The Church Strikes Again

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/cardinal-dolan-uses-nypd-to-bar-gay-catholics-from-sunday-worship-in-st-patricks-cathedral/discrimination/2013/05/05/66442

Now, I'm not against religion per se, since it does have some decent applications. However, organized religion and the like are something that I've been against for awhile. This just kind of pushed the envelope on what we should be allowing in this country. An institution that doesn't pay taxes used a tax-payers institution to bar tax-payers from their establishment. The hell is this?

This is why a church sect/religion in general shouldn't be allowed to grow so huge that the reach far extends the place it is established in. Or at least, after a point, it is broken down so that one person, ONE PERSON, doesn't have so much control over churches who are in countries with different laws and the like.

Thoughts on this? Just reading this made me pissed.

 

[Mitsu]

This is pretty disgusting, and is in line with why I loath the church. What's even worse is that this is the same guy that paid pedophile priests $20,000 dollars to quietly leave the priesthood. So essentially, he gave pedophiles a $20,000 dollar bonus. Now he apparently has command of the NYPD, and free of charge at that. So, they have money to throw at pedophiles, literally because $20,000 was considered cheap, but they cannot pay taxes? The hold that religion has over the supposedly secular government of the United States of America is absurd.

 

[darkangel76]

I find this to be absolutely ludicrous. I'm like Hahvy, not against religion but not religious. Hell, I'll just come out and say it since it really shouldn't matter. I am an atheist. However, I'm an extremely tolerant atheist who sees quite clearly that even those who hold the same beliefs as I do can be just as stupid as those who do believe in supporting a church or believe in a god of some sort. But anyway........ this sort of thing is just unconstitutional. Separation of church and state, say what??? Pardon me, but I'm not seeing it here. And it's things like this that get my blood hot and boiling here where I live. My city will shut down for a church and close off traffic on major roadways, causing back ups and detours and what not because cops will suddenly become traffic directors... for a church. Ummm... what? They will use their vehicles and close/block lanes or even whole streets, they will direct traffic flow, etc. And, quite frankly, I could care less if this cop is doing this on paid time or out of their own volition. Why? Because if it's paid time... well, we all know that is messed up. If it's out of their own volition, it still is because who pays for all the supplies they use for traffic flow directions (and yes, they do use equipment), who pays in case of damage to their vehicle and for any other services to their vehicle for the extra time its in use, etc etc. Personally, I think the churches should get their own traffic people much like schools get their own traffic people if they're going to go this route. But no. They get cops??? Sorry, but I find this to be ridiculous. This is just my opinion, of course. But, I stand by it nonetheless.

 

[Razgriz]

You know, I would say I'm surprised by this, but I'm really not; every opportunity they get to make asses of themselves, organized religion certainly seems to jump the gun and even surpass my expectations of just how far they can shove their own feet down their throats (yeah, it's far past the mouth at this point, ladies and gentlemen). Granted, it's only the extremists assholes like these people that do this kind of thing, but still, this is unacceptable.

And no, DA, being an atheist does no matter in the slightest; if I may go off-topic for a second, I would argue that even atheism is in fact another caste of religion (it's a belief there is no God, right?). But I digress; the fact of the matter is, the church (and people in general) just need to pull their heads out of their asses and let people be. Though truthfully, we'd probably be more likely to get attacked by a shark.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Alright, now I'm rather fervently against religious institutions and think that this is an awful ploy; but I'm not seeing an abuse of the police department. Now it is bad that they were stopped by police before they entered the building; but the church was within it's rights to call the police if in fact they felt the individuals were trespassing.

Granted, that's not very christian of them and they should have waited tell the individuals were on their grounds before police action was taken.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

They told gay people they weren't allowed in and pay no taxes and called the police to stop people who were GAY from entering a PUBLIC BUILDING.

Sorry, but fuck that. They didn't have any right to that especially in a city that condones marriage equality.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Are church's public?

I think the determination of that is the crux of the issue. If they aren't then what I said stands. Now if they are then yes indeed you are correct.

Though I have long felt that all religious organisations should lose their tax exempt status as all they do is influence individuals politically.

 

[Ruphhausin]

The Roman Catholic Church is a leader in both hypocrisy and in abuse of all kinds, slightly ahead of extremist Islam in some areas and second to them in others. Any church that has that much political power is always corrupt. I was raised in a religious family, so I know there are big differences in being spiritual and following a religion's ideals, being religious, and being what the article is talking about. Religion itself is not the problem, as this is about people being allowed to use it to excuse one's behavior.

 

[Your Eternal Reward]

I would argue that even atheism is in fact another caste of religion (it's a belief there is no God, right?).

While I agree with everything else you've said, this perplexes me. Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religious belief. If someone isn't a fan of any sport or band, that doesn't make them a fan of nothingness. Likewise, atheism is not a belief in no god. Nor is it a hatred of god - how can one hate what does not exist? It is a refusal of belief in any god to date. If someone came forward with a god they could scientifically, empirically prove existed, I'd believe in it. But because that has yet to happen, I will continue to refuse gods which I cannot and will not believe in, because they do not exist.

I'm just clarifying what Atheism means.

Addressing the original point of the thread, religion is obsolete, and it honestly baffles me how they're not dying quicker because of the appalling behavior of their fanatics. Now, I'm not saying all religious individuals are bad people by default. What I am saying is without religion, these zealots would not exist, let alone be venerated because their ignorance is held sacred. Religious people often say god needs to be taken on faith because rationale cannot prove god true or false, but really, it can. The only argument for god that cannot literally be PROVEN false is the argument that god is the explanation for everything we cannot scientifically explain, and if you want to visualize your god as an ever-receding pocket of human ignorance, be my guest, but don't blame me for laughing at you every time your almighty god shrinks and shrivels at the hands of human ingenuity.

 

[Alvis Alendran]

Actually, by the definition of religion, Atheism can be qualified as one. A religion can be defined as "Details of belief as taught or discussed." You don't actually need a God to have a religion.

To me, I think the biggest problem that I've noted with atheism today, is that so many of the ateists that I have spoken to have essentially become what they've decried to hate. They stand in smug superior judgement to anyone who doesn't subscribe to their belief that empirical evidence is the answer to all things, and that anyone who follows a religion must be willfully ignorant, or inherently stupid. They claim that they don't want to have to listen to any religious drivel shoved in their face against their will, but it's perfectly acceptable to force feed their own belief into others.

Now, not all atheists are bad people, in fact I would claim that most of them are good folk, but then the same can be said of the religious population. Most of the religious people I know just wantto go their own way, and live with their own beliefs, and not have to be mocked or harrassed for it.

I think you place too much emphasis and blame on the fact that these zealots use their religion as a tool to facilitate their poor behaviour. If you take away the religion from their actions, what's left? An asshole. And those come from everywhere. If they weren't hiding behind religion, then they'd probably shift to hiding behind freedom of expression. That being said, I would love to see a moment when if someone uses their religion to justify their own hatred and tried to use it against other people, they should be excommunicated from their church, cut off from their excuse, and shown to simply be an asshole trying to foist their opinions on others.

I've often heard that God can be proven false, usually by a group that wants him to be proven false, which at the very least violates the tenet of science that science should be impartial, and without bias. While science does explain natural phenomenon that once might have been regarded as the purview of God, I don't find this as proof on non-existence. I believe in science as a means of explaining more of the universe, and appreciate the fine work that people do in the pursuit of that very goal.

The most frequent clash I've seen is the Evolution vs. Creation argument, where each side declares that they must be the exclusive answer. Could it not be possible that if God created life, he gave it the chance to adapt and grow? The ball had to start rolling somewhere back down the line, and while yes, many of the scientific community see it as a simple coincidence that life started out, while others might see the hand of the divine at work, is that such a terible thing? The beginnings of life, an almost incalculably slim chance of happening, and a person who believes that an outside force gave things a nudge along is now willfully ignorant? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They cannot prove God exists, just as you can't directly prove that He does not. Scientifically it's an impasse really.

Now, I admit my post has moved farther afield of the original topic, and that being said, I do agree with Hahvoc's statement, the event in discussion was a case of bullshit, and a case of a gross misuse of power and resources. Though according to the law, they still had the ability to do so. A church is prvately owned, it is not public property, so they can ban individuals as thye see fot. Doesn't make it right. Just legal.

On a personal note, I am not actually a subscriber to the christian church in way. I was born Catholic, but left that particular fold due to a lot of atheism based reasons. I didn't like what the church did as a whole, actions they took or the way they excluded people. Time was I'd have gleefully mocked them, until I realized that I was bascially just behaving the same way that so many of the religious population that bothered me did. So I found a new way that suited me. And never looked back.

Okay, this conlcudes my large, and rather more worded than expected post.

 

[Your Eternal Reward]

"Details of belief as taught or discussed." You don't actually need a God to have a religion.

Correct (most sects of Buddhism, for example, do not actually have a god), but you do need belief to have a religion. You need to accept that something is real regardless of all other factors. Anyone who accepts the facts without understanding them is also guilty of this, but for those of us who know what we are talking about, and know where those facts come from, there is no belief. There is knowledge.

They stand in smug superior judgement to anyone who doesn't subscribe to their belief that empirical evidence is the answer to all things.

Why yes, I do believe I am superior to someone who worships an ideology that says ignorance is good and doubt and skepticism are bad. I believe I am superior to someone who says that the natural order of things is flawed, and that we should feel guilty about who we are.

They claim that they don't want to have to listen to any religious drivel shoved in their face against their will, but it's perfectly acceptable to force feed their own belief into others.

As I have said, they are not beliefs. Science is not about force-feeding facts. Science is about showing you how to find them for yourself. As HP Lovecraft so famously said, "If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences."

Most of the religious people I know just wantto go their own way, and live with their own beliefs, and not have to be mocked or harrassed for it.

If you want to believe that some white, ageless, bearded man is running the cosmos, and you want to live your life and let me live mine, be my guest. But when people of power (like, say, a senator) are restricting environmental reform because "global warming is just scientific drivel" and refusing to refurbish the education system because "science is just an opinion", that angers me. When people create "schools" that brainwash children into scoffing at evolution despite the fact that it has been proven to the same degree as gravity, and then get away with it without a single criminal charge, that angers me.

If you take away the religion from their actions, what's left? An asshole. And those come from everywhere. If they weren't hiding behind religion, then they'd probably shift to hiding behind freedom of expression.

Assholes will be assholes and idiots will be idiots, agreed. But religion gives them power. And an asshole with the power to amass followers is a lot more terrifying than an asshole with a blog.

That being said, I would love to see a moment when if someone uses their religion to justify their own hatred and tried to use it against other people, they should be excommunicated from their church, cut off from their excuse, and shown to simply be an asshole trying to foist their opinions on others.

That only works in a system that actually doubts its figure of authority. And as I've already mentioned, doubt in religion is a terrible thing. Blind obedience, on the other hand...

Proof, impartial bias, evolution vs. creationism, etc.

I am glad that you did not utterly refute evolution, since that would make proving you wrong too easy. Instead you went for the neo-religious view and spoke of coexistence of god and science. There are, of course, two ways of doing this.

The first, and most common, is the famous watchmaker argument - that god created the world and let it go from there. While a noble endeavor, this only proves god insomuch as he is what science cannot explain yet - which, as I mentioned in my previous post, makes him an "ever-receding pocket of human ignorance". Right now that pocket is about a fraction of a millisecond long after the beginning of the big bang that science has yet to completely explain, after which the history of the universe has been meticulously detailed, and it is getting smaller every day.

The second, which you use, is the overseer argument - that god guides our world using science as his tool. This argument is countered by something called Occam's Razor - a logical mechanism that states that the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Allow me to explain.

Hypothesis 1: Rain falls because water evaporates via heat from the sun's rays, condenses in clouds which move via wind currents, and then the rain falls when the condensation is sufficient that the water becomes liquid again.

Hypothesis 2: Rain falls because the sun's rays pass into leprechauns relaxing on the water's surface, who become very angry and heat up, letting the heat pass into the water, which then evaporates. Another leprechaun in the air catches all the water vapor in the absorption radius of the cloud and puts it all into the cloud, and then wrings the cloud dry when it becomes too dense and heavy.

Essentially, the simplest argument for which the question "how?" is answered as often as possible if not always (since an assumption does not answer the question of how, because it is something taken for granted) should be selected in any logical endeavor. And while an argument can exist with the leprechauns in it without compromising the fact that evaporation and condensation occurs, it is unnecessarily complex and creates the unnecessary assumption that leprechauns exist. Thus, like our leprechauns, god is cut out via Occam's Razor because he is completely unnecessary in the explanation of the workings of our universe.

I need to find some synonyms for "unnecessary".

 

[susan_haynes19]

I have not been a fan of religion especially Christians since something happened when I was 14. A traumatic sexual event happened when I was 14, I'd rather not get into details b/c I don't want to break any rules on here. If you ask me privately what happened, I will explain. Anyway, I went to a local pastor of a church that I was going to and I asked him why did this happened. He made a very rude remark saying that it was God's punishment on me for not being a true Christian. Basically saying that I deserved it.