the excess fertilized eggs will be washed down the drain. Stem cell research may well bring a cure for this terrible disease that can strike in ones 60's, and hits 50% of all over 85.

Add to this the churches irrational attitude about gays, which poisons our society. Surely the church must understand that their attitudes directly lead to some of their followers to perpetuate terrible discrimination against those people, and sometimes becomes a license for violence and murder in the mind of blinded, brainwashed followers. On the other hand, most of Western Europe, and New Zealand has either gay marriage, Civil unions which are about equivalent to marriage, or e.g France, Switzerland, Germany, partial civil unions. Canada, Spain, Republic of South Africa have Gay marriage and Israel recognizes gay marriage done elsewhere because the Orthodox Jews control marriage and won't perform the ceremony.
Then we have the Mexican state of , and Mexico city (it is like a state), and Argentina which have civil Unions. No wonder the church is alarmed, and the pope calls gay marriage non-negotiable. Once America starts treating LGBT people with the respect and equality they deserve, the church either has to change, and hence invalidate its absolute beliefs, or see more and more of its adherents becoming more questioning, and that is what the world, and America need.

As someone told me, the Chrutch (that is really what it is) with the the current pope has slammed the door on the twenty first century. A priest said to me on a blog that it is the other way around, the twenty first century has slammed its doors on the church. Thank you Mr. Priest. Yes there is hope for society.

And btw, most Catholics I know view the church as somewhere between cafeteria plan and something no longer needed. In fact, the real issue seems to be right wing evangelical Christianity, but there is hope there, for others are trying to take the evangelical movement in the opposite direction.

Posted March 22, 2007 5:16 PM

I hardly need to add to this discussion. In many ways the church has been, and to some extent still is an instrument of oppression, selling an insurance policy - paradise after death, or eternity burning in hell, depending on whether you toe their line. In any other venue, it would be shut down as a scam. Stories from thousands of years ago, a time of universal ignorance and superstition just don't cut it.

Certainly there are some good teachings in the church, but their history, is one of horror. The most recent ones are not just the sexual abuse, but the criminal conspiracy to hide it for decades. Also, the church's attempt to rule our nation - e.g. stem cell issue - think of what Altsheimers does to someone - they fall deeper and deeper into memory loss, confusion, and ultimately may spend several years as a vegetable before mercifully they die, either naturally or from removal of the feeding tube. Tell me that those victims lives are less valuable then a clump of cells that can't have the least shred of awareness, and most likely are the excess fertilizations resulting from helping people who can't have children have them. Normally the excess fertilized eggs will be washed down the drain. Stem cell research may well bring a cure for this terrible disease that can strike in ones 60's, and hits 50% of all over 85.

Add to this the churches irrational attitude about gays, which poisons our society. Surely the church must understand that their attitudes directly lead to some of their followers to perpetuate terrible discrimination against those people, and sometimes becomes a license for violence and murder in the mind of blinded, brainwashed followers. On the other hand, most of Western Europe, and New Zealand has either gay marriage, Civil unions which are about equivalent to marriage, or e.g France, Switzerland, Germany, partial civil unions. Canada, Spain, Republic of South Africa have Gay marriage and Israel recognizes gay marriage done elsewhere because the Orthodox Jews control marriage and won't perform the ceremony.
Then we have the Mexican state of , and Mexico city (it is like a state), and Argentina which have civil Unions. No wonder the church is alarmed, and the pope calls gay marriage non-negotiable. Once America

As someone told me, the Chrutch (that is really what it is) with the the current pope has slammed the door on the twenty first century. A priest said to me on a blog that it is the other way around, the twenty first century has slammed its doors on the church. Thank you Mr. Priest. Yes there is hope for society.

And btw, most Catholics I know view the church as somewhere between cafeteria plan and something no longer needed. In fact, the real issue seems to be right wing evangelical Christianity, but there is hope there, for others are trying to take the evangelical movement in the opposite direction.

Hi, Jim,

Yes, what I'm trying to get across is not obvious, and that's why I recommend reading Plato. It really takes a genius of his caliber to get it across rather easily. Sorry about that.

Thanks for the compliments, but I'm really not sweet and gentle. (Isn't the internet wonderful -- it leaves out so much of face-to-face conversation that it makes even me look nice :-)

Ann O.

to Ann O:

I am sure you are sincere and you appear to be a very gentle and sweet person, but I can't understand what you are trying to convey. It is too mystical for me.

Hi, Candide,

You say there aren't any great Catholic novelists these days. I agree. But so far as I can tell there aren't *any* great novelists these days. Maybe the novel form is done.

As for Catholic philosophers, perhaps you've not hear of Alisdair MacIntyre (of "After Virtue" fame, or Charles Taylor.

As to Graham Greene, others interpret him as you do, others don't. One recent work (yes, they're still writing books about him) thinks the differences in his thinking are better characterized as pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. Many thinking Catholics changed a lot after that event. And you don't even mention the scripts he wrote for the movies, movies that are still regarded as classics.

You left out of your list the American woman, Flannery O'Connor, as great a short-story writer as you'll ever find.

Ann O.

"Other superior types like myself..."

HA!

Really, your parents need to move the computer into the living room!

Beware of Jesuits bearing gifts.

By the time of his death Graham Greene had pretty much abandoned Catholic theology and practice. It had served its purpose earlier in his life. As death approaches some are led to religion out of fear. Other superior types like myself abjure all religion as unworthy of a rational man/woman.

All the so-called great Catholic novelists have been put on the dungheap of history and remaindered books: Graham Greene, Francois Mauriac, Georges Bernanos.

There isn't a single philosophical thinker today who is Catholic. Or for that matter Christian.

Folks it is over. the 1700 more or less year domination of the human mind by Christianity is over. Christianity will survive among ignorant blacks, deprived rednecks, Africans, and other misfits. As is just, since it started among just such people in the Roman empire.

JIM tells us: I am sorry, dear Ann, but your discourse about things that cannot be70 detected or measure sounds like mumbo-jumbo.

Hi, Jim,

Spiritual things can be detected, but not by seeing, hearing, etc., or by their assistants, the scientific instruments. You can't see a gift of grace anymore that you can hear a color.

I should hasten to add that not all spiritual realities are *religious*, that is, they aren't all about God. They are simply non-material. They include acts of choice (even evil ones), concepts and logical laws and other abstractions. For instance, you cannot possibly see, hear, touch, taste or smell what you *know* when you think of "if p, then, q, and p, therefore q". Those are non-sensory relationships. Even the simple, "either . . . or . . ." can't be imagined. The content is totally non-material.

This theory (based on experience) goes all the way back to Plato, who was very much into math. It seems that math was what started him on his search for other spiritual realities. He ended up a great mytic. At least it seems that the wonderful mystical experience he describes in "The Symposium" was his own. I recommend that dialogue *most* highly as an introduction to mystical experience.

There are many, many routes to religious spiritual experience. These days many people seem to find the spiritual dimension through various meditative practices. One that's popular right nowo among Catholics is Centering Prayer. It doesn't involve any images or words or dogmas. It's a bit like some Zen practices. It's totally non-denominational. Just Google "Centering Prayer home page". (If I Google it, I'll lose what I've written here. Sigh. Wonder why that happens.) It assumes that you have some sort of belief in some sort of Great Whatever. But it doesn't have to be any more definite than that.

I think the key to *noticing* non-material realitites is to recognize that you're just looking for something which is a non-color, a non-chape, non-sound, non- all the other sensory qualities. Plato is awfully good in making us notice them. No wonder he has had such a huge influence on Christian theology.

Ann O.

MARY CUNNINGHAM tells us: Seamus Heaney (an Irishman and the greatest living poet now writing in English) once said that philosophy and science were on one side of a divide and music, poetry and religion of the other. Oh! there's a lot of reason in Catholicism, yes, but as you can see from many of the posts here what really draws Catholics to church (and The Church)is a sublime Christ-centred universe, experienced through the sacraments, the liturgy (and now we have a daily Latin Mass), the music, the art, the body of the faithful itself..

ANN O. responds: Yes, I think that one can't overemphasize the role of the sacraments in the Church -- once someone has found the Church. But I think there are many different sorts of reasons that people are attracted to it, or, for cradle Catholics, reasons for staying in it. For some it is the the dogmas which make sense of life, for others it is the beauty of the rituals and the art, for some it is intellectual conviction, for some it is a result of having known a saint, for some (not very many) it is the mystical dimension, for some it is the whole world-view that "makes sense" of human experience.

Once in the Church I suspect that what keeps us in it in spite of all its fault, even the terrible faults of some of us, is the unfailing presence of the grace we need to do the hard things that need doing, grace which is so clearly available in the sacraments. Indeed, there is grace for those outside the Church, and there are those outside who are much, much better people than most o Catholics are. But it's the sacraments that are our anchor, and I don't think you find such fulness of sacramental life elsewhere.

Ann O.

MARY CUNNINGHAM tells us: We were discussing "The Power and the Glory", one of Greene's most Catholic novels. Greene had converted to Catholicism when he was still at Oxford and one of the posters--an educated woman, a lawyer--wrote "Why on earth would an intelligent man like Greene do something stupid like converting to Catholicism?" She really couldn't fathom it at all.

Hi, Mary,

I can easily understand someone like that. Though my family is Catholic, a number of my close relatives are scientists, including my mother, a science major. She had such respect for her atheist physics teacher that she named me after her :-) So given my background, I think I have a rather unusual perspective. I'm sure that if I had been brought up in the sort of rationalist tradition that limits its vision to only physical things I certainly would find Greene's action utterly incomprehensible. Unless one has evidence of spiritual realities, why should one take such Christian/Catholic talk seriously? I'm with Dawkins there. But where I disagree with him is in finding evidence of the spiritual dimension.

Ann O.

Hatred of the Catholic Church may be the beginning of wisdom. But I would go further: hated of Christianity -- any version thereof -- is a sign of mental health.

