Should we abolish the papacy?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I rather see them abolish it than continue what they do, but then again, I also realize that they are about as likely to take me seriously as I take them seriously.

Which is not a whole lot.

thaluikhain:

There's a difference between pointing out the flaws in condoms, and saying that they don't work so don't bother using them. The latter is a lie, said for ideological reasons.

Silvanus:

Even if you believe that lying about the uselessness of using condoms is somehow harmless on the basis that he also thinks people shouldn't have sex for enjoyment at all..... Benedict still went that extra mile and claimed that they "aggravate the problem". He fragrantly lied, and I don't find it hard to believe that he caused death by doing so.

People take this bigot at his word on an incredibly dangerous matter, and he used his influence to spread misinformation.

Skeleon:
snip

Dear Skeleon,

Do you see where I'm coming from yet? When it gets to topics like this, it starts to feel like everyone argueing against me is blablahb. They start doing things like assume that people who disagree with them are deliberately lying and knowingly causing the deaths of millions. They deliberately misinterpret statements to make them into lies, like when someone says "condoms aggravate the problem" and you interpret it as "condom usage makes AIDs more likely to spread" it becomes a terrible lie, but when you take a look at context and say "you know what? there's that 10% failure, so if people with AIDs and access to free condoms have 10x as much sex as with condoms, it would start aggravating the problem as a whole, maybe we need more information" it's an entirely reasonable thing to say. I'd really like someone to not be rediculous here.

~tstorm823

tstorm823:
SNIP

That's not what the Pope said. Even if he did, that would have been rampant speculation, a claim with no evidence, statistical or otherwise, but the fact is, that's not what he said.

He didn't say "we need more information". He said "they make it worse", then they don't.

I think what's ridiculous is the incredible benefit of the doubt this man is afforded, on the grounds of his position.

Should we abolish the papacy?

To begin with, who is "we"?

The people who have the ability to abolish the pope are Catholics. Having defined leadership and clear dogma is one of the things that has helped the Catholic church be so stable, I'd say, compared to the more wishy-washy populist denominations which revise their teachings to seem more relevant and thus turn-off true believers and agnostics alike. And I don't think many Catholics would be in favour of undermining their own cause.

And frankly, non-Catholics just don't get a say in the matter.

I'm atheist and my view of the Catholic church is a mixture of grudging respect, morbid curiosity and grim fascination. The Vatican no longer has any hold over the daily life of people in my country, I'm cheerful to report (thanks, Henry VIII!), but I find the idea of it quite compelling in a perverse way. The fact that such an institution has existed for over a millennium, and is still going strong in the 21st Century, is like finding a healthy Stegosaurus wandering through your back garden. Despite all the filth and lies the Vatican stands for, it's almost a beautiful anachronism, and I for one wouldn't want to be the person to take the first swing of the sledgehammer at the walls of St Paul's Basilica.

I would actually like the papacy if it weren't so dubious. The way their hierarchy is set up and all of the traditions surrounding it are pretty interesting along with all the weird rules and traditions. They're pretty close to what a powerful cult or religious organization (No real distinction) would be like in a fantasy roleplaying campaign because most conventions and tropes are based off of the papacy.

So I would like to preserve all that interesting stuff, like a giant museum state... But yeah, stop them from actually having power and getting away with raping kids.

Lemme break this up.

tstorm823:

you interpret it as "condom usage makes AIDs more likely to spread" it becomes a terrible lie, but when you take a look at context and say

"you know what? there's that 10% failure

You showed this. However that statistic is NOT constant. If it was a direct "10% of condoms do not work" then it would work that way. But its not. The statistic was said (by the person who gathered it) to be mostly human error. We can remedy that AND it isnt constant.

The real issue however is youve given us NO reason to believe this:

so if people with AIDs and access to free condoms have 10x as much sex as with condoms

other than "It makes sense to me" which is a rubbish reason to be frank. This in turn gives no one any rational reason to believe this:

it would start aggravating the problem as a whole

Which means any attempt to present that as fact or even a substantiated claim is either:

A lie

Or at BEST an uneducated guess. Neither are very good when it comes to dealing with human lives.

Which means if you want to support your position youre only reasonable thing to say AT ALL is:

we need more information

There is nothing ridiculous about this line of logic. Its ridiculous to make it personal yes or imply killing people as a result is intentional. What it is is silly. And frustrating. In terms of evidence based medicine (Which is what the response to AIDS IS) youre not playing by the rules at all. By citing STD and pregnancy rates in areas using your ideas i am.

@tstorm823

"You say pointing out the flaws of condoms undermines efforts to protect lives,..."

That's the thing, though, it's not "pointing out flaws", it's lying about non-existent flaws ("holes in the net too big for the virus" etc.) and it sends the completely wrong message ("don't use 'em, they don't help"). That's very different from pointing out real flaws and putting emphasis on problems with proper application of condoms, with use and education.
That's harmful, that ends up killing people and it's lying about the facts. This is a very big difference that is the reason for my strong reaction to the Vatican's behaviour. As I explained, plenty of religious groups - who I know are big on abstinence and faithfulness - don't actively lie about condoms, do talk about their priorities but also mention the importance of condoms. So it's not about religion, it's about the Vatican's specific statements causing harm, spreading misinformation and being completely unacceptable.

