Entry 980, on 2009-04-02 at 18:16:49 (Rating 5, Religion)
Warning: Before you read this, please note that if you are a Catholic you will be offended. So if you don't want to be upset by criticism of your beliefs then please stop now! Still reading? OK...
Why do people become Catholics? I can't figure it out. Its a silly religion full of antiquated and silly rituals and the church has had such a bad effect on the world that many people would see it as representing the pure evil that it claims to oppose. OK, so now that I've got that little rant out of the way let me describe the reasons for it.
First is the new Pope. What a moron he is. I mean the previous Pope was bad enough but he was starting to show a bit of common sense and seemed to be dragging the church out of the dark ages that the rest of us would still be in if the church had its way. But now they seem to be going backwards again.
Here's a few opinions of Pope Benedict, some of which are OK and others are just unbelievably bad...
He does seem to support evolution, so at least he isn't as crazy as the fundies, but he also says "science has narrowed the way that life's origins are understood". Not sure what that means but it sounds critical. He also says "the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory". That sounds like a way of dismissing evolution without actually coming out and saying it directly. Its also irrelevant and wrong.
He claims "God created life through evolution". OK, I thank him for his opinion - even though its based on absolutely no evidence and is really just silly - but why should we care and how does he dare to offer an opinion as a fact for his followers?
Then there's this, just when the church has apologised for its treatment of Galileo it seems maybe that wasn't very genuine after all. The Pope said: "The trial of Galileo for heresy because of his support for the Copernican system was justified in the context of the time." Really? I guess the witch burnings, torture, inquisitions, crusades, and all the other crimes the church has perpetrated over the years were justified too then!
And just to show where his priorities lie he comes out with this little gem: "Saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction." That's just so hideously wrong that I really don't even want to comment further.
Then he tries to justify the church's arbitrary "moral" rules with this: "The contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility." Sounds serious. Maybe he hasn't noticed that the world is getting a bit overcrowded!
And here's another statement: "Stem cell research, artificial insemination, and the prospect of human cloning have shattered human dignity." Well thanks for your opinion again but a lot of people would disagree. I would also like to see the research the church has carried out to prove this point.
But none of these are really that bad. The true evil of the church was demonstrated by a recent case which took place in Brazil, where the Catholic Church excommunicated the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old rape victim who had a life-saving abortion. Strangely enough they took no action against the alleged rapist. Good call there from the church! They call that morality?
As one commenter on the news web site said: "I'd like to get that bishop's mitre and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. This man is a disgrace to the Church, but he's had the official blessing of some highly-placed cardinals in the Vatican. No wonder the Catholic Church is utterly despised and rejected. What SCUM they truly are!!!" (his words, not mine, although I can see his point)
And what about this comment which also reflects my thoughts on the subject: "Where was god when the step-father was abusing the girl? Why did god remain so silent about the abuse? Through god's silence, can one infer that he/she/it approved of the abuse? What an omnipotent idiot god is, if there is such a thing."
And finally this one (which is particularly bitter, but right to the point): "Probably offer the step-father a job as a priest, he seems to have the right qualifications."
Yes, the church is despised by many. And with very good reason!
Comment 1 (1915) by SBFL on 2009-04-04 at 06:13:08:
Oh dear, how can I not bite? Well lets put it this way, the glasses you look through are so skewed that even when the Pope agrees with evolution and supports saving the environment, you still criticise him!!
The Church has 1.1 billion members so you are going to have some bad eggs (not the Pope!) but what little I have read on the Brazilian case, I have to admit it looks like a bad call. But you know as well as I that people don't become/remain Catholics because of the behaviour of fellow members, but because of what we believe. Some evidence? The Church continues to grow in size despite so much bad publicity. Of course, it's not exciting news to report the many positive deeds from the members, and I certainly wouldn't expect any at ojb.co.nz!
What I will say is that the Church is it's own worst enemy. Every Catholic should know this, and we should root out the negative elements wherever possible. In the meantime, you can continue with the rants!
Comment 2 (1916) by SBFL on 2009-04-04 at 08:20:47:
Maybe it's just a coincidence, but isn't coincidence a funny thing? If you're time's up, I would prefer it to be symbolic, than meaningless, for good or evil... [I repaired this link for you, SBFL]
Comment 3 (1918) by OJB on 2009-04-04 at 13:23:50:
Re comment 1. Yes, I thought you might feel the need to reply to this one. In fact I specifically wrote it with you in mind! I commend the Pope for accepting the inevitability of evolution, but I do criticise him for deliberately introducing the element of doubt when there really is none.
Its not a matter of some bad members of the church, its bad policy which comes from the top. This insistence that abortion is always bad lead to this situation and that policy cannot be blamed on "some bad eggs".
The church is its own worst enemy I agree, but if you want to root out the negative elements then get rid of the people at the top!
Re comment 2: Huh?
Comment 4 (1919) by SBFL on 2009-04-04 at 21:15:16:
But I think your strong views are shaped from what you read in the mainstream media, which highlights bad eggs and controversial "policy". Every organisation has its fools but the "policy from the top" is a matter for debate as to whether it is good or bad. It is a shame that the elements you don't like (even lead you to despise?) cloud your vision of the good deeds. Well now I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
Sorry, I messed up the hyperlink obviously. Nevermind I was just trying to stir you up with it but I should be more careful with the copy and paste next time.
Comment 5 (1924) by OJB on 2009-04-05 at 10:05:19:
Clearly the ban on abortions no matter what the circumstances has lead to a bad outcome in this situation so I would say this is a clear case where policy dictated from the top of the organisation is a bad thing. I have said in the past that I recognise the good things the churches do but I think those are far outweighed by the bad. I agree that is hard to quantify and a case might be made reaching the opposite conclusion.
Comment 6 (1927) by OJB on 2009-04-05 at 15:51:11:
Re comment 2. Now that I have repaired the link I see your point! That is interesting, isn't it! If I was superstitious I might think God was trying to make point. Of course he would have made a better point if he had killed the abortion clinic owner instead of his family. BTW, I think making profit form doing abortions is disgusting!
Comment 7 (1928) by SBFL on 2009-04-06 at 08:50:55:
I think more the handling of that case was a bad thing, not the policy itself.
It doesn't surprise me that you think there is more bad than good from the Church. You hate it, so that it is the way you see things. I would be wasting my time to get you to see the less newsworthy deeds.
Re comment 2 - I agree, like I said I just wanted to stir you up (return the favour?). Some of the more fundamentalist blogs have seen this as a sign, but this only makes the anti-abortion viewpoint more fringe so I told them so at tbr.cc.
Comment 8 (1930) by OJB on 2009-04-06 at 09:29:19:
If the policy is that abortion is wrong under all circumstances then that really limits the way the case could be handled. Its that inflexible rule that's the problem, not the individual case, although I admit the actual details of this one are also particularly bad.
I don't hate the Catholic Church. I would say I find it amusing more than anything else. I know that many people find it to be a useful social element in their lives and I have to admit its useful from that perspective. I just think the negative aspects outweigh the positive. Its an intellectual rather than an emotional judgement - no hate involved!
I really am a lot more tolerant than you give me credit for. I have many religious friends and two of them are fundies! In fact I am going to visit one of them this weekend to offer free help with his web site for the Christian Camp he is involved with. Does that sound like someone who hates religion? And can you imagine the opposite: a fundy helping an atheist with a project they were working on?
Yeah its funny the way those "signs" are always so open to interpretation, isn't it? If there had been a crash and everyone had survived except the abortion clinic owner himself who had been impaled by a cross and burst spontaneously into flame while God told the witnesses to stop doing abortions then I would call that a sign!
Comment 9 (1934) by SBFL on 2009-04-06 at 10:05:08:
Nonsense. I doubt excommunication was called for, common sense did not prevail, hence bad handling. However abortion in all forms should be condemned. Who are we to decide another's right to life? But this is not my fight. If the church says abortion is wrong under all circumstances and law says it is entirely up to the mother, then I would just be happy with the law being "abortion is wrong with a few allowable exceptions" (that being that otherwise the mothers life is in genuine danger).
"Amusing", "useful social element"...you know so little. I have so much respect for those who give their time and effort to help the less well-off through Church organisations. What charity I see in NZ alone outweighs the negative that we hear in the news from around the world, yet you are so blind to all this. Sad.
Of course, and denial of friendship or help purely on the grounds of belief is bigotry so glad it doesn't exist in your household (not that I would expect it would). I admit I may have chosen too strong a word, but you did use "despised" in your title.
Re your last paragraph in comment 8 - Indeed.
Comment 10 (1938) by OJB on 2009-04-06 at 12:11:14:
There were comments in the original article saying the decision had been supported by the higher ranks of the church. I don't know for sure if this is true but I think there is good reason to think it is. I agree that abortion should be avoided in all but the most extreme cases. This case was extreme: the mother's life was in danger, yet the church still had no flexibility.
OK so you see mainly good, I see mainly bad. Its a difficult thing to quantify so I guess we will never reach a conclusion on this. All I will say is that I am neutral about Catholicism where you have a clear bias.
I used despised because that was a comment used by someone else commenting on the case. I didn't say I agree with the use of that word in general although you can see how it might be justified in this case.
Comment 11 (1943) by SBFL on 2009-04-14 at 01:03:06:
I actually can't believe you wrote this: "All I will say is that I am neutral about Catholicism where you have a clear bias.". I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. Is this the same style of neutrality you display towards Apple and Microsoft? To quote from a comment on the next post: `"[The IT staff discussion list is] Pointless because people have decided what they want to believe before they even start and they debate based on their built-in bias and ignorance. I do have to say one thing: most Mac users have had quite a lot to do with PCs as well as Macs, but few PC users have had much to do with Macs, therefore the Mac people tend to be better informed.". So in order to be not biased (or rather, better informed) it would have been better to have been both a Catholic and an atheist (in no particular order)...? You are right about one thing though, I do have a bias. I am a member afterall, though this doesn't necessarily make my comments and thoughts subjective as I will criticise in instances I see fit. All Catholcis should, as I said before, the Church is it's own worst enemy.
Re last paragraph: Maybe you didn't explicitly say you agreed with the term but from your comments in the the post you can see how it this would be garnered by the reader.
Comment 12 (1945) by OJB on 2009-04-14 at 18:18:48:
Yes, I think someone who had been involved with both Catholicism and atheism would be in the best position to comment, although once you are involved with any religion the propaganda aspects become an issue.
I have good reasons to be negative towards the Church and towards Microsoft although I admit I haven't had that much to do with Catholicism personally. Neither of these dislikes are emotional in origin though - that's the difference between me and someone who is closely involved with religion.
And I believe I have made positive comments regarding both Microsoft and the Church in the past so its not just a simple case of constant criticism.
Comment 13 (1949) by SBFL on 2009-04-15 at 06:49:48:
"although once you are involved with any religion the propaganda aspects become an issue"
...and does this extend to atheism/Communism? Those promoters of atheism were pretty well known for their propaganda.
"although I admit I haven't had that much to do with Catholicism personally."
- So by your own defintion, your criticism doesn't have much authority...enough said.
Interesting to hear you say your dislikes aren't emotional. You seem pretty passionate on both topics.
"And I believe I have made positive comments..."
...you sound so sure...
Comment 14 (1953) by OJB on 2009-04-15 at 10:43:23:
OK, first of all forget about communism because it has nothing to do with atheism. Are you trying to pull the old guilt by association trick here? And there is no propaganda in atheism. Atheism is just lack of belief in a god, its not a specific belief system at all. How could propaganda be involved?
While I haven't had much to do with it personally I do take an interest in religion and I only criticise it through quoting real facts. If only Catholics could criticise Catholicism there wouldn't be much criticism, would there?
I'm passionate about the truth. That isn't necessarily anything to do with emotion. Surely you can see that someone who thinks there's a god looking after them and they will end up in heaven and everything is good is being emotional. How can someone who believes in a cold uncaring natural universe be emotional about it?
I'll have a look back through the blog and find some positive comments for you.
Comment 15 (1977) by SBFL on 2009-04-20 at 04:23:25:
It's not the same thing but to say they have nothing to do with each other in naive. You have to understand about the godlessness of communism, and their fear of faith.