Christianity is a serious mental disorder.

The venom against Catholics on these threads is equaled only by the venom against atheists, Jews, Muslims and gays on this and previous threads. Some of it is reasoned, but some of it is the result of profound anger on all sides. I admit to being angry myself.

Where is this anger coming from? Some of it is ancient history, some of it is modern politics, and a lot of it is the reaction to any claim for Absolute Truth, pretty much wherever they come from. In academic circles that kind of claim makes you a pariah. In academia, ideas are meant to be challenged. Religious fundamentalists cannot fathom why others do not accept their claims of Absolute Truth or their Holy Texts, and write off dissenters as immoral subhumans possessed by Satan, or as objects of pity or disgust.

These viewpoints are incommensurable, and have been for 2000 years.

If you're a Catholic, blame your bad conscience on discrimination, not on your stupid church and crazy religion.

Views of Catholics amongst the intellectual class...My NY Times incident..

Like I said earlier my time in academia was free of any religious harassment & it was at the LSE, a very secular organization. When I did my postgrad a large number of central European Jews (Karl Popper the most luminous but there were many others) that had refugeed to London were still at the school and these men were incredibly compassionate...I would say they set the tone.

Anyway, re the Times, last year I joined one of the book discussions and we were talking about Graham Greene. We were discussing "The Power and the Glory", one of Greene's most Catholic novels. Greene had converted to Catholicism when he was still at Oxford and one of the posters--an educated woman, a lawyer--wrote "Why on earth would an intelligent man like Greene do something stupid like converting to Catholicism?" She really couldn't fathom it at all. The moderator cut her off and said *he himself* had converted to CAtholicism--he hadn't, he was Jewish--as well & not to make statements like that. But she really was bewildered by Greene's actions, and her confusion remained with her along with the normal garden variety of anti-Catholic prejudices.

That was quite an encounter. However, I must say some of the rants here are a lot worse!

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.

The only time that I thought that I was discriminated against was at a very young age in my hometown that will remain anonymous. What bothered me is that I was very open to making friends with everyone at 7 years old. I made what I thought was a good friendship with a Jewish girl, at that time it was I guess brave to do this . Nonetheless, I did, her name was Susan, I really liked her she was very smart and we got along just fine, till her parents had to interfere with our friendship. They found out that I was catholic and discouraged our friendship altogether, I did not think it was their place to interfere with our friendship, Sue and I. This devastated my belief that the world is a friendly place. I felt almost like I was discriminated because I was catholic the family did not accept me and the friendship was terminated. I went on in life with something in my past that I found hard to accept and have gone on with the idea that to make friends with people of different faiths was a highly frowned upon here in the United States. You certainly can understand that I still am confused and do not think that Jewish people are any better than catholics are, after all we all believe in the same god, I hope!

Ann O, bias is a constant quantity, (quality) added to changing quantities. Where there is racial bias for example, the word "black" triggers bias. If it's something bad the "black" person did then it's "worse" than if a white person did exactly the same thing. If good, then not as good.

Bias can be positive and very often is. "There's a person at my "church" you should call. He/she can do that job for you. The implication is that since the person comes from "church" he/she does a good job at a reasonable price and doesn't cheat.

I have had a couple of experiences with "church" recommended tradesmen and all have been bad. As a result I am now PREDJUDICE against all recommended by church goers. In other words, my personal experiences have been so bad that I now discriminate against tradesmen that go to church. That means I'm "biased" adding a negative quantity to church recommended help.

If I am told, "I know someone who does that kind of work" I don't add the negative bias but still bias it by my opinion of the one recommending. Bias is impossible to avoid. It's probably impossible to ever get me to even try a church recommended person and thus remove the negative bias.

Conclusion: everyone is biased. You do take the "source" into consideration don't you?

Haven,

I spent a *lot* of years in academia, but maybe because I was doing Dev. Econ., where we really were concerned with alleviating the plight of the worst off, maybe because the dept was dominated by Dr (later Lord) Peter Bauer, one of the most humane men I have ever met & one who would *never* scoff at the religious beliefs of anyone, much less the peasantry, I never experienced any academic disdain for the religious. Maybe it's different now.

In any case, why should there be any conflict between reason and religion? Is there conflict between reason and music? Seamus Heaney (an Irishman and the greatest living poet now writing in English) once said that philosophy and science were on one side of a divide and music, poetry and religion of the other. Oh! there's a lot of reason in Catholicism, yes, but as you can see from many of the posts here what really draws Catholics to church (and The Church)is a sublime Christ-centred universe, experienced through the sacraments, the liturgy (and now we have a daily Latin Mass), the music, the art, the body of the faithful itself..

I live in London and my little parish in the East Ends draws faithful from throughout Europe, Africa and North America. All colours, all ages, all classes, but we are one in Christ. I hope that you have a similar experience in your worship.

Regards,

Mary Cunningham
London

Baal..

Well, I hope you’re more careful with your science than with your dialectic.

Look, it’s always a lot easier to make up what your adversary has said and then attack it—it’s called a straw man—than to thoughtfully engage her. Easy, yes, but it doesn’t lend to much enlightenment, and that is what you profess to be, isn’t it, an enlightened man?

And to deliberately misquote when the very article was still extant! Well, that takes real nerve. But I will rebut the worst of your charges as follows.

OK let’s start: you’ve constructed a straw man saying I said Jews started the Iraq war! But the dispute with Chuck was with his classifying all Catholics who stilled belonged to the Church as “evil” due to the paedophile scandal. I used an *analogy * beginning with “Let’s reframe.” Followed by “Suppose.” The following are defined as:

Analogy: “a comparison between two things that are similar in some way, often used to help explain something or make it easier to understand.”

Frame: “the general background or context against or within which something takes place.” “Reframe” is a term used in psychology meaning to substitute one historical background for another.

Suppose: “to imagine as possible”

I think you will see from the above that it was a hypothetical example. Yet you * deliberately * , oh very deliberately, chose to read the analogy as the gospel truth. And then attacked it! Tacky, Ba’al, very tacky.

I finished with the paragraph by saying to blame the majority for the crimes of the few was a * bad* thing and that I would not do it, but that Chuck was doing it to Catholics. My focus Ba’al was demonized Catholics, not demonized Jews. Again more of your rhetorical tricks muddying what was a fairly tightly constructed paragraph..

Let’s see what else: you are insulted that I found an echo of Northern Ireland in the worst of the anti-Catholic diatribes here. Tell me, have you ever been to Northern Ireland? Have you ever heard the Rev. Dr Ian Paisley? If so, when? What did he say? You can't just attack, Ba'al, you have to back up the attack with facts, well, a *few* would be nice.

Look, you’re a scientist who holds yourself in no small esteem. I suggest that you are offended to hear your prejudices—for that is what they are—belittled in such a fashion. There have been other posters who also objected to the likes of yourself, Candide & the rest. Maybe you all just to be able to continue to indulge your little anti-Catholic follies & foibles, as a (self) important members of the privilegentsia defending their privileges.

And that’s where we all came in, didn’t we? Fr Byron, in your words “The Priest”, writing about anti-Catholicism amongst the intellectuals. Catholics tend to agree with him. Intellectuals saying....a lot of things, a few germane. And using a lot of rhetorical tricks.

I think the real reason why religious representatives receive a somewhat cold shoulder in academic circles has less to do with prejudice than the basic purposes of religion and science. When all is said and done, one has to look at the reasons why these fields of study exist. Call it over simplifying things if you will, but as it stands, philosophy represents man's essential question: what is this and why is it here? Science and religion are two schools of thought that attempt to answer that question. However, the difference is that science objectively tries to find the answer, and those answers simply state what it is and why it is there. Those answers, in turn, are open to debate. Religion, on the other hand, tries to dictate not only what it is, but also what it should be, and there is no room for debate, as the matter has supposedly already been settled by God. Perhaps if the priests, rabbis, and ministers of this world were a little more open minded themselves, then perhaps the scientific and academic communities might also warm up to the Gospel a little more. I say this as a man who is earnestly searching to find the balance between both, who believes in God and yet still embraces logic and scientific reason.

Ann O

Discrimination is a good thing. To me it means making a rational judgement. Bias is more neutral to me. I confess to being biased against mosquitos. Prejudice is more negative. But we all have out prejudices based on many things, experience, authority, revelation, or tradition. By experience, I am prejudiced against beets.

I am sorry, dear Ann, but your discourse about things that cannot be70 detected or measure sounds like mumbo-jumbo. We have learned much about our physical world and have a very long way to go. But tell me, is disease caused by sin or by germs. Believe me, I would love a heaven where we would rejoin all our loved ones. I don't know that I would enjoy playing a harp for eternity. While I don't entirely reject a heaven, I must be skeptical due to lack of evidence. I am 70 and the ultimate answer is not far away. As I have previously indicated, I have no problems with resonable faith, but I do not want someone else's faith imposed upon me, especially when it comes from the Islamic, Christian, or Jewish taliban, who adore ignorance.

I just ran across this quote from Christopher Hitchens.

"It especially annoys me when racists are accused of 'discrimination.' The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one 'race' to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination." [Christopher Hitchens]

So "discrimination" in the sense of "noting differences" really isn't the same thing as a "bias". As I understand the term "bias" it means a negative concept of others who are different from me which results in my having an advantage over the others. It's a pre-judgment which results in unfair consequences to others.

I'm sure there are other meanings. What are some of them?

Ann O.

Anne O

Some theologians argue that during the Eucharist the bread literally becomes the body of Christ. Literally, not metaphorically. This is one example of where theology impinges on the physical world in a way that is amenable to objective testing. Others argue that morality can only emerge through faith, which is something that social scientists can also measure. And of course, many religions have miracle stories that have a physical or biological manifestation. Of course, a dualist approach to the mind-body problem is inherent in a lot of theology. So sometimes, more than you might think, we do talk about the same things.

Since the time of Paul, entire waves of Christian theology have regarded science as a dangerous approach to knowledge because of its potential to diminish faith. Paul said "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" and he condemned the "empty logic of the philosophers". He was referring to people like Aristotle, who advocated a provisional approach to all knowledge.

Some of us have had enough and have decided to fight back.

OOPS I said: In other words, as a scientist he knows, indeed, he cannot know what theologians are talking about.

I should have said: In other words, insofar as he is a scientist he doesn't know, indeed, he cannot know what theologians are talking about.

Ann O: "What theologians talk about are largely the interior, private events which neither human external senses (sight, hearing, etc.) nor their extensions (scientific instruments) can detect."

You mean things like the Holy Spirit? Or the virgin birth, or the bodily ressurection of Jesus? Internal events? Life after death? I think you're confusing theologians with psychologists and neuroscientists. Read theology.

JIM tells us:

Richard Dawkins knows the scientific method very well. It is the best way known to home in on truth and it is self correcting.

Hi, Jim,

Oh? Scientific method refers to a program of finding new scientific -- physical truths (or probabilitites). Scientists such as Dawkins who limit the object of science to physical events are not talking about the same sorts of things that theologians talk about, though they do both talk about gross objects like the sun, trees, wine, etc. The nature of those common realities are not at issue.

What theologians talk about are largely the interior, private events which neither human external senses (sight, hearing, etc.) nor their extensions (scientific instruments) can detect. The theologians have developed their own vocabularies for speaking about such events. Dawkins give no indication that he understands the meanings of those words.

In other words, as a scientist he knows, indeed, he cannot know what theologians are talking about.

Yes, he can take the position that there are only physical events. The counter-evidence to this claim is ultimately personal and private, and as such beyond the reach of scientific method.

JIM: When applied to religion, the method shows that most of religion is wishful thinking and/or mumbo jumbo.

Ann O.: Precisely how does the scientific method reach these conclusions? (Except by denying that non-physical events occur.)

None of this is to say that theologians do not use logic. Most of them assuredly do, though it is true that some of them don't care about inconsistencies. But the latter are not the ones I would recommend :-)

You might tell me that because theology includes contradictions it should for that reason be abandoned. I would counter that at the moment Einstein and quantum theory are contradictory. But I would not abandon either one.

Always, in both disciplines, the problem is to find better explanations.

Ann O.

Well, since so much has been posted about Galileo, I thought I'd interject a little experience I had when I visited the Vatican museum some years ago. First off, they have one of the largest art collections in the world and in the entire place, there is but ONE painting of Galileo enticing the Bishops to look through the telescope at the evidence against the Aristotelian view of the universe. The painting is perhaps 10" x 12" -- it's tiny in comparison to all others. But what is really hysterical is that all the paintings are numbered so you can listen to an explanation of it with your audiotape. Well, this particular one of Galileo is numbered 666. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Richard Dawkins knows the scientific method very well. It is the best way known to home in on truth and it is self correcting. When applied to religion, the method shows that most of religion is wishful thinking and/or mumbo jumbo. Thomas Jefferson believed that within a few generations, most American would be Unitarians. In a better world, religion would be regarded as some form of astrology, a mild, mostly harmless, private diversion.

Ann O.,

Thanks for the input about the neurotheologians. I realize that this is a very new sub-discipline. But they need to realize that they are (apparently) making generalizations about only *one kind* of mystic. That they would do so also indicates to me that they haven't read enough of the classical mystical writings (itself a humongously large field, going all the way back to the Rig Vedas) to even speak a common language with the mystical theologians.

Which brings me back to Dawkins. He talks about theology (as some neurotheologians talk about "mysticism") when he really doesn't know enough to speak authoritatively about the subject.

I suggest to you that until scientists understand the theologians own questions (which are usually closely related to philosophical ones) that they will not understand theological answers. It is partly a matter of the necessity of speaking the same language, and when I say "the same language" I mean using physical symbols and assigning them the same meanings. But that's another problem. Triple sigh.

Ann O.

Last post is mine.

Anne O

I have followed those lines of work only a little bit. All I can say is that over time there will be more of a consensus as more people carry out studies using different methods that include more classes of mystical experience, and then subject these ideas to critique and peer review. There has not been much peer review so far.

I went and did a literature search for the two authors that you mentioned (who I had not heard of before). I found only two articles in the refereed scientific literature on the subject, (although it is clear that Dr. Newberg has published a number of brain imaging studies in other contexts). One study was carried out on Tibetan buddhists and one on Franciscan nuns. Both were done on a very limited number of subjects. Their conclusion is that there are changes in brain function during intense prayer and meditation (but there would be something detectable with any intense mental activity -- so what); and that this kind of phenomenon can be studied scientifically; and they pointed out a number of methodological issues that would have to be addressed to do it right. That is as far as they went in the primary literature.

But, then these guys went on to write an entire book, which I have not seen, but which is not subjected to peer review. Anyway, if they are on the right track, we will know eventually (actually one of the two authors died recently).

Yes Catholics face discrimination. We secular types won't let them burn heretics, persecute Jews, enslave women, and molest children.

But we don't stop them sending dollars to IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland.

We're fair.

BA'AL tells us: The Priest obviously does not know the meaning of the word discrimination.

ANN O.: Oh, come on, B. "discrimination" has many meanings.

I cheerfully grant you that no theological position should be immune from criticism. No doubt I think that becasue I'm a scholastic of sorts.

The so-called "scholastic method" of the medieval universities *required* that the theologians (1) first present the views opposed to their own, (2) present their own, and then (3) criticize each of the opponents individually. No ducking. That was the theological method of the medieval universities. I fear that many academics these days do not measure up, and that includes many at both Catholic and non-Catholic universities. Sigh, again.

Ann O.

BA'AL tells us: You also wrote "There are among the neuroscientists those who are willing to accept certain self-contradictory intuitions as somehow superior to our everyday experiences, and as revealing of a "higher" reality. This is the death of science." I am a neuroscientist, and I wonder who or what you are talking about. I am unaware of a trend in our science to accept anything based on intuition, whether it is self-contradictory or not. Perhaps if you are more specific I can help clear that up. I am wondering if maybe you are talking about recent results on consciousness, in which people's conscious awareness that they have decided to do something occurs significantly after the cortical neurons that initiate the motor pattern are already activated.

Hi again, Ba'al,

I'm talking aout Eugene d"Aquila and Andrew B. Newberg in their "The Mystical Mind". It's a fascinating book, and I admire them greatly for their open minds and their attempting to find some common ground between science and religious experience. But I fear that they, like most students of mystical literature, accept Rudolph Otto's theory of mystical experience, a theory which claims that *all* so-called "mystical" experiences are essentially the same sort of experience and that all religions are founded on the same intuition.

But another great scholar of mystical experience, Robert C. Zaehner of Oxford, in his magnum opus "Mysticism: Sacred and Profane" presents texts from mystics from many different cultures at many different times, from the Rig Vedas to Martin Buber, from Ramanuja to Ghazzali, from Ruysbroeck to Proust and Rimbaud, and many, many more, and he finds three essentially different sorts of experience called "mystical", and they differ widely. True, all these experiences are indeed alike in being gloriously joyful experiences of some absolute unity or union, and all of them are so vastly unlike ordinary experiences that they are most difficult to describe.

So what are some of the differences? In one, the focus of the mystic's attention turns inward into the depths of the self away from the physical world, and finds a reality so beautiful that many of these mystics mistake themselves for God, though others do not claim to be God. Often they claim to be "beyond good and evil". The experience can be produced by spiritual exercises.

In a second type, the mystic also goes inward and does meet God in some ineffable way. This is described as a free gift of God and is quite rare.

In a third type - which Zahner calls "panenhenic" mysticism -- the mystic's consciousness goes outward, and he experiences himself as both *part* of the whole of the cosmos and *the whole* of the cosmos. Zaehner says that this is basically the same sort of thinking that is found in many schizophrenics. Many of these mystics call this reality "God", though not all of them do. Zaehner himself had such an experience when he was an agnostic and he says it never occurred to him to think he was God.

As best I can tell from my reading, this third sort of experience is the *only* sort of mystical experience that the neurotheologians study. And some of them accept this intuition as somehow grasping something which is *real*, a reality whose ontological status they do not question. Consider this text from Aquila and Newberg:

"Neurotheology has shown that the products of the mystical mind are real, at least as neurophychological states. But the phenomenologyical analysis, which we have been forced to employ as a completment to our basic neuroevolutionary and neurophysiological approach, has powerfully demonstrated that hyperlucid states of consciousness and other prducts of the mystical mind must be understood as either more real or as real as baseline reality when recalled from baseline reality [i.e., from ordinary states of consciousness]."

In other words, they buy this the-part-is-the-whole-and-the-whole-is-the-part nonsense.

This work was written, I believe, before a recent discovery I read about. Apparently some neuroscientists have discovered a particular part of the brain which allows us to discriminate between our own body and the bodies in the external world. When this part of the brain does not function properly or does not function at all, then the mystic experiences himself as part of the cosmos and as the whole of the cosmos. And some neuroscientists (I don't remember where I read thi -- I don't think it was a primary source) are willing to accept that intuition as a grasp of reality.

My point is that as soon as a scientist accepts such contradictory thinking as a revelation of some reality, that is the death of at least his part of the scientific project. It is one thing to admit that one holds contradictory ideas (as the physicists do about Einstein and quantum theory and as theologians do about many issues). It is quite a different thing to hold that there is no problem, that it's OK science or theology. It isn't. Not in the classic meaning of the word if "science".

I should add that Zaehner has been quite a controversial scholar, and, truth be told, his later works are not always consistent with his earlier ones. It is also true that he is constantly misrepresented. So, if you're interested in his theory, read the primary sources. Never trust his opponents to get him right. Sigh. If you do read him, I promise you that you'll be way ahead of all the "neurotheologians". Their object of study is just much, much too narrow. But do keep an open mind about that third category of mystical experience. As a scientist, you need an open mind :-)

Ann O.

My empathy is for all fellow believers whose faiths and beliefs are manipulated in such ways by those seeking to harness faiths and beliefs for their own causes and interests. That includes members of the clerics. Some are the worst offenders of discrimination and bigotry for institutionalizing and perpetuating them as faith and beliefs. Shame on them to be talking and complaining about personal discriminations against them.

What prejudice did Reverend Byron experience?
Was he denied service in a restaurant?
Was he denied the opportuniy to apply for employment? Was his application ignored?
Was he beaten by thugs who called him a dirty Catholic?
Was he repeatedly told that he would not amount to any thing because he was a Catholic?
In Ontario, Canada, the Loyal Orange Order held some sway in Toronto until the 1950s. The city's police force was predominately Protestant. In Toronto and some rural areas of the province, an older generation of municipal leaders still practiced blatant anti-Catholic discrimination when hiring municipal employees. As a young Catholic, I was curious about the old Protesant Orange Order hall that had become a ruin in the small town near Toronto where I grew up. From 1952 to 1959, Protestants from nearby Churuches knocked on our door for permision to pick Orange Lillies for the Orange Day parade. At the time, the organization was losing its influence due to the population shift of farmers - order members - to the towns and cities. The local Orange Order leader was an insurance salesman who sat on the town council. Interestingly, an increasing number of his customers were Catholic immigrants from Europe. When I think of him, I remember he was a polite little man who smiled a lot and spoke very softly. But, he probably used his influence on the council to aid in the hiring of his Branch's loyal Protestant members. As far as I know, he was the last local leader of the Order to be elected to the town council.
The above is a short history of anti-Catholic discrimination in small town Ontario. Perhaps, Reverend Byron should give the details and circumstances of the anti-Catholic discrimination of which he complains. The former President of a University should enlighten us so that empathetic Christians, non-Christines, Jews, Muslims, atheists and others can rally to his cause. In other words, protesting against social discrimintion is not to be undertaken on a whim since so many members of humanity experience violent discriminatory mistreatment.
I believe that Reverend Byron believes that he suffered discrimination. But if Reverend Byron's grievance was and is a slight one, he should have reacted swiftly, challenging the offending "professors." If he had done so, he probably would have discovered the origin of his own discomfort. He would have had the opportunity to address the real or perceived "prejudice."
It will be possible to discuss Father Byron's comlaint in a serious manner when he devulges the circumstances of the "discriminatory" acts. He must rise to the occasion and reveal his outrage. Failure to do so, will be telling.

Anne O

The guy who wrote the book about Tao and physics is not a scientist, his books are very dated and nobody in the business ever took them seriously.

You also wrote "There are among the neuroscientists those who are willing to accept certain self-contradictory intuitions as somehow superior to our everyday experiences, and as revealing of a "higher" reality. This is the death of science." I am a neuroscientist, and I wonder who or what you are talking about. I am unaware of a trend in our science to accept anything based on intuition, whether it is self-contradictory or not. Perhaps if you are more specific I can help clear that up. I am wondering if maybe you are talking about recent results on consciousness, in which people's conscious awareness that they have decided to do something occurs significantly after the cortical neurons that initiate the motor pattern are already activated. It almost suggests that consciousness is a story we make up after the fact to provide a narrative for something that we decided to do earlier by some very different process that we do not see by introspection. Or perhaps you are thinking of some recent studies on human's perceptions of time.

Anyway, those conclusions are not based on intuitions, they are based on experiments, and they actually overturn the expectations of intuition. The fact that the results are counter-intuitive hardly the death of science, anymore than quantum mechanics, relativity, or superstrings.

BA'AL tells us: David Bohm did not reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics and never in his lifetime claimed to have done so. In fact, nobody has succeeded in doing this, but it is an area of very intense research.

Hi, Ba'al,

I seem to have misinterpreted what Robert Nozick says about Bohm in his work "Invariances". Says Nozick of the new physics,

"Such an overturning of our traditional concepts can be disquiteting and disconcerting. Peole go to great lengths to avoid this.
"An instance is David Bohm's formulation of quantum mechanics, which has wonsome adherrents among philosophers but few among physicists. Bohm's theory is deterministic, particles have definite positions and trajectories, the wave function of the system refers to an existent entity that determines how the particles behave, there is no collapse of the wave function, and (as Bohn Bell has emphasizd) the theory does not require reference to an observer and it offers a homogeneous account of the physical world that is not bifurcated into a quantum part and a classical part. [I took this to mean that the Bohm's theory is a theory of the whole, a reconciliation of Einstein and quantum theory. Ann O.] However, according to Bohm's view 'the fundamental laws of the world are cooked up in such a way as to systematically *mislead* us about themselves. . . . [the theoryy]recounts the unfolding of a perverse and gigantic conspiracy to make the world *appear* to be *quantum mechanized*'." (p. 8 in Nozick.)

Scientists love of elegance wouldn't be so bad if they simply took the attitude that, well, sooner or later some smart guy will figure out a theory of everything that is both elegant and consistent. But I fear that some scientists (e.g. the author of the work about the Tao and the new physics) are more than a little willing to tolerate inconsistency. There areamong the neuroscientists those who are willing to accept certain self-contradictory intuitions as somehow superior to our everyday experiences, and as revealing of a "higher" reality. This is the death of science.

Yes, there are theologians who almost revel in inconsistencies -- Kierkegaard for one. But most Catholic ones don't. The rationalists among them like Aquinas and Scotus and Ockham would have none of such nonsense. When there were inconsistencies to be found in theology they felt impelled to look for what was wrong. They weren't always successful, I grant you. But at least they were willing to see that the problems lay in themselves and not in the objects they study

I'll grant you very quickly that too many churchmen are unwilling to subject their premises to debate, even in the face of clear counter-evidence. But that is a fault of the churhmen, not of the whole Church.

Ann O.

To fast forward from Galileo to the near present. When I was stationed Mass in the early 60s, I could not buy condoms in the drugstores. Luckily, they were available at military bases. I seem to recall that such laws were overturned by the supreme court in Connecticut v. Griswold. A case of some church trying to force it views on everyone.

*sigh* Ok, let's try again. I suspect that Fred would have realized precisely what I was talking about. For everyone else, let me restate my question.

Fred, I agree that your faith should be allowed. It is, and should be legal. You should not be, and are not, physically rounded up and tossed to lions. In other words, your faith and beliefs should be tolerated in the sense that they should be permitted. You should have, and do have, the legal right and protection to practice them. My question to you is why should I, or anyone else, treat what you hold as sacred as sacred ourselves?

(For the word mincers: there is a difference between respecting the legal right to do XYZ and respecting XYZ.. complicated, I know. One would think that Christians, of all people, would understand the difference.)

Your beliefs Fred demand that you believe that any other 'path to god', for lack of a better phrase, is completely invalid and will result in a nasty end for those that choose paths other than yours. Explain why your beliefs should be respected (as opposed to your right to practice your beliefs being respected) when your belief doesn't offer the same respect to those that believe differently.

IN RE: GALILEO GALILEI & GIORDANO BRUNO:

The recitation above of the Catholic Church's defence of its treatment of these two men reminds me of its recent "apology" in March 2000 for "The Use of Force in the Service of Truth", meaning the tortures and burnings of those deemed heretics or suspected heretics.

What a way to characterize these horrors - they were done "in the service of truth." Unbelievable!

Why can't the Church ever just say it was wrong, horribly wrong?

Mr. Byron seems to be mistaking lack of preferencial treatment for prejudice. He says "In the university environment, or at an intellectual level, the discrimination is typically grounded in skepticism and an unwillingness to accept the compatibility of faith and reason.". All ideas are subjected to skepticism even the idea than faith can be compatibile with reason. He seems to be saying that if his ideas are subject to the same scrutiny as any other academic subject, it is unfair and therefore prejudical. The problem is that in our culture we are unconscious of this bias in our thinking.

To return to Fr. Byron's essay and my earlier post, Fr. Byron never told us what the events were that led him to believe he had been discriminated against. Facts, please, Fr. Byron.

In the absence of facts, this entire thread's discussion has been abstract and without substance.

Remember the classic advice to lawyers: "If you have the facts, argue the facts; if you don't have the facts, argue the law; if you don't have the facts or the law, pound on the table and wave the American (Papal?) flag!"

The last is what Fr. Byron's defenders have been doing, it seems to me.

A couple of Panelists post comments on the thread originating with their essay. I wish Fr. Byron would join in and give us the facts of what he calls "discrimination."

In the absence of Fr. Byron's facts, I have to conclude that he has no case in the court of this thread. CASE DISMISSED! (Subject to reopening if facts are presented.)

The question: Is there discrimination against Catholics today? The answer is yes.

Second question prefaced by, if the answer to the first question is yes: Why is there predjudice against Catholics? No short answer comes to mind. However, I notice that many have taken the time and burned the pixels to justify discrimination above. In summary, what you said: only an idiot would let his/her kid get near a priest. Discrimination against idiots is allowed? It's certainly debatable, witness above.

Third question: How have you experienced discrimination because of your religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs? Only recently when I posted comments here. Otherwise people pretty much stear clear of my beliefs. They used to burn people like me at the stake. Now they must rely on God to punish me. Can't help but notice that's a lot more punishment for them than their predjudice against me is for me. Conclusion: Being discriminated against isn't so bad. Come on everybody, let's all get together and hate one another right now. God wills it.

The rise and victory of Christianity in the ancient world was the victory of the mob over the elite, of superstition over reason, of fanaticism over tolerance.

Religious beliefs do not deserve respect if they are offensive to reason and nature. Religious beliefs do not even deserve freedom to propagate. They should be confined to the inner recesses of diseased minds.

If I may make a few additional comments. I believe it is an open question whether religion has been a plus or minus to the human condition. I say this as a mainstream Christian. Next, I believe the position of the RC church is evil and criminal regarding birth control, specifically condoms. There is no doubt that these cheap and effective items can cut downon the spread of cruel diseases and unwanted pregnancies. Please no BS on the virtues of abstinence. It simply doesn't work, even among catholic clergy.

To paraphrase Orwell, all religions are ignorant, but some are more ignorant than others. I believe that all Americans have the right to believe anything they want but they do NOT have the right to have those beliefs treated with respect nor do they have the right to impose their beliefs on others. This is a natural world and we are learning more of its truths every day. Religion's main role should be to provide comfort to the inflicted, and not to promulgate myths. Evidence, Dear Lord, if you want us to be true believers, please provide some solid evidence. The bible is NOT evidence.

Tom,

In all fairness:

--Fred lamented: "It is not the lack of deference that we object to, but the lack of respect for our faith and the cynicism."--

Deference and respect are the same thing. ...not the best argument.

Respect and tolerance are not the same thing though.

The difference IS semantics when arguing that the difference is vast.

One cannot be tolerant without respect.

Without respect, tolerance becomes silent resentment.

The thrust of your post IS semantics, Tom.

Wow Ba'al! Thanks for the info! I will look into that.

It is strange that in these threads I would be required to denounce my Catholicism in order to maintain any kind of legitimate status.

I am willing to accept another's viewpoint, but find it strange that I am not allowed to be Catholic and a thinker at the same time!

Thanks again for the leads!

Danny B

I am also stymied. But I will keep looking. There is a website that I sure you saw that gives a detailed argument from the Catholic perspective of the Galileo affair.

In a nutshell, it argues that Galileo was not simply talking science, he was also pointing out that the heliocentric solar system had implications for theology. It follows, therefore, that the Church had the absolute right to shut him up (which seems likely to be the point Professor Ratzinger was making at the time).

Because in the minds of some Catholics -- still -- they were the sole proprietors of theological truth, so they were within their rights to muzzle Galileo.

Not long before before the trial of Galileo (February 1600), the Church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for:

1. Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.
2. Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
3. Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
4. Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
5. Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity.
6. Denying the Virginity of Mary.

In fairness, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) asserts, "Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved, etc." On the other hand, the trials and questionings of Galileo and Bruno were held in the rooms. That denial does not seem all that convincing, but in the end it is irrelevant.

It is amazing that people still claim that because it was "theological errors" that were at issue, they had the right to burn him.

Anne O

David Bohm did not reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics and never in his lifetime claimed to have done so. In fact, nobody has succeeded in doing this, but it is an area of very intense research. The most promising approaches at the moment are very complex indeed, and they require the existence of high-dimensional spaces that pretty much defy intuition.

But the important thing is that these models make predictions that can be tested by experiments.

Actually, now that I think of it, so did the New Testament. In fact, it was specifically predicted that the Kingdom of Heaven would come within the lifetimes of people who were eyewitnesses of Jesus or his Twelve, depending on where you look. That means either that the prediction failed and the New Testament is wrong or that the Kingdom of Heaven has a meaning quite different from that held by most Christians. Maybe theology is not so arcane after all. Now, about that whole Transubstantiation business.....

I agree that it is easier to play semantics than it is to address the thrust of my post.

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude require proper acceptance or courtesy.

Your claim doesn't follow from those definitions Anonymous.

Respect: deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment

Tolerance: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Tolerance doean't exist without respect.

Fred lamented: "It is not the lack of deference that we object to, but the lack of respect for our faith and the cynicism."

Explain why your faith deserves respect. I understand why you object, but demonstrate that your objection is valid.

Don't confuse respect and tolerance. I agree with you that it deserves to be tolerated. Perhaps you can convince me why it deserves to be respected. You'll have to address the fundamentally divisive and disrespectful nature of your faith as it regards those that choose paths different from yours.

I'm willing to be convinced and will read your reply with interest.

Ba'al,

Thanks! I am searching everywhere and can only find this quote. I'm curious to see the whole thing. I'm not looking to argue about it, I just want to satisfy my personal curiosity.

Danny B

He is quoted in an article originally in the Italian newspaper. Corriere della Sera, March 30, 1990.

I will try to get the complete text of the speech.

Ba'al,

Where can that complete speech be found?

Here is short summary of a subset of the comments on this thread

Catholic apologists: (1) claim that skeptics in the academic world are prejudiced against Catholics because of their skepticism, (2) people who criticize the record of the Church hierarchy in covering up sex scandals and protecting the perpetrators -- for decades -- are "haters" or (3) too ignorant to even be addressed, or (4) Paisleyite Prods. (The last comment is from a lady who claims that persecution because of her Catholicism is worse here than in Ireland, and who also claims that the Jews started the war in Iraq. Nice, eh?).

The more rational comments include one from a person who objects to some us of mentioning the Galileo affair. OK. But in a speech at Parma, Italy, on March 15, 1990, Pope Benedict XVI-to-be Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger stated, “At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just.”

The mind boggles! The idea that the process was "just" could only be supported from the starting assumption the Church has and always will have the inherent right to be the final arbitrator of Truth, and that anyone who fails to submit to their authority is irrational!

I am not trying to justify prejudice against Catholics. But some of the claims being made are insane.

Fred tells us: Certainly there is plenty about which to criticize the current Catholic Church as there is any institution. But to use long abandoned practices as a basis for criticism, is as illogical as reaching back to the days of slavery in the United States or the mistreatment of Native Americans as a basis for criticism of the current U S Government

Hi, Fred,

I agree. But what irks me most about some so-called "enlightened" scientists is their claim to value consistency above all, and their willingness to criticize the inconsistencies of religious beliefs (and I grant you there are many), but -- and here's the kicker -- some of the biggest value *simple* inconsistent theories over consistency.

I'm talking about the fact that Einstein's theory and quantum theory are inconsistent with each other, yet physicists do not generally accept the *consistent* theory of David Bohm which reconciled the two. Why do they reject Bohm's theory? Because his theory is relative complex, and Einstein and quantum theory are simple or to use their favorite criterion "elegant".

In other words, they value simplicity over consistency, then turn around and complain about the theologians. But elegance is an aesthetic category, *not* a scientific one. So they're the pot calling the kettle black -- except that theologians are not generally satisfied with their own inconsistencies. And I have never even heard of a theologian say to anyone, "Believe my explanation -- it's elegant!"

Sheesh.

Ann O.

Dr. Karadzic: with a name like that you have probably killed thousands of Serbs and Jews.

Fred,

Well put!

Someone once said that anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. It is not the lack of deference that we object to, but the lack of respect for our faith and the cynicism.
To reach back centuries and use the treatment the Church rendered to Galileo as a basis for criticizing contemporary Catholicism is ridiculous and demonstrates what such persons are really doing-- trying to justify their pre-conceived ideas.

Certainly there is plenty about which to criticize the current Catholic Church as there is any institution. But to use long abandoned practices as a basis for criticism, is as illogical as reaching back to the days of slavery in the United States or the mistreatment of Native Americans as a basis for criticism of the current U S Government

Candide: I look forward to the day when people like you are forced to eat the roasted flesh of your children.

It is the elitists and highly educated that are prejudice because they have been educated into imbecility. They lack wisdom!
REAL CLEAR RELIGION

I failed to mention that the "sell your soul" presentation does NOT prove the Bible is a hoax according to William Edward Hunt who needs encouragement to keep that page up. To my way of thinking, it's "The Bible is a Hoax for Idiots." I'm far from alone there.

OK DANNY B, you still didn't do what I suggested, look at the pictures. Maybe I wasn't specific enough?

1. The angel Michael putting Lucifer and his followers into hell, by force of arms. That picture comes from "official" Catholic literature. (You did study that?)

2. Moses speaking to a "man on fire" standing on a bush. (He noted that picture does not conform to the Bible) It comes from "official" Catholic literature.

3. His picture of Moses "hitting the lottery" rushing to the burning bush looking for relief from the fate worse than death, herding someone else's sheep.

4. His picture of Moses standing on a soap box.

I think I'm leaving a couple out but I don't want to go back and look. The above 4 is enough.

1. Is hell on fire? What kind of fire is it? Do those condemned to hell "burn up" or do they keep on burning? The Bible says the bush did NOT burn up but rather continued to burn. Same thing that's going to happen to people without faith?

2,3,4 all tell the story of a man who was down on his luck and made a miraclious recovery, RICHES to RAGS back to RICHES. Head of "the chosen people of God" is the highest office there ever was? Well, maybe God is a higher office, (MacArthur got that promotion according to Harry Truman).

So let's put 2 and 2 together. Was the miracle of Moses recovering from "killing" (not murder) the Egyptian the product of divine intervention? Was the divinity that intervened God or Devil? Remember, Lucifer wanted to be God and all supernatural beings are gods including angels.

What does the Bible really say? In other words, how literate are Biblical schollars? Is William Edward Hunt incapable of reading the Bible and drawing REASONABLE conclusions? How about you?

Yet another intellectually sloppy attack on the intellect.

So, what's the solution. Mr Byron? Should the elites unlearn what they have learned, thereby dumbing themselves down to the lowest common denominator where ignorance rules and discrimination holds only a pejorative definition?

Oscar Wilde once said that art shouldn't strive to be popular...the populace should strive to become artistic. In like manner, the uninformed should strive to become informed, rather than the informed ignoring what they have learned.

Is that too much to ask? Maybe the real problem for all religions is that they rely too much on misinformation and a lack of information among their followers to stay in business. The "holy books" aren't exactly a reservoir of intellectual stimuli...unless one considers the counting of angels dancing on a pin head to be an intellectual exercise.

There's SO much to be learned in this world, and none of it needs to be learned through the distorting filter of religion. If religion can't stand up to the acquiring of knowledge, then good riddance to it...the sooner, the better.

Danny B.,

Fair enough.

BGONE,

The god of the OT is an evil sadistic character. This god lies and the serpent speaks the truth. I reject the so-called holy spirit described in the bible. I doubt the historicity of Jesus, let alone his claim to be the sun, oops, son of any god.

Satisfied?

I don't believe that you can make a single post in excess of fifty words that doesn't look like a six year old typed it. Prove me wrong. Please.

The Czar Nicholas was the head of state and citizens of that state were subject to his laws.

The Pope is the head of state of the Vatican City, but most of his followers are not citizens of the Vatican City.

In matters of Catholic faith the Pope is infallible.

In matters of public policy in the USA, and any other sovereign nation, the Pope has an opinion.

BGONE,

--when the cat's tail is stepped on it reacts just like you reacted to those pictures-

You know very well that my reaction is to your ORIGINAL STATEMENT:

"You need to review, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and then you should understand what you are as a Catholic."

--AND--

"I see you as an ordinary terrorized person threatened with the fires of hell while you were way too young to analysize what was being taught. You simply memorized and now you're as stuck as a bug on fly paper."

Your insistance that the website and pictures have anything to do with that is just a straw man argument. ...And look up straw man argument before you post some more ignorant crap insisting it is not!

--Now which being was that, God or Devil?

William Hunt was polite enough to say up front that the story was bogus.--

What difference does the question make if the story is bogus, and what does it have to with your original ignorant insult?

I assume fault for continuing to legitimize anything you say by responding.

*************************************************
To all of you forced to read this garbage, I DEEPLY apologize for allowing it to last so long! I apologize for being so easily "taken in".

If you want to know what we are talking about, I recommend a peek at this ridiculous website BGONE keeps hawking.

How he can extract a coherent thought from this 3rd grade style report, let alone argue with it and insist on its legitimacy, is beyond me. Its definitely worth a laugh.
**************************************************

OK, BGONE...really, I'm done. I hope your parents move the computer into the living room where it belongs.

Czar Nicolas was INFALIBLE in matters of law his subjects were bound to abide.

The pope is INFALIBLE in matters of law his subjects are bound to abide.

You're all confusing infaliblity with dictatorability. Czar was "get you now" while the pope must wait for God to "get you later." Other minor differences like Soberia and freeze or hell and burn.

Matthew 18:18 I tell you truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Fortunately, the Bible is a prove hoax so only Danny B types pay that any mind.

Mary,

It is Danny B! The "B" is my last initial and does not stand for "boy". Being St. Paddy's day, and the fact that my Irish-Catholic family often called me that as a child, I will excuse it this time.

I was not fully agreeing with Chuck. I was agreeing on the point of "not necessarily". I meant it as a mild caution not to delude oneself.

I can watch the news where reporting on the Evangelical agenda allows me to generalize all Evangelicals. But I know that my feelings (sometimes disgust) about the "general", don't diminish my respect for the individual. Furthermore, I don't really have any ill will toward the "general" because they are entitled to their belief in this country. So "disgust with members of the church...isn't necessarily prejudice" is somewaht accurate.

I wasn't even trying to give him credit for knowing the difference.

While I would be very disappointed to think that Chuck would lie about his experience to make a dubious point as "a rationale for religious discrimination", I am not insightful enough to gather only from what he has written that he is a fraud. I have to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt that what he says of himself is truthful, until given a good reason to believe otherwise.

I don't disagree with your views about discrimination. I only meant to argue on the point of "not necessarily" to indicate that it is a dangerous position on a very fine line.

Incidentally, I am familiar with your posts from other threads, and always appreciate your input. So many poorly thought out posts make it on to them. I have a great deal of respect for any opinion backed by conviction and respect of its own.

Danny B, when the cat's tail is stepped on it reacts just like you reacted to those pictures, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Everything you FAITH hangs on that conversation Moses had with the BEING in the ball of fire. If it's a lie, hoax then the whole Bible is bogus. I know that. You know that. We know that.

Now which being was that, God or Devil?

William Hunt was polite enough to say up front that the story was bogus. Therefore folks need not worry about it being Devil. Harry Potter is a bogus story, never happened.

The "ball of fire God" is the sun. Moses is shown to be the one that talked to the sun, Amenophis IV. That proves the Bible is a hoax, unless the sun is your God. Check out the monstra.

The subject here is predjudice. You boys, Danny, Tom and Chuck, (Colson?) demonstrate how it begins, I'm a "crank." You also make my point about "striking out at whoever is nearest when your tail is stepped on.

Tom, I don't believe you're an atheists. Prove it.

Dear Chuck,

Let me get this straight: a small minority of *Catholic* priests criminally assault *Catholic* children (mostly boys) leading *Catholic* properties to be sold, parishes to be closed and merged, and millions of dollars paid as retribution from *Catholic* parishoners. And in response to this—a *Catholic* matter—you would wreck vengeance upon *all* Catholics, the injured party in this case, wouldn’t you say? You would deny Catholics their God-given rights to life, liberty and property; because you judge—YOU judge—that they belong to an ‘evil’ organization.

Who are you to judge, Chuck? The injured parties have some right to judge: but only the perpetrators of the crime. You cannot deny all Catholics their rights based upon the criminal actions of a very few, although I’m sure you would like to, wouldn’t you, Chuck? This is because you are using the paedophile crises as an excuse to scapegoat Catholics and justify your prejudice and you know it.

Let’s reframe it. Suppose a small cadre of Jewish conservatives falsified evidence and tricked the US into a war where over 3000 service men died. The country that benefited from this war was a Jewish country. Would you use that to demonize Judaism as an ‘evil’ organization and make the case that anti-Semitic prejudice against any who continued to adhere to the organization was justified? I wouldn’t, it would be punishing the many innocents for the crimes of the few. Yet that is what you are doing with American Catholics.

Frankly I’m appalled at the toleration of this base and terrible anti-Catholic prejudice and abuse—here in these pages! I know where religious hatred leads. Believe me, it’s not pretty. I don't mind telling you that I've been really shaken by what I've seen in these pages...Takes me back to Ireland in the 1970s and I thought--I hoped--those days were gone forever.

I'm away until after Easter, so unfortunately I'm not going to be able to answer your objections.

Yours sincerely (and I am very sincere about not tolerating religious hatred),

Mary Cunningham

Amen, Father Byron, Mrs. Cunningham, and to all my fellow Catholics. For Papist: Your three conditions regarding Papal Infallibilty are 100% correct. Additionally, the Popes rarely speak in the "Infallible" context.

You are being far too nice to our Chuck, Danny Boy.

Firstly, he is not and has never been a Catholic. I’ve been out of Ireland a long time but I can still recognize the voice of a prejudiced Paisleyite Prod..

Secondly he is giving a rationale for religious discrimination and you should never—never! NEVER!—allow that, whatever spurious justification is given. Just look at Ireland’s traumatic history: religious discrimination, segregation and persecution that lasted for centuries. We are only just over a horrible civil war in the North, precipitated by discrimination against Catholics. That deliverance is what Tony O’Reilly’s article is celebrating.

Candide,

--I look for the day (unfortunately long in coming) when the last Catholic is strangled in the entrails of the last Protestant.--

Being unlikely that the last Protestant would, or could, use their own entrails to strangle the last Catholic...are you hoping for Ethnic Cleansing of all Christians?

--There are Catholics with an education, but they are all whistling in the dark all the time.--

--Catholic dogma appeals to peasants but is found ridiculous by people of culture and education.--

--A Catholic education is a contradiction.--

--Voltaire (my hero)was educated by the Jesuits and knew they were all pederasts.--

So by your own admission, Voltaire was uneducated, uncultured, and "whistling in the dark all the time". Afterall, we are all a product of our environment.

So an excruciatingly educated and cultured intellectual, like yourself, is inspired to hope for genocide based on the words of a LONG dead men who is uneducated and indifferent to culture?

Candide said, "A Catholic education is a contradiction," and "Voltaire, my hero, ... was educated by the Jesuits." Which means Voltaire, according to Candide's argument, was uneducated. That kind of circular thinking boggles the mind.

Are Catholics discriminated against? Yes. I'm a Protestant minister and I see it all the time. Are Protestants discriminated against? Yes. I've been on the receiving end. Are believers - whether or not you believe in El Shaddai, Allah, or nothing at all - discriminated against? Yes. And do all of them discriminate? Again, sadly, yes. Human nature. Synod of Dort called it Total Depravity.

Chuck,

I have known many people who have shared your experience. Even relatives who I love and respect.

--Accordingly, membership in a religion is no different from membership in any other organization or club.--

Regarding Catholicism, I can only speak of what I know. Even those close to me and my family who are no longer active in the church still identify themselves as being "non-practicing Catholics". This, in my expreience, is unlike other Christian denominations where a person leaves the church and that is that.

Catholicism extends beyond dogma and theology to community. In most instances I am aware of, where someone has veered away from the church, the attitude of the rest is "we would like you to come back, and you are always welcome". No one ever turned their back on them, and they, in turn, still made appearances at Christmas Mass, or a Child's First Communion party. The prevailing attitude was always one of respect for the individual, and not having your own spirituality threatened.

For that reason, even if I "left the church", I can't imagine that I have any more choice about still being Catholic as I do about still being male, or white.

--Incidentally, disgust with members of the catholic church isn't necessarily prejudice.--

True. Not necessarily, unless it permits you to treat the individual members differently based on that one facet of their being.

I can't do that to people. I'm not accusing you of it either. Just saying.

Peace

Fr. Byron writes that he has experienced intolerance and discrimination as a Catholic, but he doesn't give any particulars of what happened that led him to that conclusion.

In the absence of particulars, we readers are unable to determine if we, or a hypothetical "reasonable person", would conclude that Fr. Byron had indeed experienced intolerance and discrimination, or was mistaken, or merely imagined it.

Consequently the discussion above is purely abstract and based on assumed facts that may or may not have taken place.

