Today the Catholic world celebrates the latest addition to the Catholic pantheon. John Paul II breaks the record for the fastest beatification and is now just one step from sainthood.
He has earned his wings
I think it's pretty obvious the reasons behind this fast process. The Catholic Church has seen a decline in the number of its followers, the reason being, of course, its boy-raping priests and the church's idleness to deal with it. As it was expected, the catholic Church didn't like this one bit. Giancarlo Zizola, John Paul II's biographer told Spanish newspaper El Pais:
These are bad times for the Roman Church and the beatification appears as trying an urgent therapy. It seems like they are trying to reproduce the massive consensus regarding the last papacy to cover the actual crisis. Zizola thinks that there is an interest among movements like Opus Dei and Communion and Liberation to appropriate John Paul II's figure to strengthen its actual role"
John Paul lived in another time, an easier time than the one Ratzinger has. John Paul II didn't have to suffer the internet diffusing with no restraints all the hypocrisy and perversion the Catholic Church is capable of. Catholics' selective memory was helped by that time's media, which never did many efforts to spread the sexual abuses committed by the priests. Add to that the fact that the secular movement wasn't as strong as it is today.
This is why John Paul II is remembered as someone sublime, almost like a modern-day saint. Considering the crisis the Catholic Church is suffering, why not take advantage of such fame? Doing so allows the church to create a bridge between it and the faithful who started to see estranged and away the church that for many years had control over so many people.Now this generation can say "We have a blessed among us! We have someone especial! God is still with us!"
We have to admit that John Paul did some good in the world, like his criticism towards the communists (you can say whatever you want about American capitalist imperialism, but I don't think a Soviet-controlled world would have been better) or helping Chile and Argentina to achieve peace. But this in no way erase his activism against contraceptives, especially in AIDS-ridden Africa, or against gays.
Most notoriously of all, John Paul took no action at all against the Mexican priest Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who was beset by allegations of sexual abuse for decades. It eventually emerged that he was a drug addict who had fathered several children with two different women and had also committed numerous acts of sexual abuse, some with his own children. But Degollado was an authoritarian conservative after John Paul's own stripe, and John Paul would hear no ill of him. It was left to his successor to force him to retire to "a life of penitence".
"In more than 25 years as the most powerful religious figure on the planet," commented Barbara Blaine, head of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (Snap), "John Paul II did almost nothing to safeguard kids." Because of this she urged the church to postpone the beatification, to "avoid rubbing more salt into these wounds".
Maybe John Paul didn't really know who Maciel was. However, he knew exactly what he was looking for and what kind of people he needed to achieve it
For his battle, he needed an unconditional army. He had no use for Franciscans, Dominicans or Jesuits. They were to busy with the poor. Almost in the Marxist realm. Enemies of the powerful. Wojtyla found new recruits in the Opus, the Kikos, the Lumen Dei, the Communoin and Liberation and the Legion of Christ. Together they jumped in the time machine and went back to the 50s, to a church with a centralized power and with no place for dissidence. And decided that such church had to be the one of the new millennium. Maciel was one of the leaders
Marcial Maciel died without ever going to prison for his crimes, neither judged for them. If there is a miracle we can actually attribute to John Paul II, it is to have protected a rapist for so long and even after dead
This is the guy venerated by old people who see in him the one they were trained to love and obey, and by young ones, who they see as the wonderful figure with they grow up, go up to the altar and scratch the skies. They even have relics, a vial with John Paul II's blood, in case someone thought this couldn't get even more medieval, a time the Catholic Church would love to see brought back
This is a very clever move by the Catholic Church, but not really surprising. To take advantage of its followers' gullibility is just normal for them.
Holy Week supposedly ends with a great event, the (supposed) resurrection of Christ. I'll do the same. I'll finish this week of recommendations with a blast. You must already know about it and maybe you have already seen it. Well, it's only fair to watch it again.
On August 27, 2009, Penn & Teller's Bullshit made an episode about the Vatican. As you can expect from them, they didn't have nice things to say. But they hard true things to say. Not a truth that is said to be given by God through the Pope, or found in the Bible. "Truth" as in facts.
The interesting thing is that this episode is not listed on Penn & Teller's webpage, nor available on the DVDs. Why could that be? You tell me, who wouldn't want that episode available to anyone?
Fortunately the internet has made a miracle. We can watch the episode about the Vatican! Whoever didn't want this to be available can't be very happy about it, just like those who oppose to sharing information are when knowledge is made available to people.
These are parts 2 and 3. They have Spanish subtitles. So, if you can, please, send them to your Spanish-speaking friend, to that foreign student, to the lady who cleans your home, or to the guy who takes care of your garden. I write most of this blog in Spanish because I feel like the Spanish-speaking world needs to have this kind of knowledge.
It’s interesting how the religious will usually look for a way to go around their prohibitions to do what they want, while at the same time, keeping the consciences at bay. God will always be an excuse for capitalism, socialism, bigotry, love, acceptance, racism, etc. This is the idea I got after Madeinusa, a Peruvian movie starring one of its greatest actresses, Magaly Solier
Madeinusa is a young girl who lives with her sister and her father, who is the mayor of Manayaycuna, their town, which is getting prepared for the Holy Week festivities. Salvador, a young man from the coast, arrives, apparently, to work on a mining project. He sees one of the festivities, in which several girls from town compete on who will be the Virgin Mary for the procession. Madeinusa wins and Salvador takes a picture of her. Because of this, he is locked up, being told that the villagers don’t like foreigners.
Yeah, I'm the Virgin. But won't be for very long
In town, Madeinusa acts like weeping Virgin Mary who goes along a statue of Jesus Christ who just died on the cross, towards a church. After that, the whole town celebrates because God is dead and for 3 days won’t see what they do.
Salvador: "So, let me get this straight: On Good Friday, God dies and therefore can't see all the sins you will commit?"
Madeinusa: "Let's have sex! NOW!"
Salvador breaks free and starts walking around town. He then meets with Madeinusa, who proceeds to seduce him and finally having sex with him. Madeinusa then asks him to take her to Lima, the capital in the Coast. Salvador refuses and she goes away, angry.
Madeinusa: Ok, we had sex, now take me out of this town
Salvador: You bitch...
At night, when one of the town’s women is taking Madeinusa clothes off, she notices blood and realizes she is not a virgin anymore. She goes and tells her father, who takes her home. When Salvador goes by their house, he hears people having sex.
The next day Salvador wakes up drunk and is guided to a weird ritual in which some women are choosing men to have sex at night. Salvador leaves, disgusted. At night, the mayor takes him to the second floor of his house, and he shows him all the offerings the people have given to the church. Madeinusa is also there. He then tells Salvador that he can take anything and go back to Lima. Salvador refuses and leaves, and the mayor then leaves Madeinusa locked up. However, she escapes and goes to Salvador, who finally agrees to take her to Lima. They are leaving, but at night, she remembers she doesn’t have her mother’s earrings. She comes back and finds that her father has broken them.
Madeinusa waits for the morning and prepares soup for her father, but it is poisoned. Salvador comes back, looking for Madeinusa, but find the mayor, dead. Madeinusa’s sister arrives and thinks he killed her father and starts calling for the people.
At the end, we only see Madeinusa in a truck going to Lima, without Salvador. His camera is seen lying among the Holy Week offerings.
Then she moved to France
Some people criticized the movie because, they said, it depicted villagers from the Peruvian mountains as crazy people, while the one arriving from the coast is the civilized one. This however is an impression one can have, especially if it’s the first time one lives through local celebrations. Usually during these celebrations, there is great display of religiosity, but also men and women get drunk, there is violence and some people get injured.
This is a nice depiction of the religious hypocrisy that is lived through ritual that are respected simply because tradition is an unmovable force in such places. Traditions and customs are respected, especially if they have some religious meaning, and under that excuse, people will do whatever they want. It doesn’t matter if you got drunk, hit your wife or had a child out of wedlock, if it was during the saint’s celebration, it’s all ok.
The movie is based on a novel written in 1875, which means that priests haven’t been that holy for a long, long time. If they ever were. "The Crime of Father Amaro" was nominated for best foreign movie.
Father Amaro (played by Gael García Bernal) arrives to a small town in Mexico, where he is sent to learn from the elderly priest in charge. He starts celebrating mass and is admired by the extremely Catholic inhabitants, especially by Amelia, a young woman who teaches catechism to the children. Amaro soon notices that the older priest has an affair with Amelia’s mother, but says nothing. He also says nothing about the construction of a hospital that is financed by drug money.
"You will go to heaven, but there is room for only one Virgin there
On the other side, there is another priest who is criticized for helping a leftist guerrilla. He eventually will get defrocked, but will continue to help the insurgents.
Having feelings for Amaro, Amelia dumps her boyfriend Ruben, a journalist and an atheist who has proof about the relationship between the church and the area drug lord. He writes an article for the local newspaper, but the church threatens it with withdrawing their advertisements from the newspaper. Ruben is fired and then his home vandalized by angered Catholics and his father results injured
Not even God can escape this temptation
Amelia announces she is pregnant with Amaro’s child. Despite the words about love being a blessing, Amaro refuses to acknowledge that he is the father, since that would threaten his career as a priest. Amelia asks Ruben to marry her, but he refuses. Amaro then arranges for Amelia to have an abortion. At night, he takes her, along with a devout catholic woman to a clinic, but she starts bleeding profusely. Amaro tries to get her to a hospital, but she dies in the way.
Days later, Amaro celebrates mass, while the town thinks that Ruben was the one who impregnated Amelia and Amaro saved her.
Oh, yeah, thank you guys for blaming the atheist. Now come and keep drinking the cool-aid.
The depiction of the admiration the people feel for their priests (“Father Amaro is a living Saint”) is a great reflection of reality, a reality in which people, especially poor and uneducated, tend to blindly trust their priests, pastors, and in general, anyone who claims to represent God. A sad reality that ended up in thousands of children being abused.
Another thing worth noting is that among the “bad” priests, there is a good one who chooses to serve where he is needed. More than trying to patch the Catholic Church’s reputation, I think this represents pretty well that those who get the most recognition aren’t usually the best ones when it comes to “serving God”.
There is also the fact that Amaro feels guilty for what he does, at least at first. But then, he finds a way to reconcile his conscience with his priestly duty and then keep doing what he does, meaning, Amelia. At least this time it was a willing young woman instead of a boy.
Finally, the people’s zeal about defending their priests against those who criticize them depicts pretty well the kind of sheep religion breeds.
Overall, The Crime of Padre Amaro is a great drama that will have viewers, both believers and non-believers entertained and outraged. And maybe, might make some believers rethink their ideas about priests, pastors and other snake-oil dealers.
Seriously, that the Vatican wouldn’t want to cooperate with investigations regarding sex abuse is no news. But the Wikileaks cables are one of the most concrete pieces of evidence (perhaps the most concrete) that we have about the Vatican’s hypocrisy and how unwilling Ratzinger and his minions are to punish those who abused children, if that will undermine his organization’s power
Leaked cable lays bare how Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission
The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children and was angered when they were summoned from Rome, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks reveal.
The most outrageous thing here is how unwilling the Vatican is when it comes to investigate what really happened with those victims. Its hypocrisy seems to know no limits, especially considering that “the truth shall set you free” apparently, that only works when it comes to confessions. The Catholic Church tries to convince us to reveal our “sins” but is too unwilling to confess its owns.
Besides, it’s also worth noting that by now it’s impossible to talk about single cases, since we have seen once and again that it’s not just one priest raping children, or even a bishop covering those crimes. It’s the whole machine working to cover all the abuse and trying to keep their good image, even if that means letting rape go unpunished.
The Catholic Church is desperate to keep its position and power, just like a mafia when the police start disrupting its operations. The difference is that the catholic mafia needs to lose its venerable aura. Fortunately, its priests do a better job than all its detractors do together.
In this race there were two candidates that were playing the “God” card. Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, both of them babbling bigotry and nonsense inspired in their belief in loving celestial father. Fortunately, both of them lost the election.
"When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn't just say, 'Well today you're going to run against Harry Reid,'" the tea party favorite said.
It seems that God doesn’t have the power to support the candidates He endorses. That, or Ms. Angle is just deluded and is hearing voices in her head, which apparently, happens to many of those who say God talks to them.
Lovely woman, isn’t her? The typical arrogant fundamentalist who thinks he or she can understand the will of a supernatural being whose existence they can’t prove, and use that “understanding” to further a conservative agenda. Now, after losing, she shuns the media, aparently protecting her ego from being reminded that, well, she lost.
So that was Ms. Angle losing in Nevada. But there was also O’Donnell losing in Delaware. While I didn’t pay much attention to O’Donnell it’s not that I didn’t have material for doing so. First of all, let’s go back in time and remember her views on… well, “self-pleasure”
First of all, you know that when “Savior” and ‘Truth are together in a sentence or phrase, we are approaching a huge pile of manure. This is no exception. “God says…”, “The Bible says…”, “God’s appropriate context”, “pure hearts, not adulterous hearts”, and “lust is committing adultery”. Seriously, not even my grandma, I think. But well, if she wants to have a traumatized sexual life, it’s her problem.
Now, her stupidity was confirmed when she failed to understand evolution:
O’DONNELL: You know what, evolution is a myth. And even Darwin himself –
MAHER: Evolution is a myth?!? Have you ever looked at a monkey!
O’DONNELL: Well then, why they — why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?
A real idiot, isn't her? But well, the US constitution gives its people the freedom to be idiots. But when she tries to run for office and represent a group of people with views like these…
"People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder," she told Wilmington News Journal reporter Victor Greto.
... then we know we are talking about a bigoted person who uses her nonsensical beliefs to support her bigotry. Especially when…
Homosexuality has been considered a normal variation of human sexuality for nearly four decades. The American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association both declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in the early 1970s.
These are the people who run with a self-proclaimed endorsement from God. Arrogant, callous, deluded, bigoted, manipulative, ignorant, and proud of such ignorance. While this election has been big for conservatives in general, I am please to see these fundamentalists bite the dust. Hopefully one day we won’t even will have to hear about them.
I wonder what Raztinger thought while flying to England. Would he be expecting a lot of support after comparing atheists to nazis? Well, certainly that (added to to his record in favor of pedophiles) didn't seat well among the British.
Especially one of our favorites Brits, Richard Dawkins
I'm glad Dawkins understands it like I did. We both are happy that Ratzinger is worried about us, so much that the first thing he does is compare us to nazis. Dawkins explains this might well be to divert the sight from his own crimes.
Great Mr. Dawkins. You can read the whole speech here.
But it wasn't just Dawkins against the Pope. We are used to that. It was thousands of people expressing their disgust with Ratzinger
I'm glad that so many people notice how despicable is Ratzinger and his policies. That gives us hope for a better future.
Yesterday I wrote about the Pope's reaction to Hawking's words. I thought about adding a series of videos to that post, but then realized that they needed their own.
In the last years child sex abuse by Catholic officials have been constantly in the news. The appearance of such cases in different parts of the world, during decades make the cases outrageous. But more outrageous is the attitude high authorities and the Vatican take regarding it. Catholic officials prefer to keep silent and simply "transfer" abusive priests to other locations, where they can keep abusing children.
Some people like to think that these are just isolated cases. They don't want to see the harsh truth, that high officials, such as cardinals prefer to keep rapers safe without caring for the victims
One of the most outrageous cases is the one of Marcial Maciel, a Mexican priest founder of the Legion of Christ. Maciel was investigated for child sex abuse, but was never brought to justice, in part then Cardinal Ratzinger did few to nothing to keep the investigations.
Maciel was very close to Pope John Paul, who also didn't do much to bring his friend to the justice. He died without going to jail.
If you still have any doubt about what the Catholic Church is capable of doing, pay attention to the next videos. This is an episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit in which they expose the Vatican and their bigotry, hatred, stupidity and power abuse. After the episode was broadcasted, the catholic lobby seems to have moved its influences. The episode is not available on DVD, and it doesn't figure in Showtime's webpage. So take a look at it while you can.
Certainly, it's not a happy thing to see. But just because you feel uncomfortable when watching the hypocrisy and cynicism in the Catholic Church, it doesn't make it less real.
Why, republicans, why? Why is it so hard to make politics in a clear, intelligent way, instead to appeal to the religious retards who will follow anything that has the label "God" in it?
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Republican Sharron Angle says her campaign to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada is "a calling" from God and that her faith is helping her endure a fiercely competitive race in which Democrats have depicted her as a conservative extremist.
"When you have God in your life ... he directs your path," Angle told the Christian Broadcasting Network in an interview posted on its website Wednesday.
Asked why she entered the race, Angle said "the reason is a calling."
"When God calls you he also equips you and He doesn't just say, 'Well today you're going to run against Harry Reid,'" the tea party favorite said.
This is not a political blog and yet, I've written three times about this woman. A calling for God? Is she crazy? What does that mean? That God spoke to her, like, in a dream? This is either serious schizophrenia or just pure arrogance that pushes Angle to say she is little less than "the chosen one".
Since this is a blog about religion, I try to keep it separated from political shenanigans. Unfortunately religion has a lot to do with politics as it serves as a way to control those religious enough to love being sheep under a so-called shepherd. While I consider myself a liberal, this is mostly related to social issues (gay rights, abortion, etc). Economic policy is something I might agree with the right. However, it's hard to feel akin to a party whose candidates will go as far as declaring they are "in God's side".
How easy would it be for the liberals to also say "Jesus would help the poor", "Jesus wouldn't be at war" or stuff like that? I would be dick move, but might work. I would hate it, of course. It would be to appeal to those who can't think for themselves and prefer to mindlessly follow a shepherd.
If Angle wins she will be little less than those crazy Muslim leaders who do whatever they see fit "in the name of Allah"
Angle, a Southern Baptist, has called herself a faith-based politician who prays daily. Among her positions, she opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape and incest.
Really? Well, the nutjobs who flew the planes towards the Twin Towers were also "faith based". As for abortion and rape, well, we already know her stances. That is where a true christian stands, right? Nice, very, very nice. So full of love and comprehension. What a joke.
Here, check the video. Try not to puke in your mouth
"There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability. So whenever we talk about government and government's role, government's role is to protect life and that's what our Founding Father said, that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
[...]
"I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade."
As easy as that. If you get raped, just have the baby. It is an opportunity, as much as having lemons is an opportunity to make lemonade. Seriously, can someone in their right mind get more cynical than this? She almost makes it sound as if rape were a good thing.
Angle, who is a republican (what else?) candidate for congress, talks of her own heart-warming experience. Good for you, and for the victim of rape who had to receive your advise. But that is it. Personal experience is hardly useful, given the huge amount of "personal experiences" several people can have. That is a bit of a problem in the United States: people are overrated. They tend to think that their opinions are valid for everyone else. Someone needs to stand up and say "I'm sorry, but that is bullshit."
Women who get abortion don't do it because they like to get them. It is already a hard decision, and in the case of rape, a hard decision after a traumatic experience. If we as a society cannot stop that, the least we can do is to provide all the tools and methods available for the victims.
Finally, the God's plan. I usually tend to mock on this because of the nonsensical nature of the plan. I already explain that a God that plans for a rape to happen is a huge asshole. But in the hypothetical case that it had a plan, would we know? Seriously, how would people know that God has a plan, and furthermore, what that plan is? Exactly, no one knows.
But, wait, there are some who know, or at least claim to know. Religious people, especially religious and conservative leaders. They will tell us what God plan is, a plan that usually suits their intolerant, homophobic and misogynistic agenda. These people will brag to the four winds that the know God's plan and consider themselves real, true believers. What a bunch.
I don't know if there is a God or not. But if there is, and he is all those people say about him, I prefer hell.
The Nevada Senate candidate says abortion is always wrong because there is a divine purpose to all pregnancies
Manders asks her whether there is "any reason at all for an abortion," and she answers: "Not in my book." For clarity, he says: "So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?" And Angle replies with this reasoning: "You know, I'm a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things." You see, God planned your rape and pregnancy. Isn't that reassuring?
Chilling, isn't it? There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know exactly where to begin.
First of all, there is the idea that a woman can't decide for herself what to do with her body. Yes, I know, abortion is such a hard topic, but, as everything, there is no black and white. But a pregnancy will truly affect a woman's life and she should some saying in that.
Second, we are not talking about some girl that got knocked up. We are talking about a rape. I'm pretty sure no woman would want to have any reminder of such horrific moment, not even if it is a baby. But according to this woman, that doesn't seem to be very important.
Third, the idea that God plans for someone to get a rape. As one of my friends commented, I don't know what to say. This should mean that such God is the greatest asshole ever. According to Angle, God must have planned the Rape of Nanking. What a dick, isn't it?
And finally, the idea that such God does this for "a purpose" and that this purpose is inherently good. I would like to see someone trying to explain that to a rape victim: "Don't cry girl, be happy, this happened because God wanted it. Remember, God loves you"
This would have ended here, but there is more to the story.
I published this on Facebook, where one of my contacts (a pretty clever guy, for what I know) shared it, But he made it with the following comment:
"horrifying. Angle, you are not a real Christian"
To which I couldn't hold my horses and replied:
So, you mean that she must be a muslim, a jew or an atheist, and is making people believe she is a christian? What exactly is a "real christian"?
Maybe I was being too sarcastic, which might have bothered my friend a little bit. Maybe that prompted his long response:
"What exactly is a "real christian"?" that's a big question and u know im not going to try to define that here--nor is it necessary for me to do so. that said, while creativity doesnt have a precise definition in the scholarly community, people are ok with the "you know it when you see it" standard, and im applying that to identifying christians
lets put it this way ...someone might call themselves a biologist, and then go on to make things up about the natural world. biologists would say that they're calling themselves a biologist, but they're not even bad biologists, they arent biologists period. their calling themselves one would make them a false biologist. and Angle is by similar reasoning a false Christian.
I know that in your atheist mind, religion leads to evil ideas and Angle's are just another example. in your mind, the faithful are stupid fucks filled with bad ideas such as these. so according to your schema of christians, using the same 'know it when you see it' reasoning I am, she fits the bill.
our definitions of what a real christian is are different and probably unresolvable. our fundamental difference is that all the stupid shit in the belief system as practiced today, you think of it as a correct understanding of a crap doctrine, while I see it as an interpretation by man that is wrong and driven not by reason but by our less impressive motivations. it is best in this case if we agree to disagree. but I leave you with the thought that supreme court justices often have pre-formed opinions on matters and pretty much rule however the hell they want, spinning the constitution as needed--same happens w/religious texts.
finally, "you mean that she must be a muslim, a jew or an atheist" is a completely ridic statement Diego, and you know it. statements this poorly thought out are not conducive to productive dialogue, so please filter these from your future comments. I dont want to be a dick--and since you yourself know this statement was unproductive, I know you wont take this request the wrong way.
Very articulated, I have to say. Not the average God-soldier, Christ-lover, abortion-doctor killer, who fights in the pro-life side so strongly. Yet, that wasn't enough for me. I responded a longer and more tedious post:
Nice try with the biologist example, but, as far as I know, there is a standard for someone to be call a biologist, which is a degree a person gets from an educational institution. Before that you may call yourself a biology student, but, to be properly recognized as a biologist, you may want to have something "official" to prove it.
With belief it is different. I don't doubt that Angle is a Christian, as much as I don't doubt that Martin Luther King Jr was. As far as I know, both of them believe in Christ and therefore, they both can be called christians. Even the guys from the Westboro Baptist Church are christians because, they believe in Christ.
Now, in my (actually) atheist/agnostic mind, I see religion as something that can produce goodness and love from people, but at the same time evil and intolerance. You, on the other hand, seem to think that if someone doesn't fit the ideal of "good person", therefore, that person must not be a true christian. That reminds me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which you must be familiar with. In case not, you can google it.
The question of her being a muslim, jew or atheist, yes, was kind of tongue-in-cheek. Why? because I didn't think you would be saying that, because she holds so despicable views, therefore she must not be a "real christian." Maybe I was wrong.
Finally, the "True christian" label has been used by many (if not all) denominations to discredit others. In this way, protestants accuse catholics of not being real christians ("they adore images" they say), and catholics accuse protestants of not being true christians ("their church was founded by Martin Luther and not by Jesus himself" they say). That is just one example.
I don't know you in person, but taking it from what you usually put in your wall, you seem like a very intelligent person. So, I don't think anyone is being a dick here, but actually having a very interesting conversation.
I think I addressed everything my friend said. I would have liked to point out that his assumption of my "atheist" mind was actually a prejudice of what we all atheists are. But that would have been something too long for a Facebook discussion. Besides, I prefer to demonstrate that by acts and just by mere words. Like a "true christian" maybe.
Here is his response:
thanks for explaining your comment as tongue-in-cheek ... glad I was wrong about it being unproductive, and yes, we are two smart people enjoying a good discussionhmm ... i could be committing the no true scotsman fallacy
but let's take the extreme example of taliban's ideas about islam. based on a "rational" understanding of the islamic God... what talibs do (poison gas girls schools, fuck donkeys on thursdays b/c they think friday prayers absolve of all sins, etc) is in no fucking way a reasonable interpretation of what islam should be. they might 'believe' in the prophet muhammad (as Angle 'believes' in jesus), but the belief system they're constructing about the world and the divine is in every other sense fucking unrecognizable as reasonable abrahamic religion. what they're doing is not islam, but a belief system that's completely their own invention that just happens to have co-opted the prophet of islam. sort of how "gnostic christians" gave jesus some significance but then spun alongside him a crazy system that ... totally isnt compatible w/the christian universe.
YES ... gnostic christians are a good analogy here
And my response...
Ok, let's take extreme example of the talibans. Their understanding of the islamic god is repulsive to us and most muslims will say that "they are not true muslims". However, that is the same thing the talibans would say about other muslims; and the same thing the Westboro Baptist wackos say about other christians. It is nice to think that a reasonable interpretation of islam or christianity leads to goodness and only goodness. But the problem is that nor Muhammad nor Jesus will come down to explain what the scripture their followers follow actually mean. But we have to ask, "reasonable" in terms of what? I would say, based on the actual society's norms. But to some, that leads directly to a false interpretation, since it is not totally based on the early scripture, which nowadays is usually found unreasonable.
Now, coming back to the issue here, Angle seems to be very sure that she is a true christian, and I bet most of her followers will think so too.
As we heard, according to her, her idea that God plans rapes is founded in her belief in God and, like many, an interpretation of the scripture. You, and many, condemn her for being a “fake christian” based on the idea that according to Jesus (through the bible, I presume), is just trying to get votes from the “true christians.” Again, I have to ask how do we know which one is right? According to whom? It would be awesome if the heavens opened, and, at least an angel came down, blow a horn, a trumpet, even a vuvuzela, and said “This is what God REALLLY meant…” But, as a non-believer, I don’t think that is going to happen anytime.
Finally, this is so interesting, I would like to post it in my blog.
And this is how we got here.
I'm sure updates will be coming. As I said, I'm not talking with just any guy that reads, repites and memorizes scripture. This is a very educated person with a degree in something I don't remember, so I don't think he will pull back. Just like I wouldn't.
Update:
Yes, there was more:
First of all, I failed to notice this message before my last response:
OH DAMN ... got it Diego. good idea just happened sure one could define christians as all those who worship christ. or, in the case of gnostic christians, their belief system is SO diff from christianity that its more accurate to call them christian gnostics. here, christian is the adjective--but they're fundamentally gnostics.
when people spin their own belief system but co-opt just a few of another faith's ideas/figures, they're not members of that faith, they're members of the faith they pulled out of their ass (i grant that my judgment of these other faiths as "out of the ass" gives much credence to the atheist statement "i believe in only one less god than the rest"), and it is most appropriate to label them as members of their homespun faith--with the co-opted faith being nothing more than a modifier
admittedly, i dont know what I would call Angle's faith (also Palin's) =p. maybe "american redneck value system"?
So the next one didn't address this. If I had, I would have said that in such case, only catholics would be "real christians" since protestants pulled their own interpretation and believed what they wanted to believe. Their reasons to do so are not relevant, since they still differ from what at that point was the belief system. If so, we can call Palin and Angle just "fake christians" because they aren't catholics. But on the other hand, Martin Luther King wasn't a catholic either. And I wouldn't say he wasn't a christian.
Anyway, continuing the conversation, he responded:
Diego, yes, do post to your blog =D In this debate your position... See More's best hope of correctness rests on the following: it is possible, however unlikely (but in matters of religion the unlikely cannot be discounted), that one of the apeshit (in our opinion) interpretations of the divine (e.g. the taliban's) happens to be the one that God (if he exists) actually intends
however, all interpretations are created by the human brain ... and understanding of God's intention is just one of the many things that the brain can come to understand about the universe. Angle's brain has fucked up the interpretation of a lot of things. Think of the divine is just another thing on that list.
I have to admit it took me some time to decipher what this meant. I don't know if my reading comprehension is too low or my friend was using complicated wording to mess with my brain. But after a while I managed a response:
So, in other words, since interpretations of the divine are just another thing created by the human brain, they aren't really divine. I can live perfectly with that, but I don't think a believer would be a real believer with such position.
Now, again, you can argue that Angle has interpreted many things wrongly, but, as I said before, she (and her many supporters) can say the same thing about all others. I do think of the divine as something our brain makes to explain stuff we don't understand (it's not that simple, but we can leave it at that). But, made up by our brain our not, I thing Angle's belief is sincere, maybe misguided, maybe fucked up, but sincere. And, as with the christians who support gay marriage or abortion, I wouldn't discount her as one just because her view doesn't fit with that of one group.
Then came his:
haha, thanks for the complimentary things you said about your debater on your blog. my degrees are in biology and mathematics, but I am self-educated (wikipedia ftw) in numerous subjects. as we've seen here, religion and ideological histories thereof is one of those areas.
in all faiths, and in all scholarly disciplines, a reasonable mind can come to several interpretations; less reasonable minds will create some others, which are clearly wrong. in scholarship, some number of people whose minds generate with greater-than-acceptable frequency unreasonable interpretations of the natural world do somehow get through and are given degrees. if this kind of idiot gets a bio BS, in my opinion I still wont recognize them as a biologist. but many people would count them as biologists--and i recognize this position as reasonable, albeit disagreeing with it.
those undeserving degree holders are biologists according to a "if it quacks like a duck" standard, and that's the standard you're applying to angle in counting her as a christian. i suppose the undeserving degree holder is a biologist in principle, but fails to be so in practice due to lack of understanding, and hence is not a "real biologist" by my standards.
haha, i'll meet u halfway. quacking like a duck is the requirement for being a christian (which makes angle one), but coming to a reasonable understanding is a requirement for being a "real christian" (which angle aint), similar to the distinction between the "biologist" and "real biologist"
And finally, mine, all for this night I presume. I want you to read this last answer very carefully, especially the part that talks about the atheists who are as prejudiced as the woman at the beginning of this post
You're welcome on the comments; I thought it was necessary, given that some nonbelievers tend to think that those who believe in God are uneducated rednecks that have no idea of scienceor on how to carry a debate.
Now, starting from that point, I could be tempted to say that those are not real atheists, since an atheist, to my standard has to be committed to the search of reason and logic, and those who are prejudiced are not doing so, therefore, they are not "real atheists".
Then you would say I'm wrong. You would be right.
Unfortunately, since they claim not to believe in a god (the ones who I know behave like that and I have no reason to believe that they are lying) they are atheists. No matter how bigoted and prejudiced they can be, they are.
So, I cannot put my own standard to filter those the rational ones from the prejudiced, and call the first ones "real atheists", because a "real atheist" is committed to science and science cannot be prejudiced. I would like to think that way, but then I would become one of those I deplore.
In the same way, Angle can be all the prejudiced and wrong she wants, that doesn't change the fact that she believes in Christ as the savior and son of God. For your standards that might not be enough, but for her and for many, it is.
So what are the morals of the story?
1. Not all believers are uneducated rednecks who just spout scripture. In case someone didn't get that clear, that is not always the case. 2. A nice debate between believers and non-believers is possible. No, it doesn't consist on the non-believer saying "you are fucking deluded, religion is bullshit". It's much more difficult than that
Maybe more will come. But I'll be out most of the weekend. So, happy July 4, Godless America.
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony didn't call police in 1986 after a priest admitted to molesting two boys, and he didn't warn parishioners because the priest told him the children were illegal immigrants who had returned to Mexico, according to court documents released Tuesday.
Mahony, 74, said he didn't take stronger action against the Rev. Michael Baker because he didn't know the victims' identities and because Baker told him the abuse happened outside the parish.
I don't know what to say. Certainly I don't like illegal immigration pretty much, but to abuse illegals is wrong (as wrong as giving them especial rights they don't deserve, but that's another topic). Worse than that is to abuse kids who, besides being either them or their parents, in a difficult legal situation, will have very little idea of what to do in case of abuse.
Furthermore, remember, this was not done just by a pervert at the park. This was done by a priest, a moral figure within a community; and covered by a bishop, a high catholic official.
In 2000, Baker was laicized after another set of brothers filed a lawsuit alleging the priest had abused them at various locations in Mexico, California and Arizona between 1984 and 1999. The archdiocese settled the lawsuit for $1.25 million, but Mahony didn't notify police of their allegations until 2003.
There, your offerings money at work.
Look at that guy. That's cardinal Roger Mahoney. I wonder what goes inside that guy's head while putting such a pious face while holding the communion wafer. Does he really believe God is in front of him? Does he really think that he is communicating with God? After covering such a horrifying crime?
Really, sometimes it seems as if the Pope would be trying to be the ultimate douchebag. Today he made it during the ending of the Vatican’s Year of the Priest (which, by the way sounds like, "year of the pig")
Addressing the clerical abuse scandal from the heart of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI begged forgiveness Friday from victims and promised to "do everything possible" to protect children at a Mass celebrated by 15,000 priests from around the world.
Ok, doesn’t sound so bad. It would have been great if he would have affirmed that there are investigations going on, which would let any priest who had committed a crime or covered it (including the pope himself) to prison. But, anyway
"It was to be expected that this new radiance of the priesthood would not be pleasing to the `enemy'"; he would have rather preferred to see it disappear, so that God would ultimately be driven from the world," Benedict said in his homily, to applause from the gathered priests.
Wait… the enemy? Who is “the enemy”? Satan? So, this guys means Satan came out from his warm and comfortable hell, picked up the phone and talked to the media, yo dawg, what’s up? Hey, those priests here and there have been raping kids for, like, a long time, go get them?
No way Jose. The sexual abuse cases have been going on for years, and they could have exploded this year or last one the next. The only thing that was needed was that victims came out, out of their shame and guilt to accuse those who were supposed to guide them. But, no, Ratzinger believes that it could have been the Devil who wanted to screw with his “Year of the Priest”.
By the way, I assume Ratzinger is talking about the Devil when he refers to “the enemy”. He can’t be talking about the press, Ratzinger is not THAT stupid.
With these kind of remarks, with this attitude of “we are sorry, but it’s actually somebody else’s fault” it’s no wonder that the Catholic Church is suffering from a well-deserved crisis regarding credibility. Priests have always insisted to us (those of us who grew up in catholic environments) to be humble, to ask for forgiveness, to accept our faults, etc, but the Pope and those who serve him are the last ones to do as they say. That is call cynicism.
Ratzinger complains that “the enemy” wants God out of the world, without realizing that his own priests are throwing God out (this is not literal, God is as much on Earth as Thor, Zeus and Viracocha are) Does he want to see his beloved God on Earth? Well, it would be a good start to begin with his own people, admit their own faults, ask for real forgiveness and be true to whatever they are preaching. If Jesus himself could wash his friends’ feet, why the Pope can’t ask for forgiveness in a meaningful way?
Oh, and by the way, if you want to criticize the Pope using the argument that he was a nazi, then you are very, very misinformed. Get your facts correct.
Get all worked up after concluding that those grown up guys are marrying little girls? Start posting it all over your facebook, linking webpages as outraged as you are? Well, then you are no better than that douchebag in the Vatican who can’t get his story right. Because if you really think this is a marriage and those little girls are the brides, then you are wrong. And if you are making a whole case using that picture, then you are WRONG.
Hamas dignitaries including Mahmud Zahar, one of the militant group's top leaders, were on hand to congratulate 450 grooms who took part in the carefully stage-managed event.
Each groom received a present of 500 dollars from Hamas, which said its workers had also contributed five percent of their monthly salaries to add to the wedding gift.
The 450 brides shared none of the glamour, taking seats among the audience of around 1,000 party guests: most couples had already taken part in religious ceremonies elsewhere, with more marriages planned for the next few days.
Those little girls, yes, share much of the glamour the grooms have. But they are not the brides.
While the poorest couples received a gift equivalent to $2,000, many others in less dire straits came away with only $200.“That’s the cost of a plank of wood for a bedroom suite,” said one disappointed bride, Ola Dalo, 21, as she leaned her head on her new husband, Ali Msabah, 24.[…]
The 300 grooms were dressed in black pants, white shirts and colorful ties but no jackets, because of recent budget cuts. The brides, sitting separately among the women, wore head scarves and black robes over their evening dresses but were easily spotted by their heavy makeup.
So, my dear non-believers, get your facts right. If we are going to take pride on our reliance on fact instead of myth and lies, then do it. Don't be SO gullible. There are so many things outrageous regarding Islam, including child brides, sexual abuse and disregard for human rights. So there are many sources to spread and show how disgusting Islam can be. There is no need to use a picture like that. Instead, use this one:
This one is real. This one was featured in the New York Times. This one is of an 11 year-old girl an a 40 year-old man, married.
If you follow international news and pay attention to the ones referred to the catholic church, then you know what is going on right now. In case you don’t know, the ongoing topic right now is this:
RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
As epic as this sounds, it’s not quite accurate. It gives the idea that Dawkins himself (actually, along with Christopher Hitchens) are going to wait for the Pope to come down his plane and, with a bunch of cops, take him prisoner.
Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366.
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.
So, while Dawkins is a strong supporter of this initiative, the ones actually carrying this action are the lawyers.
Now, I am really doubtful that this is going to work. I don’t think that the Pope is going to go to prison, even though he should if proven that he knew about the abuses and did nothing to prevent more or to punish the sex abusers correctly. I don’t think that he is even going to face trial, even though, again, he should.
What I think is that the Catholic Church is going to lose a lot of support and credibility. And that is a good thing.
We know who Richard Dawkins is. We know he is using this situation to attack the Pope and the Catholic Church with an ungodly force.
But that is the perfect and logical thing to do.
One doesn't need to be Richard Dawkins or even a non-believer to be outraged at the thousand of abuse cases that the catholic church, as an institution has covered and, by doing so, condoned. Any person in his right mind can see that the catholic church gives more importance to its image and public relations than to the children's well-being, children that were given to it and supposed to be taken care by priests who were educated following the guidelines of such church.
The catholic church needs to lose part of its power, power given by many who trust it as a lighthouse in a sea of darkness. It's priests need to be distrusted at first and then gain the confidence they deserve, just like anybody. It also needs to be held accountable by the many crimes it has helped to cover, just to keep a good and holy image towards the world.
Of course, there are going to be those who will oppose this initiative. They will defend the church and protect the church, no matter how many proofs there are that show its abuses and how the abusers were protected. They are going to defend the Pope even if it is found out that he didn't do much to prevent such abuses. That is the kind of people who need desperately to believe that God is near them and is represented by a church made of men, and no matter what, they will prefer keep its crimes unpunished than lose that security that such institution gives.
But also there are going to be some that will stand for justice, even if that means criticizing the Pope. To them, my respects.
The Pope is very unlikely to stand trial. It would be great if he did, since it would show that no one is too high or too important for justice not to get him.
I was thinking in going to sleep without writing anything, but there was so much material that I couldn't do that.
Humanity has been full of assholes since its beginning. However, lately, many of these have had their assholery based in the Bible. Yeah, the bible, said to be the perfect, the word of God, pure truth, etc, etc, etc. Here, some examples:
Nine suspects tied to a Christian militia in the Midwest are charged with conspiring to kill police officers, then attack a funeral in the hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors said Monday.
On its Web site, Hutaree quotes several Bible passages and states: "We believe that one day, as prophecy says, there will be an Anti-Christ. ... Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment."
When we talk about Christian assholes, the first image that pops in our minds are usually Pat Robertson, or the Westboro Baptist Church. But these two, while hateful and proud of it, wouldn't go out an kill anybody (that is left to the idiots influenced by them). But this Christian militia actually was planning to kill people, policemen, nonetheless. Policemen have to face terrible situations everyday, and also are targeted by these christian wackos. Furthermore, they say Jesus wanted that; if that's so, then fuck Jesus.
In October, he interrupted a private conversation among jail staff and "interjected his own opinions," telling them all gays should be annihilated, sheriff's reports show. He also said that whites were the superior race and that he supported slavery, reports show.
Johnson said the Bible supported his opinions, reports show.
That counts him as a bigot and a religious zealot.
"I believe that all dinosaurs were born of Satanic angel who has sex with woman and the animal kingdom that created ungodly reptilian creatures none of these were on the Ark," Johnson said.
Oh, and also an idiot.
I'm no fan of persecuting people for their manner of thinking, or prohibiting them their right to free speech (actually the same that unfortunately is used by the Westboro Baptist Church to mock soldier's funerals). But I'm sure these kind of remarks, coming out of nowhere, go against any workplace guidelines regarding "hostile work environment". I have gay friends and would really be pissed if someone said that they deserve to die, just because they are gay. It would be the same case as if the victims were black or hispanic.
By the way, I don't question the fact that this guy is wrong about the Bible. I can find some hatred against gays and support for slavery. Of course, just because it is in the bible doesn't make it right. Finally, the dinosaurs part is just pure stupidity.
And finally, because the catholics really like to appear on this blog:
New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan was greeted with applause after finishing Palm Sunday Mass by defending Pope Benedict XVI against suggestions he aided coverups of reports of child abuse.
The leader of the nation’s second-largest diocese urged his congregation to pray for the pope, saying he was suffering some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus.
Exactly, exactly, because Jesus' apostles also used to rape children and them making them swear that, if they loved Jesus, they would say nothing about it. And Jesus, being all-powerful, all-knowing motherloving Jesus, said nothing either. Makes perfect sense.
But that Newyorker isn't the only one. We had the fucking Pope talking about the issue too.
Pope Benedict XVI began Holy Week on Sunday by suggesting in his Palm Sunday address that the Catholic Church would "not be intimidated" by the sex abuse scandals sweeping it.
In a clear indication that the Vatican continues to insist the stream of abuse revelations are part of a conspiracy the Pope said: "From God comes the courage not to be intimidated by petty gossip."
There you have it. It's from God. From God the Pope gets the energy and cynicism to say "Your complaints, your suffering, your tears and your pain are irrelevant to me. Go fuck you. After we fucked you."
Finally, I have no funny picture for this post, but instead got a video:
In an ideal world, the President of the United States would have the balls to do that.
In the Scout Oath, a Scout promises to do his “duty to God,” and in the Scout Law he promises to be “reverent.”
The Boy Scout Handbook (11th ed.) explains a Scouts’ “duty to God” as “Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.”
The Handbook explains “reverent” as “A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.”
All levels of advancement in the Scouting program have requirements recognizing “duty to God”
The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations.
Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.
The Boy Scouts of America has long kept an extensive archive of secret documents that chronicle the sexual abuse of young boys by Scout leaders over the years.The "perversion files," a nickname the Boy Scouts are said to have used for the documents, have rarely been seen by the public, but that could all change in the coming weeks in an Oregon courtroom.
Some years before, as head of the Vatican body investigating abuse by priests, he argued that accused clergymen should not be handed over to secular authorities. Rather, he wrote confidentially to bishops around the world in 2001, they should first be investigated under utmost secrecy within the church — thereby avoiding public hysteria and second-guessing by the media.
So much for "thou shall not bear false testimony", huh? Yet the Pope feel very comfortable talking against atheists and gays. Such hypocrisy is incredible.
After the release of such news about the Boy Scouts, I'm kind of glad that they don't accept atheists. No atheist will be earning these four Scout achievements:
Today is St. Patrick's Day and I don't have anything green on. Shame on me, I guess. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is having a not very nice time in Ireland either.
As a priest in 1975 Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings where children signed vows of silence over complaints against paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth.
How more outrageous can this get? We have the head of the Irish catholic church, not only a priest, but the fucking head of the Irish Catholics admitting to being present while kids were told not to talk about the abuse they had been victims. If this isn't evil, then I don't know what is.
But there is more:
On Tuesday, the Catholic Church in Ireland released more details about why Cardinal Brady asked two victims, aged 10 and 14, to sign secrecy agreements.
The church said the boys were asked to sign oaths "to avoid potential collusion" in evidence-gathering for an internal church inquiry.
I can't imagine how this could have gone. Maybe "Ok boys, don't you say anything about how we abused, touched, caressed and sodomized you, because, you know, this could be bad for the church to which you and I belong. Yes, I know you are now scarred for life, I know we are against homosexuality and I know we just committed a crime that could land us in jail in any country, but don't you say anything. Hypocrisy? No, it is not, because... well, it is, but we are the Catholic Church, I mean, the fucking Catholic Church, founded by the Son of God himself. So we don't care. Now, on your knees and start sucking again. And this time, swallow it and imagine it's a liquid host"
Sounds awful, doesn't it? Well, according to the releases, this was not the only case, but the abuse went on for years.
The church statement did not explain why either Cardinal Brady or his superiors at the time did not share their information with the police. Fr Smyth went onto abuse more children in the following years.
Delivering his St Patrick's Day mass on Wednesday, Cardinal Brady said: "This week a painful episode from my own past has come before me.
I bet it was more painful for the victims, so, I'm sorry, but can't feel sorry for those priests. Nor for the catholic church in general, which deserves to be criticized and looked down. We are not talking about just one priest or one case. We are talking about several cases that were known by the very high officials and no one said anything. If now they feel sorry and apologize it's just because this report came out. Otherwise, nothing would have been said.
So, my catholic friends, this is the kind of shepherd you, not necessarily follow, but the one supported by that institution named Catholic Church
He has earned his wings