As for pedophilia? The Catholic Church bemoans its loss of adherents. Bemoans its bad reputation. You know what would help the Church? Cooperation with the authorities. Revealing the scum among them. Fighting them. Standing up for the helpless, the young, the weak, like they're supposed to. Just recently, they broke that cooperation off again (we even had a thread about it on this subforum). If I were part of a group, something like that was happening within it and I knew about it, I'd want them expunged and jailed so that they can never again harm the people and the institution I love, that their association with us is burnt away and all trace of their evil dealt with harshly. Because I wouldn't want my group besmirched like that. I wouldn't hide them, no. Eventually, the truth may surface anyway (as it does, time and again, with these abuses in the Church). Better to be proactive about it. I wouldn't want my group associated with child-rapists. I'd want to be able to speak to the populace openly and proudly and say: "We did all we could to rid ourselves of these criminals and we will continue to do so; you and your children are safe with us."

They start doing things like assume that people who disagree with them are deliberately lying and knowingly causing the deaths of millions. They deliberately misinterpret statements to make them into lies, like when someone says "condoms aggravate the problem" and you interpret it as "condom usage makes AIDs more likely to spread" it becomes a terrible lie, but when you take a look at context and say "you know what? there's that 10% failure, so if people with AIDs and access to free condoms have 10x as much sex as with condoms, it would start aggravating the problem as a whole, maybe we need more information" it's an entirely reasonable thing to say. I'd really like someone to not be rediculous here.

I'm sorry, I can't help you with that whatsoever. I gave you examples of actual factually wrong statements by Vatican officials. They (the other posters) gave you reason to doubt the idea that abstinence-education works to significantly reduce sexual intercourse (never mind reducing it by 90%) in the first place.
At best one could say these people are willfully ignorant rather than directly lying. Ignorant because it's factually wrong, willfully because it's not like the Vatican hasn't garnered plenty of high-profile responses to their statements about pores and whatnot.
So, fine, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not exactly lying but being willfully ignorant. They're not knowingly driving millions to sickness and death through their influence and spreading of misinformation. I'll give you all that.
That still doesn't change the fact that they are killing people. That their behaviour is unacceptable. That they need to be pointed out and countered when they say the things they do.

BiscuitTrouser:

There is nothing ridiculous about this line of logic. Its ridiculous to make it personal yes or imply killing people as a result is intentional. What it is is silly. And frustrating. In terms of evidence based medicine (Which is what the response to AIDS IS) youre not playing by the rules at all. By citing STD and pregnancy rates in areas using your ideas i am.

Because surely, the effectiveness of teachings kids in america how to use the condoms that are available to them has the same effect as distributing free condoms amongst Africans with AIDs. Clearly, I am the only one making any logical jumps.

And clearly, the entire AIDs infected population ignores the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality except when it comes to whether condoms should be used or not.

Sure, there's been a couple slips where a cardinal or two has misunderstood the concept of condom failure, but if you're gonna play it that way, I demand to see where these millions of deaths caused by Catholic teachings are. I understand that my arguement is just a train of thought rather than a line of evidence, and if that's not good enough for you, then I guess it's not good enough for me either.

So please, eliminate your logical jumps. You go straight from "condoms make AIDs trasmission significantly less likely" to "Catholic position on condoms kills millions in Africa." Evidence that last part please.

tstorm823:

Because surely, the effectiveness of teachings kids in america how to use the condoms that are available to them has the same effect as distributing free condoms amongst Africans with AIDs. Clearly, I am the only one making any logical jumps.

And clearly, the entire AIDs infected population ignores the Catholic Church's teachings on sexuality except when it comes to whether condoms should be used or not.

Sure, there's been a couple slips where a cardinal or two has misunderstood the concept of condom failure, but if you're gonna play it that way, I demand to see where these millions of deaths caused by Catholic teachings are. I understand that my arguement is just a train of thought rather than a line of evidence, and if that's not good enough for you, then I guess it's not good enough for me either.

So please, eliminate your logical jumps. You go straight from "condoms make AIDs trasmission significantly less likely" to "Catholic position on condoms kills millions in Africa." Evidence that last part please.

1. In the UK free condoms are available to all from health clinics. We also have the teaching.

2. Well the abstinence only education false elsewhere. So apparently people DO ignore the teachings as well as being unable to understand condoms.

3 and 4: If you can find where i said that feel free to quote me. I never said this. Im not saying they kill millions of people from AIDS. I never did. Im just saying that as far as their stance goes for stopping AIDS its ineffectual and not based on evidence as well as inferior to the ABC plan. I made no such claim on deaths caused, just that theres no reason to believe its effectual compared to other tactics and its SOMETIMES by mistake based on untruths. Perhaps others in this thread did but i did not. So dont assign that to me. Yeah a line of thought isnt enough for me to justify a plan that involves peoples lives. Id rather use the tactic that has the most evidence to support its effectiveness. Which is ABC. Like the author of your source said.

If you wish to support the catholic church you could always switch to "They shouldnt be having sex before marriage" and use the "Saving souls over lives" line of thinking. You dont need to pretend that everything they do is beneficial in every way to support them. Catholics at the time of the inquisition dont need to explain why the inquisition is good. Groups we are part of make mistakes. All of them. And thats alright. Thats good. Because when we identify them we can change them for the better. And improve our group. Dont defend the people who hide pedophiles. Dont defend the condom stance on aids. Demand better for a group that you deserve. One that does always champion good causes and cares most about people. Head in the sand "MY GROUP IS FINE AS IT IS REAAAAALLY I UNDERSTAND THEIR MISTAKES" is unhealthy. If MY family hid my hypothetical uncle who was a pedophile id be disgusted. My family should be better than that. I deserve a better family and they deserve to BE better. For their own good call them out on their problems. It doesnt weaken them if the eventual change strengthens them.

BiscuitTrouser:

If you wish to support the catholic church you could always switch to "They shouldnt be having sex before marriage" and use the "Saving souls over lives" line of thinking. You dont need to pretend that everything they do is beneficial in every way to support them. Catholics at the time of the inquisition dont need to explain why the inquisition is good. Groups we are part of make mistakes. All of them. And thats alright. Thats good. Because when we identify them we can change them for the better. And improve our group. Dont defend the people who hide pedophiles. Dont defend the condom stance on aids. Demand better for a group that you deserve. One that does always champion good causes and cares most about people. Head in the sand "MY GROUP IS FINE AS IT IS REAAAAALLY I UNDERSTAND THEIR MISTAKES" is unhealthy. If MY family hid my hypothetical uncle who was a pedophile id be disgusted. My family should be better than that. I deserve a better family and they deserve to BE better. For their own good call them out on their problems. It doesnt weaken them if the eventual change strengthens them.

But it's not the Vatican that I'm talking to right now. I'm talking to people in the religion and politics section, half of whom are blindly, terrifyingly against Catholic Church in all things. I could point out that the Vatican has clarrified its statements already, and very much said that if you're not going to listen to them on everything else, condoms can be useful. I could point out that ABC method was heavily influenced by Catholic teachings and that its greatest reported success, Uganda, was certainly contributed to by the large Catholic population in Uganda. I could point out the literal 25% of AIDs care worldwide that comes from the Catholic organizations. None of it would mean anything here because some cardinal at some point said condoms had holes in them.

No, the right thing for me to do here is defend the reason and logic in the statements being demonized. Because if these people can even momentarily understand the arguement from the other side, can accept that there was logic behind what was being said even if it was wrong, then they have to admit to themselves that Catholic authorities weren't deliberately lying about condoms and uncaringly causing mass death to protect some mindless ideology, they were actually trying harder than anyone else on the planet to stop the epidemic, with a few slips along the way. And to demonize an organization for that is a really, really douche move.

With the issue of AIDS transmission in Africa, wouldn't the best solution be to present them with all of the information, make condoms available if they want to go that route, and then let them make their own decisions? You know, because they're intelligent human beings who should be treated as such?

Yes we should abolish papacy. Catholics and this whole Vatican puppetshow directly goes against many rules laid down in the Bible. Worshipping a man chosen by other corrupt men, child abuse, worshipping of carved idols. The list goes on. The offenses both atrocious in the eyes of man's written law and God's. :/

ItsNotRudy:
worshipping of carved idols

But it's legit for Catholics since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD, which officially dropped the second commandment in favor of collector's edition saints and splitting the original tenth commandment into two parts (coveting the neighbour's wife/goods). The Protestant movement actually reintroduced it as a commandment, so you'll find different ten commandments in Protestantism and Catholicism.
Of course both versions are in fact void for both denominations and in extention pretty much everybody else. Not that either seems to care or most of them even know.

Maybe I'm getting too detailed on a small remark... it certainly beats all that condom talk though.

Vegosiux:
I understand, that, unless I am very much mistaken, which I might be, the majority of the North American Christians are protestant, while papacy is a catholic institution.

...

well yeah, but the US skews that. about 24% of its citizens associate as catholics, 51% associate as protestant (both being of the in the larger 76% that say they're generic christian). Excluding the US, Mexico is a very heavy 80+% catholic, and canada is 40+%.

OT: I Guess tehy're not a NEED for a papacy. The idea is to have a guy be the front man rather than let however many cardinals all say god speaks personally to them and they are the law. hard to go on tour that way and not look sinister when they meet with world leaders. I will say though, Pope John Paul II did an AMAZING job as pope. Advanced views on women, other religions, homosexuals, evolution theory/fact, apartheid, all that jazz. While not saying he solely did so or that he was a major player, he's assoicated with the topples of dictatorships in Chile, Haiti, and Paraguay, and even in the end of the USSR. He sent apologies (I know, big deal doesnt fix what was done, but still nice he makes the effort and kinda carries weight in the way religion works where you take the faults[sins] on your shoulders and atone for them in hopes it will right relations between you and the party to work for a more peaceful future) for Galileo,the treatment of women, silence during the Holocaust, involvment in the slave trade, and other injustices.

its fine if you odnt think there needs to be one, I just dont see why there one doesnt have to exist. He has about as much influence as any world leader wants to give them (just like anyone else when its all just talks, and generally popes dont go out and say if you dont listen i'll tell every catholic to grab a gun or build a bomb and go to war with you till you do), the are the voice for people who either way are going to follow what the religion says. you get the right guy and they can better the world by bettering the followers.

But then again I just live my life the best i can and dont really go to church any more (I dont realy like the idea of religion as an organized thing and should be a personal thing everyone takes their own way through). I sampled other religions and learned from them to, the general theme being "Do good and work hard and you'll be rewarded when you die" so it seemed like a good mantra to follow.

Quaxar:

ItsNotRudy:
worshipping of carved idols

But it's legit for Catholics since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD, which officially dropped the second commandment in favor of collector's edition saints and splitting the original tenth commandment into two parts (coveting the neighbour's wife/goods). The Protestant movement actually reintroduced it as a commandment, so you'll find different ten commandments in Protestantism and Catholicism.
Of course both versions are in fact void for both denominations and in extention pretty much everybody else. Not that either seems to care or most of them even know.

Maybe I'm getting too detailed on a small remark... it certainly beats all that condom talk though.

That they as a group decided to abolish a commandment just shows how far from scripture they really are. Having images or things depicting a cross, Mary etc. are a completely different thing than what they are doing. They made a statue of St. Peter and kiss his stone toe... Peter was not a god to be prayed to or worshiped.

ItsNotRudy:

That they as a group decided to abolish a commandment just shows how far from scripture they really are.

Entire books were dropped when the Bible was made into a single text. Dropping one commandment is frankly trivial compared to what the scripture was already put through.

ItsNotRudy:

Quaxar:

ItsNotRudy:
worshipping of carved idols

But it's legit for Catholics since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD, which officially dropped the second commandment in favor of collector's edition saints and splitting the original tenth commandment into two parts (coveting the neighbour's wife/goods). The Protestant movement actually reintroduced it as a commandment, so you'll find different ten commandments in Protestantism and Catholicism.
Of course both versions are in fact void for both denominations and in extention pretty much everybody else. Not that either seems to care or most of them even know.

Maybe I'm getting too detailed on a small remark... it certainly beats all that condom talk though.

That they as a group decided to abolish a commandment just shows how far from scripture they really are. Having images or things depicting a cross, Mary etc. are a completely different thing than what they are doing. They made a statue of St. Peter and kiss his stone toe... Peter was not a god to be prayed to or worshiped.

Yeah, apart from what Brass said with the selection of books done in 325 AD in the First Council of Nicaea that dropped such zingers as the childhood of Jesus the Dragontamer the ten commandments are technically not valid for non-Jews anyway.

First of all, they actually start with "I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." before listing the commandments and 'brought out of the land of Egypt' were only the Jews.
Then number 10 (or Catholic 9) talks about coveting thy neighbour's wife... so either it's perfectly alright for women to covet the guy next door or it only applies to men (and possibly lesbians).
And lastly, the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic or Old Covenant between God and the Children of Israel and are only the beginning of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments) established in the Torah, which include such things as saying the Shema twice a day, Passover rites and circumcision. And that Old Covenant has, in Christian tradition, been surpassed by the New Covenant established in the New Testament during the Last Supper (Luke 22:20 - "this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood"), which for example got rid of original sin and, contrary to the Old Testament covenants[1], applies to all people as long as they convert to Christianity.

So really, "the ten commandments" is more of a religious mascot than a law. Told that to my religion teacher in school once... he was not really prepared for it.

[1] except for the Noahic covenant's promise of never again flooding the Earth

What is going on in here I have to say this is not a good discussion. I am going to start to say the obvious and point out that just like anyother religon in the whorld nobody can say or do anything about caothlics unless you are a member of there religious organization like if you wanted to be part of the jewish council thing you'd probably have to be a real serious rabbi or if you wanted to be some muslim leader you'd have to be whatever they got and study for years in there schools, but if you are just a follower well then good luck because it's like with the masons or the lions club or my moms rotary group or the pta you got to be a member.

So if you aren't a member and you wanted to get rid of the pop that would be really hard too because he's his own country in rome with diplomat imuniaty so if you were a goverment you would have to abide by the international laws about touching leaders of countries which is no don't.

But the other thing people say is that catholics don't believe in God right or that the church has turned away from God. Well that is for the catholics to face just like any other religon like the muslims have to face how they act and the ejws have to and everyone else, but it is their organzation and they have made it over the years to be like that. It might not be right to God but that is for him to deal with. If they break the law then whoever breaks it should have to deal with the legal conscucne but to say that the world should get rid of the pope means that every other group should lose their leader. there are other religons and they all have power over people and power ofver the contries they are from.

You dont have to have anything to do with catholics if you want. You dont have to like them, you don't have to listen to them if you dont want just tell them you are a protastant and they will go. But if you aren't a catholic and don't want anything to do with them then it isnt for you to say whether it should exist or not just like every other religo

Read your disclaimer, but nevertheless, it's a silly question. The only group who could abolish the papacy would be Catholicism as a whole. They are also the only group to whom the papacy is relevant to any significant degree. As such, whether the papacy should be abolished is a question best asked from the point of view of a practicing Catholic - which your argument doesn't take. I'm not one myself, but if I had to make a judgement, there is a strong case to be made for the continued existence of the papacy from both conservative and progressive positions within Catholicism.

Besides, your argument isn't against the papacy. It's against the opulence that the current papacy exhibits, and their lack of efficiency - but that's advocacy for reform, not abolition. In order to argue for abolition of the papacy, you need to make the case that the things that the pope is responsible for would be better done by others, or not at all - again, from the point of view of a practicing Catholic.

OP, YOU'RE NOT CATHOLIC.

You can't demand the removal of the grand poobah of someone else's club. Seriously. Its their belief system, they get to have a guy in a big hat at the top of it no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you and many.

If it means that much to you, join 'em, become a cardinal, get elected pope and bring it down from the inside.

Images:
OP, YOU'RE NOT CATHOLIC.

You can't demand the removal of the grand poobah of someone else's club. Seriously. Its their belief system, they get to have a guy in a big hat at the top of it no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you and many.

If it means that much to you, join 'em, become a cardinal, get elected pope and bring it down from the inside.

So I take it I should probably have no opinion on the Libyan civil war either since I am not Libyan?

BiscuitTrouser:

thaluikhain:

I don't buy that. It's very easy to pretend you aren't just imposing your religion on someone. Just because you're following the Pope doesn't mean you have to say you are.

Simple, yes, but easy, no. Something like that would be very hard to pull off. Hell, aren't people trying that now, just their voices get drowned out?

True but then in congress/parliment or whatever when asked WHY we should make said law, even if you ARE following the pope secretly, you then need to offer real objective agreeable reasons to cover for it and convince others

Can you offer me "real objective agreeable" reasons for any law?

OT: Like others have said, it's really none of your business. The Papacy does a lot of good and has done a lot of good in the past. That money they make doesn't just go into the pockets of the Holy See, it goes to various churches, organizations, and charities around the world.

Why don't you abolish the Eastern Patriarchs instead?

Quaxar:

Images:
OP, YOU'RE NOT CATHOLIC.

You can't demand the removal of the grand poobah of someone else's club. Seriously. Its their belief system, they get to have a guy in a big hat at the top of it no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you and many.

If it means that much to you, join 'em, become a cardinal, get elected pope and bring it down from the inside.

So I take it I should probably have no opinion on the Libyan civil war either since I am not Libyan?

Having an opinion is different then calling for the abolishment of an entire institution based entirely on second hand knowledge you kinda sorta have.

That would be like me asking why don't we abolish the Parliament of England? They get a lot of money and I don't see any tangible returns on that money. Why do we even have them around?

Hafrael:

Quaxar:

Images:
OP, YOU'RE NOT CATHOLIC.

You can't demand the removal of the grand poobah of someone else's club. Seriously. Its their belief system, they get to have a guy in a big hat at the top of it no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you and many.

If it means that much to you, join 'em, become a cardinal, get elected pope and bring it down from the inside.

So I take it I should probably have no opinion on the Libyan civil war either since I am not Libyan?

Having an opinion is different then calling for the abolishment of an entire institution based entirely on second hand knowledge you kinda sorta have.

That would be like me asking why don't we abolish the Parliament of England? They get a lot of money and I don't see any tangible returns on that money. Why do we even have them around?

So you're telling me not liking the Chavez regime is a perfectly fine opinion but saying it should be disbanded is none of my business because I'm no Venezuelan?
I can have opinions of topics even without being directly affected, or else why are you arguing with me, you're not me and thusly not affected by my views. What you're having a beef with are under-informed opinions, which are completely independant from whether or not someone is directly involved in the matter.

funkyjiveturkey:

I'm an atheist, i know i probably sound pretty ignorant about this, but seriously why do we need this?

....

How do you feel about the pope?

Do you feel the papacy is important? to you? your faith? or no?

What are your thoughts on the wealth of the papacy? and what should be done with it? how should it be put to better use?

What are you thoughts on the process of just choosing someone to be the voice of an omnipotent being? Do you think the pope really speaks for god or is there something else?

i'm curious, people have been talking a lot about this lately. i personally believe the papacy should be abolished

In all honesty your opinion isn't really valid or relevant your an atheist, not a practicing Catholic or even a Christian.

Part of being Catholic is the integral belief that God essentially "makes it happen" that who ever is elected pope is his mouth piece on earth. So if they get rid of it essentially there is no more Catholicism. The Vatican is based in an independent city state, with their own laws and it's a private institution (admittedly open to anyone) so nobody has any right to take their wealth away, anymore than Africa has any right to demand america give 50% of their wealth to them.

An I'm not Catholic, never have been never will be, I myself think the idea that the pope represents god on earth is a bit ridiculous, but my opinion means F'all just like yours, we're not Catholic why on earth should we have any right to judge how they want to run their church. Would you be happy if someone came in your house an demanded you sell you pc and use the money elsewhere?

BiscuitTrouser:

We also need to boot out all the church of England priests in England.

WHY?? Because I've picked up that your not a fan of the Catholic, I agree with other's that I think your making a few leaps, but essentially I agree that Catholic churches views on many things are not helping many world situations. But the Church of England is a protestant institution with many different views to the catholic church.

I'm Baptist and I think the whole thing is silly. Does the Pope even do anything besides ride in his little carriage and wave from the balcony of the Vatican?

Jedi-Hunter4:

funkyjiveturkey:

I'm an atheist, i know i probably sound pretty ignorant about this, but seriously why do we need this?

....

How do you feel about the pope?

Do you feel the papacy is important? to you? your faith? or no?

What are your thoughts on the wealth of the papacy? and what should be done with it? how should it be put to better use?

What are you thoughts on the process of just choosing someone to be the voice of an omnipotent being? Do you think the pope really speaks for god or is there something else?

i'm curious, people have been talking a lot about this lately. i personally believe the papacy should be abolished

In all honesty your opinion isn't really valid or relevant your an atheist, not a practicing Catholic or even a Christian.

Part of being Catholic is the integral belief that God essentially "makes it happen" that who ever is elected pope is his mouth piece on earth. So if they get rid of it essentially there is no more Catholicism. The Vatican is based in an independent city state, with their own laws and it's a private institution (admittedly open to anyone) so nobody has any right to take their wealth away, anymore than Africa has any right to demand america give 50% of their wealth to them.

ugh, for the last time, i'm not saying anyone is going to or even theoretically has the power to. this is all HYPOTHETICAL. people seem to be assuming that i think we can just send someone to evict the vatican. this is for conversation. i've spoken with multiple catholics who disagree with the pope and how the church is run. i'm not saying anyone has the power to do anything so i really wish people would stop saying "you're an atheist, you have no right" when i'm not suggesting anything of the sort to begin with. i wanna know what everyone of all faiths and backgrounds think of the papacy and what it's role plays whether they be religious or not.

THAT"S IT

Jedi-Hunter4:

BiscuitTrouser:

We also need to boot out all the church of England priests in England.

WHY?? Because I've picked up that your not a fan of the Catholic, I agree with other's that I think your making a few leaps, but essentially I agree that Catholic churches views on many things are not helping many world situations. But the Church of England is a protestant institution with many different views to the catholic church.

Poorly worded post by me, my bad. What I was meaning to convey was that the church of England shouldnt have automatic representation in the house of lords. The sentence i was meaning to write was "Kick them out of the government" and thats entirely my fault. Not only does giving people a vote on law because they follow the "Right religion" unethical but it also creates immediate gender inequality in the house because previously only men could reach such a high station.

BiscuitTrouser:

Poorly worded post by me, my bad. What I was meaning to convey was that the church of England shouldnt have automatic representation in the house of lords. The sentence i was meaning to write was "Kick them out of the government" and thats entirely my fault. Not only does giving people a vote on law because they follow the "Right religion" unethical but it also creates immediate gender inequality in the house because previously only men could reach such a high station.

I don't think it's so much the putting there because they are the right religion, more they are the Majority religion in the UK, so it is right in my view that they should have representation. The vast Majority of the UK's laws stem from christian teachings and it's a well established fact. The prime minister has even refereed to the UK as a Christian country, which it is.

just under 60% identified themselves as Christian in the last census in the UK. Nativity plays, school prayers and the celebration of Easter, lent and Christmas are all common place in schools. A large % of the population opt to have religious marriages and funerals. To me it would actually be pretty crazy not to have some form of religious representation in at some stage of government. They make up just over 3% of the total number of lords (set to be less than half of that after the reforms). The house of lords also has little to no power anyway, the most influence they have is to make suggestions and hold up legislation, which can be forced past them anyway after an amount of rejections.

For people that are strongly against them having I would say, what on earth do you think they will suggest that would be so crazy. Being that christian morals are so heavily entrenched in our culture and our legal system what are they likely to suggest that would be crazy? The CofE openly supported the legislation for civil partnerships and encourage the use of contraception

Personally I think the fact there are hereditary peers in the house of lords is a bigger issue, there's more of them and they are party affiliated, an due to being hereditary can pretty much hold their votes to ransom.

Just to clarify encase it seems like I have a bias, I was raised CofE but I'm not a practicing christian or a strong believer, but I do respect the moral foundation it gave me, an the respect that CofE gave me even as a child that it was entirely my choice what I wanted to believe. Unlike groups like the British Humanist Movement who seem to have decided they need to convert as many people into atheists as possible, little ironic considering how much religious acceptance the UK has traditionally had for all belief systems. But yer although I wouldn't call myself religious I think we have to respect what an integral part of our society Christianity has been and that the vast majority of the country still identify themselves as christian.

Jedi-Hunter4:

I don't think it's so much the putting there because they are the right religion, more they are the Majority religion in the UK, so it is right in my view that they should have representation. The vast Majority of the UK's laws stem from christian teachings and it's a well established fact. The prime minister has even refereed to the UK as a Christian country, which it is.

just under 60% identified themselves as Christian in the last census in the UK. Nativity plays, school prayers and the celebration of Easter, lent and Christmas are all common place in schools. A large % of the population opt to have religious marriages and funerals. To me it would actually be pretty crazy not to have some form of religious representation in at some stage of government. They make up just over 3% of the total number of lords (set to be less than half of that after the reforms). The house of lords also has little to no power anyway, the most influence they have is to make suggestions and hold up legislation, which can be forced past them anyway after an amount of rejections.

For people that are strongly against them having I would say, what on earth do you think they will suggest that would be so crazy. Being that christian morals are so heavily entrenched in our culture and our legal system what are they likely to suggest that would be crazy? The CofE openly supported the legislation for civil partnerships and encourage the use of contraception

Personally I think the fact there are hereditary peers in the house of lords is a bigger issue, there's more of them and they are party affiliated, an due to being hereditary can pretty much hold their votes to ransom.

Just to clarify encase it seems like I have a bias, I was raised CofE but I'm not a practicing christian or a strong believer, but I do respect the moral foundation it gave me, an the respect that CofE gave me even as a child that it was entirely my choice what I wanted to believe. Unlike groups like the British Humanist Movement who seem to have decided they need to convert as many people into atheists as possible, little ironic considering how much religious acceptance the UK has traditionally had for all belief systems. But yer although I wouldn't call myself religious I think we have to respect what an integral part of our society Christianity has been and that the vast majority of the country still identify themselves as christian.

Ive always hated the word "Christian/religious nation". Im unrelgious, am i not part of this nation? It cant be a christian nation if im in it. Its not. Its not a badger cage if it has deer in it. Its not an orange box if its about 50% blue. Its not a christian nation if I exist to taint its lovely christianness. Until the nation is 100% christian theres no real reason to call it a christian nation. It USED to be a nation that was overwhelmingly christian yes. But since arguments from tradition are huge logical fallacies and pretty damn stupid to boot i dont really understand why that has anything to do with the current state of laws. Until im dead, this is NOT a christian nation. Its a nation of christians atheists and other religions all in one place. Christianity is NOT special for being a majority anymore than white is special for being a majority.

The thing about a representative democracy is that if a majority exists then that majority will elect a majority representative to them anyway. You dont NEED to shoehorn in people just because they belong to the state religion. If they truely have most of the vote it should happen by use of the system and at least then i get to choose WHAT christians i want in power over me. This is especially weird considering the ONLY thing of note these people have is their religion. They could be TOTAL cretins and the fact they are high ranking in a favored institution gets them in regardless of if their christian teachings even remotely align with the majority. I cant imagine why it wouldnt be a better system to leave it ALL to the electoral system since you would get a majority representation of christian anyway AND we would have some say in which were good or bad and likely would have a better representation of gender.

I celebrate those events culturally. They are no more christian to me as you going to work on thorsday (thats the root of that word yes) is a celebration of thor for you. The fact those are culturally significant doesnt allow their original thieves (most of these holidays were plundered anyway from paganism) a place in government. Unless the existance of thorsday allows norse mythology believers in automatically? Or Caeser worshippers since we all live in a month named after him?

None of my morals are christian morals. None. Not a single belief i hold has anything to do with christianity in the slightest. None of the laws i want to exist are anything to do with christianity either. They are laws that have existed WELL before christianity and the bible in society and ones i find myself able to justify from my own independent belief system. I could form a government made entirely of my best friends and lovers and attempt to excuse it with "WELL THEY ARE NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING AWFUL THEY MOSTLY AGREE WITH YOU, THEY WERE RAISED WITH THE SAME SOCIETAL VALUES RIGHT?" but that doesnt make it correct. I dont want a SINGLE law or moral ANYWHERE in our government that is there because its a "Traditional christian teaching". I want it there because you can morally justify it to someone of ANY faith including those that existed WELL before christianity.

I dont particularly care about the humanist movement. I am what i am and a group of people thinking similar things to me can do whatever they want. I dont care what you believe as long as thats NEVER a reason to get a higher non religious station than me by default. Which currently it is. There is no good reason to force or have a definite religious presence in government. There are a hoard of reasons why its undemocratic, why its favouritism, why it is effectively the same as the hereditary votes (since an institution can plan and hoard a collected amount of votes to sway issues) and why honestly its totally unneccessary. You dont NEED to make sure a majority is represented by force. Thats why its a democracy. Its like ensuring, by law, that 50% of our government is white. Theres no need to since thats the proportion of our population ANYWAY and if you selected a representative portion of it you would likely have that percentage of people anyway without the need of laws.

BiscuitTrouser:
snip

I'm sorry before I bother to attempt to answer any of your points. Did you totally miss where I stated that I'm of no real religious belief? Seriously wtf?

You seem to have missed the entire point, NO ONE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS HAS ANY PART IN THE STATUE WRITING PROCESS (fun to write in capitals I know :) ). Like most individuals in this country you seem to have failed to grasp what exactly the house of lords does. They are essentially a review board, they make suggestions, they make points they feel the country may benefit from, their speeches occasionally make the 6 o'clock news. But at the end of the day they can be by-passed and ignored. That is why I can see merit in having body's in there that can bring unique view points that may otherwise be over looked, to make suggestions <-------- this, take this in ----->suggestions<------ it's also why I would be in favor of sticking in a few notable scientists, a couple of doctors, a few ex-servicemen, to bring unique viewpoints to the table, but who hold no real power other than to say, "might be worth having a look at that" an a bill being reviewed in relative terms for 5 extra mins. Putting people in there who are not going to get elected to the commons because they were on career paths that meant they could dedicate most of their lives to the political system.

IF we were talking about having enforced representatives in the commons I could wholly understand. Your viewpoint seem's to be totally lacking in comprehension of what the Lords do. It's been a very very long time since they wielded any real power.

On the subject of stating whether a country is is X nation etc, it's a term used to describe the majority of a country, if you don't like how the English language and it's terms operate, start learning another one, as no matter how much you dislike the turn of phrase when 60% of a country is something by choice they are a X nation.

An finally, no matter how much people want to claim "Christmas isn't a religious holiday" it was a religious holiday before you were born, just because you want to take part in all the fun doesn't make it any less a religious holiday. The problem with your analogy is, everybody has to go to work on a Thursday at some point, nobody HAS to celebrate Christmas, on the 25th of December you can get smashed with a crate of stella and burn a giant wicker man in your garden, an call it hugo boss day, you know if you want, just because your non-religious and choose to celebrate Christmas doesn't make it a non-religious festival. I mean I wouldn't move to israel an go "you know what your all doing that Hanukkah thing looks like a blast, me an my mates are all going to celebrate it, but we don't believe in it so it's not a religious festival". Do you know how little sense that makes? When I'm sitting there having Christmas dinner, it's not about celebrating the birth of Jesus for me either, but I'm not deluding myself that I'm not taking part in a religious festival at the core of it.

The idea that all the religious holidays were "stolen" from the pagans is just one at some point people have chosen to take and run with. They chose to hold their yearly festivals on the same date as previously established ones, SO? All religions work heavily with symbolism and metaphorical meanings, parables of non existing events to get points across and so forth, whats the big deal with hosting an event that's of wholly symbolic meaning on a date that coincides with another.

EDIT:
I was looking for a passage that summed up the role of the lords better than I could, but someone has for once on the wiki page do an great job of summing up a section from "The Constitutional Reform Process"

"While the House of Lords is unable unilaterally to prevent bills passing into law (except in certain limited circumstances[10]), its members can severely delay bills that they believe to be misguided and thereby force the government, the Commons, and the general public to reconsider their decisions.[11] In this capacity, the Lords acts as constitutional safeguard that is independent from the electoral process and that can challenge...."

Key words there, "Challenge" "Delay" "independent from the electoral process". If they are all elected, whats the point, might as well have more MP's an do away with the lords, if you don't think that is a valuable role, I personally do.

Jedi-Hunter4:

it's also why I would be in favor of sticking in a few notable scientists, a couple of doctors, a few ex-servicemen, to bring unique viewpoints to the table, but who hold no real power other than to say, "might be worth having a look at that" an a bill being reviewed in relative terms for 5 extra mins. Putting people in there who are not going to get elected to the commons because they were on career paths that meant they could dedicate most of their lives to the political system.

IF we were talking about having enforced representatives in the commons I could wholly understand. Your viewpoint seem's to be totally lacking in comprehension of what the Lords do. It's been a very very long time since they wielded any real power.

On the subject of stating whether a country is is X nation etc, it's a term used to describe the majority of a country, if you don't like how the English language and it's terms operate, start learning another one, as no matter how much you dislike the turn of phrase when 60% of a country is something by choice they are a X nation.

An finally, no matter how much people want to claim "Christmas isn't a religious holiday" it was a religious holiday before you were born, just because you want to take part in all the fun doesn't make it any less a religious holiday. The problem with your analogy is, everybody has to go to work on a Thursday at some point, nobody HAS to celebrate Christmas, on the 25th of December you can get smashed with a crate of stella and burn a giant wicker man in your garden, an call it hugo boss day, you know if you want, just because your non-religious and choose to celebrate Christmas doesn't make it a non-religious festival.

First off i knew you werent religious, i didnt accuse you of being christian once? Also i think we should tone this all down. Sorry if i came off as inflammitory. I just got back from over 12 hours of travel from andorra and was tired as hell. And slightly irritable. Lets make this more civil ok?

The difference is that a scientist can also be a christian, as can an ex serviceman. They have relevant skills as well as possibly a faith. What else can the priest bring other than "Being christian"? What do they have that is special? What expertise do they bring? I think the difference is that a doctor and an ex serviceman bring insight based on objective reality to the table. Its accessible to 100% of our nation. Not just one group. And thats how i think ALL parts of government should function. Advice and suggestions given by the house of lords should be given on the basis of ALL peoples not just some or a select group. It shouldnt be interest groups lobbying to represent their group. It should be people sharing expertise on something all people agree is useful or relevant to discuss an issue. The only thing i imagine a priest can offer is biblical insight. Or the churches teachings. None of which i think is useful in the slightest seeing as our laws are now not defined by the bible at all. To be frank i agree that it was once. But basically from my perspective whats happened is that the biblical teachings were flung into law and whats stuck in todays law is the teachings that happened to be objectively based rather than faith based. I cant really understand why we would need biblical insight into new laws.

Im actually not totally against the priests being included if we have also representatives from ALL major faiths in the UK AND the experts in other fields actually. Without the inherent christian bias it makes some sense. I cant see the sense behind "Once something hits 51% popularity it gets ALL religious representation and everyone else gets none". Keep it based on the actual divisions in the country and then we can see a real basis for inter faith discussion. Either include everyone based on belief or no one.

I still dont think thats correct english. For example by that logic this is a: White nation, striaght nation, brown haired nation and brown eyed nation that loves marmite. But thats just silly. You cant take all the traits owned by the "Average" citizen and put it in front of the word "Nation" and have it be correct. Even if its the correct use of english its horribly inaccurate and crude in describing a nation. Also by that logic THIS is a green square since 60% of its colour is green.

Its patently not. And if i asked you to describe it in a single word i doubt you would use green.

As to the festivals it depends on how we define what is a religious holiday or not. For example a birthday is definitely not inherently a religious holiday. However were i to celebrate it on the basis of "Its been 19 years since the lord gave me life", included many bible readings and prayers at my celebration and hung crosses everywhere to celebrate it thats a religious celebration but technically a non religious holiday. I think i worded it poorly before though. Conversely I think its possible to celebrate a once religious festival non religiously on a cultural basis in other words christmas without any christian imagery, just secular celebration and a nice tree. Our culture is that the yule time is a time for celebration. The point i was making with christians taking the date is that getting drunk and being merry on that date is not a christian event. Thats happened for ages before christianity and who is to say im not celebrating THAT rather than christmas, the purely cultural event that predated christianity but has been shared with the new religion when it first arrived and in my opinion still retains the secular cultural aspect to a degree. If a religious event is going to share a date for a celebration you cant assume ALL celebration on that date is specific for that religion nor that by partaking in celebration on that day im in some way attaching myself to that religion or owe them or whatever. Thats the downside of using a previously used date. Lots of baggage culturally is already attached to it. In this case secular merryment which i choose to partake in. I understand that christianity has culturally taken over the date and attached a newer meaning to it. However i still see a secular cultural reason to celebrate under that and i choose to stick with it.

EDIT:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/14/lords-reform-bishops-reserved-benches

Makes a good argument better than i did.

tstorm823:

BiscuitTrouser:

If the catholic church JUST went and preached about how awesome not sleeping around was id support them 100%. Theres no need to attack the condom.

Of course there is. There's like 10% failure rate lifetime among people using consistent protection. And people saying "if you use these your whole life there's a 10% chance you'll give someone AIDs, here's a free crate of them" does not discourage people from sleepng around much.

Skeleon:

You don't help anybody by spreading a message of "don't be promiscuous, but if you are then condoms are useless so don't even bother".
These people kill with their lies.

Fine, I guess I'll go find that 10% statistic officially so that you can feel bad for killing with your free condoms.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art28493.html

Have you actually read the link?

"The conclusions do not mean that every tenth condom is defective, but rather that something has gone wrong in about 10 percent of their use. In many cases, specialists said, human error is the source of the failure, resulting in condoms slipping off, breaking, or not being put on early enough."

Had I been a religion hating radical left Italian president I would have sacked the holy see and transferred all of its property over to Italy and tear its agreements with the vatican, then annexing the state.

Will make Italy go into massive protests and cause some unimaginable chaos and hatred, but hey, that's good money that could easily cover for Italy's debt - and probably some of the other EU nations as well.

Well, really it boils down to interventionism. Do you feel you somehow have a right to ride in and tell someone how to live? Probably not.

So if it's not OK to do with a dictator slaughtering his people, it's not OK to do with a mostly positive group. I mean if you want to throw down the gauntlet and say, absolutely, it's my countries duty to rule the world and tell everyone what to do, more power to you.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked