So, the catholic church wanted to start the beatification process for Pius XII. Who was that guy? He was the Pope during WWII, the same who was in very good terms with Hitler.
According to the catholic church "the beatification process evaluated the “Christian life” of Pius, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, and not “the historical impact of all his operative decisions."
So, you may see nothing wrong in rounding and killing jews and still be chosen as a model of "Christian Life".
That pretty much sums it up.
Some Jewish leaders protested, but the catholic church declared that this decision “is in no way to be read as a hostile act towards the Jewish people, and it is to be hoped that it will not be considered as an obstacle on the path of dialogue between Judaism and the Catholic Church.”
I beg to differ. I see this as a hostile act towards human intelligence. There are many other dead Popes, why this one? It was a dark spot in the Vatican's history and it would have been wrong to blame the whole church for this pope's action. But to give him beatitude status?
Unbelievable. But that's what faith is about, right? To believe the unbelievable, even when it is also nonsensical, undemocratic and stupid.
So, these were your 12 days before Christmas. I hope you enjoyed them. It will be Christmas in an hour (most of the world already has Christmas). But remember, if you celebrate Christmas, you ought to know the real origins.
It was predictable. Some days ago Mexico City approved a law that would allow gays to get married. Of course it would be long until the Mexican catholic church, very powerful in that country, would say something condemning the approval of such a law.
Considering all that is wrong in Mexico and that makes the Mexican people suffer, the Mexican catholic church aims at gay marriage, as if it were a huge threat to that country. Cardinal Norberto Rivera said:
"This law has opened the doors to the perverted possibility that these couples might adopt innocent children, who will not have their right to have a family formed by a mother and a father, with the following consequences as psychological and moral damage that would provoke such injustice. Such pretension is no more than pride and it will inevitably will lead society to its ruin, which concerns us enormously.
This cardinal is not just wrong. This guy is an idiot. If he were just some lay person who has no more knowledge than what he has just seen in his life he would just be wrong. But because he has the means to learn, but instead chooses to remain an ignorant following his own biases and stereotypes, he is an idiot.
First of all, according to the American Psychological Association (a group of scientists who rely on facts and studies instead of faith) "sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers." In other words, children of lesbian couples have very little difference to those of heterosexual parents. And since there is no enough regarding children of gay parents, we can and should remain agnostic about this. But the catholic church keeps following its laws and outdated beliefs against gays. Ignorance, arrogance and stupidity, all in one.
Second, the Cardinal says that this decision would ruin the society. I haven't seen that happening in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and South Africa. On the contrary, countries that outlaw and demonize homosexuality (such as Iran) have a lot of problems in their society. But the catholic church doesn't want to see that.
Third, the cardinal is concerned about the children. Yes, they might have some problems, especially in a society with a huge catholic influence, which demonizes and ridicules homosexuality. The catholic church is the one causing the problem and then blames the victim .
I support gay marriage because gays should have the same right I have to marry the person I love.
I support gay marriage because I don't find it threatening, since I will not marry another man or become gay.
I support gay marriage because I want my children to grown in a society with equal rights for everyone, in which no one is discriminated.
I support gay marriage because it is usually opposed by those who have hold the power on the basis of fear and superstition. Yes, I mean the churches.
I read the news and thought "Maybe Ratzinger really wants to create and understandment among catholics and non-believers, that would be nice."
But then I kept reading:
"To the dialogue with other religions it should be added the dialogue with all of those to whom religion is something unknown"
I can almost see the equation in Ratzinger's mind: "The atheists don't believe in god because they don't know who is He. If they knew who is God in the way I do, they would believe." But with many of us that is not the case. Many of us were once devout believers who noticed the lack of proof for god's existence, and the corruption and cynicism in the religious institutions and church leaders. We know God, the God that is represented by all of those who use his name.
"and, even though, would not want to stay without God, but go to Him at least as an stranger"
Ratzinger keeps working on the basis that we non-believer do not know god. Well, in a way, he is right. God has not came down and spoken to us. God has not shown us his power by doing something that would proof his/her divinity. But neither has he, or any catholic. Ratzinger just thinks he knows God, which is incredibly arrogant. It is arrogant to say "you don't believe because you don't know, if you knew, you would believe".
However, why would I expect otherwise? It's the Pope we are talking about. Ratzinger would not say something humble. After all, he is the Pope
I was tempted to just present the title without the "rather...", but even with the clarification it's still an eyebrow raiser. A priest, telling us to steal? Even if it is as he says, from big stores, it still something an intelligent person would not suggest. Yes, mugging is wrong, yes, prostitution is shameful (to some, there are others who might enjoy the money while enjoying having sex). But stealing is most likely to get you in jail and with a big fine.
I wonder what the reaction would be to "I stole it because the priest said it was ok".
This might be the case of just one crazy priest, but it is interesting how he explains that this advise does not goes against the "thou shall not steal" commandment. He says that God's love for the poor is bigger than his concern about his own commandments. I wonder how he knows. I wonder if God himself/herself/itself came down to tell him so. And in the same way many other church leaders give their own interpretation about what god supposedly wants, which of course, coincides with their own views. Whether it is hatred against gays, disregard for women's rights or contempt for science, it is not uncommon to see church leaders talking, god's name is always used, and those who use it are always regarded as respectable men and women in our society.
I found this article on The Paper from Madison, WI, that makes a profile on Freedom From Religion Foundation founders. It is long, but very insightful about the goals this group has, most of them about separation of church and state instead of "preaching" atheism.
What draws my attention is the hate mail they receive, which has a very high probability to have been sent by christians, or at least believers in god who are not very happy about the FFRF goals:
"Take a hike with your f*ckin' lawsuit against In God We Trust! God haters, maggots! — Nedd Kareiva
"Dear Atheists, God is going to strike you dead for messing with religion. When you, your staff or their families have a bad accident, don't say I didn't warn you or that you don't deserve it because you do. You must be stopped at any costs." God's Squad, Jim Franklin
"Just read an article about your long nose sticking into other people's business. (It's going to get broken, you know.) SO, STICKIT WHERE THE GOD MADE SUN DOESN'T SHINE. — A GRY HAIRED GROUCHY OLD S.O.B. P.S. DON'T PICK FIGHTS WITH OLD PEOPLE. YOU WILL NOT WIN. THEY WILL DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE THEN LET GOD SORT YOU OUT."
I wonder if these people are stupid enough not to see the irony in their belief in a God that loves us all and yet, they write emails so full of hatred. Of course, the FFRF is not the only atheist entity that has received hate mail.
The story (which can be read by clicking the link) is pretty much like many other stories involving church leaders and minors. This story, along one about Sandra Bullock portraying a Christian woman who adopted a now-football star made me seek to clarify the reason of my criticism to church leaders who harm others.
As many might think, my point is not that religion causes priests and pastors to rape children, among other things. Hell, no. There are many criminals out there who harm other without the necessity of a religion. Furthermore, there are also many who have their religion helping them to overcome problems and treat others better.
My point is that not because someone is a church leader or a believer, he or she is a better person. Not because someone leads a group of people in the name of God, he or she is an automatically great person. This might seem obvious, but unfortunately it is not. Religion asks you for obedience, religions asks you to be a sheep and follow a shepherd. In the absence of the "real" shepherd, religious leaders are considered to be the ones who will guide the sheep. And people take for granted that those shepherds are all good, all trustful.
Religion did not invent kindness, or goodness, or charity, or love. In the same way, a religious person is not necessarily a person with all those attributes. He or she might be, but is only to be discovered after getting to know the person.
A pastor who preaches you the word of god is just as believable as the lawyer who asks you for money to keep thinking in your case, or the mechanic who tells you that your car needs much more work than expected, or the politician that promises you a change.
The title of the article says "Our human rights culture has now become a tyranny". Oh, really? What is the case first? There is a Jewish school. There is a mother who wants her son in that school. There is a 3500 year-old law that says that because the mother of the kid is not a Jew, the kid is not a Jew.
First flag: Discrimination based on thousand years old laws.
Then there is the supreme court decision that says the kid was excluded on racial grounds. And then there is the ranting of the article, which argues that the "human rights culture" we live in nowadays is looking like a tyranny because it prohibits certain groups from discriminating against others. According the the author, it is wrong and outrageous to seek a society in which everyone has the same rights, because there are groups who value discrimination of others among their beliefs.
In this case, the irony is tremendous, since it's the Jews, a group that has been mistreated through history, the one who demands its right to discriminate.
The title is kind of misleading. The man is clearly old and must have his reason impaired. However, there is a point in what his lawyer says: "He is a Christian man and believes firmly in traditional methods of discipline". Just like this old man, many people consider themselves Christian who find in the bible an excuse for their bigotry against others, be them gays, non-believers or members of other faiths.
The bible is not the word of God, the bible is not wisdom, the bible is certainly not an accountable source for history or science. It's the expression of a culture and that's it. To take it literally, or worse, pick and choose parts of it with the excuse of "interpretation" is more than stupidity. Is bigotry.
Paedophile priest Fr Thomas Naughton has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment following his conviction on charges of sexual assault.
Should it be of any surprise that it's not hard to find priests being sentenced for sex crimes two days in a row?
...the victim said he was abused about 70 times by the priest and had attempted suicide twice. He said he was extremely paranoid, was afraid to get close to people and was being treated for a sex addiction that he blamed on the abuse. In July 1998, the priest was sentenced to three years for abusing four young altar boys.
This is why I feel a mix of laughter and outrage when a catholic leader demands respect for the catholic church or when the pope criticizes gays or other lifestyles he doesn't like.
According to Ratzinger, "a correct conception of the relation between man and environment does not take us to make nature absolute or consider it more important than the person."
Where does this come from? Of course it would be an extreme measure to consider nature more important than the people, but, when has that happened? Oh, wait, yeah, the Copenhagen Climate Conference! People are talking about how important is the environment, which may affect some big interests from big corporations, and maybe, maybe, that has something to do with the Ratzinger's words.
But there's more:
"Thus a way is opened to a new pantheism with neopagan characteristics, which make man's salvation a by-product of nature, understood in a purely naturalist sense."
And what is wrong with that? What is wrong with making people conscious that nature is being predated, which will ultimately affect us? What does that have to do with Neopagan pantheism? Does the relation between neopaganism and nature's importance make it right to criticize the ideal of protecting our planet?
Sometimes I would like to slap Ratzinger in the head. Sometimes that work with an old TV.
“The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
How religiously stupid can a bishop, not just a person, but a bishop, a catholic leader, be? Is this what it takes to be admired by religious leaders? Blind faith? Being so convinced of one’s faith that a person can blow himself away, beat women, kill “infidels” and, in few words, be a fundamentalist? Is it any wonder that this is what religions ultimately want, total conviction to the faith? Of course not, this has always been the objective. It’s just that now the evidence that points out how nonsensical faith in sacred texts can be, is so overwhelming that it’s harder to be a blind believer than it was before.
Fortunately the bishop noticed his error and quickly apologized. Yet, I wonder if he apologized because he really noticed that he was admiring mindless religious zombies, or because of the pressure around and the feeling that he was going against the armed forces from his country. What do you think?
Catholics, catholics… why is so easy for them to talk nonsense or be in the eye of the storm, but then demand respect? Whether it’s the Pope, a bishop or a group of peasants who saw the virgin in bird droppings, it’s so hard not to ridicule them.
A former priest has been sentenced to 90 days in prison and three years probation for his guilty plea to a sex charge alleging he had sexual contact with a teenage boy 12 years ago.
There is something really wrong here. Only three months? This guy should be in jail for a much longer time, not just three months, especially after waiting for so long. Unfortunately there aren’t many details about the story and it’s not correct to figure them out. Yet, is it of any surprise that a catholic priest was the accused?
Seriously, I try not to generalize or show disrespect to the catholic faith. But stuff like these make it very hard to do.
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — City Councilman Cecil Bothwell of Ashville believes in ending the death penalty, conserving water and reforming government, but he does not believe in God. His political opponents say that is a sin that makes him unworthy of office, and they have the North Carolina Constitution on their side.
When Mr. Bothwell was sworn into office on Monday, he used an alternate oath that does not require officials to swear on a Bible or refer to “Almighty God.”
That has riled conservative advocates, who cite a little-noticed quirk in North Carolina’s Constitution that disqualifies officeholders “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” The provision was included when the document was drafted in 1868 and was not revised when North Carolina amended its Constitution in 1971.
This is totally a dick thing to do. The guy is an atheist, he wins the election and the conservative fucktards want him out, citing an obviously discriminatory law from more than a century ago. What happened to "liberty and justice for all"? Does it mean that non-believers won't get the same justice? Is it like H.W. Bush said, that atheists are not to be considered Americans?
Maybe this is a good thing. The ACLU will not allow Bothwell to lose his seat and will expose those conservatives as bigots. But it's really outrageous that such bigotry is done in this time in the United States of America.
Many friends of mine would say that the U.S. is a bully that loves to intervene in others’ businesses, creating havoc for its own gain. Not me. I always saw the U.S. as a great country that, even though it has some defects, has done a lot for the world. But on the later years, I have to admit that war has been a huge, not just great, part of the “American culture”: The War in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the culture war, the war on drugs…
And now, many “Americans”, especially those who love to brag about being “American” with their flag jackets, bumper stickers, buttons and “I’m proud of being an American” attitude, come out with another war: The War on Christmas.
According to the opponents of this so-called war (usually the conservative media and religious right), the war on Christmas are the actions taken by the non-religious to put aside Christmas from its place in the American culture. Some of these actions are the use of “happy holidays” greeting instead of “merry Christmas”, the banning of Christian displays in public property during December, the avoidance of the word “Christmas” by some stores, etc.
How is it that making the holiday season more inclusive to all of those who do not celebrate Christmas (not just non-believers) is a “war against Christmas”? Isn’t the United States proud of receiving people from all around the world an being able to assimilate them like no other country in the world? Yet the message that we get from those who complain about this “war” is “welcome, but you better behave like us, believe what we believe and forget about whatever you were before”. This sounds more like some third-world ultra-nationalistic banana republic that fears anything that comes from outside. On the other hand, that sounds pretty much like the mentality of the conservative media and the religious right.
Actually, if we get technical and check up the history of the celebration, we will find out that Christmas has its roots on a pagan holiday, and certainly not in anyone's birthday, or at least not only Jesus'. But that is too politically incorrect and would have these nutjobs crying discrimination and more war against Christmas. So, let's wait some more years.
I do not mind saying “Merry Christmas”. It comes naturally for me. I have to think before saying “Happy holidays”, or the atheist favorite “Happy Winter Solstice”. “Merry Christmas” comes naturally”. But I’ll do the effort and say “Happy Holidays”, just to remind others that Christmas is not the only holiday being celebrated, and that not everyone celebrates anything at all. I don’t mind setting up a tree and decorating it, I don’t mind eating turkey, I don’t mind listening to Christmas carols (as long as it’s not the whole day). I might mind having to set up a nativity scene, but as long as it’s done by others, that’s ok.
By the way, more about the beginning of the “War on Christmas” can be read on the Huffington Post.
With this thought in mind, I open the “12 days before Christmas”. For the next 12 days there will be a daily entry about the “wonderful” things that Jesus’ followers give us. Bigotry, discrimination, hatred, nonsense, pseudo-science and hypocrisy are expected. Enjoy them.
Oh, and to get you in the mood for this season, I present you with a video of how tolerant is a mother when her son comes out as an atheist:
