Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:From the top down though, the activists do speak for all of you.

No they don't -- especially for the purposes of speaking to politicians -- when most of us are voting in direct contradiction to what the guy in the collar or mitre is saying.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:I think the catholic priest was the one on the left, speaking for all 77.7 million of you.

You're not paying attention to what I'm posting. That's okay.

I do get what you're saying. from the bottom up, you get 77.7 million Catholics that are all individuals, they are not a unified force, nor could you ever convince them all to vote one way.

From the top down though, the activists do speak for all of you. that one priest did just that at the hearing. He wasn't there to represent his personal beliefs, he was speaking for the entire church.

nonsense. Only the Pope can begin to make that claim.

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:From the top down though, the activists do speak for all of you.

No they don't -- especially for the purposes of speaking to politicians -- when most of us are voting in direct contradiction to what the guy in the collar or mitre is saying.

They'll be seen by many as speaking for all of you. They don't, you're right, but that's how it is viewed.

Sort of like how some people will hold up Rick Warren or Jerry Falwell as speaking for all Christians, positively and negatively.

Which is exactly why I am posting here ...

Frazzled wrote:

nonsense. Only the Pope can begin to make that claim.

This kinda sucks for your argument then doesn't it Manchu? I mean since the Pope is already known to encourage such things and working so hard to keep women "in their place".

Yes you have your own beliefs, we all do, but its this kinda thing where they get the go ahead from literally the head of their religion that really messes with your defense.

And until we see those Catholics who are against this actually doing something, then.. *shrugs* idk what to tell you. They certainly aren't making their presence known.

Known to those who don't know, I think. Also, I'm not Frazzled.

Manchu wrote:Which is exactly why I am posting here ...

Of course, just adding context.

Honestly the Catholic situation, to be obtuse, reminds me a bit of the "Jews versus Judaism" argument.

Manchu wrote:Known to those who don't know, I think. Also, I'm not Frazzled.

This is true.

SaintTom wrote:I mean since the Pope is already known to encourage such things and working so hard to keep women "in their place".

Whut?

Since when?

Manchu wrote:Known to those who don't know, I think. Also, I'm not Frazzled.

I know, it just fit nicely.

dogma wrote:Honestly the Catholic situation, to be obtuse, reminds me a bit of the "Jews versus Judaism" argument.

Can you extrapolate?

dogma wrote:

SaintTom wrote:I mean since the Pope is already known to encourage such things and working so hard to keep women "in their place".

Whut?

Since when?

Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.

Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:the politicization of religion

This is an old and especially grave problem.

At the beginning of the calendar year, one of the priests at my parish gave a homily starting with: "This will be a divisive year and it'll be a sore temptation for us. You should know that when you look around here, you're looking at Democrats and you're looking at Republicans. And everyone you see is a Catholic."

If he said it every week it still wouldn't be enough! At another parish, years ago, there was a pro-life referendum on the ballot. In the homily the week before the polls opened, the priest at the parish I attended said: "Catholics are not a one issue people -- but, after all, there is no other issue that is more important." It's one of the most repulsive things I've ever heard in a homily. He had said gak like this before but that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me and I never went back. I should note that I didn't actually make a conscious decision not to go there anymore. It just kind of naturally happened. Funny enough, I started to see more and more faces familiar to me from that parish appearing at the new one.

My church often hold proo-life ballots(or petitions to get one) And my mom and friends are the only one who know im pro-choice. I remember a few weeks ago there where two petitions.
One for a pro-life initiative, another for an issue i support(something about helping the poor) and i wanted to sign it. But i was afraid to because i didn't want sign the pro-life and i didnt want to explain why.
Churches often are very decisive. Mine(even in the middle of Cali) will still say things like "May Lawmakers Continue to respect the sanctity of life" TBH i wouldn't go t church except my mom forces me. I prefer to believe in my one version of god and follow my own beliefs then squander gods gift of choice he gave me.

SaintTom wrote:
Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.

Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.

Ah, a documentary. No thanks, they're not only generally boring, they're almost always dramatized. You may as well tell me to watch Bowling for Columbine.

dogma wrote:

Manchu wrote:Which is exactly why I am posting here ...

Of course, just adding context.

Honestly the Catholic situation, to be obtuse, reminds me a bit of the "Jews versus Judaism" argument.

My guess is that some people consider themselves Jews even if they have no faith and don't attend services. Part of the lineage of thinking that Jews are a separate ethnicity or race, as opposed to just being a religion. I've known Catholics like this as well. They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.

