Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pyrrho · 06-05-2003, 08:17 PM

Pyrrho · 06-05-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

I think you have hit on precisely the reason why the Catholic Church is a major problem, much more so than many Protestant Churches, because many of them lack the kind of hierarchy that can lead to the kind of power that a pope can have.

In fact, the Catholic Church has had very significant effects on American culture. According to Complicated Women: Sex and Power in Pre-Code Hollywood by Mick LaSalle (page 62):

Quote:

The adoption of the original Production Code was the result of efforts made by a number of well-placed citizens, almost all of them Catholic clergymen or laymen.

In other words, the censorship of Hollywood films, from 1934 to 1968, was the result of mostly Catholics working in favor of censorship (censorship has always been near and dear to the Catholic Church, as is evidenced by their lists of forbidden books and films, even to this day). This censorship had a profound impact on the way that women were depicted in films. In the early 1930's, mainstream films revolved around women who actually were powerful and self-determining. All that changed with the censorship that was imposed on all Hollywood films shown in the U.S.

If you have an interest in the history of films, check it out:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg.../-/0312252072/

If you look at the editorial reviews at:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...52072/reviews/

You will find (emphasis added):

Quote:

From Kirkus Reviews
An overdue tribute to the myriad of strong and independent women film stars of pre-Code Hollywood (1929-34).LaSalle provides a detailed summary of an important five-year period in Hollywood history-the interval that preceded the strict censorship of films by the Production Code Administration under the leadership of Joseph Breen. Typically, the "Code" era is remembered in film histories as an age of production that was bound by the suppression of nudity and the proscription of obscene language. LaSalle argues cogently that the Code more dangerously demanded an adherence to conservative and rigid gender roles. Pre-Code films, he points out, were filled with self-reliant, intelligent, and sexually independent women. This was a period dominated by powerful female stars-Mae West, Greta Garbo, Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Myrna Loy, Claudette Colbert, Jean Harlow-whose power and talent were undermined by a Code that made impossible all but the most chaste and wifely female roles.

Pyrrho · 06-05-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Indeed, talk is cheap.

06-06-2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

The point here is that freedom from religon requires you to make a stand with regard to religion. Before you can do that you must have evaluated religion and chose not to believe.

Quote:

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

OK all except one (or two).

Quote:

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

You must if you call me a Christian. I have never called myself a Christian or a believer.

Radorth · 06-06-2003, 10:42 PM

Well at least you're honest.

Rad

sullster · 06-07-2003, 04:24 AM

Rad,

I love how you claim that science has made no improvements in human happiness. I guess it all depends on what you define as happiness. Being a religious type, I am sure you see happiness as something to be had in the afterlife with your jesus loving you and kissing you. With that perspective, health and a long life just don't matter.

Well, I see happiness differently. Science has led to the conquest of many diseases which killed people by the thousands in the past. Technology and reason have led to sanitation, public health and all related benefits. The rise of science has led to vast amounts of human happiness.

Indeed, because of science there are many more healthy believers sitting in the pews of your churches hearing about an ancient system of irreason and myth.

One last point. You say that catholics killed protestants and not the other way around. Horse dews I say! Your religious forefathers have just as much blood on their nihilistic hands as any papist.

Secluar law does not allow for murder because of biblical reasons anymore. Sorry.

Goliath · 06-07-2003, 01:27 PM

Amos,

Quote:

The point here is that freedom from religon requires you to make a stand with regard to religion.

No it does not. I am an atheist, and I take no stance regarding the existence or nonexistence of gods. Why do you refuse to understand this?

Quote:

You must if you call me a Christian. I have never called myself a Christian or a believer.

Then you are not a xian? I thought you were catholic.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Luiseach · 06-07-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos
...freedom from religon requires you to make a stand with regard to religion. Before you can do that you must have evaluated religion and chose not to believe.

I think that's a fair point to make.

Yep. For some atheists, the decision to reject religion in favour of non-belief would probably necessitate a reasoned consideration of the religion/belief that they are rejecting.

abe smith · 06-09-2003, 07:58 AM

that IMO any one, including any woman, who'ld want to be a Roman Catholic priest (or ANY) priest, must be outa her/his/their cottonpicking mind. Abe

06-09-2003, 07:58 AM	#69
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Just like to utter one-mo'-time.... that IMO any one, including any woman, who'ld want to be a Roman Catholic priest (or ANY) priest, must be outa her/his/their cottonpicking mind. Abe

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 08:17 PM	#61
Pyrrho Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United States Posts: 7,351

06-06-2003, 10:42 PM	#65
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Well at least you're honest. Rad

06-07-2003, 04:24 AM	#66
sullster Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: North of Boston Posts: 1,392	Rad, I love how you claim that science has made no improvements in human happiness. I guess it all depends on what you define as happiness. Being a religious type, I am sure you see happiness as something to be had in the afterlife with your jesus loving you and kissing you. With that perspective, health and a long life just don't matter. Well, I see happiness differently. Science has led to the conquest of many diseases which killed people by the thousands in the past. Technology and reason have led to sanitation, public health and all related benefits. The rise of science has led to vast amounts of human happiness. Indeed, because of science there are many more healthy believers sitting in the pews of your churches hearing about an ancient system of irreason and myth. One last point. You say that catholics killed protestants and not the other way around. Horse dews I say! Your religious forefathers have just as much blood on their nihilistic hands as any papist. Secluar law does not allow for murder because of biblical reasons anymore. Sorry.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.