It's not about which one I respect.

It's about whether Crackhead Dave, who lives in the doorway to the off-licence, as a homeless man doing drugs and drinking Brasso, who (for the price of just a little bit of alcohol/crack) will sign basically anything, who has no permanent address, no reputation, and no standing in the community, should be deemed credible as a reference.

Compared to a Minister, who does have a permanent address, a steady job, a professional and community reputation, no criminal history, who can be used as a reference to say "I've known this man and believe he is who he says he is".

We're not taking his word for it just because he's a Minister. We're just deeming him as someone with enough credibility to be part of a larger check. We're not giving him more respect, even, than travel agents and photographers. Just a little bit more than homeless crack addicts.

ok, it's clear to me now that we were looking at this from two different perspectives and I accept what you just said. Most of my replies were from the perspective of why a minister would be automatically afforded respect in a general sense rather than the criteria that you just listed for being a signatory.

Hopefully that clears up any confusion (apologies for the part I played in that) and we can now drop the list issue?

Let me then drop the flaming torch into the dry haystack and say that as a trend I expect ministers of the CoE by and large to be a fair bit more honourable and respectable than an average citizen.

With that I will say that I expect them on average to be less inclined towards crime, immorality (let's stick to the obvious such as... hitting someone or stealing... not contested things like... not wearing a tie), drugs and extremisism and more inclined towards honesty, charity and helping others.

It should be noted that this doesn't necessarily imply that profiling individuals based on their profession as a minister is a good idea however. I also think they made a really dumb career choice (obviously).

I definitely think that there can be judgement of character traits based on profession.

I'm not sure if ministers would be less likely to commit crime than any other middle-class professional.

I would expect, for instance, a similar standard of behaviour from doctors, veterinary surgeons, and dentists, because they are generally of higher intelligence, educated, and with a profession that will strike them off for criminal offences (in the UK, at least).

The problem with profiling is extremely fundamental. Most people don't understand the difference between relation and causation. Or rather, they probably understand it, but they ignore it most of the time.

I haven't suggested that it is your "sole piece of evidence". But it is an argument you've made and it's piss-poor.

That example slipped my mind, but yes, it is much better than the other two examples you've proffered. Not familiar with all the details, but I'll give it a provisional 8/10.

OK, but as a general rule it's hard to steer a bad thread in a new direction. Try to start better threads in the first place. Like... try to imagine what OrP's response to your OP will be... that might help.

You aren't really comparing like with like here. To say that someone is a minister does fill in a lot of details that 'atheist' doesn't e.g. probably went to seminary (and therefore stayed in school or w/e), holds down a job, etc etc. This is only a minor slip-up for you, but it is symptomatic of your (imo) tendency to 'post first, think later'. Slow it down, think more carefully about your examples.

I actually think this doesn't happen so much anymore, or not in mainstream religion anyway. Certainly this was a major gripe the New Atheists had in the early 2000's, but between 9/11, the Catholic priest paedophile scandals and all that, it seems like (here in the UK anyway) that climate has changed a fair bit. For example, BBC One has "The Big Questions"* on Sundays at 10am and that show frequently has debate between the religious and atheists and the host is not afraid to be quite censorious with his guests. A quick search on youtube throws up episode titles like "Are Religions Sexist?", "Is it time for all religions to accept evolution?" alongside things like "Is Atheism an Intolerant Belief". I'm not going to claim that religious leaders are happy about these challenges to their moral authority, but I don't see very much of "you can't even ask that question".

It's also rare in the US. There's not really a strong deference (of this type) when it comes to religion and religious views in the public square (except maybe in small towns in deep red-America), and they are challenged openly and publicly. We have a culture that develops and fosters a "challenge authority/question authority" mentality going back to at least the 1960s, and we Americans value our ability to tell other people what we think about whatever.

No organisations are actually specified AFAIK. But it would be... weird if a blasphemy law made it possible to 'blaspheme' against, say, the Irish National Teachers Organisation. Wouldn't it?

I think it would be better phrased as the degree of respect being unwarranted.

The law was introduced about three years ago and was widely perceived as a sop by then-governing Fianna Fáil to their conservative, rural base, which was unhappy about the introduction of same-sex civil partnership. I'm fairly sure no-one's ever been prosecuted under the law and in my uninformed opinion, the first time someone is prosecuted under it will be the test case that gets it struck down.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/irish...0316-qcif.html

I didn't look *that* hard, but is there any followup to this?

Nah, it didn't happen before the general election and it's pretty much been on the long finger since.

I think that this is more about personal values and world views than the level of education or whether or not someone can hold down a job, which is why I used Atheist as the example because it speaks to their values. There are plenty of jobs I could have used as counter examples that require education and commitment/competence in the same way that religious positions do, that we wouldn't we necessarily automatically afford respect but then I don't think I'd have been comparing like for like.

Ok, that hasn't been my experience. I've seen media of the type you mention (in fact I've noticed a huge increase in public criticism of religions in the last 10 years) but my impression was one of religion being affronted by the criticism as if it were unthinkable. Frankly, I hope you're right though.

Let's not get sidetracked by the word itself, it's the action that I'm thinking about, and yes it would be very weird to not be able to criticise the INTO, but that's my point. Are they less deserving of respect than religions? IMO they're more deserving since they educate the next generation on far wider issues and subjects than religions do. Why is ok to criticise them but not do it about gods?

Sure, unwarranted, undeserved, unjustified, arbitrarily, assumed, they all mean the same thing in this context I think.

In what sense?

But you're wrong. The reason that, say, travel agents make the list is because they hold down a job, interact with the public, will have other people who can vouch for them etc NOT because there is an assumption about their values or worldview.

I prefer to judge people by their actions that second-guess their emotions. If someone is agreeing to appear on a TV show to be criticized it doesn't really matter how much they dislike it, they are not acting in a way that suggests they are above criticism.

The law doesn't prohibit criticising religions.

Section 4 is pretty clearly a big ol' "**** you" to the Scilons, which is a charming touch. Obviously still a terrible law.

You're not hearing me. It's about the degree of respect afforded, not the fact that some non-zero amount of respect is afforded. As in, some lay institution doing the things the Catholic church does in Ireland should indeed be afforded some form of respect (the Church funds a lot of homeless outreach stuff, for example), but not the degree of respect that the Church in reality is afforded.

When I said 'criticise', I meant of the 'grossly abusive or insulting' type, not simply a questioning of religion. Poor word choice.


If we take the definition of 'oppressive' as 'Weighing heavily on the mind or spirits, causing depression or discomfort', I'm not sure how Christianity or Islam escape the following clause (particularly Catholicism which I think relies heavily on guilt and the threat of eternal damnation):


Sure, I thought I was agreeing with you, I just didn't see the difference between 'unwarranted' and the words I was using. I just assumed that the 'degrees' of respect element was a common understanding.

I'm not talking about the list! I totally understand how ministers make the list. I was talking about why I thought minister and atheist were comparable in the context of unwarranted respect.

I didn't think that I was second guessing anyone nor was I restricting my impression to that gained from watching TV shows.

I was looking for a gif of someone gnawing on a pillow in silent frustration - can someone help me out?

Oh come on.....

Have I misinterpreted the Catholic church saying 'you were born with Original Sin, unless you are baptized, and then continue throughout your life to take Confession and have your sins absolved, you will suffer some type of punishment after death' ?

If you didn't believe in god, or were simply considering that behaviour from the perspective of their being no god or that there is a god but the Catholics are wrong in what they believe, do you think you might also see that behaviour as oppressive (using the definition of oppressive that I provided) and resulting in them gaining new followers? I'm thinking both of adults coming to Catholicism and children being baptized by frightened parents. (I can see how you might argue that it's not the 'purpose' of that behaviour.)

Also, I believe it has other effects/purposes too but they're not relevant in the context of the Law that we're discussing.

Of course if god does exist, and the Catholics specifically are correct about what they believe, then I'm wrong but we don't know that god exists.

OK. Yes, I think it's a stupid law. I also think it's unenforceable and suspect it was conceived with that aim in mind. It annoys me, but only so much.

Sure. Unenforceable.

Up 'til now you've only really been talking about 'blanket respect' and 'automatic respect'. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it would probably be helpful if you said exactly what you meant up-front more often.