Don't you know one guy saying good things about Catholicism is just one guy, but a guy doing something stupid or saying something bad represents all Catholics?

dogma wrote:

SaintTom wrote:
Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.

Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.

Ah, a documentary. No thanks, they're not only generally boring, they're almost always dramatized. You may as well tell me to watch Bowling for Columbine.

To each his own, but it's pretty sad when it's actually true.

Everything's politics.

Manchu wrote:

SaintTom wrote:Churches that are against this crap need to stand up and speak out

I agree. I just respect "standing up and speaking out" as something that you actually do non-confrontationally as a matter of your ordinary worldview and lifestyle more than being angry on the internet or getting together for a protest. The "standing up and speaking out" that makes a real difference, as far as I can tell, is the lived experience of shaking hands with someone who is different from you or has done things that you don't necessarily approve of at the sign of peace.

I've got to agree with that.

Being a confirmed C of E member who is pretty much lapsed, I have taken part also in Roman Catholic, Shinto, Buddhist and non-denominational services including weddings, funerals, and general worship.

The thing I've learned is that good people are good people whatever religion they follow, or none. It doesn't matter if you accept the individual creed. The services are basically about positivity, kindness, and connections with other humans. Supportive community, in other words.

dogma wrote:

SaintTom wrote:
Since forever? You know, wiping out old findings about female saints and keeping women out of the religion to where any bishop who does ordain a women automatically excommunicates themselves.

Pink Smoke over the Vatican. Seriously, go check it out.

Ah, a documentary. No thanks, they're not only generally boring, they're almost always dramatized. You may as well tell me to watch Bowling for Columbine.

Indeed. My conspiracy theory mate made me watch a Moon Landings one.. feth me..

I watched an Anti-Abortion one as well, on the ultra sound a 6 week old fetus was wearing a fez and reading a copy of Sports Illustrated.

Ahtman wrote:They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.

I also consider them Catholics because I don't think Catholicism is simply a label that you get to pin on your shirt for subscribing to a certain ideology. And somehow that's even the case with atheists who claim to be Catholics. It's a complicated thing and I don't have a good way to summarize it. On the other hand, it's just as silly to think of Catholic identity as transmitted genetically (you know what I mean, this kind of implicit ethnic pride deal) as it is to think you're Catholic because you're pro-life and homophobic.

Manchu wrote:

dogma wrote:Honestly the Catholic situation, to be obtuse, reminds me a bit of the "Jews versus Judaism" argument.

Can you extrapolate?

Sure.

There has long been a struggle in Judaism between protecting Jews, and maintaining the tenets of Judaism. This can be seen most explicitly in times of extreme persecution (Jews giving up Kosher habits under threat of Nazi persecution.) but can also be seen in the everyday behavior of Jews who identify with their faith (and quasi-ethnicity) but do not practice its tenets. This is, of course, true of all religious beliefs, but Judaism, like Catholicism (though for different reasons) has a much greater impact on its adherents and "hangers on" (can't think of a better term right now) due to the structural rigidity of both. However, as you know, religion isn't the only thing the influences people, so you get Jews and Catholics that aren't just Jews, or Catholics. This creates a struggle in the minds of individuals, which further causes problems in terms of the collective, especially highly structural collectives. As with any struggle we see people taking conservative and liberal (not political, most of the time) stances, with some emphasizing the person (the Jew or Catholic) and others emphasizing the tradition (Judaism or Catholicism).

Kilkrazy wrote:The thing I've learned is that good people are good people whatever religion they follow, or none. It doesn't matter if you accept the individual creed. The services are basically about positivity, kindness, and connections with other humans. Supportive community, in other words.

That's exactly it. This is why we talk so much about "communion."

Ahtman wrote:
My guess is that some people consider themselves Jews even if they have no faith and don't attend services. Part of the lineage of thinking that Jews are a separate ethnicity or race, as opposed to just being a religion. I've known Catholics like this as well. They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.

Don't you know one guy saying good things about Catholicism is just one guy, but a guy doing something stupid or saying something bad represents all Catholics?

This is a far less circuitous way of making the point I tried to make.

@dogma: Thanks for spinning it out. People's way of being these days doesn't coincide with the hierarchical rigidity that the bishops, or at least some of them, like to project. And there are a lot of Catholics who like that image in the abstract -- like "spiritual but not religious" people who want to get married in a church because they liked stained glass windows.

I still say watching "If These Walls COuld Talk"
Should be mandatory in HS, But its to bloody that even College students couldnt handle it.
But if you guys have the stomach for it you should watch it. Its stories about women and their experiances with abortion.

@dogma: I also think your dichotomy of "individual" against "tradition" is very helpful. My understanding is that tradition contextualizes the individual and individuals shape the tradition. I have trouble conceptualizing my religious beliefs in terms of policy because I don't think that they translate into policy themselves. I can't speak to a preference for either the tradition preserved by individuals or the individual expressing tradition.

I think Boogie Nights should be required viewing in HS, but it's to awesome to the point that even some college students can't handle it. If you have the awesomeness for it you should watch it. It is about Phillp Seymour Hoffman giving an amazing performance. Oh, and late 70's porn and women's experiences with it. What I am saying is that it is educational.

Here's my attempt to answer the who's Catholic question: There are these hymns that most parishes around the US have sung since Vatican II. Now imagine that you're getting trashed at a bar and its the end of the night. Someone starts humming one of those songs. You recognize it and start singing and then the other guys starts singing it as well. Then a few others chime in. None of us know all the words but everybody knows enough to help the others through the parts they're missing. Some of the people singing believe in God and some don't or do right at that moment for the first time in years or can't ever believe again. Some can't stand the thought of two guys kissing, some of them kiss other guys regularly. Some have had abortions, some think its murder, the categories overlap. But all the ones that are singing and trying to sing, those are the Catholics. The ones that don't join in out of spite -- maybe they're even Catholics, too. How's that?

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:They didn't go to service, broke every commandment gleefully, and had no faith, but considered themselves Catholic becuase their parents were.

I also consider them Catholics because I don't think Catholicism is simply a label that you get to pin on your shirt for subscribing to a certain ideology. And somehow that's even the case with atheists who claim to be Catholics. It's a complicated thing and I don't have a good way to summarize it. On the other hand, it's just as silly to think of Catholic identity as transmitted genetically (you know what I mean, this kind of implicit ethnic pride deal) as it is to think you're Catholic because you're pro-life and homophobic.

You know its funny you should mention atheists who claim to be Catholics. I am a atheist-catholic.

Here's a funny story, I am Catholic, I had all my communions, I get to eat the bread and drink the wine when that one person in the world gets me into the church. I have never been ex communicated, ergo I'm still catholic. That said, I don't believe a word that's in the bible, I don't see any reason to think some god is out there, ergo I get labeled an atheist. But on certain years when the moon is right, you can catch me doing exercises in the church

which makes bible arguments fun because I've actually read that book, both of em, and its funny how all of the pro life arguments from the bible come from the old testament, except 1 from the new. The whole pro life movement is taking the bible out of context. If i didn't have better things to do I'd make a sign with "Numbers 5:11-31" just to mock them without them realizing it pro life has about 10 out of context lines from the old testament, I have a whole page of god saying "Abortions are cool man"

Manchu wrote:@dogma: I also think your dichotomy of "individual" against "tradition" is very helpful. My understanding is that tradition contextualizes the individual and individuals shape the tradition. I have trouble conceptualizing my religious beliefs in terms of policy because I don't think that they translate into policy themselves. I can't speak to a preference for either the tradition preserved by individuals or the individual expressing tradition.

In my experience actual believers, or adherents, generally take the stance you're taking. Its more difficult for them, because they have an emotional investment, whereas I'm just an outsider looking in*. Its the sort of thing that just kind of develops on its own (as regards individuals vs. collective), and that isn't a bad thing by any means.







*Who sees cathedrals and thinks "This would be a bomb ass place for a rave!"

Ahtman wrote:I think Boogie Nights should be required viewing in HS, but it's to awesome to the point that even some college students can't handle it. If you have the awesomeness for it you should watch it. It is about Phillp Seymour Hoffman giving an amazing performance. Oh, and late 70's porn and women's experiences with it. What I am saying is that it is educational.

It would certainly lead to fewer former virgins regretting their first time.

Manchu wrote: But all the ones that are singing and trying to sing, those are the Catholics. The ones that don't join in out of spite -- maybe they're even Catholics, too. How's that?

I like it, it also sounds like a Church I would join, were I a theist.

I'm about to piss some people off here...but...

Words are wind (courtesy of GRRM), what you say or claim is meaningless if you don't live it.