Church-backed bid for RBS arm could herald creation of ethical bank
I went where the conversation took me but always had in mind the larger picture of the religion/respect issue. I see the inclusion of the Minister on that list as a symptom of that larger problem.
So, shall we continue to argue about whether I can't accept that I'm wrong (despite the blatant evidence that actually I can) or should we actually talk about the respect/religion thing?
You could start by explaining why crackhead Dave has less respect with you than someone you've never even met but who you know is a vicar/priest/imam/rabbi/raelian/scientologist etc etc?
So, shall we continue to argue about whether I can't accept that I'm wrong (despite the blatant evidence that actually I can) or should we actually talk about the respect/religion thing?
You could start by explaining why crackhead Dave has less respect with you than someone you've never even met but who you know is a vicar/priest/imam/rabbi/raelian/scientologist etc etc?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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).
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'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).
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).
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).
Well yes, but gosh this has all got very muddled. I retreated from example C) very early in the thread (post #9) because I realised my error, and D) is not an argument I've made, I have no idea how I gave that impression and said just a few posts back, befor your post, that I see the inclusion of Ministers in that list as a 'symptom of the larger problem', I wouldn't offer it as my sole piece of evidence to support that religions are afforded respect on a seemingly automatic basis.
Yes, the House of Lords example is much better one but I also think that my 'Blasphemy is illegal in Ireland' is a good example, perhaps even better given what was necessary to achieve it, you didn't mention that one.
I'd very much like to move away from all the befuddlement into the discussion that I had hoped this would become, one of religions and the respect that they are automatically afforded.
There are two aspects to what I find troubling about that respect. One is that it seems automatically granted e.g. so and so is a minister (ah, must be deserving of respect), vs, so and so is an atheist (ah, I'll wait till I know more before deciding),
and also that religions seem to be affronted and have a tendency to claim disrespect when criticised or questioned, as if their beliefs are somehow automatically above reproach by virtue of them being religious.
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.
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.
Why do you think it's often not justified? Do think there are cases where it is justified that a blanket respect be given?
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.
I didn't look *that* hard, but is there any followup to this?
http://www.theage.com.au/world/irish...0316-qcif.html
I didn't look *that* hard, but is there any followup to this?
I didn't look *that* hard, but is there any followup to this?
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.
Y
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".
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".
Sure, unwarranted, undeserved, unjustified, arbitrarily, assumed, they all mean the same thing in this context I think.
In what sense?
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?
Originally Posted by The Act
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
Sure, unwarranted, undeserved, unjustified, arbitrarily, assumed, they all mean the same thing in this context I think.
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult—
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
children being baptized by frightened parents.
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Do you really believe that there's not any element of truth in what I'm saying?
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.
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.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE