Slashdot Mirror
Catholic Bishops Support Net Neutrality
An anonymous reader writes "This week, in their annual 'State of the Union' address, the President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference spoke on a number of issues, in particular a surprisingly strong statement in favor on Net Neutrality. 'As the Internet continues to grow in its influence and prominence in Americans' lives, we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies, as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas. True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society,' said Archbishop Timothy Dolan. It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!"
It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!
Crusade? Slashdotters were expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
For the most hypocritical church on earth they're surprisingly progressive with some matters. I don't think they're that keen on Intelligent design either.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
They're alluding to equality of access (for example, subsidy to get penetration into rural areas at rates at least comparable to dense urban, and hosting on non-discriminatory basis to ensure freedom of --- in their case religious --- speech), rather than what Slashdotters mean by net neutrality.
Honestly? It's not about WHO supports net neutrality, it's that its idea isn't hijacked, bastardized, and killed by politicians and lobbyists. Spread the information, defeat misinformation. I couldn't care less that a religious organization approves or agrees.
Now all those not in favour of net neutrality will finally be condemned to hell!!
I wonder if the bishops would speak out against regulation that would give priority to traffic to and from "religious and non-profit agencies".
I also wonder whether they regard atheïst websites as "religious and non-profit agencies".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Religious groups have long been in favor of Net Neutrality; they need to get their message out to the masses just like individuals. Many of them fear not being heard if censorship is allowed. In addition, many would not like paying exorbitant fees like the access fees that network providers want to to charge to carry their traffic.
It is the mass media and the corporate executives that want to drown out any voice but their own. They want to drive up the price of access to for their own greed and to avoid having to compete on a level playing field. How can anyone afford Netflix if Comcast forces their bandwidth costs to skyrocket. The same goes for VOIP services or any future idea that may compete with their monopoly (or duopoly as is the case.)
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Seriously, am I going to be the first to say it. The Catholic church has hidden masses of abuse in many countries (my experience from living 4+ years in Ireland, and a first hand account from a close friend). I am not saying it is prevalent across the board by any means, and I don't wish to take away from the many, many, many wonderful people within the Catholic faith that do so much good. But is there a link there or is it just me? Neutral, fair enough, but that may entail censorship issues too. Just sayin'.
On the 8th day God created teh Internet.
And He saw that it was good and fair, and neutral. And his minions supported it. Then twisted the original idea. Then wrote many books about it. Which were translated. And edited. And then it was not so good anymore. But nobody dared to admit that.
-- Call me an offtopic flaming troll - I just had to get this out of my system :-)
Check Thunderf00t's subscriber base.
Actually you don't, because what the "youtube atheist movement" doesn't understand is that religion is and always was mostly a social interaction thing than the interpretation of holy books, dogmas and so on. You may know more about the later, but the churchgoer knows way more about the practical and social aspects of religion, e.g.: how it feels to sing or pray with a whole church.
Also the history knowledge of the "youtube atheist movement" shows distinctive selective knowledge. E.g.: non-religious reasons for the crusades or about the killing of believers by atheists in the name of the reason during the french revolution.
Jan
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
It should read:
With friends like that, who needs enemas?
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Just because it is exposed on net, does not mean that people are goign to watch or even just look for it. And why should they if they are happy with their faith? And people unhappy with faith/who lost it/who never believed ... they never needed help of net.
On the other hand, church incredibly profits from social networking amongst young people. Net allows them to stay connected and to connect. Priests can have blogs, couples can meet on special dating sites. People can "like" bible verses and share photos from charity event on flickr, tweet "last mass was great"...
-- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
I'd say that official stances from an organization that has approximately 1/5th of the world's population as members certainly matters. Just because you are dismissive of the organization or disagree with their message them doesn't change that. Pretending otherwise is the exact same failed juvenile mentality that led America to ignore Communist China up until Nixon.
The difference in the Council of Bishops vs. some random person, is that Bishops are an established position of leadership and authority within the organization. You may not care of the random guy from the shopping mall has to say about an issue, but you might care more about what the general manager of the mall might say, and you certainly would care what the Board of Directors of Westfield Shopping Centers Inc. might say, because it reflects where the organization as a whole might be headed or might be directing their efforts.
Dismissively ignoring their statements simply because you don't like who they are and what you think they stand for is short-sided and naieve.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
First they came for Google, and I did not protest that Google was treated differently on the web, because I was not Google.
Then they came for the farmers, and I did not protest that farmers could not get the internet, because I was not a farmer.
Then they came for protest sites, and I did not protest because... welll I don't protest and who cares those trouble makers can no longer afford an online presence.
Then they came for me and even if there was anyone left to protest, there was no place left to do it. Like the newspapers, the radio and TV before, the internet had become corporate run, purely for profit and removed any usage of the voiceless to be heard.
The Internet is not just a gimmick anymore, it has become as essential for democracy, freedom and equality as education, food and medicine. We have strict regulation to ensure equal access to lifes essentials. I think it might be time to put access to free information on an equal basis as a basic human right. Better that then let the American ISP who are without principle ruin yet another media.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You may know more about certain aspects of Christianity, but I'd wager that you also subscribe to some urban myths or oversimplifications. Internet atheism is in many cases a circle-jerk that is at odds with serious scholarship. For example, so very often one encouters claims in internet atheist circles that Jesus never existed, that he's entirely fictional. Even atheist historians believe overwhelmingly that a historical personage did exist, even if myth has accreted around him. The claim that Christians copied Christmas from a pagan holiday pops up a lot too, even though recent research suggests a strong possibility that it was the other way around. All those comparisons between Jesus' death on the cross and e.g. the Egyptian gods were already answered by Justin Martyr 1800 years ago.
Furthermore, Internet atheists seem to be all rah-rah for the New Atheist demagogues like Dawkins and Hitchens, who dismiss Christianity out of hand, instead of philosophers of religion who have the necessary training and who take inquiry seriously. I have a lot of respect for atheist philosophers like Hume and Mackie who examined theistic arguments carefully and responded rigorously, but that kind of careful argumentation is ignored by the New Atheists and their acolytes because it's too much work.
I'd say that official stances from an organization that has approximately 1/5th of the world's population as members certainly matters.
At least over here in Europe, most "members" of the church are members for two reasons and two reasons alone: Marriage and funeral. The number of people actually active in any sense is maybe 10% of that. The influence of the church is massive, but overblown. Most of its presence in organisations and political structures (Europe is a lot less segregated in this than the US, with the church having official presence in many government groups, like the local equivalents of the FCC and the likes) is historical.
The church certainly matters. But its opinion on anything modern does not, because everyone with half a brain, even those who are on paper members of it, realizes they know nothing about these things that is worth listening to. That is from what I gather a very, very widespread opinion. My own is in fact less neutral, I actually think they are corrosive and their opinions and actions are dangerous.
You may not care of the random guy from the shopping mall has to say about an issue, but you might care more about what the general manager of the mall might say, and you certainly would care what the Board of Directors of Westfield Shopping Centers Inc. might say,
Actually, no. Unless it is on matters of shopping malls, of course. But being director of a shopping mall does not confer any authority on unrelated matters. When it comes to, say, high-energy physics, I will take the opinion of any unknown actualy physicist active in that field over the shopping mall director, the pope or the president any day.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
5) Profit?
America, Home of the Brave.
Fuck the elite. Fuck the lords, Fuck the Kings, Fuck the dictators
Are they all cute?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
You'll just be swapping one indoctrination for another.
;) ).
I doubt religion will die as long as humans are alive. If you believe animals (except for humans and their more recent ancestors) don't have religion, then clearly religion emerged in humans, outcompeted the default of "no religion" and has even thrived in the past thousands of years.
Yes there are a small minority of atheists, but most atheists don't appear to have much of an indoctrination, education and conversion plan (and so far such plans from atheists have been rather evil and negative in comparison to more benign religions). So how will the ratios increase?
Far more people while not being very religious, are not interested in getting rid of religion (they're more interested in music, TV, Farmville, money etc
And many seem to need to feel part of a Greater Thing. Whether it's religion or some "Greener than Thou movement", or a football team, or Star Trek. You take religion away from them, and something else will rush into the hole and look practically the same thing.
So why is it strange the catholic church is pro-technology ? Yes, they do find that technology must be moral, and even research must err on the side of morality (therefore - e.g. no killing embryos for research). The large majority of our technology was developed by catholic clergy. From the laws of physics to things like glasses (even now the catholic church is sponsoring Stephen Hawking - read his book once - and doubtless many others), and generally any and all technology we knew about before 1900. Especially in the medical field the catholic church is extremely well-represented. Without the catholic church, there would not be any universities, nor would we even have knowledge of the classical age in the first place.
The catholic church has been an institution of learning and knowledge during all of it's existence. During several time periods it has been the *only* such institution. It is not only the oldest organization that still exists, but is also the one of the very, very few organizations that have managed to avoid destroying all the knowledge they had available. (most "civilizations", from islam, to chinese, to mayas, incas have destroyed all their own knowledge, and they almost all did it to themselves)
If you read the letter, you will see that it is NOT about net Neutrality. It is about trying to get net access to all, basically, the poor.
This has NOTHING to do with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst providers. It has everything with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst consumers in ability to get to it. THat is all.
This is a BIG difference.
The odd thing is that the church could simply pay for the access for their poor parishioners. But, they do not want to do that. They want the GOV. to do that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Citation Needed.
IT technicians support transubstantiation.
I agree. They are are trying hard to refocus the argument from equality of suppliers to equality of consumers. Totally different issues.
Sadly, ppl read the words 'net neutrality', but disregard what is said.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
grooming and hiding activities if they cant run at normal speed
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
... The claim that Christians copied Christmas from a pagan holiday pops up a lot too, even though recent research suggests a strong possibility that it was the other way around.
[Citation needed] There simply exists so much useless studies that I can't take that for granted without reference. People really should disclose their faith in these arguments, someone might consider you as biased since you openly advertise being Christian in your webpage.
Atheism (or agnosticism) strictly does not have a problem being biased since it does not state anything, just that there is no proof. So please, again, where is your reference?
You have just shown you do not understand anything about god. It is a construct used to explain a lot of phenomenon, predominantly social and personal. It works a lot of times (and explains coincidences pretty nicely :)) and thats why it still exists, even in the greatest minds.
Just because you know more about christianity and its bluffs(?) does not make you an atheist. True atheism is a philosophy, and is very well studied and documented. In fact, it is an integral part of some oriental religions and Hinduism too.
Religion has nothing to with facts, it is belief. As much as people want to know, people will also want to believe. And thats why, religion is never going to die. Check for yourself what you believe, and how much of it is as irrational as religion. I bet you will be surprised.
http://monkeynesianeconomics.blogspot.com/
The Bible, both sides, actually has the most copies in the original ancient languages of any book from that era. It is actually the most widely copied book from the ancient world we have. The variations of the original versions are insignificant. Furthermore, the Old Testament in particular has been very well-preserved. The Jews did an unbelievably good job there. We have copies of Genesis that go back over 3,000 years that are the same as copies from 1AD and the middle ages.
Most people who say "the Bible has been changed" are speaking out of ignorance. The Catholic church relied on the Vulgate which is a trashy translation into Latin. Protestants used to rely on the King James version which was "slightly less bad" but based on the Vuglate IIRC. Modern evangelicals actually use the New International Version in most cases, which is a direct translation from the ancient texts into modern English done by scholars of those language (who were substantially better than those that worked for King James).
The Bible sitting on my shelf is about as accurate of a translation as you can get from what Paul and Luke actually wrote in Koine Greek and Aramaic.
Because the Internet dispelled a number of myths I had about "how bad the Church was..."
1) Did you know that the Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish government after the King blackmailed the Pope by threatening to withdraw Spanish troops from Rome if he didn't get his way?
2) Did you know that the first Crusade was actually a response to 500 years of unrelenting Islamic aggression Christian states?
3) Have you ever read the tenants of the "church" that Hitler proposed as a replacement for the authentic Catholic and Lutheran religions?
3b) Did you know that Hitler actually practiced a modern form of German paganism and in private openly hated Christianity with a passion?
4) Did you know that Galileo was actually invited as an honored guest by the Pope and was actually imprisoned only after he behaved like a total douchebag toward the Pope (where similar behavior would have warranted execution if directed at a medieval king)?
The catholic church has been an institution of learning and knowledge during all^H^H^H most of it's existence.
Fixedeth that for you,
yrs
Messrs. Martin Luther & Galileo Galilei
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Internet atheism is in many cases a circle-jerk that is at odds with serious scholarship.
That claim can also be levelled at just about anything on the Internet though, atheism is by no means unique in that. In almost every group there exist a greater or lesser number of people who just parrot whatever soundbites they happen to think sound the best without stopping to investigate their veracity.
that kind of careful argumentation is ignored by the New Atheists and their acolytes because it's too much work
Again, the only theists I've ever argued with do the equivalent, arguing based purely on faith with no reference to anything else.
That said I am not attempting to argue against your main assertion, that the majority of atheists who think they know Christianity in detail almost certainly do not.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
The Philocalian Calendar provides the first mention of both Christmas and Sol Invictus. As they are first attested at the same time, it's hard to say which influenced which. The Roman Empire in the 4th century had a fascinating competition between religions, with Christianity becoming popular in urban centres, Mithraism a fad in the army, and a handful of people even trying to "return to the sources" in pagan worship. An unqualified claim that religion X took custom Y from religion Z is an oversimplification of a complex and murky period.
Atheist philosophers, after they make a case for atheism, often draw conclusions for metaethics. Atheism does not stop at simply saying there's no proof.
current public reputation of the Catholic Church, I'm not sure their support helps the cause much. I could see it being spun by Idiocrats as two dark forces joining in their pro-pedophillia advocacy. Stupider arguments have been made.
I'd like to remove it completely rather than create a new kind
Why? Past religions have died. Try to find some believers in Zeus. No reason why current ones can't die as well.
Several:
1. Ensure church/state separation. Religion mustn't be mandatory.
2. Decouple religion and morality. Remove the association between "religion" and "good person". This seems to be making progress as of lately.
3. Improve science education
4. Offer alternatives for the social functions of religion.
I think the goal shouldn't be about indoctrination. It's not about forcing people to believe something else, it's about removing the point in bothering to believe in the first place.
Once religion isn't required, doesn't provide morality and doesn't explain anything it just gets reduced to something very vague and pointless.
They don't wan't their streaming pron throttled is the crux of the matter here
I am willing to bet that "the vast majority" of our technology has not been developed by clergy, and a lot of it (particularly ancient technology) not even in Europe. Have some Catholic clergy made contributions to science? Absolutely. The big bang theory was formulated by a clergyman, IIRC. However, it is easy to overstate their role in actually inventing things.
SSC
Actually the Christian missionaries destroied most of the Myan writings
In absolute terms, or compared to the Anonymous Coward?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
At least over here in Europe, most "members" of the church are members for two reasons and two reasons alone:
First of all, you cannot generalize about churches across Europe. The relationship between church and state in Europe is very diverse. France has strict separation of church and state, while Germany doesn't.
The church certainly matters. But its opinion on anything modern does not
As far as Germany is concerned, that is totally wrong. The churches are the biggest employers in the nation and they are the main health care providers. If you aren't a paying member of one of the two churches, you'll have a hard time getting a job in the care field. And if you're a patient, in many places, you can't avoid being subjected to the religious doctrine and policies of those churches.
The German churches also have a massive presence in both government and the media. The country is governed by two Christian parties and both the German chancellor and the German president have publicly stated that they want to use the state to spread Christianity in Germany. The two churches also billions in general funds, in addition to church taxes; they can start arbitrary businesses and are exempt from non-discrimination laws and union laws. And churches have successfully prevented gay marriage and abortion from becoming legal. Churches also are paid by the government to indoctrinate students religiously.
But its opinion on anything modern does not, because everyone with half a brain, even those who are on paper members of it, realizes they know nothing about these things that is worth listening to.
And, yet, every German, you included, pays a lot of money to these churches and gives up a lot of power to them. And it's getting worse, rather than better, with all major parties other than the former communists now accepting the status quo, despite a mandate by the German constitution to end the special treatment of the two Christian churches.
And that's pretty typical for Germany: the intellectual elite has no idea what's going on in politics or in the country.
If you believe animals (except for humans and their more recent ancestors) don't have religion, then clearly religion emerged in humans
Religion is quite complex, but they do have superstition. For example, if you feed pigeons at random times, then a pigeon that is walking in an anticlockwise circle when the food appears will do the same thing again the next time it is hungry, to try to make the food appear.
The ability to draw connections between unrelated events is not a uniquely human attribute.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"The claim that Christians copied Christmas from a pagan holiday pops up a lot too, even though recent research suggests a strong possibility that it was the other way around."
The other way around? How could that be, seeing that Mithras worship/celebration was help on Dec. 25 long before christians moved his birthday there, as well as the Saturnalia being celebrated at the end of the year for centuries before Christ.
The large majority of our technology was developed by catholic clergy.
Wow, that's a big fat [citation needed] right there...
Of course. As we all know an instution can never be right unless it is right on every position it takes.
I think the other side of this issue is that for a majority of history - up until the early 1900s - most intellectuals, scientists, and the like were trained religiously and probably considered themselves Christians.
The Church did more than just about ANY other institution in training people for rational thought and scientific endeavors.
For example, so very often one encouters claims in internet atheist circles that Jesus never existed, that he's entirely fictional
What contemporary sources can you cite that refer to Jesus? Even the Gospels were all written after he is supposed to have died. Tacitus refers to Christus as having been executed under Pontias Pilatus, but he was writing decades after the event, in a different country, and citing claims of early Christians.
There are a few passing references that may or may not all refer to the same person. Claiming that Jesus never existed is a bit of a stretch, but there is very little evidence outside of the Gospels for anything other than the fact that the Romans executed a political agitator on the even of the passover and his followers then made trouble in Rome. None of the other claims about Jesus' life appear until about 30 years after the execution, and all of these claims are made in Rome. It's entirely possible from the evidence that we have that the stories in the Gospels were fabricated by Jews in Rome for political purposes.
The claim that Christians copied Christmas from a pagan holiday pops up a lot too, even though recent research suggests a strong possibility that it was the other way around
The claim is usually that Christmas was copied from Saturnalia, which was practiced between the 17th of December to the 23rd, from 217BC onwards. Now, it's possible that Saturn is a real god who imbued his followers with prescient vision allowing them to copy a festival that was created several hundred years later, but it seems unlikely.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Of course they support this. How else are they going to get their streaming child porn if their ISP throttles their bandwidth?
we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all
Man, I hope that's a quote from his speech, because the grand sum total of the article on the Internet is:
As the Internet continues to grow in its influence and prominence in Americans’ lives, we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies, as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas. True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society.
Notice that legislation and federal regulations are nowhere in there. And there's an important distinction between whats written and what was said. We have a (mostly) neutral network. That's how it was built and how everyone assumes it works. That's part of what makes the Internet a Good Thing. Network neutrality regulation is the enforcement thereof. Because we can all see the horizon here, and with the consolidation of the big ISPs, and especially now with telcom companies buying media companies, we can all see that they'd want to break down NN just to make a buck.
But no-one wants regulation for regulation's sake. What we want is the networks to remain neutral.
The Philocalian Calendar provides the first mention of both Christmas and Sol Invictus. As they are first attested at the same time, it's hard to say which influenced which. The Roman Empire in the 4th century had a fascinating competition between religions, with Christianity becoming popular in urban centres, Mithraism a fad in the army, and a handful of people even trying to "return to the sources" in pagan worship. An unqualified claim that religion X took custom Y from religion Z is an oversimplification of a complex and murky period.
It's interesting to look at your claims. The celebrations of Christmas are claimed to take pieces of the pagan holiday of Yule not Sol Invictus. It is not an unqualified claim considering that the date of Christmas was changed to Dec 25 in order to coincide with the Pagan rituals (which is why some sects celebrate Christmas as being in the beginning of January, not December.) Then consider the traditions of Christmas. It is called "yuletide" and you have a "yule log" which are obvious references to the original pagan Holiday of Yule. The Christmas tree is another take away as what does a tree have to do with the birth of the savior? Most pagan customs were very Nature based and those who celebrated Yule were already accustomed to having a Tree or some other showing of Nature, incorporating it into the Christmas traditions was a simple way of trying to get people more comfortable with this new religion to try to convert them.
There are many other examples that can be found. The point is that the date and traditions were changed and chosen to coincide with existing Pagan traditions for an existing Pagan holiday that took place at the same time. Since people would already be celebrating, praying, and otherwise religious at that time, it was considered to be the best way to convert them. What better way to offer a new religion than to not force them to drastically change a yearly routine?
Glasses? 9th and 10th century China and Cordoba were not Catholic.
Furthermore, much of our technology pre-dates the Catholic Church and Christianity, looking down a timeline of historic inventions its hard to find anything before 1608 that could be contributed to anyone Catholic.
The Greeks formulated many of the early theories of Physics, and while much of that was lost to Western Europe, it made its way into Islamic schools and eventually made its way back to Western Europe.
It was not the Catholic Church that created Universities, it was Islam and the Greek Church, the Greek Church and Islam also saved the knowledge of the Classical Age, the diaspora from the fall of the Byzantine Empire spread that knowledge to Western and Central Europe.
Its completely wrong to say the Maya and Inca destroyed all their knowledge, because they along with the Aztecs had their civilizations destroyed by the Catholic Church through its proxy, the Spanish Conquest of America.
You are correct in that agnosticism states that there is no proof. However, Atheism as regularly displayed in religon is different from that - it is more often a statement that because there is no proof, there is no God, or perhaps more that a belief in God is wrong. Obviously, such a reasoning is erroneous, but it is often demonstrated by such strong atheists as Dawkins.
I am personally an agnostic and I find it intensly annoying when people prosthelytize, be their religon atheism or theism.
The Christmas tree is another take away as what does a tree have to do with the birth of the savior?
The fir tree had nothing to do with Christmas until St. Boniface, who used it to replace Thor's sacred tree (which was not a fir tree).
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Not exactly my area of expertise, but I was under the impression that Jews had record of his birth, and the Muslims had writings regarding the journey of the Three Wise Men. Neither group has the same beliefs as Christians regarding Jesus, of course, but I thought both recognized him in some way as a somewhat important person.
The case against Net Neutrality regulation http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why-net-neutrality-regulation-is-the-path-to-ending-net-neutrality/
If only they had done a better job, maybe we wouldn't have to deal with this "2012" crap.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Not exactly my area of expertise, but I was under the impression that Jews had record of his birth
The Talmud has records of his execution, not of his birth (and there don't appear to be any surviving Roman records of the census that the Gospels tell us were going on at the time).
Muslims had writings regarding the journey of the Three Wise Men
Seems unlikely, since Islam postdates Christianity by a few centuries.
Neither group has the same beliefs as Christians regarding Jesus, of course, but I thought both recognized him in some way as a somewhat important person.
The early Christians were Roman Jews. Belief in Jesus-the-Prophet did not enter mainstream Judaism until a few centuries later, when Roman propaganda had told the whole world that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Islam dates from the 7th century, and by that time Jesus was as much a myth as any of the earlier Jewish prophets.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Are we so stupid that we are going to start listening to those evil bastards just because they happen to say something with which we can agree? Spare me. Who gives a damn what they think, all their opinions are self-serving (and evil).
The ducks in the bathroom are not mine. [http://www.27bslash6.com]
My friend, you are very confused. Yule and the yule log were customs of Northern Europe ("Yule" is a Germanic word), which didn't even adopt Christianity until fairly late in the first millennium. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was already established in southern Europe by the time Christians encountered Yule.
You're right that in northern Europe, symbolism of Yule was appropriated in the celebration of Christmas, but I don't think that's much of a secret, and I don't think it poses much of a challenge to Christian theology.
While the philosophers of religion were scratching their navels and gazing into their butts about whether a person who died on the Moon would go to the same heaven or hell as someone on Earth, the scientists sent a man there - and brought him back.
That's like having more respect for C programmers who previously learned Visual Basic. It doesn't necessarily make them better or worse per se, but then who am I to judge - it was their time to waste however they chose.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The same that is said about lack of contemporary documentation for Jesus could be said about most figures from antiquity, but you don't see people boldly claiming Heraclitus or Xenophon never existed. Even Homeric studies nowadays are less "There was never a Homer" and more "There were multiple Homers".
What in the world are you talking about? All the ancient patriarchates are still there. They didn't go anywhere; they simply haven't been in communion with Rome since the Great Schism. In any event, it's important to note that universalism was never about claiming that God will save all (that is clearly anathema) as much as Christians may hope that God will save all.
You also don't see people devoting their lives to the idea that these people did exist. They are regarded as people about whom stories are told and these stories are probably based on one or more people. See also: King Arthur. There are a few people he might have been based on, but no one loudly proclaims that he existed so there are no loud counterclaims - he's just regarded as a figure of myth. If people started basing their lives around the idea that King Arthur was a real person, you'd get lots of very loud counterclaims.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Even sadder that this story suggests the Church is actually FOR net neutrality as we understand it today.
They are pontificating (sorry) about net ACCESS.
They have two sentences about the internet, one explicitly calling for "equal access to the internet" for everyone, and one explicitly calling for "true net neutrality" as essential for "a democratic society".
I think it is a mistake to assume that the second is merely a misphrased restatement of the first.
They totally miss the main points of net neutrality such as traffic shaping, throttling, or prioritizing your own traffic over competitive traffic.
I'm not sure how you can reach any conclusions about whether they get these details or not from the two sentences on internet issues in the broad "State of the Union" message.
But, if you look at previous messages that deal directly with the net neutrality issue from the Conference, you'll find direct statements of support for "net neutrality as we know it" going back several years, particularly the 2006 statement in which the Chairman of the Conference's Communication Committee calls for net neutrality requirements to be written into law (following the FCC deregulation of Internet access) because "Unless Congress requires telephone and cable companies to act as neutral providers of Internet access, as they had been required to do since the birth and through the spectacular growth of the Internet, those companies will use their control over internet access to speed up or down connections to Web sites to benefit themselves financially."
I am Catholic. When the Church speaks on scripture, it has authority. When it speaks of that which has nothing to do with the bible, as in net "neutrality" (really nothing more than Government control over private networks, there is nothing neutral about it) or "man made global warming" the Church has no authority whatsoever.
This is hopelessly confused as a statement of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the Church heirarchy is not certainly not limited to scripture (sola scriptura is common Protestant doctrine, opposed to the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church), instead, it extends to matters of faith and morals whether grounded in Scripture or Tradition or both.
Advocacy of "net neutrality" and "man made global warming" both lead to similar ends: the confiscation of private property directly (by taking it over) or indirectly (by telling you what you can't do with it via regulation), which I can argue violates one of the foudnations of Judeo Christian morality, the 10 Commandments, specifically "thou shalt not steal".
One can, of course, argue for anything, but to argue that any taking of private property for public use or restriction by public authority on the use of private property categorically contradicts Christian morals you must dissent from the teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals in the domain in which you are making the argument; particularly, you must dissent from the teachings on the moral aspects of private and public property articulated in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) which, recognizes the importance of private property rights but also states that they are constrained by the rights and obligations of public authority, and that "The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. [...] Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good."
If you read the letter, you will see that it is NOT about net Neutrality. It is about trying to get net access to all, basically, the poor.
Well, no.
If you read the letter, you'll see that there are two sentences about the internet.
The first focusses on access, the second on net neutrality.
The USCCB spoken more directly of its support for net neutrality outside of bullet points in broader addresses on public policy, as well.
I think that you may be misusing "myth" here. The recorded Gospel accounts are FAR too close to their actual events - and the oldest scraps we have may even date to almost the same age as the originals - that there wasn't much chance for a "mythology" to develop.
Say what you will about "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," but I always thought that this was the best point that was brought up in the book about both the OT and NT - that what we have on paper is closer in real time to the actual events than just about any other part of human history before the middle ages.
"Without the catholic church, there would not be any universities, nor would we even have knowledge of the classical age in the first place."
That's quite a grand claim. Perhaps it is also possible to claim that without beer, or the spade, there wouldn't be any universities either.
- A lot of knowledge and texts from the classical age were held in African and Asian countries by non-Christians while the there was little regard for 'heathen learning' after the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. What is your argument against the diffusion of classical knowledge outwith the European church run education system?
- A lot of institutions of higher education developed outside of Europe before the European universities started. A bit rich I would have thought to tell Indian, Chinese etc scholars that their learning and teaching methodologies don't count. Technically these places might not have been universities ("associations of students and teachers with collective legal rights usually guaranteed by charters issued by princes, prelates, or the towns in which they were located") but I'd be willing to guess some of them closely resembled this model.
- The University of Bologna began as a law school teaching the ius gentium or Roman law of peoples which was in demand across Europe for those defending the right of incipient nations against empire and church.
Notice that legislation and federal regulations are nowhere in there.
Its two sentences in an address laying out "principles and priorities that will guide the public policy efforts" of the US Catholic Conference in the year ahead. They aren't going to mention "legislation and federal regulation" in every sentence, but that's what the speech is about.
We have a (mostly) neutral network. That's how it was built and how everyone assumes it works.
Yes, that's the way it was built and worked for quite a long time -- under the FCC's old open access regulations -- its also what it has drifted away from since deregulation, which is what created the push for "open internet"/"net neutrality" laws and/or regulations.
And the USCCB has previously called for net neutrality rules to be incorporated directly in federal legislation. The incorporation of a reference to the issue in this speech is a statement that the issue remains a policy concern for the Conference.
They're alluding to equality of access (for example, subsidy to get penetration into rural areas at rates at least comparable to dense urban, and hosting on non-discriminatory basis to ensure freedom of --- in their case religious --- speech), rather than what Slashdotters mean by net neutrality.
Wrong.
The speech has two sentences about the internet. One is about equal access, which is one area where the conference has policy concerns.
One is about net neutrality, which is another area where the conference has policy concerns (which have been expressed more fully previously.)
"We need X. We need Y." does not mean "We need Y, and, when we say Y, we mean X."
You know, I used to think that official stances from the Catholic Church might mean something in the US. I would sometimes follow when Catholic bishops would get preachy on things like peace, or taking care of the poor, or the health care system, or something else I agreed with them on. Then I'd notice no effect.
It seems to me that the churches have darn little independent political influence. They get used to promote and legitimize opinions people already have, most often. That's a bad thing, too, because it reduces the already small chance that somebody might change their mind, and pushes the idea that people who disagree are not just wrong but evil. Overall, then, while I approve of religious figures pushing social welfare and net neutrality, I think religious authority hurts political discussion.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They are are trying hard to refocus the argument from equality of suppliers to equality of consumers.
No, they are addressing both issues, and sloppy slashdot readers are assuming that because they mention one issue (access) in one sentence, when they address the other issue (net neutrality) in the next sentence, its really just a reference to the first issue, and not a reference to what they say they are talking about, even though the Conference has -- in contexts where they weren't brief points in a broader policy address -- directly called for net neutrality (and stated why it is important for the Church as an institution) previously.
The recorded Gospel accounts are FAR too close to their actual events
The recorded Gospel accounts are not even close to each other! Aside from a few passages, they could almost be talking about three different people (one was written using another as a source, so there's some agreement between those two)! They frequently refer to large-scale events, such as the census, which you'd expect to find widely documented, but which aren't mentioned in any non-biblical sources at all.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Wow.
I don't mean to be mean, but I think that you're wrong on the logical end on several points.
Particularly about the "single competent apologetic."
First, if the Christian God is Who we believe He is, then we can't place our standards of good and evil upon what He does, because HE'S the one that gets to define it. That's the core problem that I see in most non-Christian critiques - it's the placement of human standards upon God and not the other way around.
Second, He WOULD be Holy and Perfect - and for Him to allow imperfection to exist without finding an answer for it would be creating a lie. The concept here is that evil cannot be "balanced" because it would still be there. It must be done away with.
It is not "evil" to judge someone for being even the slightest imperfect when you are completely and totally blameless and define perfection simply by BEING. Such an act would uphold the lie that imperfection is okay, when it isn't.
That is why eternal judgment is NOT evil - it is JUST because it is what is DESERVED.
Hence the need for the Cross and Atonement and "all that." The defeat of Evil requires a sacrifice that takes all that evil upon itself.
The above is more or less the central point of Christianity - that even the slightest bit of evil deserves punishment. Say what you will about the rest of the Bible and proofs of archaeology and the rest of the debate - but you are wrong here about the nature and character of God and Who we say He is.
I'm talking more as in close in time-span. It takes a LOT longer than a few years for "myth" to take place.
And I take the similarity/non-similarity arguments with a grain of salt. Usually those arguments ignore scholarly conservative takes on the text.
Love thy neighbour/friend/family
Love thy enemy
The ultimate neutrality. Treat everyone the same way.
Disclaimer: I personally go for the Golden Rule, i.e. Tit for Tat.
See, you're assuming some sort of Pagan monoculture that didn't exist. 99% of pagans throughout Europe had never heard of Yule. Sure, many non-christian cultures have celebrations around the end of December. It's near an astronomically significant event, and besides, there are only 365 days a year, it's inevitable that people casting around for holidays will fall near one that someone else somewhere has already decided to use as a holiday. But just because two events happen to fall near each other on the calendar doesn't mean that one was placed there to coincide with the other.
Your assertion about Yule being the source of Christmas doesn't even make sense on the surface... Yule was a tradition of mostly the pagans on the British isles, and a few of the Nordic lands (though with different practices and names). Christianity for it's first few hundred years was centered around Rome and Greece, whose non-christian religions didn't celebrate any holiday called Yule. It's pretty clear that Christmas was an established holiday within the church long before Norway and England ever rose to any sort of prominence within Christian culture. I've never met anyone Further, I've never actually met anyone who called late December "Yuletide" except for pagans, songwriters (who are constantly seeking synonyms to match rhyme and meter), and Halmark Card writers. Given that almost all of our "long standing Christmas traditions" aren't much more than 200 years old, it's hard to claim that the early church adapted them from the culture of a particular Germanic Pagan belief system that they encountered on the other side of the continent from where they were starting up. It's like saying that McDonalds stole the idea for making Big Macs from The Chinese when Sir Francis Drake defeated the Spanish Armada... After All, what better way to defeat the Spanish Navy than to give them all coronaries with massively fatty foods?
"It was not the Catholic Church that created Universities, it was Islam and the Greek Church"
That my dear friend is complete nonsense. Name one university in Europe that wasn't founded and built by the Catholic Church.
Compared to what I'm getting. And remember I'm on slashdot.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I agree that direct political influence is and probably should be weak, and that people grasp at whatever justification available to support their pre-existing opinions.
Religious authority can hurt political discussion, but organizational authority does have importance and influence regardless of source. It may not have merit but it cannot be simply ignored.
Hence my examples. I won't solicit the opinion of Westfield's CEO on net neutrality, but if he makes a statement about it, I would pay attention because that would indicate policy or actions the company may be guided into taking. That position and those actions may or may not align with what I would like, and if they've chose to act on them, I'd like to know what that means for my efforts.
I can't choose to ignore it when a major entity takes an interest in something important to me just because I think they're unqualified in that arena. Many people thought Bush Jr. was unqualified to be President, but he ended up there. If you dismissively ignored him or his core voter group, you made a big mistake.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
University of Constantinople, Preslav Literary School, Ohrid Literary School, Schola Medica Salernitana.
There are four, the first three were created by the Emperors of the Byzantine and Bulgarian Empires.
That's like having more respect for C programmers who previously learned Visual Basic. It doesn't necessarily make them better or worse per se, but then who am I to judge - it was their time to waste however they chose.
It's the other way around. Its like a functional programming advocate dismissing all imperative programming languages based on his experience with Visual Basic. Dawkins and Hitchens avoid going after hard targets and instead focus on easy ones. They should do it the other way around: If they got good arguments against the theology of someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, then you can just leave the easy targets as an excercise to the reader. Or: If you got good arguments against C++, dismissing Visual Basic is redundant.
Jan
University of Constantinople
"original institution was founded in the 5th century by the emperor Theodosius II."
(who was a Catholic Emperor, q.v. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Constantinople )
Preslav Literary School likewise, just read the wikipedia article. It was found by Simeon I in around 893. The split between the Orthodox and the Catholics is about 200 years later, so this could nominally be called a Catholic university at least in origin.
The Ohrid Literary school was founded at about the same time.
The Schola Medica Salertana was actually from a monastery in the 9th century, and most of the graduates such as Gilles de Corbeil were actually clergy (he himself was a canon).
Thus it seems even your examples all are directly related to the Catholic Church. The first three were founded more or less due to Christological disputes, the fourth more from the development of medicine in the dispensary of a monastery.
so much for "stuff that matters".
He did not include both sides of the issue
Science does not work that way.
But being an Emperor who is a Catholic who founded something does not make it a Catholic University.
The Apollo Program was started by a Catholic President, does that make it the Vatican's space program?
Close is relative. As I recall, they were written between thirty and a hundred or so years after, depending on the gospel in question. Thirty years sounds like a long time, but remember that this is in a time when few people lived to the age of 40 and when few people travelled more than a few miles from where they were born. Someone sitting in Rome writing a Gospel would be hearing tenth-hand accounts of the events. Even someone sitting in Jerusalem would be hearing fourth or fifth hand accounts of anything before the crucifixion (and people were crucified every few days, so even getting first-hand accounts would be difficult when you tried to get people to remember which crucifixion it was).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It was found by Simeon I in around 893. The split between the Orthodox and the Catholics is about 200 years later
The formal schism didn't happen until later, but by 900 the lines were already drawn, and Latin and Byzantine missionaries were directly competing against each other over spheres of influence (who gets to Christianize, and therefore control, the remaining pagan lands).
First, if the Christian God is Who we believe He is, then we can't place our standards of good and evil upon what He does, because HE'S the one that gets to define it.
Christians have for ages claimed that there is an "innate moral compass" in all human beings, provided courtesy of God, which is used to explain why e.g. heathen societies still have morality. The problem here is that eternal, neverending torment as punishment for sins goes against the gut sense - i.e. the "innate compass" - of most humans. So either the compass is not innate but learned, and our society has moved on sufficiently that it became incompatible with religion which lags behind (which is the position atheists usually take), or else the compass didn't come from God in the first place; but then, perhaps, gnostics are right, and the bearded guy with his very own torture chamber who says he's a God isn't a good guy?
If you believe animals (except for humans and their more recent ancestors) don't have religion, then clearly religion emerged in humans, outcompeted the default of "no religion" and has even thrived in the past thousands of years.
Since animals don't use cars, car-use gene must have outcompeted the default "no car" genes? Animals seem just as capable of having the prerequisites of religion - desires (like to live forever) and cognitive biases (like natural phenomena have intention). It's just that without the ability to pass on ideas they can't make a recognizable faith out of it.
most atheists don't appear to have much of an indoctrination, education and conversion plan ... So how will the ratios increase?
All you really have to do is make nonbelief socially acceptable, the rest just happens - look at Europe, or America's empty pews.
And many seem to need to feel part of a Greater Thing. Whether it's religion or some "Greener than Thou movement", or a football team, or Star Trek. You take religion away from them, and something else will rush into the hole and look practically the same thing.
People will always find various ways to be stupid, but having an organized majority of a society believe in a single type of stupid from a barbaric age just makes it more damaging. Call me when the Trekkies make "Spock Day" a federal holiday and start government censorship of books that are "too emotional".
Far more people while not being very religious, are not interested in getting rid of religion
That will do - religion can only exist if it's passed on, a few generations of apathy, and we've won.
I know tons more about Christianity than the average church goer thanks to the Youtube Atheist movement.
Then you really don't know much about Christianity at all, because that's a bit like getting all your info about America by reading Pravda.
As far as the Internet killing religion, I think you'd better look again. Like everyone else, churches are using the Internet to spread and grow. The net has been a real, forgive the expression, blessing to me, because it's given me more resources for theological study than any group of libraries could ever do. Yeah, "Youtube Atheists" can put their arguments online. But so can churches and universities and theological seminaries. Look at the endless amount of Bible translations and theology books that are available online. Want to compare modern English Bible translations to the earliest Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic copies? It's just a few clicks away.
Kill religion? On the contrary, the Internet will only help it grow.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
What do you mean, hard targets? Either you believe in an invisible man in the sky (for whom there is no evidence whatsoever) or you don't.
There can be no good arguments against theology it or for it, because it's all made up. Lit crit with an attitude.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Of course you do. Any given figure from antiquity has multiple scholars specializing in him, making assertions for this or that based on the biographical material that has come down to us. Jesus is no different than anyone else from the ancient world.
You misunderstand life expectancy statistics. If life expectancy was so low, it's mainly because many died in infancy. If you survived childhood, you had a good shot at living what even we in modern times would consider a full life. Multiple literary traditions in antiquity set a man's life to about 70 years, e.g. Psalm 90 "The days of our years are threescore years and ten."
The tradition of the self-examined life is often pointed to as the key to Western civilization. It is what has led us to make the achievements we have. It's thus sad to see that just because of whizbang technology, you're prepared to throw out a mighty heritage.
Science and technology can be great, but they are not a panacea. They do not solve ethical conundrums, or metaphysical questions that intrigue all (And before you make some amateur claim that Utilitarianism is the scientific approach to ethics, no two people entirely agree on a particular Utilitarianism). Philosophy is inescapable. It is an inherent part of human lives even after we've landed on the moon.
No doubt somebody (guess who?) will be along to explain:
1) that you don't have sufficient qualifications in theology to make that statement
2) that you're applying the physical concept of time where it doesn't apply
3) that the bible says time travel is possible (or at least it doesn't expressly forbid it, which amounts to the same thing).
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You don't hear anyone saying that we should take it on faith that they did exist, they still do exist, they have magic powers, and that they're up in the sky and talk to us inside our heads. Well, there is that guy who hangs around at the bus station - you know, the one who wears three coats.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You're deliberately twisting what I said. You get debates of this nature among historical scholars about any other figure. Jesus that has millions of people with absolutely no background in history, who have not investigated any of the primary sources of the era, basing their lives around things that he supposedly did. The closest equivalent for King Arthur would be LARPers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Euhm ... yes it does. Especially in physics.
Ideally :
Side A
Side B
Hypothesis : describe experiment. If sideA is right -> outcome A, if sideB is right -> outcome B
Experiment : setup, measurements, caveats, ...
Conclusion : sideA is right. Can someone please replicate my findings ?
No but the fact that he founded it as a catholic university as the head of the church (need to check if that is correct) kinda does. That university was basically started, like just about all others, and all older ones, by the pope.
Islam's attitude towards science can be trivially summarized : Here's what muslims believe allah said to the caliph. This has as much authority in islam as the ten commandments have in Christianity or Judaism. These are the "divinely inspired" words of the first caliph, about books and knowledge in general :
""they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."
You have to admit, it is not exactly lacking in clarity.
So why does islam have a reputation for being scientific ? Well, because Egypt was very scientific between 800-1100, and, to a much lesser extent, for Cordoba. There is of course, one tiny little detail : Egypt was at least 95% christian during that time, with separate government for muslims and christians.
Now make a wild guess which of the 2 governments was the only one with a science department ...
Same goes for Cordoba. The muslim government carried out genocides on the countryside, to eventually be stopped by the French, Christians still did science.
This is still going on today in Egypt, of course. Noone cares, of course. This is what muslims mean by "freedom of religion", because this is their religion, this is what they want to carry out.
Actually, I don't think that's been all that prolific a belief until the modern evangelical era. The "innate moral compass" idea more or less goes against the more Biblically sound "original sin."
"There is none righteous, not even one..." as the Bible says. I don't believe - and there are plenty of (particularly conservative) Christians who also believe that the Bible more supports the idea that man is NOT good WITHOUT the change that only God can bring. Calvinists call it "Total Depravity" - where we tend toward the more sinful side, and we are only held back by not wanting to be punished rather than a desire to do good and please God.
That's why the eternal punishment idea makes more sense.
As far as Germany is concerned, that is totally wrong. The churches are the biggest employers in the nation and they are the main health care providers.
That's one of the lies we are being fed. If you dig just a tiny bit deeper, you find out that most of the "church-run" institutions like kindergardens, hospitals and the like are actually paid for by the government. The church is the on-paper provider of the facilities, but the taxpayers are actually paying for 99% of the bills. In many places throughout Germany, the church does not even pay the clergy in these places, even they are paid by taxes.
The German churches also have a massive presence in both government and the media. [...]
True, that is what I mean by "overblown". Almost all of this influence is motivated politically, not religiously. Even the justification for the continuation of the scam is usually along the lines of "it is part of our culture". Even those pushing the religious agenda have realized that they would be the laughing stock of the nation if their justification would be religious (aka "because it is what god would want us to do").
And, yet, every German, you included, pays a lot of money to these churches and gives up a lot of power to them.
I know, and I use every opportunity I get to oppose and change that. But as I wrote: The motivation is largely power, not belief, so a lot of people have a lot to loose simply by admitting the truth.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That's one of the lies we are being fed. If you dig just a tiny bit deeper, you find out that most of the "church-run" institutions like kindergardens, hospitals and the like are actually paid for by the government. The church is the on-paper provider of the facilities, but the taxpayers are actually paying for 99% of the bills.
You are absolutely right that the tax payers pay for it, but that doesn't make them the employer. The church is the employer: they hire, they fire, they set the working conditions. And they are exempt from regular non-discrimination laws and unionization.
Almost all of this influence is motivated politically, not religiously.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. When Merkel and Wulff speak of "re-Christianiziation" of Germany and Europe, what do you think they mean?
Assuming that Christian government less harmful today than it was back then because people are so much smarter is a bad assumption. Anybody with half a brain has known for two millennia that Christian churches are preaching bullshit and are intrinsically corrupt, and it didn't prevent the Dark Ages and all the other evil things Christian governments did.
And you only have to look to nations like Iran to see that having a proud culture and an educated middle class don't protect you from theocracy.
The celebration of Christ birth was moved to Dec. 25 as an alternative to pagan celebrations. You know, give the kids some candy and an orange, have a pageant, sing some carols, tell a Bible story. Looks like it worked pretty good.
You are absolutely right that the tax payers pay for it, but that doesn't make them the employer. The church is the employer: they hire, they fire, they set the working conditions. And they are exempt from regular non-discrimination laws and unionization.
Indeed, and if it were any other institution, this would be a massive scandal with immediate and strong consequences.
I don't see the distinction you're trying to make. When Merkel and Wulff speak of "re-Christianiziation" of Germany and Europe, what do you think they mean?
They mean something along the lines of: "Please elect us again, we can't make a living outside of politics."
These guys are not only politicians, they're from the worst-ever pool of them. They'd convert to any other religion tomorrow if it would help them stay in power. If eating babies were suddenly the hot thing to do, they'd start right away and claim they'd been doing it for years already.
Unfortunately, these corrupt assholes will bring us something that is even worse than a theocracy - an unhealthy mix of religion, powermongering, bureaucracy and pseudo-democracy.
But all of that doesn't give the words of some bishops on a technical topic any importance. They're the same kind, except that they'd rather fuck than eat babies.
And you only have to look to nations like Iran to see that having a proud culture and an educated middle class don't protect you from theocracy.
Actually, the situation in Iran was a bit different, they were basically trying to get rid of a dictator that was oppressing them, and if some UFO cult had been there at the right time with the right words, Iran would be a large alien embassy today. Much like the Afghans turned to the Taliban because they offered to bring order into the chaos that the country was in after the failed russian invasion.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Euhm, no, it doesn't.
There is no "side A" and "side B" in science. There is "proposition A", and there is "something other than proposition A."
Your attempt at imposing religious dualism on the scientific process is straight out of the Discovery Institute playbook.
Unfortunately, these corrupt assholes will bring us something that is even worse than a theocracy - an unhealthy mix of religion, powermongering, bureaucracy and pseudo-democracy.
That is what a theocracy is.
Actually, the situation in Iran was a bit different, they were basically trying to get rid of a dictator that was oppressing them
And that is different from the German situation... how? Why do you think West Germany became dominated by Christian parties after WWII? After Hitler was kicked out, the Western allies were looking for a group that (1) had widespread credibility and acceptance in German society, (2) was not nationalist, and (3) was staunchly anti-Communist. And the church fit the bill perfectly and it got the job done. The problem is that once you let them in power, they don't want to let go.
The irony of course is that it was the votes of the Christian parties in the Weimar Republic that gave Hitler total power in the first place. Their motivation? Anti-communist hysteria, a fundamental distrust of democratic institutions, a belief in totalitarian structures, and guarantees of government funding and access to education (that have lasted to this day). Of course, they didn't want millions to die in the process, but they knew that the Nazis were dangerous criminals and still preferred them over democracy.
And that's the risk today as well: German intellectuals (like you) don't take the churches and their parties seriously enough, and falsely assume that Germany is basically a liberal country. And when push comes to shove, those "Christian" politicians will vote against democracy and human rights, for tighter connections between government and corporations, and for more and more totalitarian structures. And that's exactly what you see the CDU/CSU do already.
And what you see today is with Germany's economy humming along spectacularly. Imagine what those parties will do once the German demographic time bomb hits, Americans can't buy German products anymore, and the German economy and system of benefits collapses?
That is what a theocracy is.
I disagree. A theocracy actually takes its religion seriously, both on the government and on the people level. Christianity is an alibi religion for most people over here, and I as a militant atheist know a lot more about it than almost everyone who considers himself a christian. It's just something you happen to be, not something you really care about. There's maybe 10% who really care, but if you were to go down the road of a real theocracy, say modelling the legal system after what the bible says, you'd be in for a surprise.
And that is different from the German situation... how? Why do you think West Germany became dominated by Christian parties after WWII?
It didn't. Also, drop the plural, there really is one christian party. The CDU and CSU are the same, the CSU is simply a local branch of the CDU and keeping them as two seperate parties is for purely power reasons (it gives advantages).
The actual christian parties, such as the Zentrum were important prior to WW2, in the Weimar Republic, but by the time post-WW2 West Germany had its first election, they were already down to single-digit percentages of the vote, and after that they went into obscurity. I think they're still around, with zero-dot-something percent of the votes.
However, there was church influence for a decade or two after WW2 that was independent of the political party you belonged to. We know today that you couldn't get a major political position without the church's approval during that time. So yes, you are right in that regard. Don't forget that the church got something for its troubles - the acceptance of all those contracts that give them their special position today.
And that's the risk today as well: German intellectuals (like you) don't take the churches and their parties seriously enough, and falsely assume that Germany is basically a liberal country.
This is where you are mistaken. The church is the single greatest threat to all modern values, from freedom to education, knowledge, enlightenment if you will down to pure survival (because it is, at its core, a death cult).
However, you can't fight it by taking it seriously. Religions thrive on opposition. It makes them stronger. Ridicule and laughter are the most potent weapons against religion, and exposure of their lies and showing their true face is the most potent weapon against the church. Every time another child-abusing priest makes headlines, the church loses trust and influence, way more than any rational debate, even on national TV, could ever accomplish.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There's maybe 10% who really care, but if you were to go down the road of a real theocracy, say modelling the legal system after what the bible says, you'd be in for a surprise.
You are implying that Christianity in German government isn't so serious because it's not "real", unlike what you imagine theocracies used to be like. But since no government has ever received direct communications from God, necessarily all theocracies have been based on lies and corruption, from the Israelites to the Christian parties today. And people were no more stupid then than they are today: plenty of people understood that the Catholic church was a fraud even when it ran Europe, they just didn't speak up because they'd get killed.
And the German legal system is influenced by what churches currently say God wants, including restrictions on biomedical research, gay marriage, abortion, and many other areas. Your supposedly oh-so-liberal Germany is one of the more conservative Wester nations because of church influence.
It didn't. Also, drop the plural, there really is one christian party. The CDU and CSU are the same, the CSU is simply a local branch of the CDU and keeping them as two seperate parties is for purely power reasons (it gives advantages).
It's just a fact that the CDU and CSU are officially two different parties. "Dropping the plural" as you suggest is wrong. Please learn something about your own political system before you criticize others.
The actual christian parties, such as the Zentrum were important prior to WW2,
Here too you're trying to redefine terms to fit your bizarre world view. Fact is that the CDU and CSU are actual Christian parties, with Christianity spelled out in their party program, with their leaders promoting Christianity, re-Christianization, and government support for Christian organizations.
Christianity is an alibi religion for most people over here, and I as a militant atheist know a lot more about it than almost everyone who considers himself a christian. ... Ridicule and laughter are the most potent weapons against religion
You're no more likely to succeed at fixing Germany's faulty separation of church and state by preaching atheism than the Catholic church is going to fix it by preaching Catholicism.
The correct approach is not to ridicule churches, it is to convince everybody that it is in their own best interest to separate church and state.
Now if they would just go into the PC repair business. They could lay on hands to heal broken technology. I hear Dogbert may be willing to loan them his sceptre so that they could drive out the demons of stupidity. Of course that may result in the occasional bishop being beat to death, but I'm willing to risk it.
Changing the world... one research project at a time.
And the German legal system is influenced by what churches currently say God wants, including restrictions on biomedical research, gay marriage, abortion, and many other areas. Your supposedly oh-so-liberal Germany is one of the more conservative Wester nations because of church influence.
I must have missed a lot of memos. Stem cell research is a lot more open here than in the US, gay marriage is not yet there but again Germany is with the majority in Europe here. Abortion isn't a problem at all, I've never once heard about someone who wanted an abortion and couldn't get it.
No, Germany is not a top-dog liberal country, but we (the people who don't live in the middle ages anymore) have had quite a bit of success over the past decades.
It's just a fact that the CDU and CSU are officially two different parties. "Dropping the plural" as you suggest is wrong. Please learn something about your own political system before you criticize others.
Even within Germany, they are regularily referred to as one entity: "CDU/CSU" - and for good reasons. Yes, legally they are two seperate entities. As I said, this gives them a couple of advantages. In reality, they're not, and are quite correctly treated as one entity that's a bit strange, not two entities by political commentators, journalists, and common people.
Here too you're trying to redefine terms to fit your bizarre world view. Fact is that the CDU and CSU are actual Christian parties, with Christianity spelled out in their party program, with their leaders promoting Christianity, re-Christianization, and government support for Christian organizations.
All that is true. However, at the same time a good share of the CDU/CSU doesn't really care all that much. The leader of their coalition partner is openly gay. Don't tell me that political and power aspects didn't trump religious fanatism on that decision. Yes, they carry the religion in their name. My argument has never been that they're not religious. My argument is that they use religion largely as a banner, and only in so far as it doesn't cost them too many votes.
The correct approach is not to ridicule churches, it is to convince everybody that it is in their own best interest to separate church and state.
Which is a fools errand, because it isn't. It is definitely not in the best interest of the church, and those who profit from the church and its influence. Convincing regular people that this is important won't do squat because people don't vote on topics, they vote on parties in our fucked-up Partyocracy.
I seriously do believe that ridicule is the best way towards seperation of church and state. Only when christianity is something you're ashamed of admitting you belong to will the influence and political promotion of it cease. When being a christian is (correctly) identified with being insane, politicials will stop to use it as a banner, because it costs them more votes than it brings.
And you don't get there by rational debate, because quite honestly, there is nothing to debate. There is not one rational argument for religion or not seperating church and state. You're trying to win an argument that doesn't exist. Convincing people in this case means emotional and sub-conscious convincing. Good luck with that. People who have been religiously abused their whole life, from their baby days, can't be convinced without something that equals brainwashing.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
My argument is that they use religion largely as a banner, and only in so far as it doesn't cost them too many votes. ... However, at the same time a good share of the CDU/CSU doesn't really care all that much. Don't tell me that political and power aspects didn't trump religious fanatism on that decision.
Your interpretation of their behavior is wrong (and you aren't even consistent about it). It's not the case that these parties are Christian in name but liberal at heart; rather, they are Christian at heart, but pretend to be more liberal than they are in order to be acceptable to a wider range of voters.
And apparently they are able to fool you and many others. Until a couple of decades ago, all parties other than the CDU/CSU had stronger separation of church and state in their programs (after all, it's mandated by the German constitution); now only the communists object to the status quo. The CDU/CSU have been very active and vocal in promoting Christianity at the EU level. They even invited the pope to speak in front of German parliament, and I don't see a groundswell of protest.
I must have missed a lot of memos.
Yes, we already have established that you're living in a German media and educational bubble. Here is one of the many memos you obviously missed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/20/genetics.europeanunion
The fact that, so far, liberal elements have been able to keep the Christian parties somewhat in check doesn't change what those parties are trying to achieve.
they vote on parties in our fucked-up Partyocracy.
Well, so we agree then: Germany just doesn't function well as a democratic society. Once you admit that, what you do about Christianity is really like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. And there is no shortage of other ridiculous and irrational philosophies to replace it, many of them already tried in Germany.
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of democracies and it needs to be implemented in Germany. Ridiculing Christianity out of existence is at best treating one symptom, it isn't fixing the real problem.
It's not the case that these parties are Christian in name but liberal at heart;
I never claimed they are liberal at heart. They are the conservatives, the right-wing party. Their is a strong overlap between so-called christian values and conservative values, mostly because christianity is a backwards-oriented, conservative religion.
Until a couple of decades ago, all parties other than the CDU/CSU had stronger separation of church and state in their programs (after all, it's mandated by the German constitution);
Actually, it isn't. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, but no constitutional seperation. If we had, it would be trivial to get rid of all the special laws that give the church so many benefits.
The CDU/CSU have been very active and vocal in promoting Christianity at the EU level. They even invited the pope to speak in front of German parliament, and I don't see a groundswell of protest.
That is true. And the day the pope spoke was one of those days were I was deeply ashamed of our so-called representatives. Only one of them walked out. Well, at least now I can clearly say that none of those guys who remained seated should make any claims whatsoever of representing me.
Yes, we already have established that you're living in a German media and educational bubble.
No, you have come to that belief. Simply because I'm not a fanatic who attributes every fuckup to religion, even though I'm militant in my atheism doesn't mean I've been brainwashed into compliance. We live in a complicated world and, as the saying goes, to every complicated problem there is usually a solution that is simple, straightforward and false.
Well, so we agree then: Germany just doesn't function well as a democratic society.
We absolutely do agree on that, yes.
Once you admit that, what you do about Christianity is really like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Not at all. Democracy has been around in Germany for (depending on who you ask, or what date you take) 65, 90 or 160 years. Christianity has been around a lot longer. If you want to get rid of the dangerous parasite of religion, attacking the current political system is the ridiculous approach. Do you really think the church will bow to political pressure? We're talking of an international organisation that believes it has the rights to meddle in national and international politics whether asked to or not, at times openly claims to be superior to national governments, and - to its credit - has been around a whole lot longer than any of them.
Putting a leash on the church via politics? Got any better jokes?
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of democracies and it needs to be implemented in Germany. Ridiculing Christianity out of existence is at best treating one symptom, it isn't fixing the real problem.
This is where we will have to agree to disagree. The seperation of church and state is at best a hurdle that the church has much experience working around. Does it really work all that well in the US? How many of US presidents have not sworn on the bible? Where are all the legal gay marriages and abortions? Sure, the church has some legal priviledges in Germany. But that is merely the means by which it excerts its influence on society. Where it doesn't have those means, it uses others.
But putting the religion out of existence - whether by ridicule or some other means - would cure the disease. Because it is religion influencing politics that is the symptom, and religion itself that is the disease. It simply makes no sense of speaking about these two in the other order. How could religion be a symptom of a missing seperation between church and state? That's ridiculous, and obviously false to facts, because if it were true we would have a str
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Actually, it isn't. We have freedom of religion in the constitution, but no constitutional seperation
I didn't say Germany had total constitutional separation. I said that Germany has failed even to implement its own limited constitutionally mandated provisions. All major German parties are actively and deliberately flaunting the German constitution.
Do you really think the church will bow to political pressure
Most other western nations have been able to separate church and state far more effectively, against a much more powerful church. The fact that Germany isn't able to rid itself of its anachronistic system isn't because the church is unusually powerful in Germany, it's because Germany's democracy is unusually weak.
How could religion be a symptom of a missing seperation between church and state?
Wow, you really work hard at misinterpreting things, don't you?
I said that the status of religion in Germany is a symptom of deep-seated problems of German democracy. Those problems go far beyond issues of separation of church and state. You're not going to fix those problems by getting rid of religion.
I didn't say Germany had total constitutional separation. I said that Germany has failed even to implement its own limited constitutionally mandated provisions. All major German parties are actively and deliberately flaunting the German constitution.
True. I'm a big proponent of the "three strikes you're out" version for politicians - if they support three/five/whatever-the-number unconstitutional laws, they lose their position. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the proposal to implement this as law was rejected not after, but from debate - it was never even discussed. Self-serving assholes.
Most other western nations have been able to separate church and state far more effectively, against a much more powerful church.
On paper. That is my point. Sure they have the laws. But how much does it really do? Just take the example I already mentioned - the US has a very strong seperation in its constitution, but I don't see the religious influence being any less, on the contrary.
I said that the status of religion in Germany is a symptom of deep-seated problems of German democracy. Those problems go far beyond issues of separation of church and state. You're not going to fix those problems by getting rid of religion.
Ah. Got you now. No, I won't, mostly because it isn't my goal. I'm a paying member of the Pirate Party because that's the closest we currently have to make a better political system without a bloody revolution, but aside from that politics is something I stay away from today. It's not something an honest man would want to be associated with. My focus is on religion, which is a lot longer-lasting and more damaging than the current political system which is mostly busy unravelling itself.
Yes, if you want to fix politics, religion is a bad place to start. But if you want to fix religion, politics is a bad place to start, either.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
On paper. That is my point. Sure they have the laws. But how much does it really do? Just take the example I already mentioned - the US has a very strong seperation in its constitution, but I don't see the religious influence being any less, on the contrary.
It's separation of church and state, not separation of religion and state. Churches and religion are two very different concepts.
The state in the US does not favor, promote, or support churches. Generally, people happen to be more religious and politicians love to talk about Christianity, but that's their private affair.
In contrast, the German government strongly favors, supports, and promotes two churches (Catholics and Lutherans); they get vast sums of public funding, control of parts of the educational system, control of a large part of the health care system, automatic access to political decision making, and significant influence on the media.
Furthermore, Germany has a long tradition of purging those who don't belong to one of the two state churches. For example, the 19th century, a lot of people had to flee to the US to escape religious persecution in Germany. And Hitler tried to get the Jews to leave (and then just gassed them when that didn't work). Today, Merkel tells people who don't conform to the official religious dogma that they don't belong in Germany.
So, Germany has less religious influence on government, but it has a lot more church influence in government. That's no contradiction: German churches just happen to be not very Christian or religious. That doesn't make them any less dangerous: lack of church/state separation is a problem because churches are powerful, undemocratic and unaccountable organizations, not because religion happens to be irrational.
It's separation of church and state, not separation of religion and state. Churches and religion are two very different concepts.
True, but incomplete. Christianity is a religion that is strongly linked to churches, unlike, say, Hinduism which has a more private concept of religion. As such, while you are technically correct that they are different entities, they are not independent from each other and discussing one without discussing the other is leaving out a big part of the whole. It's like discussing politics without discussing the government, or vice versa.
In contrast, the German government strongly favors, supports, and promotes two churches (Catholics and Lutherans); they get vast sums of public funding, control of parts of the educational system, control of a large part of the health care system, automatic access to political decision making, and significant influence on the media.
Correct, but incomplete. That same influence is there in many other countries with a stronger seperation. It is, however, less public and official.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that a stronger seperation would be better. But I don't think the letter of the law is the source of the problem, I think it is a symptom. The problem is that religion has way too much influence on our society despite having been debunked. Seperation or no is one of the symptoms of this underlying problem.
I think we don't really disagree all that much, except on our respective interpretations of what the source problem and what the symptoms of the problem are.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
But if you want to fix religion, politics is a bad place to start, either.
You're not going to get fix religion. The French tried, the Russians tried, and others tried too, and they all failed. Most people need some simple way of making sense of the world--it doesn't have to be right.
Yes, if you want to fix politics, religion is a bad place to start.
Religion by itself is just one of many irrational beliefs that people hold. Irrational beliefs only become dangerous when they are imposed on others, and it's that imposition that needs to be stopped.
As such, while you are technically correct that they are different entities, they are not independent from each other and discussing one without discussing the other is leaving out a big part of the whole. It's like discussing politics without discussing the government, or vice versa.
I'm not "leaving them out", I'm just making a clear distinction: churches are organizations, religions are sets of beliefs. Separation of church and state means a legal separation of the organizations from the state, nothing more nothing less. It does not mean government imposed regulation of people's beliefs, which would contradict democratic principles.
That same influence is there in many other countries with a stronger seperation. It is, however, less public and official.
That is what separation of church and state means: the state does not give churches the authority or resources to mess with education, health care, and politics. They can influence those things only by convincing people one-by-one to follow their teachings.
When church and state are separate, once people stop believing, churches automatically stop having influence. In Germany, most people have stopped believing, but churches still wield enormous influence because that influence is legally guaranteed to them and because Germans have an inclination to deferring to perceived authority.
But I don't think the letter of the law is the source of the problem, I think it is a symptom.
If that were the case, then churches (=the organizations) should have less political power in Germany than in the US, Germans being far less religious than Americans. But the opposite is the case. While religion is a powerful political force in the US, churches as organizations are not (if not for any other reason than that there are so many of them).
The problem is that religion has way too much influence on our society despite having been debunked.
I'd say that religion has little influence on German society: what German churches preach publicly has little to do with Christianity. When you confront German Christian politicians or church leaders with the many objectionable and offensive aspects Christian dogma and theology, for the most part, they weasel out and say that that's not really what their church is teaching. That's why trying to attack the problem by exposing religion as a fraud is not going to work: most Germans already reject Christian dogma and theology.
Debunking and exposing Christianity for the fraud that it is is a viable strategy in the US for reducing the influence on religion on the state because churches only have influence to the degree that they have actual believers. But Germany's problem is the connection between church and state, and that connection today is mostly based on power and money, not religious belief.
That is what separation of church and state means: the state does not give churches the authority or resources to mess with education, health care, and politics. They can influence those things only by convincing people one-by-one to follow their teachings.
Oh, please. That's a naive view. Do you really think that the entire lobbying industry has remained magically invisible to the church? That an organisation with this amount of resources, an unbending desire to control everything, and almost two millenia of experience in doing so, is in the least disturbed by a bit of fancy legalese? You are massively underestimating the enemy, my friend.
In Germany, most people have stopped believing,
But they are still giving the church power and money. If most people had stopped already, how could it be that the number of people leaving the church has risen to an all-time high, again? Numbers of exits have increased by 80 % after one of the recent scandals. There is a lot of people who are still backing the church. The importance of religion has dramatically fallen, but for many people not below the threshold. Plus as I said many postings ago: Many are hedging their bets because they want a church wedding and funeral.
If that were the case, then churches (=the organizations) should have less political power in Germany than in the US, Germans being far less religious than Americans. But the opposite is the case. While religion is a powerful political force in the US, churches as organizations are not (if not for any other reason than that there are so many of them).
You can not make the direct comparison on only one data point. The churches have a more direct influence in Germany than in the US. However, Germans are less religious than Americans. These are two counter-acting forces, and at least in part they balance each other out. It is not false to say that churches have more influence in Germany, while religion has more influence in the US. It is false to see these two as being two entirely seperate entities.
The driving force behind both is religious powermongering. And it will take whatever form is best for the given environment. In Germany, that is institutional, in the US it is propaganda, brainwashing, lobbyism, whatever you want to call it.
most Germans already reject Christian dogma and theology.
I wish that were true. Germany has been the hotbed of the 30 year war, and most regions of Germany have been both catholic and protestant at least for a short time each. Which is why you may see one trait very prominently in Germany that has become typical for christianity in general: The "pick and choose" method. Whatever you like about the bible is what you quote and claim as literal truth directly from the creators mouth in person, and whatever you don't like or doesn't fit the current social climate needs to be taken figuratively, allegorically or is simply ignored (or, alternatively, claimed to have been "overridden" by the new testament).
That's typical christian weaseling. I'm pretty sure there's not one word in the bible that every christian agrees about whether it's really serious or not quite so much.
because churches only have influence to the degree that they have actual believers.
It's not that simple. In both Germany and the US there are a lot of people who are christians mostly at christmas and some other dates, or who go to church as a habit, or out of social commitment. True believers are a small part, even in the US, of the number of people who support the church/religion power in one way or the other.
Religion is about faith and belief only for the lambs, never for the butcher. The heads of major religions actually believing the stuff they preach? I'm with Frazer on that, it's probably been 20,000 years since that's been the case.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
In Germany, churches have rights and resources that are guaranteed by the state and that are independent of their membership numbers.
On paper, yes. If you really think that your reductio ad absurdum scenario could come true, I can't help. Of course those rights and privileges exist, yes. But they need a base to stand upon, as they are constantly being questioned and attacked. Without popular support, the church could not maintain them.
In Germany, in contrast, many people give both money and political support (through membership numbers) to churches even though they are not actually active participants; that's because the lack of separation of church and state in Germany has, among other things, as a consequence that it's both easy and considered a social norm in Germany to stay a member of a church even if you don't really believe; many people erroneously think that their church taxes are actually used by German churches to help people (they are not; they are mostly spent on administration, buildings, publicity, and proselytizing).
Agreed, but again too simple. Many people intentionally stay in the church because of marriage and funeral. I've already pointed that out twice before, please
You, in fact, acknowledge that fact: these people call themselves "Christian", but they don't actually agree with Christian theology and dogma, they "pick and choose". And why do they do that? Because most modern, educated people realize that actual Christian theology and dogma are bullshit and don't make any sense.
We're not talking about people with brains, we are talking about religious people. Even the most religious, fanatic biblethumber uses a pick and choose approach to his bible. It's not a sign of having abandoned the faith.
And that is why your notion that you simply have to convince people that Christianity is irrational and wrong won't work:
Please follow your own advise and don't read things I didn't write. In fact, I've already said plainly that "convincing" as in rational demonstration, proving it wrong, etc. is not the way. Religious faith is above falsification.
And, more importantly, churches in Germany have managed to implant the idea in people's heads that they are a strong force for social justice, support for the disadvantaged, and morality and that you should support them even if you don't believe their theology. That is the idea you need to dispell.
Oh, I agree. But that's being done already. There is a reason exits from the church are at an all-time high.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I did not say that they were "not religious"; even Apple customers are religious. I said that they did not agree with Christian dogma and theology. Therefore, you cannot convince them by arguing about, ridiculing, or saying anything else about Christian dogma and theology.
You were talking about dogma, I wasn't. I ridicule all religion equally, and I don't care if someone believes in the virgin birth, the apocalypse, the trinity or whatever else he picked and chose. It's all equally ridiculous. You can not take any part of the christian religion seriously, and that is the only effective defense against their "pick and choose" approach.
That's also why I've said several times now that "convincing" them doesn't work. For one it's faith and even a perfect argument would just be a "test of faith" if everything else fails, and two it's christianity, they'll happily declare that particular part of their holy book as not being valid anymore and it won't bother them the least.
since people who "pick and choose" their religious dogma are essentially unassailable in their beliefs by any means.
As you see, we agree on that. :-)
You don't seriously believe that the biggest political force in Germany is just going to watch its number decline year after year without using its power to stop it?
As said many times in this discussion: No I don't, which is exactly why I think it needs to be actively opposed.
We don't disagree in the goal, never have. We just disagree on the means. I believe that any serious engagement with the church is a losing proposition unless you are in an exceptionally good starting position. A head-on confrontation is something people like Dawkins can do, because they are established and attacking them would only strengthen their position. For you and I, a confrontation with the church - well, let's put it this way: How much would it really bother you if that fruit fly over there starts to hate you and goes full-out aggro on your butt?
A direct confrontation, whether in the form of public attacks, rational discourse or such like is simply not an effective means for any of us.
My approach is to get people I talk to to see how ridiculous this whole religion thing is. Religion currently has a protective shield of respect around it. And the church profits massively from that. Everyone treats carefully when it comes to religion.
My purpose is dismantling that shield, or at least a small corner of it.
You may think other approaches work better. Hey, I'm not stopping you, do what you feel like doing. I just don't believe it's the better way. As long as "faith" is somehow treated with respect and care even though the proper treatment is psychotherapy, the church can hide behind this respect and do all its horrible deeds while nobody dares calling them what they are.
It's a slow process, but it does show some signs of progress. For the first time in my life, I've seen journalists wonder in their articles why pedophile priests are treated differently from other child rapists.
I don't delude myself into thinking I will see a 1500 year old organisation crumble within my lifetime. And yes, it is not a constant process and Merkel and Wulff bother me to no end (Wulff a lot more than Merkel, actually, she's an incredibly hollow person and I strongly believe she'd be an atheist tomorrow if that were the only way to stay in power).
But, back to the original argument, I don't see the Kirchensteuer as the root of all evil, but as a symptom. I don't see a few missing paragraphs in the constitution as the root of all evil, but as another symptom. And I'll happily agree that there are lots of those symptoms.
But my interest in curing the symptoms is small. My interest is curing the disease. And every single person that I can bring to stop being religious or stop treating religion in other people as something that deserves respect,
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org