|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 17:49:02 GMT -6
Jim is not the enemy, he's almost non-catholic. I believe you are being overly critical of Jim's position. On the other hand, I feel Jim is being overly sensitive towards our criticism of religious faith. Compared to the San Fran archbishop's recent defense of his upcoming trip in support of the traditional marriage rally in DC, Jim is an enlightened Catholic. There's an enemy if there ever was one. Better to be enlightened than hypocritical and bigoted. I don't think Jim is the enemy either. That said, I refuse to accept that sharply and relentlessly criticizing the RCC on real, substantive issues (about which I have been crystal clear) and challenging Catholics to consider what sort organization they belong to is "overly judgmental". Or maybe it is. I really don't give a shit since by the time we start arguing about who is being more judgmental, we are just spitting opinions. There is a stacked deck of religious rhetoric in this country. If you dare to criticize the religion even in a debate forum explicitly dedicated to the topic, you are outside the rules of decorum. Whatever. Sigh. A. I'm not overly sensitive about criticism of faith in general or specific criticism leveled at RCC management. I agree with a lot (virtually all) of what you have said along those lines. I fully and openly acknowledge that criticism of the RCChurch is justified. B. I am "sensitive" about attacks against the "sheep." I'm not sensitive in the sense that it hurts me personally, but I do want to defend the "sheep" and also point out that you (in my opinion) are being sanctimonious when you disparage those who "ignore the truth [rather] than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit." As if you had cornered truth... Sanctimonious pronouncements are offensive no matter whom they come from. That's about as simple as I can put it. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 17:51:55 GMT -6
God knows her punctuation and grammar are not up to norm. I'm not pointing that out as a dig, but merely to bolster my case that she is/was having a very crappy or taxing morning. I was limited to an iPad this morning, and my vision isn't what it used to be on the small type. I'm sure that will cover punctuation nicely. Feel free to point out the grammatical lapses, since I'm sure you weren't just taking a cheap shot. I don't think the iPad explains gibberish like this, " invoking yet again the bogeyman from past fora as your reliable foils. Maybe the real difference here is that the people I call out actually have a chance to respond?" My foils? What the hell are you talking about? You are the only one I've called out in this thread and you are most certainly here! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 18:00:43 GMT -6
There is a stacked deck of religious rhetoric in this country. If you dare to criticize the religion even in a debate forum explicitly dedicated to the topic, you are outside the rules of decorum. Whatever. FB: Poor persecuted you. Just for grins, cite one solitary example of me declaring your criticism of religion to be outside of the rules of decorum. Hell, you might also try to find a single solitary post of mine defending the behavior of the pedophiles and enablers in the RCC. Good luck with that. "Right. Better to ignore the truth than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit." This quote from you is no attack upon religion! This is sanctimonious derision of the "sheep." You really seem to have lost your way here. Jim
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 19, 2014 18:54:18 GMT -6
I took FB's comment about criticizing religion being socially unacceptable to be related to what Steve said about the guy going on and on about prayer having cured his back pain.
It's not only acceptable but laudable to praise religion openly no matter where you are, but remark to the guy that you don't think religion had anything to do with curing the guy's back pain, and you're a monster.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 19, 2014 21:04:13 GMT -6
I am "sensitive" about attacks against the "sheep." I'm not sensitive in the sense that it hurts me personally, but I do want to defend the "sheep" and also point out that you (in my opinion) are being sanctimonious when you disparage those who "ignore the truth [rather] than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit." As if you had cornered truth... Sanctimonious pronouncements are offensive no matter whom they come from. That's about as simple as I can put it. Context means nothing whatsoever to you, does it? The sequence to which you refer is this: From the Jay report linked above: "At the time of the peak and subsequent decline in sexual abuse incidents by Catholic priests, there was a substantial increase in knowledge and understand- ing in American society about victimization and the harm of child sexual abuse; changes were made in stat- utes related to rape and sexual abuse of children and in reporting requirements of child abuse and neglect; an understanding of the causes of sexual offending advanced; and research related to the treatment of sexual abusers was expanded." This was a major factor, IMO, in people coming to think of the numbers as vastly greater among priests during those twenty years. Note that the report states that the vast majority of priests engaging in overt sexual behaviors did so with adults not children. Thus, I continue to maintain that it was WHO and WHERE rather than how rampant it was that made the impact so profound. I can't even attempt to explain how many of my relatives just did not and could not believe that priests could do such a thing. An aunt and uncle who died a few years ago never did believe it to be true, my cousin told me--simply another vicious attack upon the One, True Church and those avowed men of God, its priests. Right. Better to ignore the truth than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit. Dot presented a clear and unequivocal example of fact-rejection in which the authority of the church was accepted over and against overwhelming evidence of clerical malfeasance. You and I can have (and indeed, are having) an argument about the extent to which the crimes of an organization map to the membership, but what Dot presented to me in the above exchange was a couple of people who held to an alternative view of reality with eerie parallels to Holocaust denial. My comment, in context, was apt, and frankly didn't go much further than agreement with the obvious sarcasm in Dot's final line. I suppose you can infer that by "path to salvation" I was referring to their prayers, meditative practice, charity, etc, but I think it is more than obvious enough that I was referring to the RCC (and it's corruption) rather directly.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 19, 2014 21:17:34 GMT -6
I was limited to an iPad this morning, and my vision isn't what it used to be on the small type. I'm sure that will cover punctuation nicely. Feel free to point out the grammatical lapses, since I'm sure you weren't just taking a cheap shot. I don't think the iPad explains gibberish like this, " invoking yet again the bogeyman from past fora as your reliable foils. Maybe the real difference here is that the people I call out actually have a chance to respond?" My foils? What the hell are you talking about? You are the only one I've called out in this thread and you are most certainly here! Jim I'm talking about you making references in Belief Splat, today and on other occasions, to Doug and Rob as archetypes of intolerant religion, against whom you cast yourself as reasonable and moderate. 1. The sentence was grammatically perfect, although I meant to say bogeymen, not bogeyman. We are all familiar with the limits of spellcheck. 2. You just called me a liar vis-a-vis the iPod, an explanation which was entirely true. To be fair, I wasn't being honest either when I said I was sure that you weren't just taking a cheap shot, but then again, we both know damned well that you were.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 19, 2014 21:25:49 GMT -6
I took FB's comment about criticizing religion being socially unacceptable to be related to what Steve said about the guy going on and on about prayer having cured his back pain. It's not only acceptable but laudable to praise religion openly no matter where you are, but remark to the guy that you don't think religion had anything to do with curing the guy's back pain, and you're a monster. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 22:09:51 GMT -6
Well, frankly, the criticisms have somewhat smacked of "Obviously Superior US" vs. "Unthinking Sheep THEM." Of course that is how certain aspects of the FB's criticisms come across - FB tries but fails to conceal her contempt for the sheep. I am not sure why she goes to such lengths to deny this.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 22:11:56 GMT -6
I am "sensitive" about attacks against the "sheep." I'm not sensitive in the sense that it hurts me personally, but I do want to defend the "sheep" and also point out that you (in my opinion) are being sanctimonious when you disparage those who "ignore the truth [rather] than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit." As if you had cornered truth... Sanctimonious pronouncements are offensive no matter whom they come from. That's about as simple as I can put it. Context means nothing whatsoever to you, does it? The sequence to which you refer is this: Right. Better to ignore the truth than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit. Dot presented a clear and unequivocal example of fact-rejection in which the authority of the church was accepted over and against overwhelming evidence of clerical malfeasance. You and I can have (and indeed, are having) an argument about the extent to which the crimes of an organization map to the membership, but what Dot presented to me in the above exchange was a couple of people who held to an alternative view of reality with eerie parallels to Holocaust denial. My comment, in context, was apt, and frankly didn't go much further than agreement with the obvious sarcasm in Dot's final line. I suppose you can infer that by "path to salvation" I was referring to their prayers, meditative practice, charity, etc, but I think it is more than obvious enough that I was referring to the RCC (and it's corruption) rather directly. Context means everything. The aunt and uncle are uninformed folks deserving support and pity, not your sanctimonious scorn.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 22:14:32 GMT -6
I don't think the iPad explains gibberish like this, " invoking yet again the bogeyman from past fora as your reliable foils. Maybe the real difference here is that the people I call out actually have a chance to respond?" My foils? What the hell are you talking about? You are the only one I've called out in this thread and you are most certainly here! Jim I'm talking about you making references in Belief Splat, today and on other occasions, to Doug and Rob as archetypes of intolerant religion, against whom you cast yourself as reasonable and moderate. 1. The sentence was grammatically perfect, although I meant to say bogeymen, not bogeyman. We are all familiar with the limits of spellcheck. 2. You just called me a liar vis-a-vis the iPod, an explanation which was entirely true. To be fair, I wasn't being honest either when I said I was sure that you weren't just taking a cheap shot, but then again, we both know damned well that you were. I can't believe that you think a self-laudatory comparison is why I posted those links! It's pretty funny considering that you just played the "context" card. Read the post I replied to and the truth ought to come to you. Your "invoking yet again..." comment is gibberish in the sense that it has nothing to do with my cut-paste from Amart and you know it.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 22:23:45 GMT -6
I took FB's comment about criticizing religion being socially unacceptable to be related to what Steve said about the guy going on and on about prayer having cured his back pain. It's not only acceptable but laudable to praise religion openly no matter where you are, but remark to the guy that you don't think religion had anything to do with curing the guy's back pain, and you're a monster. Yep. My apologies on this one. Upon further review I believe that Dot's read is correct.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 20, 2014 3:49:48 GMT -6
One slight correction, FB: You read "obvious sarcasm" in my final line about my aunt and uncle where little was actually intended.
Holocaust deniers? Well, I suppose so. Nevertheless, I can understand the emotional motives they may have had as infirm elderly people wanting assurance that their suffering wasn't pointless and would result in an afterlife reward if patiently borne. Is a comforting illusion terribly harmful when it enables a person to deal more equably with cold, harsh reality and not burden caregivers with moaning self-pity? I think there's something to be said in favor of espousing such illusions if it means you yourself are less miserable and not trying to enlist others in feeling sorry for you. Maybe not much to be said for it, but something.
As Jim suggested, I spoke more from empathy and pity. With an element as well of chagrin that people too often are incapable of seeing past their own noses. We might consider that none of us is necessarily exempt from that, particularly when adamant that our own view is correct.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jun 20, 2014 4:10:09 GMT -6
Of course, the question remains as to how smart it is to continue contributing to the upkeep of what you're reasonably certain is a corrupt institution simply because it salves your emotional neediness.
Seems to me there's a point at which one must do as my cousin said she told her parents she was doing when evidence of a decades-long coverup became known: Having nothing more to do with an institution so evil it saw fit not only to shield child molestors from justice but belittled victims who mistakenly thought the RCC sought to practice what it preached.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 20, 2014 7:44:33 GMT -6
With an element as well of chagrin that people too often are incapable of seeing past their own noses. We might consider that none of us is necessarily exempt from that, particularly when adamant that our own view is correct. Point made! (With respect to myself of course.) Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 20, 2014 7:53:47 GMT -6
Of course, the question remains as to how smart it is to continue contributing to the upkeep of what you're reasonably certain is a corrupt institution simply because it salves your emotional neediness. Seems to me there's a point at which one must do as my cousin said she told her parents she was doing when evidence of a decades-long coverup became known: Having nothing more to do with an institution so evil it saw fit not only to shield child molestors from justice but belittled victims who mistakenly thought the RCC sought to practice what it preached. Hi Dot: I think your cousin did the right thing for her. But for many millions of Catholics, the Church is not simply a salve for emotional needs... No, the Church in the view of most Catholics is their connection to God whom they believe to be real, present and active. The Church is also their connection to human community and their avenue to charity. I say this hesitantly in this neck of the woods, with a hurried look over my shoulder. I know that I can not prove to anyone that God is real, present and active. I also doubt that I can defend the Church as one of the more efficient instruments of charity. I hope you get my point though. Jim
|
|