DMB

It would be nice if this were true, but they are still powerful in a number of countries and are enjoying a renaissance in post-communist Russia.

Since catholicism is a worldwide religion, I don't think you can consider only its manifestation in the USA. I would agree that large numbers of catholics are thoroughly decent people and also that there is a wide spectrum of opinion within the catholic church.

Individual catholic beliefs threaten no-one, but the institution is objectionable. For a start, it is authoritarian and undemocratic. It therefore hardly matters if a majority of the laity take a particular view; the hierarchy will continue to impose obedience from the top. The pope is held to speak on behalf of the large numbers of catholics in the world, whether they agree with him or not. (And let us not forget that the numbers are inflated to look more impressive by including anyone who was ever baptised in the church).

The political activities of the church are aimed at imposing catholic doctrine on people whether they are catholics or not. My experience in the field of reproductive health has been that they try to make contraception and abortion unavailable to everyone.

I find it interesting that Bob Geldof, who I think was probably brought up catholic, was suggesting last week in Africa that if the pope were really christian he would be advising people to protect themselves against HIV by using condoms.

Amos

Freedom of religion is a contradiction and always leads to division and war in the end.

Understand well here that the concept God is man made and that the prosperity and survival of the tribe is the only purpose of religion. If this is true why should we allow different religions that often contradict each other tear each other down to the point that neither can be effective as means to the end. Would this not be counterproductive as a democratic right, especially if-- as we still learn in Anthro 101-- the mythology is for the survival of the tribe and that no civilization ever existed without a well functioning mythology.

The concept God exists only because it is possible for humans to obtain the mind of God and so transcend human inderstanding(it's our mandate in the bible). This makes the benefit of religion a present life thing and not something we must suppost for our benefit after we die. I therefore say that to have such contradicting forces entrenched in the constitution is absurd (to say the least.

Freedom from religion yes, but never freedom of religion.

Amos

It's impossible for a religion to be democratic because it must move the world and not be moved by the world. For this it must be authoritarian but always ready to pardon sinners and console its victims.

Goliath

Amos,

Since freedom of religion currently exists in the US, you are demonstrably wrong.

....? So you're admitting that the god that you believe in is fictional?

Unproven assertion.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Amos

Of course it exists in the US and that is why there is no freedom from religion. Don't you see how every American is torn up by religion in one way or another while religion itself brings about the chaos that itself is the reason why people seek refuse in their mock salvation?[

No, the God you deny is fictional so you are just arguing with your own misconception of God.To have the mind of God is equal to knowing the depth, width and breadth of your own soul and therefore have peace on earth.

sullster

I am sure that your pope says a lot of nice things about women in Mulieris Dignitatem, but until the day he allows women to be priests and share power in the church hierarchy, it is a bunch of hot air.

Goliath

Amos,

Incorrect. Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. This is merely due to the fact that when people are free to choose whichever religious belief they wish, they are also free to not have religious beliefs.

I am not "torn up" by religion. I am also an American. You are therefore demonstrably wrong.

Wrong, xian! I deny no gods! I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of any god of any kind.

I have no idea what this means. Could you please stop writing like a 12 year old that is aspiring to be a poet? (Note to moderators: this is not an ad hominem--I'm merely requesting that Amos post in a style that is not how I perceive it, so that his posts make more sense).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Radorth

Re: Sullster (pg 2)

We always agreed on that. I was speaking of our recent joint declaration on justification by faith, former disagreements about which impelled Luther to rebel. He was given a Bible in the 16th century- a rare event, and unfortunately for the grace salesmen who had infiltrated the church, read the thing.

I think so. Actually the charismatic Catholics and Protestants worshipping together by the thousands in the 80's was even more wonderful. Unfortunately, the leadership on both sides, but particularly priests, began to discourage such naive activities, and we didn't argue with them enough I'm afraid. Of course Catholics are ALWAYS welcome to come and worship in my church, as long as they want with no questions asked. We aren't really into the denomination thing.

I'm afraid it was pretty much Catholics killing Protestants, primarily because Luther insisted heretics should be "burned only with the scriptures." Your statement is misleading at best, and mindlessly cynical at worst.

And how remarkable to hear such a sermon against free thinking. Of course if we did agree on everythiing, you'd call us mindless robots no doubt.

(more)

Radorth

I'm afraid the recent agreement on justification by faith came long after the secular governments, which fact exposes your misinformed and cynical logic for what it is.

Unfortunately you labor under the illusion that science in the hands of sinners will not undo anything it has accomplished. As I've pointed out, it is useless to save lives in an overpopulated world. Scientists are fools in many ways. They invent a bomb to end a war, then say "I have become a destroyer of worlds." Science is practically useless when you have people abusing it, although in the hands of Christians it has helped maintain freedom. Science has made no improvements in overall human happiness. It can't cure narcissism, or self-righteousness or a pervasive tendency to fault our neighbors when we ourselves are guilty.

But I do hate to burst your bubble, as I know it's all you really have to hope in.

Rad

Pyrrho

Here is why Protestants regard "idolatry" as being so very bad (all quotes are King James Version; these are only a few of the verses that could be selected; there are many, many more):


According to the Bible, God thought it was a very big deal to not have idols, and Protestants who actually read the Bible are apt to pay some attention to it. Catholics, as a rule, are not encouraged to actually read the Bible, but, instead, to just trust whatever they are told by priests. This, I believe, is one of the reasons why Catholicism is so much worse than most forms of Protestantism, because with Protestants, the idea of thinking for yourself is not anathema.

Furthermore, many fundamentalist Protestants, like Southern Baptists, do not have the kind of hierarchy that would make them so very much of a threat as something like the Catholic Church, even if they ever became a majority (which is very doubtful). Each church is almost independent of the others, but with Catholicism, the opposite is true.