Please, Father Byron, what did you actually experience?

Tom,

It is fine by me if someone is an Athiest. I'm not put out by that.

The thing that offends me the most is militant ignorance, and those who presume to think that they have nothing more to learn on ANY subject.

As far as Pat Robertson goes, I am not embarassed BY him, but FOR him!

With Voltaire,my hero, I look for the day (unfortunately long in coming) when the last Catholic is strangled in the entrails of the last Protestant.

Voltaire was educated by the Jesuits and knew they were all pederasts. Take that, Fr. Byron.

A Catholic education is a contradiction. To believe is not to think. To think is to refuse belief in nonsense. Catholic theology is nonsense. The bible is nonsense. Christianity is the grossest example of a hoax perpetrated on a civilization. The educated elites of Greece and Rome knew Christianity was a disease of the slaves and lower classes. When it became dominant learning was gone, reason was gone. We had the Middle Ages. Catholics still live in the Middle Ages. Protestants don't believe most of the crap the churches teach -- except for the crazy Evangelicals who are as stupid as the Catholics.

I should point out in relation to my previous post that I was raised catholic and chose to leave the church and the faith when I realized it did not match my values. I'm not saying all catholics are immoral, but I am saying that it is not unreasonable to criticize someone on the basis of their membership in an organization whose views one does not share. Disagreement and criticism of the tenets of a religion and those who revere them are not the same thing as persecution or prejudice. Obviously, this applies not only to catholics, but to other groups as well (for instance, to muslims of the militant wahabi sect, or to mormons belonging to one of the several polygamous splinter sects).

True. BGONE is a well-known crank who peddles the same link to the same silly, semi-legible website in response to every article in this series. Most readers here simply ignore him. His views are certainly not representative of the athiests and agnostics I know. Oh, and happy saint paddy's day, everyone!

Incidentally, disgust with members of the catholic church isn't necessarily prejudice. Unlike characteristics which are beyond a person's control (race, gender, hair and eye color, etc), joining or supporting a specific organized religion represents a personal choice by an individual to align their beliefs with those of a specific group.
Accordingly, membership in a religion is no different from membership in any other organization or club. Some such groups are worthy of praise, such as charitible organizations. Some such groups are worthy of condemnation, such as hate groups. Membership in such a group or community does, and should, indicate significant information about one's character and values. Believing that membership in a group which has repeatedly demonstrated that it regards child molestation as an acceptable practice and shielded molesters from justice indicates an appalling lack of moral sense on the part of the group member is not prejudice. Rather, it represents a logical inference.
The religious must acknowledge that they can and should be judged by the company they keep, and the values they support, for good or for ill. Catholics choose to associate with a religious organization which has practiced a number of very controversial policies in both modern and historical times. Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable for others to criticize or reject them or their views on the basis of their membership in the catholic church.

You're welcome Danny B.

You should be aware that I'm an atheist. BGONE's link is an embarrassment to me in the same way that Pat Robertson is an embarrassment to most Christians.

Tom,

And I fell for it too! HA! I am just rolling!

So BGONE does this regularly? Well, I took the bait.

I think I figured out the real mystery.

Candide, BGONE, and William Edward Hunt are all the same narcissistic turd stirrer!

Thanks for letting me in on it Tom!

BGONE,

That web site you insist on posting links to in every thread is an embarrassment. If whoever wrote that has time to solve all these riddles and puzzles, they have time to organize their thoughts coherently. They have time learn how to write English sentences too.

Seriously, it's terrible.

BTW BGONE...

I'm sure you know already, but that is my post above.

Forgot to put my name because I also edit before I post.

What I might accomplish if I weren't an uneducated, uncultured, Catholic!

Candide,

I don't take it as anti-Catholic. I take it as a condescending insult by a coffee house inellectual.

I am an educated individual, from an educated Catholic family. ...Now I'm uncultured too?

You really are a piece of work. On what authority do you speak?

As far as "whistling in the dark goes", it just sound like sour grapes to me.

That was a reference to Aesop, by the way.

BGONE,

--You need to review, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and then you should understand what you are as a Catholic. I understand protestants denying the pictures but they come from Catholic publications.--

This is not a request to simply review some pictures.

But let's discuss THAT page then.

"On the right we have what those who insist God was in the fire want us to believe, God looks like a man."

How can this conclusion be drawn from this picture. It is completely removed from its original context, and the original context is not cited. There is NO eveidence to back up this claim. However, man was created in God's image...go figure.

"We are making a few assumptions, givens here."

Besides being a poorly written sentence, assumptions are, by definition, not facts.

"In particular, was that God or the Devil in that fire? Hell being on fire is a given. Saying it was God is saying that heaven is on fire too."

This is really a stretch. God taking the form of fire (which is still wrong, he took the form of a burning bush) and Heaven being on fire are not the same thing.

"Hell is on fire with, the fire that burns but does not consume.
People who sell their souls to Devil are going to hell.
That explains it. The devil and all in hell are on fire with the fire that burns but
does not consume."

I have searched my Bible, the on-line searchable Bibles, and Googled "fire that burns but does not consume". I cannot find this, and it is not cited on the page.

"Was that really God in the burning bush? Of course not. Heaven is not on fire but hell is on fire with, the fire that burns but does not consume."

Now there is another picture removed from its original context, which is again not cited.

The caption: The picture below is authenticated by the Roman Catholic Church.

What does that even mean? Authenticated as what? An original, an acceptable illustration, authenticated as primitive...what?

"Moses sold his soul to the devil and got the big bucks for it.
That's what the Bible says. Moses was a shepherd and saw a bush that was on fire. The bush did not burn up but just kept on burning. When Moses approached a voice came out of the flame, (there was no image of a man in it). When moses
inquired as to whom he was speaking the voice said: Exodus 3:6 "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isac and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face because he was afraid to look at God. (Would the devil lie and say he was God?)"

So his conclusion is that Moses sold his soul to the devil based on

1)My agreement to make assumptions.

2)An uncited definition of hell: fire that burns but does not consume.

3)God appearing to Moses as "fire that does not consume", even though it was a burning bush and did not take the form of a man (as the author himself points out).

This is a sloppy argument. It is nothing more than sensational, and meant to incite. There is NO scholarship here.

The entire use of the picture overlooks the role of art in the history of the Catholic Church.

The tradition of art is one of education. The church used art to teach these stories to the illiterate masses. You will still see evidence of this tradition in MANY Catholic churches today in the form of The Stations of the Cross.

The picture of the flames in the burning bush made to look like a man were not "authenticated by the Roman Catholic Church" as eyewitness photographs of Moses before the burning bush. It is art, which is not always an accurate representation.

If you wanted to express that God appeared to Moses as a burning bush without words, why wouldn't you take the conventional depiction of God (bearded old man) and incoroprate him into the flames of the bush so that an illiterate pilgrim does not mistake the scene for a weinie roast?

The whole thing is reall rather silly, and furthermore is no eveidence of what you originally said when sending me there in the first place.

"You need to review, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and then you should understand what you are as a Catholic."

I don't see how this explains what I am "as a Catholic".

Then you said: "I see you as an ordinary terrorized person threatened with the fires of hell while you were way too young to analysize what was being taught. You simply memorized and now you're as stuck as a bug on fly paper."

What does this have to do with WEAK and poorly written arguments that Moses sold his soul to the devil? Moses, by the way, is from the Old Testament and is an important figure in the Jewish faith also.

All I did was disagree with Candide about the allusion that ordinary and Catholic people are not necessarily uneducated.

You jumped in with garbage, and continue to argue garbage, and make no point at all.

Then you go on: "WEH is saying the folks who wrote the Bible were as bad off as you, really literate but couldn't read the writing they were copying."

Oh, but he can? He can't even write, or cite his work. Why should I assume he has greater reading comprehension skills than those who translated the Bible when it was closer to being contemporary?

Believe me I can read and have excellent reading comprehension. That's why I don't beleive everything I read, and know that the written word does not prove itself by simply being written.

You could do with a lesson in critical thinking.

Sorry.

Danny B:

There are Catholics with an education, but they are all whistling in the dark all the time.

Most Catholics are peasants and the descendants of peasants. Catholic dogma appeals to peasants but is found ridiculous by people of culture and education. Once this was not true but with the expansion of science even in Europe elites have finally abondoned Catholic faith.

Can this be far behind in America? Yes, it can. American Catholics remian Irish, Italian and Polish peasants and will need centuries to change.

Don't take this as anti-Catholic. American Protestant rednecks are the same.

Danny boy, you didn't do what I suggested, look at the pictures. I now realize how literate you are so perhaps you could help me with the writing on a couple of pictures you surely saw at that web site. I think he, WEH is saying the folks who wrote the Bible were as bad off as you, really literate but couldn't read the writing they were copying. They even mentioned that somewhere in the Bible, "the unreadable writing on the wall."

I'm not CANDIDE but generally agree him/her.
I wasn't butting in but replying to your general, "I'm a Catholic" and therefore "I know..." Candide could be a Catholic for all I know.

Veijita,

This entire 'dialogue' about bias towards Catholics has been what the Irish call a "sickener". Many have been as full of hate and animosity towards Catholics as anything I've encountered--and I would include some rants of Northern Ireland's Unionists here. They simply cannot be answered.

Regards,
MC

BTW...as far as William Edward Hunt's web page goes, I commend him for the effort he does put into something he clearly enjoys.

I don't have to agree to have respect.

BGONE,

I visited the link you provided with an open mind, at least thinking I would find something intelligent to say in response to your somewhat rude opinion.

Instead of starting at the random spot that you directed me to, I went to the beginning. Surely you did not intend for me to only read that one page, did you?

I could barely make it through the first page:

"I hold a BS degree from Murray State University, Kentucky."

"Other than knowing the Bible is a hoax there is little else unusual about me."

"My writing skills are far below standard so I resort to pictures and graphs a lot."

"I don't hold a PhD from Harvard in Archaeology or ancient studies. I'm sure you understand."

"The above graph represents my best guess about when the original stories of the Bible first appeared in writing."

(This is my FAVORITE!)"I can't tell you how or when I made this discovery because I don't know."

"Now you know where we're going."

Yes I DO know where, and so I stopped.

I have to ask you, honestly, you are going to use the writing of a scholarly dilettante, and hack writer with no more than a BS to condescend to me?

--I see you as an ordinary terrorized person threatened with the fires of hell while you were way too young to analysize what was being taught. You simply memorized and now you're as stuck as a bug on fly paper.--

You don't know the first thing about me, were butting in anyway (because I was responding to Candide's insult), and are probably him with a different name on the post. I'd otherwise be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I am a Technical Writer of automotive manuals for a major auto-maker. That means I am a professional writer, and of a style that requires precision, conciseness, and actual research. It also requires more than a BS. Guessing is not factual, nor research.

My whole point in the above post was that Candide was mistaken in the allusion that ordinary and Catholic people are uneducated, and that he is.

Furtermore, what you "see" about me or my faith really doesn't mean much, does it? Especially if all you have to back up your OPINION is William Edward Hunt's web page.

If this is the deepest we can get among people who claim to be interested in religious dialogue, what hope is there? As usual, the posts on this topic are so incredibly ignorant that I'm logging off in despair....

BA'AL,

The Pope doesn't claim infallibility for his pronouncements. He speaks on many subjects every day, says mass and gives homilies. He only speaks with infallibility on 3 conditions:

1) An issue on Faith and Morals

2) He must announce first he is speaking in his official capacity as the successor to Peter.

3) It must be binding on all Catholics.

This prevents claims of infallibility on temporal issues. In fact, infallible statements have been very rare in 2000 years, numbering around a dozen and they deal with things like that Christ ascending into heaven and other deep theological issues.

I hope this helps to clear up some of the questions about the Church and infallibility.

William J. Byron wrote: "So it is ironic, in my experience, that the manifestation of ignorance that is prejudice against Catholics is more noticeable among the well-educated than it is among simpler people of more modest academic credentials."

Irony? That's a strange, yet predictable I suppose, way for you to resolve your cognitive dissonance on this issue.

DANNY B,

You need to review, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and then you should understand what you are as a Catholic. I understand protestants denying the pictures but they come from Catholic publications.

I see you as an ordinary terrorized person threatened with the fires of hell while you were way too young to analysize what was being taught. You simply memorized and now you're as stuck as a bug on fly paper.

Discrimination is a natural part of being human and so is prejudice. We get both from our parents and those with whom we associate. Children pick up on remarks made by parents, "it's to be expected from one of them ____" and other children as well. What the other children say very often comes from their parents.

We are all discriminating and predjudice in many things, where we live, our friends, where we shop, what we eat, and, of course, what and where we faith, just to mention a few. Religion itself is a matter of discrimination, predudice. "Only those who accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior will be saved."

For religion, any religion to cry discrimination, predjudice against them is the proverbial stone toss from the glass house. The zenith of predjudice is the condemnation of one's fellow man to an eternity of torture in the fires of hell. Didn't Jesus say something like, "judge not or you will be judged?" Discrimination, predjudice breeds discrimination, predjudice. The tap root of that tree is faith.

There's good discrimination, not buying the faulty product and there's bad discrimination, condemning folks to hell. Not buying bad products puts bad product makers out of business. The same is true for those who mine the gold in the fires of hell. They are the source of bad discrimination. Are they victims of discrimination, now or ever?

Candide,

Ordianry people and Catholics are uneducated?

I am ordinary AND Catholic, what does that make me?

I still recognize phony intellectualism through the use of Voltaire references, and the weakness of arguments supported only by mere erudition.

Too bad I'm so ordinary, and so...Catholic.

Rev. Byron,

As an academic, I find it grotesque that you would confuse ignorance with skepticism. In academia there is no place for dogmatism -- arguments are accepted or rejected on the basis of their soundness, validity and persuasiveness. Faith has no place in these circles. This is not ignorance but the measure by which substantiated knowledge is based. Skepticism is what has advanced our sciences, philosophy and enabled our intellectual advancement. To suggest that this form of critical thinking is co-extensive with ignorance shows only one thing: it is you, sir, who are ignorant of what academia is all about.

PS. Had Galileo not been skeptical of the Aristotelian geocentric view of the universe, he might never have discovered the Truth of the matter. You might recall the Church's stance on this little bit of history.

Educated people are critical of the Catholic church for good reason. They know something of its terrible record in history. Ordinary people have only prejudice; educated people have facts.

Discriminate - select one from more than one.

Those with discriminating taste eat at Joe's Diner. I don't because I'm predjudice. I heard there was an outbreak of food posining.

Those with discriminating faith pay their toll to get past the demon on the nebol bridge at the Catholic church. Is there an outbreak of something at the Catholic church?

On St Patrick's day those not wearing green will be pinched, a clear case of discrimination.

And before I got pilloried for being reflexively anti-Catholic, let me also cut and paste from a comment I made on a different thread:

The Catholic church also operates some of the world's most important educational and philanthropic institutions, and individual Catholic priests and laypeople have been powerful agents for social justice, and have given their lives to save others...

Catholics have in the past and continue to occupy high political offices, including the Presidency. That is as it should be. Speaking personally, I have deeply loved a Catholic person (her departure still makes me weep) and I earned my doctorate at a Jesuit university to which I still donate money and have fond memories.

In short, this question is sure to bring out all sorts of bile. I cringe to imagine what some of it will be. Institutions are made of people, but they are not people, and they have their own emergent properties, some good, some bad.

Mary Cunningham's remarks floor me. When the official Catholic Church claims infallibility for their pronouncements, how do you expect the rest of the world to react to that! I for one reject it as outrageous hubris.

Some of the outpourings that Ms. Cunningham and Father Byron decry are the result of genuine grievances that cannot be swept under the rug -- including true malfeasance by the hierarchy in dealing with sexual abuse scandals. There is a reason Cardinal Law is not in his old position anymore, he is arguably guilty of very serious crimes, and current tactics of the Church are not making independent observers feel confident that anything has really changed. It is not prejudice to point this out, it is a matter of record, and only the worst sort of apologist fails to see this.

There are other aspects of history that remain controversial that on occasion engender bitterness. No need to go into it all now, the record is very mixed, depending on whether you look at individuals or larger collectives.

Bear in mind also that many of us who are accused by Ms. Cunningham of prejudice make a distinction between Catholics and official Catholicism -- especially in the United States where Catholics have political and economic power more then commensurate with their numbers, and where individual Catholics reject wide swathes of official Vatican pronouncements. Harboring a prejudice towards the ~20% of the population here who are Catholics, by the way, is not a general feature of agnostics or atheists. It is much more common among members of other Christian sects in the United States who harbor resentments over doctrinal issues that are completely meaningless (or the subject of jokes) among atheists and agnostics. But someone from Ireland already knows the bitterest disputes come from the most minor doctrinal differences.

Dear Fr Byron,

I wrote this to Mr Novak and thought I would also 'cc' you. But what I would say in response to your piece is:

The Catholic Church in America, if it is damned by the intellectual elites and cherished by blue collar workers, must be doing something right!

Your support is in the right place, exactly the people to whom Christ preached his ministry. I don't recall 'the elite' being among the first converts to Christianity. These self-styled 'leaders' are tough nuts to crack: St Paul, for example, needed to be thrown off his horse and struck by a thunderbolt to change! And I would not place many of the respondents here in the same class as ST Paul.

Anyway, this is what I wrote to Robert Novak:

"I've been Catholic in the West of Ireland, in Boston, Mass., and in England (where some diehards still call me a *Roman* Catholic) and, believe me, England was the worst! The fact that the IRA had brought bombing to the mainland a few years before I arrived--timing was never my strong point-- compounded the genuine distaste many English felt for the faith, associated as they felt it was with the poor, disloyal and often outright rebellious Irish.

That said, I must add that *English* Roman Catholicism (and my husband is a genuine English Catholic)has an immensely distinguished history and is associated with some of the greatest nobility and (even more important) the greatest writers of the land: More, Shakespeare,Newman, Manley Hopkins, Greene, Waugh, Chesterton, Sassoon,Tolkien, Muriel Spark...Sassoon and Spark converts from Judaism, like yourself.

It's a lot better now and for that I would have to thank the efforts of Cardinal Basil Hume, a holy man, a saint really. As well, there is the Good Friday agreement and peace in Northern Ireland (please God that it holds!). The great prosperity of the Republic has rendered the old prejudice of the poor Irishman defunct and they have a good rugby team too. As well, there has been a great influx of Eastern Europeans into Britain; as well as being hard-working, they are very devout.

It's funny then, that just as Britain seems to be turning the corner re anti-Catholicism you have in America the kind of regular prejudice like the outpourings seen above. And yet the US Church, at some 60 million strong, is the most important Catholic Church in the developed world, no question.

I am breaking my Lenten promise of contemplation of--not posting on--religion but I had to respond to this one.

Best Wishes,

Mary Cunningham

The Priest writes "In the university environment, or at an intellectual level, the discrimination is typically grounded in skepticism and an unwillingness to accept the compatibility of faith and reason."

The Priest obviously does not know the meaning of the word discrimination. In the academic world, nobody can claim the privilege to have their views accepted in the absence of evidence. Skepticism is a feature, not a bug, it is how we make progress. The fact that academicians do not automatically provide deferential courtesy to the ideas of a member of the RC clergy is NOT a form of prejudice, even if they get used to that treatment by interactions with Catholic laity.

The Catholic church's repeated pattern of interactions with scientists -- dating from long before Galileo and continuing to the present day -- may also have something to do with the way Priests who tow the Vatican line are treated in the free world of ideas. That and the continued existence of Inquisitors.