Anti-Catholicism

[Annie12]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1333841274' post='2414156']
Yes, but I like to let my hair grow out sometimes.
[/quote]
Nice! just checking!

[Papist]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1333841238' post='2414155']
Hasan, I'm just curious, can you explain you picture? I mean, your a Guy right?
[/quote]

It depends where he is at.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1333841411' post='2414158']
Why are you so mean???
[/quote]
it's a gift?

[4588686]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1333842868' post='2414174']
It depends where he is at.
[/quote]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n819d76R_cQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n819d76R_cQ[/url]

[the171]

Oh my gosh... That is my governor... Bahahahahaha! The one who is screwing over teachers.

.... Yeahh.. He is not well liked currently.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1333821980' post='2414021']
You really just want to hurt people. Don't you? I wouldn't do that. Any way my post to r2Dtoo goes for you too. Just stop. This has turned into arguing and it's not constructive.
[/quote]

No actually, I dont. I was just saying that since you said any discussion no matter how intellectual about catholicism from an outsider is "anti catholicism" and offensive to you, then it stands to reason that since i discuss catholicism here often, you may find those posts offensive.

the trick is, is that I am not actually anti catholic, and most of the time my posts are not meant to be offensive(though sometimes jason deserves it ), they are just purporting a view that you may disagree with. That is why i have been getting frustrated when you say that that means I am being an Anti Catholic, since that is the furthest thing from the truth.

You will find that we often discuss the finer issues of catholicism, christianity, protestantism, islam, hindu, atheism, etc etc here. That doesnt automatically make the people here anti-protestant, anti-islam, anti whatever, it just means they are having discussions about the merits, demerits and qualities of different belief systems.

If you continue to feel insulted by my posting, then I am sorry, that is not the purpose of my posting.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1333824506' post='2414044']
I grew up in an area where everything from ignorant misconceptions from other Christians to "intellectual criticisms" from agnostics/atheists was the norm. People tended to listen to me more when I told them why I wanted to stay in the Church despite the terrible things people have done, and acknowledged that those things were indeed terrible. I personally feel that talking too much about "anti-Catholicism" in places like America only cheapens the experiences of people who actually have to deal with the possibility of martyrdom on a daily basis. Christ told us that the world will hate us...so the whole spectrum from blind ignorance to martyrdom is par for the course.

Sure, all that doesn't change that it can totally smell of elderberries to be surrounded by people who don't understand or are even antagonistic. I've been there, it really bites. But like others have said, prayer definitely helps. Read up on different kinds of apologetics, and try to patiently explain things to people. I eventually got out of the habit of engaging with people who aren't interested in honest discussion and mutual understanding, because it was too much for me to handle.
[/quote]

I agree with pretty much all of this.

[tangent] I was thinking about violence the other day. Surely there's the violence we all know and love and are familiar with (the blood-spilling, neck-breaking physical violence), but I think people get hung up on this being the only type of violence, because it is the most immediate and has a finality that other forms of violence don't have. Social isolation being one form, mental/emotional abuse . . . I'm sure you can think of others. It's easy to say "oh boo hoo so your little feelings are hurt. What about the Bosnian Muslims/Polish Jews/any other group who has faced mass extermination? That's real persecution!"

While that's true I also think that killing or physically maiming someone is not the only way to cause serious damage. Christians and, religious people in general, seem to be facing what I would call ideological violence (NOT violent ideology). What I mean is an ideology that must lay claim to every sector of society, that leaves no room for any amount of pluralism. Obviously the nonreligious don't have a monopoly on ideological violence BUT

I find the secular/atheistic ideological violence to be more insidious because it tends to deny it's violence. It often marches under the guise of "tolerance" saying believe anything you want, so long as you relegate your beliefs to the private corners of your mind and keep them out of public view. Their ideology is laying claims to the public sector, like conquering territory, eagerly and viciously (in the metaphorical sense), but they deny any conquest is taking place and that we should all just hold hands and get along. I believe Benedict 16 calls it "the dictatorship of relativism," and that's such an apt term. Because while on the surface it appears to be a fun-loving oh anyone can believe what they want how gr8, it's stamping out anything that opposes it. I'd have more respect if they would just drop the tolerance the essence of cow and step into the ring and duke it out with the rest of us. The most hard-headed religious people analagous to these ideological violent secularists, are at least more upfront about their intentions. They're more honest in identifying an enemy to subjugate, and they usually aren't feigning any hand-holding let's sing cumbaya bs either.

This is important. Not persecution per se, but to downplay it because we're not getting blown up, is just dumb. Seriously, just because no one's getting murdered doesn't mean there's not an issue. Doesn't mean we can't get pistov and "fight" back.
[tangent]

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1333848763' post='2414229']
No actually, I dont.
[/quote]

sure

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333849493' post='2414236']
sure
[/quote]

eh? Is there something you want to say?

[Annie12]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1333848763' post='2414229']
No actually, I dont. I was just saying that since you said any discussion no matter how intellectual about catholicism from an outsider is "anti catholicism" and offensive to you, then it stands to reason that since i discuss catholicism here often, you may find those posts offensive.

the trick is, is that I am not actually anti catholic, and most of the time my posts are not meant to be offensive(though sometimes jason deserves it ), they are just purporting a view that you may disagree with. That is why i have been getting frustrated when you say that that means I am being an Anti Catholic, since that is the furthest thing from the truth.

You will find that we often discuss the finer issues of catholicism, christianity, protestantism, islam, hindu, atheism, etc etc here. That doesnt automatically make the people here anti-protestant, anti-islam, anti whatever, it just means they are having discussions about the merits, demerits and qualities of different belief systems.

If you continue to feel insulted by my posting, then I am sorry, that is not the purpose of my posting.
[/quote]
Wow! wow! wow! I never called you or anyone anti-catholic and if I came across that way I apologize, like really. I never meant at all to make anyone feel bad. I mean that too. I don't think your anti-catholic. (and I accept your apology)

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333849427' post='2414235']
I agree with pretty much all of this.

[tangent] I was thinking about violence the other day. Surely there's the violence we all know and love and are familiar with (the blood-spilling, neck-breaking physical violence), but I think people get hung up on this being the only type of violence, because it is the most immediate and has a finality that other forms of violence don't have. Social isolation being one form, mental/emotional abuse . . . I'm sure you can think of others. It's easy to say "oh boo hoo so your little feelings are hurt. What about the Bosnian Muslims/Polish Jews/any other group who has faced mass extermination? That's real persecution!"

While that's true I also think that killing or physically maiming someone is not the only way to cause serious damage. Christians and, religious people in general, seem to be facing what I would call ideological violence (NOT violent ideology). What I mean is an ideology that must lay claim to every sector of society, that leaves no room for any amount of pluralism. Obviously the nonreligious don't have a monopoly on ideological violence BUT

I find the secular/atheistic ideological violence to be more insidious because it tends to deny it's violence. It often marches under the guise of "tolerance" saying believe anything you want, so long as you relegate your beliefs to the private corners of your mind and keep them out of public view. Their ideology is laying claims to the public sector, like conquering territory, eagerly and viciously (in the metaphorical sense), but they deny any conquest is taking place and that we should all just hold hands and get along. I believe Benedict 16 calls it "the dictatorship of relativism," and that's such an apt term. Because while on the surface it appears to be a fun-loving oh anyone can believe what they want how gr8, it's stamping out anything that opposes it. I'd have more respect if they would just drop the tolerance the essence of cow and step into the ring and duke it out with the rest of us. The most hard-headed religious people analagous to these ideological violent secularists, are at least more upfront about their intentions. They're more honest in identifying an enemy to subjugate, and they usually aren't feigning any hand-holding let's sing cumbaya bs either.

This is important. Not persecution per se, but to downplay it because we're not getting blown up, is just dumb. Seriously, just because no one's getting murdered doesn't mean there's not an issue. Doesn't mean we can't get pistov and "fight" back.
[tangent]
[/quote]
Werd.
A w e s o m e post.

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333849427' post='2414235']
I agree with pretty much all of this.

[tangent] I was thinking about violence the other day. Surely there's the violence we all know and love and are familiar with (the blood-spilling, neck-breaking physical violence), but I think people get hung up on this being the only type of violence, because it is the most immediate and has a finality that other forms of violence don't have. Social isolation being one form, mental/emotional abuse . . . I'm sure you can think of others. It's easy to say "oh boo hoo so your little feelings are hurt. What about the Bosnian Muslims/Polish Jews/any other group who has faced mass extermination? That's real persecution!" [/QUOTE]

Because it is real persecution. Getting hauled up to the Drina bridge and having your head hacked off after the same thugs made you watch as they violently gang rape your wife and daughter is persecution. And that really happens to people. What you are describing is living in a (classical) liberal society. 'Social isolation' seems to be your description of what happens when people don't want to associate with people who espouse your views. This is sometimes called freedom of association. You are complaining about your feelings being hurt. There are (as well there should be) legal protections against people threatening your life or to do you bodily harm. So I assume that's not what you are talking about. What you seem to be talking about is people hurting your feelings. I honestly don't know what to say about that except that if you don't like living in a society where people may associate with whom they choose and express their beliefs and opinions freely then living in America or a Western culture is probably not for you. What you seem to want is to live under a paternalistic government. A government that will make all the other kids be nice and let you play with them. Which is fine except it detracts from the freedom of others. But hey, as long as you're spared from the violence of people expressing opinions that you find hurtful and not chilling with you I guess living under paternalism (the greatest form of despotism, if Kant is to be believed) is a small price to pay.

[QUOTE]While that's true I also think that killing or physically maiming someone is not the only way to cause serious damage. Christians and, religious people in general, seem to be facing what I would call ideological violence (NOT violent ideology). What I mean is an ideology that must lay claim to every sector of society, that leaves no room for any amount of pluralism. Obviously the nonreligious don't have a monopoly on ideological violence BUT[/QUOTE]

No, what you want is pluralism without consequences, which is cowardly. You want, or at least are describing, a one way pluralism. You are free to express your views but others are not (I guess you telling a homosexual that his loving relationship is pushing him to ever lasting damnation and torture is pluralism but that same gay man telling you that your views are baseless hogwash is that insidious, subtle violence). The premise of american Republicanism is that the constituency is composed of grown ups. People who are mature enough to hear their views critiqued, even trashed. Because that is the actual price of pluralism. You get to express your views and in exchange others are free to tell you what they think of your views.

[QUOTE] I find the secular/atheistic ideological violence to be more insidious because it tends to deny it's violence. It often marches under the guise of "tolerance" saying believe anything you want, so long as you relegate your beliefs to the private corners of your mind and keep them out of public view. Their ideology is laying claims to the public sector, like conquering territory, eagerly and viciously (in the metaphorical sense), but they deny any conquest is taking place and that we should all just hold hands and get along. I believe Benedict 16 calls it "the dictatorship of relativism," and that's such an apt term. Because while on the surface it appears to be a fun-loving oh anyone can believe what they want how gr8, it's stamping out anything that opposes it. I'd have more respect if they would just drop the tolerance the essence of cow and step into the ring and duke it out with the rest of us. The most hard-headed religious people analagous to these ideological violent secularists, are at least more upfront about their intentions. They're more honest in identifying an enemy to subjugate, and they usually aren't feigning any hand-holding let's sing cumbaya bs either. [/QUOTE]

There is a difference between saying that personal religious beliefs must be kept out of public view and saying that personal religious beliefs cannot dictate policy. There is nothing wrong with voicing your personal, unproven assertion that homosexuality is wrong. There is something seriously wrong with you taking those unsupported religious beliefs and using them to pass anti-sodomy laws or to deny that gay relationships merit the same legal support and protection as straight relationships.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Hasan

[cmotherofpirl]

In the second quote I think you missed her point. Its not the fact of disagreed with, its the fact of being stomped on for disagreeing. "You can say anything you want as long as don't dare disagree with us" She wants a fair fight, instead of a stealth attack.

[4588686]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1333861292' post='2414312']
In the second quote I think you missed her point. Its not the fact of disagreed with, its the fact of being stomped on for disagreeing. "You can say anything you want as long as don't dare disagree with us" She wants a fair fight, instead of a stealth attack.
[/quote]

I don't think I understand the argument. What do you mean by 'stealth attack'? I don't see how she doesn't have a fair fight. She lives in a center right country which is also the most religious in the developed world (with maybe the exception of Ireland) in which roughly 80% of the population also claims to be Christian and half the population attends Church regularly and which has very strong free speech protections. It seems like she's asking for an equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. I may just be totally missing her point, though.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1333861292' post='2414312']
In the second quote I think you missed her point. Its not the fact of disagreed with, its the fact of being stomped on for disagreeing. "You can say anything you want as long as don't dare disagree with us" She wants a fair fight, instead of a stealth attack.
[/quote]
There was a stealth attack somewhere?