Anti-Catholicism

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1334032431' post='2415292']
Recent examples - from other countries, not the US - in which nations and the political leadership thereof seem to be persecuting religious believers - persecution not in the sense of physical violence but in the sense of forbidding/precluding/inhibiting public expression of beliefs, thus marginalizing the believers as members of society. The examples listed have not all been successful, but I wouldn't say they've been successfully defeated, either - perhaps defeated for now, but not necessarily defeated permanently.

1. France - there was an effort (last year?) to ban Muslim women from wearing the head scarf in public - the specific claim was that the scarf was an expression of religious belief. I think a case could be made that it's as much cultural custom. If I recall correctly, the European courts defeated the effort, supporting the right of Muslim women to wear scarves. But if France can/could ban Muslim women from wearing the veil, could it also ban women religious from wearing the habit in public, or priests from wearing the cassock, or priests from wearing the Roman collar, or bishops from wearing their mitres, as too strong an expression of religious belief?

[/quote]

The habit and roman collar are illegal in France. The law is unenforced. Although Sisters in habit may not attend public universities.

[savvy]

[quote]Catholics try to do that as well. They try to convince people to abandon their incorrect ideologies and embrace Catholicism.[/quote]

This is called making generalizations. Most Catholics don't bother unless someone starts attacking them with, "your church hates women, gays, blah, blah" This gives them a reason to defend themselves and explain their beliefs. Let's face it this is happening a lot more than the other way around.

They don't go around knocking on doors or handing out Bibles or preaching in streets.

Edited April 11, 2012 by savvy

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='savvy' timestamp='1334153165' post='2415733']
This is called making generalizations. Most Catholics don't bother unless someone starts attacking them with, "your church hates women, gays, blah, blah" This gives them a reason to defend themselves and explain their beliefs. Let's face it this is happening a lot more than the other way around.

They don't go around knocking on doors or handing out Bibles or preaching in streets.
[/quote]

this post is a generalization as well, and one that isnt universally true. There are plenty of catholics who do all those things.

[Annie12]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1334157077' post='2415761']
this post is a generalization as well,
[/quote]
I think that when people don't explain that they realize not everyone does a given generalization, that is when it kinda goes without saying. I know that when I am typing, I prefer to have to not explain that I am not naive. It just takes more time and energy that I am willing to put out on a post. ( maybe that's not good, but I usually give people the benefit of the doubt when they are making since but only don't clarify exactly what they mean).

[4588686]

[quote name='savvy' timestamp='1334153165' post='2415733']


This is called making generalizations. Most Catholics don't bother unless someone starts attacking them with, "your church hates women, gays, blah, blah" This gives them a reason to defend themselves and explain their beliefs. Let's face it this is happening a lot more than the other way around.

They don't go around knocking on doors or handing out Bibles or preaching in streets.
[/quote]

It was a generalization. I should have said religiously serious Catholics. In the New Testament Christ commanded his apostles to spread the Gospel. What I said wasn't meant to disparage Catholics. They have every right to try to convince people, by word or deed, that Catholicism is right.

[savvy]

[quote]I should have said religiously serious Catholics.[/quote]

So religiously serious Catholics are murderers?

[savvy]

[quote]There are plenty of catholics who do all those things. [/quote]

There are also over a billion of us.

[Ice_nine]

[color=#0000ff]That depends on the context. If this occurs in a public school then I would certainly say that his rights are being violated since attendance is compulsory and we are talking about a child. I would say the same thing about a State University that penalizes a student for holding religious beliefs that the Professor doesn't like. But outside of some narrow confines then no, I would not consider that persecution[/color]

Really? Ok. Then I think your understanding of what persecution actually is. is incomplete.

[color=#0000ff]That IS the freedom of association. The freedom of association means that you may associate with whoever you want. I feel the same way in reverse. Last semester most of the students at my school threw a hissy fit because Psalm 100 (A Christian acapella group) expelled a gay member. That's not persecuting homosexuals. They are free to associate with whoever they want. And I'm free not to go to any of their stupid shows.[/color]

Not allowing someone entrance into some inconsequential, peripheral group is not comparable to persecution. The Westboro Baptists exhibit behavior and rhetoric that is antagonistic, but it's hard to call what they do "persecution" because their attempt to drive away dissenters is laughably impotent. I think, as with the Hester example, the antagonism has to be conducted on a wide scale anyhow to be considered persecution.

[color=#0000ff]I don't think the point is valid unless there is some credible threat of violence that backs up the aversion to the association with the person.[/color]

You're bringing up issues of freedom again tho. I have the "freedom" to say that homosexuals are evil and to convince people not to associate with them, but that doesn't mean I'm doing the right thing. You and I have the "freedom" to be antagonistic, in some prescribed limits. You seem to be unwilling to believe antagonism MUST violate civil law in order to be persecution. Again your definition seems to be incomplete.

[color=#0000ff]Otherwise that is simply citizens exercising their right to choose who they associate with. It's no different than the forum you are currently participating in. I am allowed to associate with the people here so long as I do so within predetermined confines. I can't curse and blaspheme. If I try to circumvent the ban and do these things then I will be expelled from the community temporarily or perminately. That's not persecution. dUst and the community more broadly has every right to determine who they want to associate with.[/color]

Yes, but PM doesn't have a monopoly on the internet. In fact, their percentage is laughably small. If the majority of the internet was like this, I think you'd feel different.

And, the idea of cyber-persecution doesn't seem like a good comparison to me.

