Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[GrayMouser]

I'm with Comic Book Guy on this- some people need to be offended.

I wouldn't desecrate the Koran, the Bible, or a Communion wafer to personally offend someone, but I might do it to show that I find the beliefs that those items are symbolic of are offensive

And if the people who believe those things are offended because they do believe those things, well, that's the point, innit?

[GrayMouser]

For example, if a priest, a minister, a rabbi, a lama and an imam walk into a bar....oops , wrong thread

...quote their scriptures to oppose extending equal rights to our fellow citzens because they are homosexual, I'd have no qualms about a supporter of gay rights consigning the Bible, Torah, Book of Mormon, Koran or sutras etc. to the flames.


Speaking of 'purposely inflicting a sort of emotional violence on somebody else', I find the Pope's recent attempt to bame atheists like me for the Nazis
is not only historically incorrect but 'intentionally cruel':

Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny� (Caritas in Veritate, 29).

[The Gaffer]

Agreed re: Serbia/Kosovo. Though there are important differences as well.

Yes, it really sticks in my craw all this fawning all over the Pope (he's been visiting these here parts) whilst he loudly blames secularism for everything.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Of course, he did not blame atheists like you. He spoke of an atheist extremism.

Further, for it to be intentionally cruel would require that the purpose of his remarks was precisely to pin Nazism on atheism. It was not; his purpose was to express solidarity and admiration for the British people and their courageous stand against Hitler in the war.

Of course, destroying context in order to paint Ratzinger in unflattering colors has been pretty much the only media approach to him, since the time of his election.

Unadulterated vitriol, and even hatred has been poured by left-leaning and/or anti-religious sources upon the Pope personally over the past few years (probably the best of which is this little gem by Dawkins).

Considering the sheer level of anti-Catholicism and anti-papal sentiment (sometimes stooping so low as to draw upon racism), I can only be puzzled by the offense taken at the notion that not every atheist has an Immaculate Heart, and that atheism and atheistic sentiment might, also have led to some evils in the world. We all see pretty much every belief system (I do not say religion, of course); why should atheism, out of all, be the sole incorruptible?

When the Catholic Church as such (and in particular the current Roman Pontiff) is systematically portrayed as a force of (more or less) unmitigated evil, to the self-righteous noddings and murmurings of a complacent and leftist bourgeoisie, is it that horrific and offensive that he would dare suggest that atheism, too, can sometimes become an "extremism?"

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Of course, destroying context in order to paint Ratzinger in unflattering colors has been pretty much the only media approach to him, since the time of his election.

Though, truth be told, he hasn't exactly done much yet that is flattering, at least not from where I am standing. And while he may have become pope at a rather trying time for the Church, his handling isn't exactly awe-inspiring either. One would think he'd have more important and relevant things to speak about than seventy-years-old atheist-extremism or nazis.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

A large part of that, I am sure, is because the media only reports things that are likely to be controversial. His strong opposition to capitalist excesses, his celebration of love, and his work for Jewish-Christian relations, and for relations with other Christian bodies, for instance, whiz by unseen, because they are not controversial.

As I mentioned above, the reason he mentioned Nazism was to express admiration of the British spirit, in resisting Hitler. Surely, that can be seen as relevant when speaking to a British audience.

[Comic Book Guy]

I never found Ratzinger's outrageous lies particularly offensive, as they are quite demonstrable historical falsehoods, as anyone who knows anything about the historical disgraces 20th Century Nazism and Catholicism. Anyone with half a braincell would discover Ratzinger was talking pure bunkum as per usual upon half a seconds research. I did feel quite miffed about the grossly disproportionate coverage Ratzinger received through the media, considering how the United Kingdom is an overwhelming secular country, with only approximately 2-3% of the population being regular Church-going Catholics. The servile fawning and sycophancy in the reportage and countless interviews, particularly from the BBC, was nearly the most revolting thing about the whole visit.

Also, what is an atheist extremist by the way? Upon examination, that phrase is exposed as vacuous nonsense. How can one be extreme about the "non-belief in supernatural deities"? Conversely, how can anyone be a moderate about the "non-belief in supernatural deities"? It's like saying someone is an extremist ahobbitist, or something.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

A large part of that, I am sure, is because the media only reports things that are likely to be controversial. His strong opposition to capitalist excesses, his celebration of love, and his work for Jewish-Christian relations, and for relations with other Christian bodies, for instance, whiz by unseen, because they are not controversial.

As I mentioned above, the reason he mentioned Nazism was to express admiration of the British spirit, in resisting Hitler. Surely, that can be seen as relevant when speaking to a British audience.

I don't know, I remember seeing several of those instances on TV, so it's not like they weren't reported on. But they're minor (IMO) compared to the things he should be doing. His position still holds a tremendous influence. Yet he is surprisingly slow in utilising it in things that matter now. And while his outreach to other religions is commendable, he's failing in reaching his own followers who want him for starters to properly address the pedophilia scandal that has been going on in the Church for far, far to long.

Also, I'm sure he should be able to find a worthwhile British action that isn't seventy years old? It makes him look rather out of touch with reality if he has to go that far in time to find something to praise.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

CBG: Of course, it is not. If you note, extremism is the noun, atheism the qualifier. It refers to an extremist ideology, which includes atheism, not to an extreme form of atheism. Just as a Christian extremist would not be

Earniel: Not touching the sex abuse scandals, since 1) it's extremely convoluted, and I don't have the time, and 2) long, hard experience has finally taught me that a Catholic voice is dismissed out of hand on the issue, and so it's pointless.

Regarding Britain, hey, he's in his eighties, he lived through World War II, I think it's understandable to gravitate there, even if it may not be as up-to-date as one might hope.

As regards opposing capitalist extremes being minor, I would find it difficult to make that case to the many, many people who cannot support themselves, thanks to the global recession caused by those extremes.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

long, hard experience has finally taught me that a Catholic voice is dismissed out of hand on the issue, and so it's pointless.

Gee, thanks for the confidence. Normally I do the deciding on what I dismiss out of hand. But we'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As regards opposing capitalist extremes being minor, I would find it difficult to make that case to the many, many people who cannot support themselves, thanks to the global recession caused by those extremes.

Fair enough, but it is not a matter directly in the field of the Church, unlike the others. And what has the pope done about it constructively?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Gee, thanks for the confidence. Normally I do the deciding on what I dismiss out of hand. But we'll leave it at that.

Sorry; I've just been around that merry-go-round so many times, I might get sick after another.

Fair enough, but it is not a matter directly in the field of the Church, unlike the others. And what has the pope done about it constructively?

It's actually a pretty major part of Catholic ethical thought.

He has spoken up for the rights of workers, against exploitative business practices, and written an encyclical advocating more widespread distribution of wealth. Really, when you get right down to it, all a Pope can do is talk, and hope someone listens.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, and I applaud that, and would like to hear more on that, and less on regulating people's sex lives. However, to claim that the Pope is purely a victim of press distortion is either nauseatingly disingenuous or hopelessly myopic.

CBG and I can assure you that, in the UK at least, our views are not just a small minority. And yet we (through the BBC licence fee) funded blanket live coverage of his mass, various speeches, processions, receptions etc etc., not to mention the huge cost to the taxpayer for the whole thing.

The problem here is that the Catholic Church is not behaving like someone that is genuinely sorry for a terrible, terrible crime.

If the pope were genuinely repentant of the manifold and legion sins of his clerics, he, his cardinals, bishops, whatnots and whoevers, the whole hierarchy would get down on their knees and wash the feet of every single victim of abuse.

There appears to be no intention to address the root cause, either.

Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers

I would like to state clearly that I am not anti-Catholic. I support Celtic in the Old Firm. (CBG will vouch for those credentials.) What I am anti is harmful, illiberal social policy dressed up as dogma.

I would say the same about Islam or any other code. However, I don't know much about Islam so I don't feel as able to comment. Also, I live in a country in which the state provides separate education for Catholic children, thereby assisting in the indoctrination of the population and the propagation of some dangerous and harmful views. It also perpetrates - and acts as a road block against efforts to eliminate - Sectarianism from my country.

Although I do find it highly ironic that now you experience anti-Catholic sentiment as potentially racist, yet not so when directed against Muslims. (Or maybe I am being unfair here, I can't remember what your view was on that.)

As the Proclaimers said, "What do you do, when minority means you?"

Finally, I appreciate your efforts to respond to all these comments, GW. I hope the exercise doesn't sharpen your arguments too much...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, to claim that the Pope is purely a victim of press distortion is either nauseatingly disingenuous or hopelessly myopic.

I never said "purely." Certainly, he's made mistakes.

Although I do find it highly ironic that now you experience anti-Catholic sentiment as potentially racist,

Not anti-Catholic sentiment, just anti-Ratzinger sentiment, and then only sometimes, insofar as it sometimes plays off his German ethnicity (God's Rottweiler, Panzerkardinal, etc.). Honestly, I wouldn't have picked up on that part, but my brother (who vacillates between atheist and Asatru) is very keen on his German heritage, and he actually picked up on the "anti-German" element.

Finally, I appreciate your efforts to respond to all these comments, GW. I hope the exercise doesn't sharpen your arguments too much...

I hope I can continue to be as dull as ever.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

The problem here is that the Catholic Church is not behaving like someone that is genuinely sorry for a terrible, terrible crime.

If the pope were genuinely repentant of the manifold and legion sins of his clerics, he, his cardinals, bishops, whatnots and whoevers, the whole hierarchy would get down on their knees and wash the feet of every single victim of abuse.

I don't agree with everything you say (or everything that Gwai says, either, for that matter), and there are definitely complexities in this issue, but I would also like to see more heartfelt sorrow over these crimes, instead of just statements. For example, at the very least calling for church-wide days of prayer and fasting over this issue and for the victims of these crimes. Gwai, you would be more likely to know than I would - has this been done, or something similar to this?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I hope I can continue to be as dull as ever.

We luv ya!

(and you're not dull)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't agree with everything you say (or everything that Gwai says, either, for that matter), and there are definitely complexities in this issue, but I would also like to see more heartfelt sorrow over these crimes, instead of just statements. For example, at the very least calling for church-wide days of prayer and fasting over this issue and for the victims of these crimes. Gwai, you would be more likely to know than I would - has this been done, or something similar to this?

As I said, I don't want to get into the sex abuse scandals, it would require a good deal more effort than I care to put into it at this point. Just to briefly answer your question, no.

[The Gaffer]

Fair enough, but you will understand my concerns.

I would be interested in understanding why Dawkins is viewed as some sort of extremist, though.

[Comic Book Guy]

CBG: Of course, it is not. If you note, extremism is the noun, atheism the qualifier. It refers to an extremist ideology, which includes atheism, not to an extreme form of atheism. Just as a Christian extremist would not be

Again, atheism is not a ideology, it's just a non belief in something. It's just total strawmannery, or at least a curious understanding of the word.

[Rían]

Do you believe that this visible world is all there is, then?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Comic Book Guy

Again, atheism is not a ideology, it's just a non belief in something. It's just total strawmannery, or at least a curious understanding of the word.

I know a number of people I would most definitely call Atheist ideologues. You can say its not a religion but to say all atheists are exempt from any consideration of ideology or belief system and are completely unaffected by human tendency to cling to ones point of view about the world is a bit duplicitous.