At the risk of sounding arrogant, the rule of thumb for you should be that whenever you feel the need to ask this question, assume the answer is "Yes". Currently, you'll be more often right than wrong.

As for your original statement: For one, if you look for denominations that rely on guilt, pressure and the threat of eternal damnation, I fail to comprehend how one would think of particularly Catholicism, rather than hardcore evangelicals, for example. In particular since you - wisely - presented a rather toned down version of the idea of hell. So why would a teaching that says there's "some type of punishment" after death lead to "particularly Catholicism" being dependent on pressure and guilt? This was my main reason for pillow-gnawing. It's quite absurd to think Catholicism is in any way one of the more radical christian denominations. For two, catholic teaching about hell, salvation, original sin etc. is constantly evolving. So citing what you may have witnessed as a child (or as teaching from the deranged vikar you like to quote) is no more indicative of Catholicism in general than my impression during a 10-month visit of a High School is representative of the US. For three, said teachings and arguments are usually relying heavily on metaphors. "Punishment" for example is such a metaphor. If I conceptualize said punishment as my post-mortal shame of how I failed my own aspirations, for example, I would still hold it's a punishment. Yet it would actually be one I want. And so on.

I'm not going to go further with this, because

is such an absurd characterization again, that I, frankly, would need another pillow-gnawing gif. You stumble from cartoon picture to cartoon picture. Zumby gave you the cue - slower posting, quicker thinking.

Whilst all that might be true, it don't think it's relevant. I chose Catholicism because we're talking about Ireland here, where the Catholic church is predominant. I don't think there was any onus to choose most radical example I could think of and I think Catholicism is fine to use as an example.

You're assuming those are my sources, perhaps you should be asking me why I think that instead of guessing? For the record, I think the local vicar (vicar not priest which should be a clue) is a Methodist, I'm not sure though. I don't even understand why I couldn't learn everything I need to know about Catholicism using the internet and why I have to have personal experience? I can't have an a priori opinion?

I chose the word punishment carefully since it's the one used most in the articles I read before making my original post. I thought about using 'eternal damnation' and then decided against it to avoid accusation of hyperbole. Punishment is a more moderate term.


Dammit I knew you'd jump on that, would you if I'd used the word 'concerned' instead of frightened? I really think it's fine line. If the child dies before being baptised, it doesn't go to heaven so by their failure to act, they condemn their child to not being saved from Original Sin, and you don't think that catholic parents are concerned by that and might even fear the possibility?

I don't think it's an absurd characterization at all but maybe can you explain why you think it is instead of looking for gifs?

This, for example is not true.

For one, traditionally, children that died before baptism went to the Limbus pueorum. The idea was obviously, that it'd be terrible if unbaptized innocent children had no chance of salvation, while simultaneously acknowledging that baptism was necessary prerequisite for salvation. So the Limbo teaching was a way to reconcile what everyone realized was the absurd result of a mere categorial mishap. So basing parental fear on the chance of not reaching heaven is misreading the entire conversation: No one ever seriously thought that "An unbaptized child doesn't reach salvation" was anything more than just a statement of categorial incompatibility. Phrasing that as "then it doesn't go to heaven" is also inviting the exact kind of misunderstanding you are exhibiting - that a parent basically can't find a full night's sleep before the childs baptism out of fear the kid might die.

Moreover, the theory of Limbo never reached status of official church teaching. It was at times a popular theory, yet never "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis." (quote from link above).

Finally, in 2007, the church issued a document effectively stating that the church believes children will reach heaven even if they were not baptized: "Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church." (same link)

So, overall, "If a child dies before being baptized, it doesn't go to heaven" is wrong.

As you now (hopefully) see, this is shaping the problem with the wrong kind of language.

Now, what makes me look for gifs is not that I expect you to know any of the above. In fact, I don't expect anyone except a university-trained catholic to know that. Then again - most others don't look at a group of beaming proud parents and a congregation of swooning relatives and friends and see a group of shivvering sheep, scared ****less for the eternal soul of the infant, mindlessly enacting the roles the oppressive teaching of the evil church has layed out for them. It takes some fairly special training to do so. You somehow manage that on a consistent basis. And since you don't adress that general preconception of yours, any time I correct one tiny error of yours, another five pop up.

The only rational recourse I have in that situation is looking for gifs.

I'm already somewhat familiar with the concept of limbo but I deliberately chose 'doesn't go to heaven' rather than stating what does happen to avoid a digression. Arguing about what really happens to the souls of children who weren't baptized would be a Sherlock Holmes situation for me, the point is that there's the threat of something adverse happening (condemnation?) and that the church can prevent that.

I don't consider 'strong grounds for hope' to be reassuring enough that as a parent I wouldn't still be concerned about the eternal soul of my child (I'm somewhat fascinated by the idea that there are 'strong grounds' though). So where 'doesn't go to heaven' might have been downgraded to 'god might still save infants' and my 'parental fear' might have been downgraded to 'parental concern', I still don't think we're meeting in the middle and I still think that the whole idea encourages parents to baptize their children into the Catholic faith for more reasons than their belief that it's a good idea generally.

Also, I notice that in that article, the word 'punishment' is used along with 'condemnation', which I'm also happy to use.

It's also interesting that there are divisions within the catholic church as to exactly what happens to unbaptized infants and that some Catholics believe that the church is contradicting it's own earlier teachings. Between this and the Pope's 'atheist' can get into heaven, the free roll is becoming even more attractive.

Strawman.

Do you really believe that there's not any element of truth in what I'm saying? That in no way does the concept of Original Sin, the threat of Damnation/Condemnation and the Catholic claim to be able, on behalf of god, to deliver people to god's Grace, act as an an influencing and possibly 'oppressive' factor? You can't imagine that it would 'weight heavily on the mind'?

This is not a separate point, it's the crux of the issue. The Law mentions 'gaining new followers' and I used infants being baptised due to parental concerns as what I considered the most obvious 'new followers' that might result from oppressive psychological manipulation as described in Section 4 of the Act. However, what I'm addressing is the oppressive psychological manipulation itself.

Well, yes of course, if you want to assume the position of someone who needs magisterial affirmation in letter and seal that the child will definitely go to heaven, you're probably out of luck. Then the comments apply I gave in another thread: You argue from a corner you assume/think/wish theists argue from, but they don't. In effect, you get a nice and easy argument - but you end up looking silly. Especially to theists who (I guess) you want to convince.

Zumby made similar comments here about free will: "I used to consider theological contra-causal free will to be "the" free will (and therefore didn't exist). Then I did some reading and found out that not only do the vast majority of philosophers define free will differently, but ordinary people also. Given that, I think that it is likely to be damaging for atheism to be claiming that "free will doesn't exist" without qualification as we just don't know how people will interpret that claim. For those people who see free will as being something like "uncoerced by another human" then it just makes us look completely stupid. So imo we should focus on attacking obviously false and incoherent ideas like dualism and contra-causal free will, but not be making broad claims that are likely to miss their target."

Obv. you'd need to change the relevant terms to whatever you're currently discussing, but the general point is the same. If you want to learn to understand how a theist thinks, especially if you want to eventually be in a position to perhaps change his mind, you need to first be able to see what he sees. (And I'm not talking about supernatural stuff here) When I attend a baptism, I find myself grinning stupidly through the entire service, because I'm just ****ass happy for the family, the kid, the friends and so on. I basically feel like a kid on christmas myself. And I would suspect I'm not alone in this. So when you talk about baptism and link it to words like "oppressive psychological manipulation", I'm like Wat?! And any argument that follows from that is basically dead on arrival.)

No, of course I don't believe that. I do believe, in borrowing the words of tames_deuces, that whatever the element of truth is, it's very well hidden.

Here we're basically preparing to go in full-on crazy mode again. Everyone (and I mean that quite literally) perfectly undestands what this section is referring to and attempting to exclude: Sects and Cults that keep and recruit followers through massive psychological and/or material dependency and, essentially, tax avoiding schemes.

So there's no reason to even go there if you plan to be referring to catholic infant baptism. If you look into a sunday baptism scene and can't distinguish what you're seeing from what the law is describing, you're again in a scenario where Crackhead Dave wins the rationality contest over Minister Ronald Respectable PhD theol.