[color=#0000ff]Where did I make a 'but my best friend is...' argument?[/color]

You more or less alluded to it on behalf of the neo-atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens et al by saying they have religious friends, therefore they can't possibly persecute religious people.

I'm not claiming that these people are persecuting religious folk, but I'm hesitant to say that [i]any[/i] individual can persecute another, because the attempt to drive out, or exterminate, is almost always carried out by a group of people than an individual. Even if the individual has power and influence (like Hitler) his/her persecution would be useless if there weren't large swaths of people willing to do the dirty work.

[color=#0000ff]That's an opinion that some people really do have. There are people who believe that religious belief is backwards, that it is dangerous. These are beliefs of private citizens. How is their advocating this position any less legitimate that you advocating your faith?[/color]

There is a difference in criticizing someone's beliefs as x,y, and z and branding someone as x,y, and z based on their beliefs.

You are an atheist right? I think atheism is lame, illogical, and dangerous. Now if I made this leap to say "well Hassan, I don't know nearly anything about you, but based on your atheism, you must therefore be stupid and dangerous, or dangerously stupid" there is quite a difference there.

[color=#0000ff]I believe that religion is harmful unless it is relegated to the private sphere.[/color]

I believe atheism is harmful, private or public. I do not however brand atheists as morally detestable scum with a below-average intelligence. I'm not saying you brand believers in a similar way, but it happens. This type of wide-swathing character-assassination is something rather insidious imo because it indiscriminately makes value judgements on the individuals within a staggeringly large group.

[color=#0000ff]I don't think that religion should be the sole foundation of policy. I have no problem with religion motivating people and informing the political orientation they wish to follow but I think that if they want to enact policy they need to justify it in a language and reason that is objectively accessible to all citizens. How is that in any sense persecution?[/color]


It's not.
[color=#ff0000].[/color]

[color=#0000ff]you follow the lead of the Ustashi government and start murdering Serbs and Jews who don't embrace Catholicism then that is persecution.[/color]

Yes obviously mass murder is persecution, and quite obviously disassociating oneself with a racist is not, I believe you're having trouble with the ambigious cases that fall between the two extremes.

What if I just threw them all in internment camps. Provided them all with the basic necessities of life (cuz I'm so nice), would that be persecution in your book? What if I just passed laws that didn't allow non-Catholics to . . . idk use public transportation? What if I just took out a major campaign to plaster billboards with propagandistic sludge about the crimes of the Jewish people?

[color=#0000ff]Ok.[/color]

glad we agree there. That was actually a major part of my original rant.

[color=#0000ff]No need to apologize. It was a bit difficult since you seemed to modify your position as you progressed. which is fine but some of my comments may be more in synch with what you said earlier rather than how you finished. But since I'm a bit busy I just left them as they were[/color].

In all honesty I don't think I was modifying, I think I had to get more nuanced and descriptive as I went along. You seem to be more of a concrete thinker whereas I am more abstract. It's just the type of difference that is bound to lead to some misunderstanding. I think cmom picked up what I was putting down more quickly probably just becasue we're coming from the same place and possibly have similarities in our learning styles

I do get where you're coming from tho. And your comments were actually helpful in organizing my ideas believe or not. I'm still not sure you get exactly what I was saying, probably due to the semi-chaotic way the discussion evolved, but I think for now, we can let it rest because my head hurts and life calls.

pax

[4588686]

[quote name='savvy' timestamp='1334178026' post='2415964']
So religiously serious Catholics are murderers?
[/quote]


I can't tell if you're a talented troll or if there is just an amazing disconnect between your user-name and reality.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1334187481' post='2416025']
I can't tell if you're a talented troll or if there is just an amazing disconnect between your user-name and reality.
[/quote]

Did you miss this part "[color=#282828]There is a difference in criticizing someone's beliefs as x,y, and z and branding someone as x,y, and z based on their beliefs"[/color] or just ignoring it?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='savvy' timestamp='1334178117' post='2415966']
There are also over a billion of us.
[/quote]

duh. that is why i was saying not to make such generalizations.

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1334193398' post='2416073']
Did you miss this part "[color=#282828]There is a difference in criticizing someone's beliefs as x,y, and z and branding someone as x,y, and z based on their beliefs"[/color] or just ignoring it?
[/quote]

I'm not branding her as anything because of her beliefs. I'm saying that I do not know if she is a troll or not based on her attempts to represent my statements in highly inflammatory ways. Can anyone really read my clarification of her first misreading of my post, which I assumed was the sort of good faith mistake that we all make from time to time, as a declaration that I think that all religiously serious Catholics are murderers? It seems like a parody, particularly since her screen name is 'Savvy'.

If she's not a troll then I apologize but I didn't see how anyone could read:

[i][color=#282828]It was a generalization. I should have said religiously serious Catholics. In the New Testament Christ commanded his apostles to spread the Gospel. [b]What I said wasn't meant to disparage Catholics. They have every right to try to convince people, by word or deed, that Catholicism is right.[/b] [/color][/i]

as 'All religiously serious Catholics are murderers' in good faith.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Hasan

[Ice_nine]

I murdalize people wit my dope rhymes.

Does that count?

[savvy]

[quote]It was a generalization. I should have said religiously serious Catholics. In the New Testament Christ commanded his apostles to spread the Gospel. [b]What I said wasn't meant to disparage Catholics. They have every right to try to convince people, by word or deed, that Catholicism is right.[/b] [/quote]

I am sorry, I misread you.

[4588686]

[quote name='savvy' timestamp='1334273547' post='2416754']
I am sorry, I misread you.
[/quote]

I apologize for being gruff/rude.