Yes but you are extremely selective in the "real facts" you wish to comment on. That's my point. Who said only Catholics should criticise Catholicism...? Not me, so what's your point?
If you´re passionat about truth, it amazes me that you are so polarising in your views. i.e. once you see something as bad, then it is forever bad. That doesn't sound very passionate to me.
I'm sure you can find one or two, like the time I told you the Pope was pro-environment. But this is a mere technicality. You are clearly very opinionated on the matter.
Comment 16 (1984) by OJB on 2009-04-20 at 20:19:21:
No I think you are being naive by believing the propaganda many religious people use against atheism. I looked up the definition of communism and atheism didn't seem a major component at all. In fact there is a variety of communism based around Christianity.
I seem to remember making some positive comments about Catholicism but you are right that there were far more negative ones. I'm just commenting on the news I see and I'm afraid most of it is negative. That's just a fact.
Actually I have changed my mind about several things over the years. For example, in the past I have taken various conspiracy theories seriously and I even thought UFO sitings might be real. To me its all about evidence and religion just doesn't have any.
Comment 17 (1992) by SBFL on 2009-04-21 at 07:19:52:
Now you're just talking loco (yes, I have learnt more Spanish words than that since arriving here!)
I certainly do not disagree re the news you see. What else would one expect from the mainstream media?
UFO's? Did I mention "loco" earlier?
Comment 18 (1994) by OJB on 2009-04-21 at 11:34:28:
What's crazy about what I said? I looked at the description of communism at Wikipedia and it didn't even mention atheism. Also, religion (or lack of) wasn't a major part of communism and there is even a form of communism based on Christianity. I've stated the facts. Do you have a counter to this or not? (besides calling me crazy)
So now the mainstream media are against the Catholic church are they? Seems like as soon as there is too much news which disagrees with what someone wants to believe there is suddenly a global conspiracy involved! You said yourself the Church is its own worst enemy. What do you expect except bad news?
Well superficially the stories about UFOs look interesting, just like the evidence for religion, ESP, the evidence against global warming, etc does. Its only when you look at the details that you see that there's really nothing there. That takes a certain amount of dedication which I originally didn't have.
Comment 19 (2002) by OJB on 2009-04-23 at 23:19:22:
I found some good (or mixture of good and bad) comments about the Pope and Catholicism I have made in these blog entries: 600, 450, 397, and 154. This shows I'm not always negative, doesn't it?
Comment 20 (2020) by SBFL on 2009-05-23 at 08:50:05:
"I looked at the description of communism at Wikipedia and it didn't even mention atheism. "...well that proves it then, doesn't it? Most are aware of the philosophy of Communism. As I said "godlessness".
In saying that I acknowledge that there is is a clear philosophical social responsibility aspect that resonates between the Church and the left but I find it hard to see any evidence of this in Communism as it is practised.
Yes, I stand by that statement, but it doesn't discount media bias. 'Bias' is a lot more subtle than 'conspiracy'. In saying I also acknowledge that the media would only publish what is newsworthy (cash driven) so that is sad in the grand scheme of things. I mean, who wants to read of good things? Human nature expects this as the norm. That's why it's unfair. Many other organisations/people/ideas etc get the same treatment.
Okay so you have been not so condemning at times. But it is all so thinly veiled isn't it? I'll give you some kudos (for now). What this means is that I won't write you off as a one'eyed loon (for now!)
Cheers.
Comment 21 (2025) by OJB on 2009-05-23 at 14:46:52:
SBFL said: well that proves it then Are you suggesting this has no credibility because its from Wikipedia? There are 29 references for the article which seem reasonable. This against your opinion? Just admit it: you're wrong!
Let me ask you this: if any other large organisation was found to systematically indulge in sexual abuse of children would the media report it? Of course they would! There's no bias here, its just that your church is deeply corrupt!
So there I go abusing the church again. Does that mean the kudos is withdrawn?
Comment 22 (2029) by SBFL on 2009-05-24 at 20:22:57:
What's with your overprotection of Wikipedia? I think you misread my sarcasm. In my opinion (and many others) Godlessness and Communism go hand in hand, though there may be references to the contrary. I guess the next step would be to analyse Communist literature and see what it says on the topic. More googling then..?
Those instances are indeed a sad story, but I don't think I have ever said those media reports were veer biased.
Yes, absolutely. It was always only going to be shortlived though, wasn't it? ;-)
Comment 23 (2033) by OJB on 2009-05-24 at 22:29:34:
Your opinion is fine but I have given real evidence from a real reference source. I think I have a stronger case than you.
You did strongly suggest media bias: I stand by that statement, but it doesn't discount media bias. If all those stories aren't because of media bias, then the Church really is pretty evil, isn't it?
Short-lived? I guess so. I don't write a blog to avoid controversy you know!
Comment 24 (2036) by SBFL on 2009-05-28 at 06:41:06:
Whatever...sounds a bit childish...
Yes but as I already said, not specifically referring to that issue. Evil?Not the church, the offending individuals yes. See, even you are influenced by the media bias!! Anyway, on a slightly related topic, have quick read of this: Hell is paved with the skulls of priests
Re kudos...Indeed ;-)
Comment 25 (2054) by OJB on 2009-05-28 at 21:58:55:
I was just saying that when you look at the different sides to a debate you should take most notice of the one which is based on facts rather than opinion.
When does an organisation take responsibility for the behaviour of its members? Its that sort of cop out that leads to the church losing respect. In the case above it was specifically stated that the behaviour of the bishop was condoned by more senior people in Rome.
Thanks for the reference. I think its true that there is a lot of opposition to the church and people do enjoy seeing it fail. That's partly because its so big and people like to see the big guys lose, but also the church doesn't do much to endear itself to the people.
Comment 26 (2060) by SBFL on 2009-06-04 at 07:52:24:
Nothing to disagree with on your comment 25. Any church menbers, "hierarchy" or parishioners, who protect a sex-offending priest for the sake of the Church's name deserve similar condemnation. Aside form the obvious risk to others (maybe they thought that since he had been caught out by his peers/seniors he would be too embarrassed to try again) it actually makes matters worse, including that of the Church's reputation. Like your mate WhateOil said about the National party in reference to the Richard Worth saga on Close Up last night, these fools should have "their throat cut out and chuck the body out the back door".
The sooner this scourge is eliminated from the Church the better. I make no apologies or excuses or spin.
Comment 27 (2071) by OJB on 2009-06-04 at 20:52:13:
The question is how many examples of bad behaviour does an organisation need to have before we start looking at the culture of the organisation itself? I don't think we can start being too critical of National yet but this has happened so many times in the Catholic Church that you have to start worrying about whether its the organisation to blame rather than the individuals.
Comment 28 (2077) by SBFL on 2009-06-05 at 10:06:12:
I guess in that case all mankind is corrupt since its offending ratio is higher. I'm not making excuses, just stating the facts.
Comment 29 (2082) by OJB on 2009-06-05 at 17:30:10:
All mankind is corrupt because its offending rate is higher than the church? Do you know that for a fact (especially regarding certain well publicised offenses of the church) and, even if it is true, shouldn't we expect more from the church?
Comment 30 (2087) by SBFL on 2009-06-06 at 05:03:25:
Looks like you can't read very well. I refer you to my last line in comment 27 and comment 29. Anyway, looks like you only proving my point, being that you have been influenced by media bias. No doubt we all are to some extent, on numerous issues.
Comment 31 (2091) by OJB on 2009-06-06 at 19:46:28:
OK, so we agree the church is pretty evil then - at least as evil as the rest of the world (possibly more) - even though we would expect it to be better (you know, doing God's work and all that). So fine, let's leave it there.
Comment 32 (2101) by SBFL on 2009-06-13 at 09:08:46:
Okay I see how you're playing this. Now you´re so desperate you decide to put words in my mouth. Shame on you. I have always thought a reasoned debate could be held with you, even on controversial topics where opposite viewpoints were held, but I see now that you're intent on negativity rather then constructive engagement. You're right on one thing though, time to leave it there.
Comment 33 (2109) by OJB on 2009-06-13 at 16:08:19:
It was a genuine attempt to figure out exactly what it was you were saying (while engaging in a small amount of rhetoric) but I think you're right: time to leave it.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE