Anti-Catholicism

[Lil Red]

lol

[cmotherofpirl]

[Basilisa Marie]

Annie, someone telling you how they feel you are coming across is [i]not [/i]sticking it to you. It's not a false accusation, either. It's nothing more than someone expressing how they personally feel, and how they personally are interpreting your posts, regardless of your original intention. Criticizing your posts is very different than criticizing you, and reading through this whole thread it looks like you [i]might [/i]be confusing the two. You don't need to apologize. You need to stop getting so offended when someone disagrees with you. And, it looks like from your last post that you decided to stop getting offended when people criticize you...except that's exactly what happened when you responded to Sister Marie.

[savvy]

[quote]As for your insistence that the Catholic Church isn't people, any faith group can claim that. Protestants will say their faith is based on the Bible, Muslims will claim the Quran, you claim teachings supposedly handed down from Christ himself. It's all the same. Doesn't let your religion off the hook for past events.[/quote]

The thing is that Catholicism actually has an "official" set of defined teachings, on faith and morals, such as found in councils, church documents etc. For example, if someone claimed something was Catholicism. I would ask them to prove this from these things, if they claim it's an official view.

This is different from a lot of religions.

For example even my Protestant friends when I voice an opinion about at theological issue, respond with "But what is the official church view on this"?

Well-informed people understand this.

Even well-informed Catholics ask other Catholics to prove their claims.

Edited April 9, 2012 by savvy

[savvy]

[quote]"Even if they don't pass the purity test of come Catholics here they still have a strong cultural connection to Catholicism."[/quote]


What is cultural connection? since Catholicism has official teachings. For example, I know people who subscribe to some versions of folk Catholicism, but it's still not official.

Edited April 9, 2012 by savvy

[Annie12]

.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Annie12

[Annie12]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1333933368' post='2414519']
Be Happy!!!
I hope you will accept my apology even though we don't see eye to eye. I didn't and don't want to hurt you. Friends?
BTW, Happy Easter!
[/quote]

Did anyone catch this????????? I really thought we went over this already and I don't wish to discuss this any longer. I try to be nice and no one seems to pick up on it. Well, what about my "feelings" ? Whatever, I am not going to exhaust the subject any longer. I said I was sorry and I'd like to leave it at that.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1333941705' post='2414612']
[s]Did anyone catch this????????? I really thought we went over this already and I don't wish to discuss this any longer. I try to be nice and no one seems to pick up on it. Well, what about my "feelings" ? Whatever, I am not going to exhaust the subject any longer. I said I was sorry and I'd like to leave it at that.[/s]
I will destroy you people. Oppose me and I will braid your entrails.
[/quote]
fxd

[Annie12]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1333941913' post='2414614']
[s]Did anyone catch this????????? I really thought we went over this already and I don't wish to discuss this any longer. I try to be nice and no one seems to pick up on it. Well, what about my "feelings" ? Whatever, I am not going to exhaust the subject any longer. I said I was sorry and I'd like to leave it at that.[/s]
I will destroy you people. Oppose me and I will braid your entrails.

[/quote]

Ewwww!! weird...

[Annie12]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1333941913' post='2414614']
Annie12 is completely right and no one should be acting the way they are towards her! Shameful behavior!
[/quote]
lol! Thanks!
(see, I can do that too)

Edited April 9, 2012 by Annie12

[Winchester]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1333942344' post='2414618']
lol! Thanks!
(see, I can do that too)
[/quote]
Luckily, I reject IP, so I have no problem with you using the schtick I pioneered.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1333849963' post='2414238']
eh? Is there something you want to say?
[/quote]

I think you've misinterpreted my sarcasm a few times before, on account of you aren't familiar with my posts and such.

which is a beaver dam shame. Because I'm pretty rad.

But in seriousness I was just being stooopid and sarcastic

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1333853859' post='2414266']
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.
[/quote]

Which I agreed with . . .

[quote] 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.[/quote]

Well, I'm talking more about stigmatization and ostracization and such. And not complaining, just saying that it does indeed happen on both sides of the fence. Only it's more obvious when religious people are doing the ostracizing. A certain stripe of secularists tend to brand religious folk as backward, bigoted, or even dangerous. It's an implicit warning: don't associate with these people until they change their ways/beliefs.

razzle dazzle. Brand me as whatever evil monster you need to fit your agenda, but don't turn around and act like you're the most loving, accepting, moral person on the face of the planet. Consistency is a big thing with me.

[quote] 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]

Bro, where did I ever say I wanted the government to do [i]anything[/i]. I did not say the government should ban copper posser baggery, I'm just calling it out when I see it. Saying that it's wrong to outcast a fat kid on the playground doesn't automatically mean I want the government to swoop down and force us all to love fat people.

To about 4-5 of my posts that you last responded to, you've seemed to make an awful lot of assumptions about where I'm "throwing my hat" or "casting my lot" with certain political associations or government philosophies when I'm not even talking about the government at all. I'm genuinely wondering where you're making that leap, because I tend to be at least quasi-libertarian (sp?) and would like the government to get the hell out of everyone's beaver dam business, and I don't know how you keep projecting/interpreting a political view on my part, when the government is the farthest thing from my mind when I'm posting (where it should be ).

[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[/quote]

NO! That's exactly what I'm railing against!

Don't you see? I never said or implied that others should not be able to express their views. What I really don't like is people telling me that I'm not allowed to express my views because they violate the divine statues of tolerance (i.e. a philosophical system I do not believe in, that is contradictorally--by virtue of it's own ideals--being imposed on me!). And then denying that any imposition on their part has taken place. It's extremely frustrating, to hear people whine about others forcing their beliefs onto others, and then turning around and doing that which they condemn. In order for "tolerance" to be internally consistent, one must tolerate even those who are intolerant. And it almost never works out that way.

I'll be honest. When I think something is right, I'm gonna step into the ring and defend what I believe is right, and you're free to counter me. And perhaps a good sparring match is even helpful to refine the arguments. But to the people who curl up into a ball and cry because I'm hitting them too hard and becaue I'm being too intolerant (holy hell this word iz becoming redundant), only to whip out a pistol and shoot my kneecaps when I'm not looking . . . I'm not ok with that.


[quote](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). [/quote]

lol totes . . .

not what I was saying

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

Hasan, YOU say my beliefs are unsupported. Unsupported by what? Empiricism? Because lots of fundamental things that you believe in (like, the inherent rights of human beings for example) don't really have a leg to stand on either in that respect (but oh if it has legs, do tell). Because if not, I could say the same thing about you. You're taking this unsupported claim that homo sapiens, conglomerations of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc, walking monkeys who figured out how to make plastic and sing songs have these things called "rights" that you speak of. It can all seem rather tenuous to me.

And please resist the urge to talk about the law, or any of the documents of this great nation as "support." There are a lot of laws written on a lot of paper that don't mean a beaver dam thing to anyone. I'm more interested in the philosophy they're predicated upon. Once we clear this up, we can then talk about the more specific "laws" that you mentioned here concerning protections and sodomy bans and such.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Ice_nine

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1333949810' post='2414675']




Which I agreed with . . .
[/QUOTE]

You agree that it's violence. My point was your attempt to conflate the consequences of living in a secular, liberal society with being actually persecuted. Nobody is violating your rights by not wanting to associate with you or by criticizing your beliefs and values. My beliefs and values are attacked and, at times, mocked here all the time. Is that persecution? Absolutely not. I'm choosing to be on a Catholic website. Your argument was that while little things like being starved and murdered for having a last name ending in 'stein' was persecution today Christians and Catholics are facing another form of violence in the form of ideological violence. You never really give any analytic clarity of exactly what that is but inferential it stands that it amounts to people not wanting to associate with you or disparaging your ideas. That's not a different kind of persecution. It's not persecution at all. Its your fellow citizens exercising the very same rights that you have. Below you are attacking my beliefs. Is that ideological violence? Obviously not. I attacked your beliefs and now you're attacking mine. That's how progress gets made in a free society with a market place of ideas.



[QUOTE] Well, I'm talking more about stigmatization and ostracization and such. And not complaining, just saying that it does indeed happen on both sides of the fence. Only it's more obvious when religious people are doing the ostracizing. A certain stripe of secularists tend to brand religious folk as backward, bigoted, or even dangerous. It's an implicit warning: don't associate with these people until they change their ways/beliefs. [/QUOTE]

Ok? I think that you're talking about the very most extreme of secularists as even Dawkins and Hitchens would talk about having religious friends. So if they aren't for the ostracization of religious people then I don't know who is more extreme than they. But even if such people do exist how is the persecution? It's not a warning backed up by violence. They just don't want to associate with you and don't want to associate with people who do associate with you. That's freedom of association.

[QUOTE] razzle dazzle. Brand me as whatever evil monster you need to fit your agenda, but don't turn around and act like you're the most loving, accepting, moral person on the face of the planet. Consistency is a big thing with me. [/QUOTE]

I don't know where I called you a monster or where I said or implied that I was a particularly loving, accepting, or moral person. Much less the most loving, accepting, and moral person in the world. There are all sorts of people who I don't like and don't associate with.



[QUOTE] nBro, where did I ever say I wanted the government to do [i]anything[/i]. I did not say the government should ban copper posser baggery, I'm just calling it out when I see it. Saying that it's wrong to outcast a fat kid on the playground doesn't automatically mean I want the government to swoop down and force us all to love fat people. [/QUOTE]

Well do you actually believe that you are being persecuted and are the target of some insidious form of violence that is more subtle than the overt persecution that Polish Jews and Bosniaks faced?

[QUOTE] To about 4-5 of my posts that you last responded to, you've seemed to make an awful lot of assumptions about where I'm "throwing my hat" or "casting my lot" with certain political associations or government philosophies when I'm not even talking about the government at all. I'm genuinely wondering where you're making that leap, because I tend to be at least quasi-libertarian (sp?) and would like the government to get the hell out of everyone's beaver dam business, and I don't know how you keep projecting/interpreting a political view on my part, when the government is the farthest thing from my mind when I'm posting (where it should be ). [/QUOTE]

I apologize if I've made assumptions about you. I will try not to. But in this particular post I think I only responded to what you've actually said.



[QUOTE] NO! That's exactly what I'm railing against!

Don't you see? I never said or implied that others should not be able to express their views. What I really don't like is people telling me that I'm not allowed to express my views because they violate the divine statues of tolerance (i.e. a philosophical system I do not believe in, that is contradictorally--by virtue of it's own ideals--being imposed on me!). And then denying that any imposition on their part has taken place. It's extremely frustrating, to hear people whine about others forcing their beliefs onto others, and then turning around and doing that which they condemn. In order for "tolerance" to be internally consistent, one must tolerate even those who are intolerant. And it almost never works out that way. [/QUOTE]

Ok.

[QUOTE] I'll be honest. When I think something is right, I'm gonna step into the ring and defend what I believe is right, and you're free to counter me. And perhaps a good sparring match is even helpful to refine the arguments. But to the people who curl up into a ball and cry because I'm hitting them too hard and becaue I'm being too intolerant (holy hell this word iz becoming redundant), only to whip out a pistol and shoot my kneecaps when I'm not looking . . . I'm not ok with that. [/QUOTE]

You use so many metaphors that I really don't concretely understand what you are talking about




[QUOTE] lol totes . . .

not what I was saying [/QUOTE]

I'm honestly not sure exactly what you're saying. What exactly is ideological violence? In what sense are you being persecuted?



[QUOTE] Hasan, YOU say my beliefs are unsupported. Unsupported by what? Empiricism? Because lots of fundamental things that you believe in (like, the inherent rights of human beings for example) don't really have a leg to stand on either in that respect (but oh if it has legs, do tell). Because if not, I could say the same thing about you. You're taking this unsupported claim that homo sapiens, conglomerations of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen etc, walking monkeys who figured out how to make plastic and sing songs have these things called "rights" that you speak of. It can all seem rather tenuous to me. [/QUOTE]

I don't say that people have inherent, transcendent, metaphysical rights.

[QUOTE] And please resist the urge to talk about the law, or any of the documents of this great nation as "support." There are a lot of laws written on a lot of paper that don't mean a beaver dam thing to anyone. I'm more interested in the philosophy they're predicated upon. Once we clear this up, we can then talk about the more specific "laws" that you mentioned here concerning protections and sodomy bans and such.
[/quote]

There's nothing but laws. The only rights that anybody has are those which they are willing to take or defend by violence. Which is why we have the state.

[the171]

I'm sorry, but this thread is STILL going on? I thought everything had been cleared up and answered. Weren't the questions on the OP answered?

[Guest]

Ya this whole thing about persecution is silly unless you are suffering violence for being a christian. Just because people don't like the catholic church or think catholics aren't christians doesn't mean you are being persecuted. How long did catholics say that protestants were outside the church and going to hell ? Go to china if you want to see real christian persecution. Although it may be here in america at times for the most part I don't think its an issue.