Religion is not IMMUNE to Criticism.

[mopaul]

just because it's a long established religion, or the religion of millions of believers, there is NO religion or institution that is beyond criticism, sometimes known as bashing.

anything can be criticised, and feelings of offense should be kept in check.

[KlatooBNikto]

1. I thought that the infallibility of Popes was a thing of the past just as

the Divine Right of Kings.

[mopaul]

2. the pope is a king

and the only divinity he possesses is the one his followers give him.

[megatherium]

25. papal infallibility is still the doctrine of the Church.

Actually, papal infallibility is a fairly recent dogma of the Church, established only in 1854. But papal infallibility only applies when the pope follows a special protocol when stating a dogma (speaking "ex cathedra"), and this is very rare -- if has only happened twice in the history of the Church (to establish the immaculate conception, and to establish the assumption of Mary into heaven). Papal authority is predicated on the notion that the Pope only declares dogmas already widely accepted by the Church, and with the understanding that the Holy Spirit will in the last event protect the Church from serious error.

[Zynx]

54. Papal infallibility has been invoke only TWICE in nearly 2000 years.

There is a specific mechanism for invoking it that has only been done twice so before anyone goes around lecturing about this subject, do some research.

[HEyHEY]

106. Didn't the Pope say the world was flat at one time?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MollyStark]

5. good point N/T

[KlatooBNikto]

13. I want to say that I do not like the way many rich Arab countries treat

young women from Asia ( mostly from India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Phillipines, cambodia, Indonesia).Rapes, tortures, verbal and physical abuse, even murders of these innocent young women are quite common.In fact, there was a recent case of a young woman from Indonesia who was severely battered by the man of the house in Saudi Arabia.These outrages are quite common and what is revolting to me is that after several decades, no one in the Arab world has lifted a finger in support of these women.To say I am disgusted by the way the Arabs treat these women is to put it mildly.

[mopaul]

15. muslim misogyny is a valid topic, as is catholic misogyny

both religions are viruently anti woman.

[MollyStark]

35. Mine isn't N/T

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KlatooBNikto]

22. The word Jihad or holy war is a particularly noxious concept meant to

cow non believers into acquiescing to Islamic principles.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

26. beheading or lethal injection, capital punishment is harsh

they do it, we do it.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

29. the u.s. is one of only a few nations that still practice executions

is my only point. not soft on radical islam. not.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

32. agreed, but let the whackos have their way...

and all that could change.

[MollyStark]

36. They do it for reasons which we would never do it

"Crimes" against religion, adultery. Sorry but that is not the same.

[mopaul]

6. i hate radical muslims

and radical catholics, and radical born again southern baptists, and i hate radical satan worshippers as well.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

8. Show me where a Muslim (not the terrorists but a real Muslim)

has cost me a gay rights bill, bashed a gay person to death, or in any other way affect gay Americans and I might. The fact is Christians have immensly more power to affect my life than Muslims do at this time and thus they are the more immediate problem.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

14. I am not saying they wouldn't, given the chance

but they don't have that chance here. If I lived in a Muslim country I would be criticizing them and not Christians.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. I have seen literally hundreds of posts on DU criticising Sharia Law

and I don't think I've seen a single one defending it. So what is your point?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. There's all kinds of things that can be criticised in the world

We don't spend all our time condemning all the murders in the world, for example - because we all hate murder, and there's little to be gained by constantly denouncing it, and all agreeing. We discuss things that come up in the news - such as the election of a new Pope, or bombs in Iraq. As a progressive board, we condemn anti-homosexual bigotry in the news - such as that of the Pope a couple of days ago. When some DUers then defend the Pope, it's bound to generate more posts. When Sharia law is condemned (such as when the future of Iraq is discussed) we all seem to agree that it's a Bad Thing.

Of course, if the Pope stopped making anti-homosexual pronouncements, we'd probably discuss him less.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Let's look at what is happening:

Catholic bashing: NO
Christian bashing: NO
Pope bashing: YES
Pope supporting: YES

While people on DU state their support for a bigot, other people will continue to criticise him. Understand? While the news continues to report heavily on him, people of DU will continue to criticise him. Understand?

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoYouEverWonder]

48. Never mind

n/t

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoYouEverWonder]

56. That's why I deleted my response

I realized that the way the opening post was written it was referencing all religions.

My comment to you was rude and uncalled for.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoYouEverWonder]

63. So back to the bashing

Actually, instead of focusing on religious beliefs and the hypocrisies of us lowly humans, we really should focus on bashing the religious leaders of these religions. They are the ones who are causing all the problems at the moment.

[mopaul]

67. jim jones was a religious leader, an extreme example of course

david koresh too. not comparing them to any benevolent religious leaders at all. jerry falwell is a religious leader, who if he wanted, could turn millions of his extreme devotees on US.

and i ain't just daydreaming.

[H2O Man]

76. An extreme example, but still

a very important one for people to consider. He is actually in a different category than Koresh, in that he was "charismatic," and had a personal effect on his followers that Koresh, a systematic leader, never had. (There is a fascinating program on LINK TV about Waco & Koresh that is worth watching. The guy was an asshole, but of a different type.) But back to Jones: people gave up their free will to this man. They followed him without question, much as people followed Hitler, until it was too late to turn back.

I think that raises the important question of why people will kill or die for a charismatic leader? How and why do they allow themselves to be reduced to less than fully human? If Hitler told me to kill a Jew, or if Manson told me to kill a pregnant movie starlet, I'd like to think I'd refuse; if they insisted, I'm sure I'd slap the shit out of them.

Where do people draw the line? If the president says to kill a Muslim, does that carry moral or immoral "authority"? If the governor said to attack the next state, should we? If the mayor says kill the people in the next community, should we? Or should we lock that president/governor/mayor in a cell next to Charlie?

[mopaul]

66. I said 'religion' not catholic. of course it's o.k. to bash crazy muslims

when a religion gets crazy, i'll criticise it, unless of course, it becomes unacceptable in our society to criticise religion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. It's not that only the Christian religion *can* be criticized,

It's that on DU, the only religious positions *worth* criticising are christianity, unitarianism, arguably paganism, atheism and agnositicism, because those are the only ones significant numbers of DUers adhere to and defend (at least, that's the impression I've got - there may be others out there, but if so they're keeping quite quiet).

I quite agree with you (or at any rate with the position that you're espousing) that Islam is in nearly all respects a worse religion than Christianity, but because nearly everyone here agrees with that there's not much point debating it.

Lots of people on here *are* Christians, and are willing to defend Christianity, and as such attacking it can and does lead to interesting debates.

[MollyStark]

38. Gay people in the middle east don't matter to you?

[dsc]

88. They do

but I don't live there. Just like it is my job to help gays here by speaking out, it is their job in the ME to do the same. I honestly shouldn't have anything to say about how the ME is run. It is up to the people of the ME to determine how the ME is run. If I thought it was up to us I might have supported the Iraq war on the grounds that getting rid of Saddam was both a good idea and our job. I still think it was a good idea, I just didn't and don't think it was our job.

[arwalden]

103. And The Dolphins... Don't You Care About Dolphins??

What about people dying from cancer... don't you care about people dying from cancer. And homeless children... homeless children with cancer... and that are blind. Blind homeless children with cancer... isn't THAT more important than worrying about some poorly chosen words from an old man... and besides he OPPOSED THE WAR IN IRAQ. Doesn't that count for ANYTHING??

[aeolian]

61. Yahwe is Yahwe,

I don't care if you call yourself jew, muslim, catholic, or protestant.

Same god, same stifiling of humanity.

[Lindacooks]

117. The point is that Muslim fundamentalists aren't trying to take over

the United States government - Christian fundies are. Which is why they are the primary target right now.

[MollyStark]

4. How you say something is important

Criticism is one thing, bashing is entirely different. Some of the invective thrown at religion and Catholicism specifically this week has been really ugly and uncalled for.

[mopaul]

7. but the church will survive, perhaps even come out better for it

[SympatheticBrit]

11. Topic Creator is right IMO

Nothing is above question, but it harms no one to be civilised in the style of questioning.

[mopaul]

12. even when you're trying NOT to, some take offense

that you even dared to criticise their religion.

[SympatheticBrit]

17. Yes I've noticed that.

However most people around will see that you are in the right, and hopefully over time that indvidual will see this also. We live in hope.

[JitterbugPerfume]

16. When there isa sacred subject we can not be critical of

be it Religion, Astrology,skepticism or whatever , DU has lost its' edge and becomes useless

[Dogmudgeon]

19. Yes - bashing involves injury, blood, and pain

I have to say, for all the wild-assed invective the non-religious are showing around these parts, a lot of the Christians have done almost nothing to foster understanding or create an atmosphere of reconciliation. It's almost all been the standard-issue "they're not being nice, they're oppressing me!" complaint.

How are you going to get through to a non-believer -- who may have been trauamtized by "religious" people -- by becoming defensive? I would think this would present a golden opportunity to the People Of Faith to put their faith into action. And, no, I'm not saying that out of sarcasm, I truly believe it.

How did Jesus teach the best way to deal with the troubled, the pain-ridden, the anger-driven? There is a LOT of of pain behind the (non-lethal) attacks on Christianity here. Almost NONE of it has to do with actual Christians aside from those who have used God's Word as a bludgeon. THIS is the time to heal those wounds, on both sides.

Christians need to be more secure in faith that they can encounter these wounded people and start them on the road to healing. Creating understanding is probably the most effecitve form of evangelism known.

Increase the Peace, ya knuckleheads!

--p!

[mermaid]

39. Yes!!

But most so-called Christians are not even really Christians...not by word or deed. And they know it, too. That is WHY they are so insecure in their faith, and why they cannot STAND for it to be questioned.

My mother is a born-again Christian, and one of few that I say really and truly IS a Christian. She understands the hurt, the anger, the pain...that people like me have suffered at the hands of these so-called "Christians" and has tried, with some success, to address that pain, that hurt, the anger and rejection.

If only more so-called Christians were REALLY Christian...they probably would not be so "oppressed" or "bashed." They are "oppressed" and "bashed" because of their inconsistency between what they walk and what they talk. They are basically being called to task for thei hypocrasy, intolerance, hatred, bigotry...and their deviation from the Word of God that they so claiim to cherish (except when it interferes with their political/social/"moral" agenda!!)

These people...these so-called Christians...these modern-day Pharisees...they should know what oppression REALLY feels like! Ask a black man. Ask a Jew. Ask a GLBT person like myself.

[MollyStark]

42. Who are you talking too?

Those people you speak of don't post at DU, at least not more than a few hidden freepers.
Just because you aren't religious doesn't mean you are excused from civility on the topic.
What makes you any less a self delegated "victim" than any of the Catholics who have had to read a lot of hyperbole and invective in the last few weeks.
If you read the same level of ignorant and intollerant posts about homosexuality, as Catholics have read about their religion, you would be feeling the same as they do.

Don't tell me about how the church treats you or the world treats you as an excuse for angry invective either. I am talking specifically how you are treated by fellow DUers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

73. Part of the problem

is that most Christians are not followers of Jesus. They might think they are but they have little understanding of Jesus's teachings.

[MollyStark]

40. I am not defensive and I have no desire to get through to non believers

I have a desire for people to discuss issues without being ugly and ignorant.

[KlatooBNikto]

49. A person who practices his or her faith in person is fine with me.When

that is used as an instrument for creating social policy, they lose me. I have no desire to reach out to religious people.

[Dogmudgeon]

87. It's a two-way street on the character of the arguments

Please re-read your posts, MollyStark, then let us know how you're not adding to it.

You're way too angry and taking criticism of Christianity way too personally. If you have no desire to get through to non believers, that kind of excludes discussion, too.

--p!

[mermaid]

113. Yeah, Right....

so say you in post 40. Yet in Post 42, you are rather ugly and intolerant to ME.

Eat your own words...

"What makes you any less a self delegated "victim" than any of the Catholics who have had to read a lot of hyperbole and invective in the last few weeks.
If you read the same level of ignorant and intollerant posts about homosexuality, as Catholics have read about their religion..."

I have read PLENTY of ignorant, hateful and intolerant posts about homosexuality and transgenderism....and not all of them were from lurking Freepers, either! Some of them were from other DU'ers...and they will never know or imagine how much their remarks hurt us.

How often do we transgender people endure people calling Annn Coulter "Ann The Man?" such an attack on even a repugnant, mean-spirited GOP shill...an attack on her GENDER like that...is an attack on us transgender people, too.

I do not find the "Ann The Man" comments very funny, in fact, I find them extremely insensitive and, quite frankly, offensive.

And I find you to be a hypocrite. In post 40, you say you want "people to discuss issues without being ugly and ignorant." and yet, just two posts later...you come across as extremely ugly and intolerant to me.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[aeolian]

50. So, too, have been many of the acts of catholicism.

Ugly and uncalled for.

[QC]

18. Hostility to religion is not IMMUNE to Logic.

Wouldn't you agree?

[mopaul]

21. i guess, but i'm not too smart

[KlatooBNikto]

23. You are talking about a topic that is not based on logic but on faith.So,

invoking logic would invalidate the whole premise of religion, IMO.

[QC]

27. Think about it a bit and get back to me. n/t

[KlatooBNikto]

31. I have thought about it a lot in my sixty odd years of life and come to

the conclusion that all religions are illogical and demand a subservience of mind that I am not capable of. If we simply rid ourselves of the notions of a God, Allah, whatever, the concept of after life,acsent into Paradise, and other mythology as Sam Harris ( Author: END OF FAITH) says, we will all be better off, IMO. That would force us to accept the common humanity of all, a result most devoutly to be wished for.

[QC]

45. I have to admit I'm surprised to know you're 60+.

I was visualizing a much lower number. Much, much lower.

Anyway, here's what I mean: a lot of the criticism of religion we get here is along the lines of "____ sux. _____s are assholes!"

That, of course, is a big, fat example of the logical fallacy known as the "hasty generalization." Then, of course, we have the ever-popular starw man fallacy: "Of course I don't believe that innocent children should be buggered so hard they bleed from every orifice--I'm not Catholic."

And so on. So yes, religious critiques can most assuredly be illogical.

[KlatooBNikto]

55. I even think that something as dependent on personal choice as religious

belief should not be on public display. If it is we run the risk of treating something based on individual faith as though it is subject to reason and logic. That is the premise that makes a thread like this a futile exercise.

On Edit: I wish I was younger as you think I am.After raising seven children, and been battered by my teenage kids, I accept your words as a compliment.By the way do you know of any old age pills?

[smirkymonkey]

77. I agree with you and I think organized religion is on its way to

becoming obsolete. In many ways, it is an anachronism in a modern society. This resurgence of fundamentalism in the major religions seems to be a last gasp to hold on to a way of life that is no longer relevant.

I think that if humanity is to move forward, religion must die.

Link to "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris

http://www.samharris.org/

[mopaul]

78. the mayans achieved much, but their religion wiped them out

it was one of the main factors anyway. after a while, human sacrifice to a nasty god just becomes unsupportable.

[erinlough]

93. After 53 years I'm on the same path as you

You said it better than I could have. After all the searching and various explorations I have come to the conclusion that religion is something I can no longer participate in.

I heard a rabbi on the radio express that today the conflict is not between different religions but between those who believe something and those who don't. He went on to expound upon the fearful troubled lives that those with no religion (belief) lead. I laughed out loud. I have never had peace like I have today. When I was in a religion I was constantly encouraged to be fearful of doing the wrong thing or being judged. Once you give it up there is no one to judge and you find the things in you that you value.

[moddemny]

114. Are you absolutely sure....

.....the after life, is just a concept?

[aeolian]

51. Agreed. Nor is religion itself immune from moral and logical criticism.

[markus]

34. I'm not interesting in criticizing anyone's religion, but their churches

It's the institutions that are sick in many cases, with the Catholic Church as my lead example.

Protestant churches are a bit more tricky. Because of their ability to be completely independent, you end up with a lot of cult-like groups. And sometimes, such as in Southern Baptists, you have the bigot cultists running the asylum, just as we have in Congress now.

My motto: hate the sin (church), love the sinner (christian or what have you).

Maybe that's just my catholic upbringing.

But the catholic church, in particular, has been hijacked by the most conservative forces in the church, and has taken an active political role on the wrong side. The institution (generally, and down to the parish I am only a nominal member of at this point) are run by openly political right-wing types.

It is fair game.

Klansman and Aryan Nation have faith. The suicide cultists who killed themselves to join their masters on the space ships had faith. And the end of the day, the Nazis who put people on the trains and into the ovens had faith.

Faith is not a defense if your faith teaches or suborns evil.

[arwalden]

41. I'm Still Trying To Figure Out The Logic Behind The Claim...

... that it's a "personal insult" or "bashing" the believers of a religion--when someone criticizes the religion itself, the institution of that religion, or its leaders.

Are these sensitive folks so "into" their religion that they have become the religion? Are they are incapable of separating themselves from it?

Is their religion some sort of BORG Collective? That might help to explain the "an-attack-on-one-is-an-attack-on-all" mentality.

[smirkymonkey]

89. It's spiritual insecurity.

If I am firm in my convictions, whatever they may be, disagreement or oppostion from others doesn't threaten me.

It's only when I am not entirely certian that I feel defensive.

[KlatooBNikto]

43. Karl Marx said "Religion is the opiate of the masses." That holds true

even to this day. What we see in the Middle East is a clash of religions in its initial stages and its virulence and barbarism will grow as the believers on both sides stoke the fires.In this country we have religious zealots who want to control even our secular lives each day in myriad ways and what I see in this thread are religious zealots trying to proscribe our thoughts.What will be next? An amendment to the First Amendment that says you are free to talk about anything so long as you do not offend the religious sensibilities?

[KlatooBNikto]

46. This morning I have posted an item that includes two facts:

1. The new Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was involved in hiding many cases of pedophilia in the Church.

2. He was also associated with neil Bush in some obscure foundation based in Switzerland.

These are valid topics for anyone to deal with.If someone's sensibilities are affected, they have the option not to read these posts at all.

[Zynx]

53. It's not beyond criticism. However, nobody and no institution deserves...

what some on this message board have said. It goes beyond intelligent criticism to incredible insults not backed by facts or the reason that those critics seem to always be placing in the highest regard, but discard when it does not suit them.

[aeolian]

57. Nor have any people ever deserved

the devestation brought down upon them in the name of "the church."

[Zynx]

62. I agree on that point as well.

However, will you also recognize the good deeds of the church at the same time?

[aeolian]

65. I recognize the good deeds of individuals

for there have been many truly good people of all religions throughout the years. And yes, many good deeds have been done in the church's name.

However, in my irrelevant opinion, the church itself -- the heirarchy descending from Rome -- is a political machine, not a spiritual one.

[smirkymonkey]

90. Perfect - that is the crux of the misunderstanding!

"the church itself -- the heirarchy descending from Rome -- is a political machine, not a spiritual one."

People fail to distinguish between their personal faith and the institution that is the "church." Why does one need the institution if one's faith is strong?

[arwalden]

69. NO Free Passes!

"But he opposed the war!" seems to be the popular defense these days. And "you only point out the bad... you never point out the good" is a common theme of many responses as well.

Are these folks seriously suggesting that whenever someone "bashes" the church's bigotry, that each post should provide two paragraphs of equal-time with a bulleted list of all the things that they think are good about the church?

Is that supposed to be their defense for the atmosphere of hatred and intolerance towards homos that the Pope is responsible for cultivating?

[arwalden]

59. How Dare Those Evil And Wicked Homos Criticize And Scorn The Church...

... and its leaders? The NERVE of some people!

[Zynx]

64. It's one thing to criticize. It's another thing to sit there and shout...

"NAZI!" "NAZI!" "THE POPE'S A NAZI!"

[arwalden]

68. That Doesn't Explain Why I'm Told To Sit Down And Shut Up...

... by folks who think that "only" Catholics have the "right" to criticize. That doesn't explain why people try to claim that they are being PERSONALLY "persecuted" (or "bashed" is the trendy term now) whenever someone harshly scorns the pope or his policies or his bigoted and hateful and intellectually backward proclamations.

I also don't understand why so many people intent on IGNORING and denying his questionable past? Their splitting of hairs, and hyper-parsing his words, and over-analyzing time-lines, only serve to convince me that indeed there likely is something there to gloss over and hide.

[KlatooBNikto]

92. I do not think personal nsults belong here.But institutional criticisms

are entirely valid. We attack our institutions routinely when they fail to measure up.Why can't a church be attacked when it intrudes into political discourse ( as in abortion, stem cell reserach, Evolution )? Why can't Cardinal ratzinger's record on pedophilia be open to scrutiny? In what way is that off the table? And, finally why are individual DUers acting as representatives of their Church in trying to prohibit the thinking of other DUers?

[mmonk]

70. True, but to continue to pretend

there doesn't exist a religious anti-Catholic bigotry that's as old as the U.S. interwoven deep within its culture is to ignore something that can cloud someone's arguments in the eyes of others.

[mopaul]

71. I personally do not hate catholics. i even know some, some are pals

the catholics i know personally are all swell people, really. and i have no problem with southern baptists, i work with 3 of them and we're all great pals.

i've seen the extreme catholic bashing on here, and i've seen what i see as some hysteria over it.

[mmonk]

72. I'm not singling out you,

as someone who is, I was speaking in general terms. It's the cause of so much back and forth on this issue between people that generally agree on most things including their dislike of the current choice for pope and different statements coming from some of the bishops. In fact, I really can't remember any of your posts on DU I disagree with.

[mopaul]

74. it's definitely gone into hyper overdrive

with the media's help i think. i'm pretty damn old, but i don't ever remember the religious discourse in general being this heated.

at some point, you wanna just say turn down the religion a bit. i firmly believe in america's support of all religions, except of course the crazy ass zealots who make all religions look bad.

[mmonk]

75. yeah,

I'm burnt out on the religion thing. It's because bush is pushing religion based politics I see as an underlying cause as well as the media. They use it as a way to create arguments and a constituency they can use for power.

[Az]

80. Criticize. But do so artfully.

Understand the impact your words will have. Surely one must understand that if you are not seeking to just blow smoke you must approach the criticism with a level of sensitivity. Otherwise you are just engaging in a shouting match. And while such battles can be gratifying in the short term they serve no purpose and only increase the distance between positions.

[mopaul]

84. like tippy toeing?

around my three fundie relatives, there is no artful way to critique the lord. but i have become artful at dodging the subject.

[Az]

85. I chose the word art

Tippy toeing is weak. You can be strong and courteous.

[mopaul]

86. point taken

but i am weak

[Igel]

81. I have no problem with criticism.

I have problems with abusive language and hypocrisy, vitriol and caustic language parading as rational thought.

I can explain the problems I find in Christianity and Islam while trying, sincerely, to present and deal fairly with the opposing side, without making offensive accusations and assumptions, tarring all adherents of the faith/sect with the same brush, and using harsh or unnecessarily polemical terms. No anger, abuse, insulting, bashing, or other verbiage that is likely to be insulting, on the face of it. If I undercut somebody's views and they get mad, that I can't help; it could easily go the other way. But it's not bashing.

[truth2power]

82. Thank you, Mo, for saying this. Read on.

I don't have time right now to read all the posts in this thread. But regarding the OP, it needs to be said that when right wing whackos complain about being persecuted for their religious beliefs, the response should be that if you put your religion out into the PUBLIC ARENA, then it becomes open to challenge.

[truth2power]

83. Oops, duplicate post. Sorry. n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

91. Religion was greatly criticized by the one who is the most responsible

(indirectly) for the religiosity we see so many people mired in today. In his day he referred to the "religious" as hypocrites, as well he should have. JC had it right.

[Zorra]

94. Hey, are you saying that the Inquisition(s) may have been wrong?

Or that witches should not have been burned?

How dare you question religious authority!

The history of organized religion is not pretty.

[KlatooBNikto]

95. Remember that in Apartheid South Africa the churches were ready

with their scriptural justifications for Apartheid and Slavery also found a large number of church sanctioned justifications based on the inferiority of certain races.So, yes, the history of churches is one that no one should be proud. Now we see the likes of Falwell and Robertson cheerleading an illegal war with mainline churches staying mum on the sidelines.It is not a pretty picture. It has fallen to us DUers to point these things out.If some DUers want to pretend everything is hunky dory in the land of OZ and their feelings are hurt by someone telling the truth, so be it.

[Bridget Burke]

115. Current events or ancient history?

Anybody angry at what the Pope said in his recent past? Upset at current Church policy? Go to it!

But--is this a forum for discussing the evils of religion through the ages? Even back when YOUR ancestors were Catholic, too? Of course, the most recent "witches" executed were done in by Protestants--hanging & crushing were the methods used.

[Cocoa]

97. and some of the "criticism" is actually bigotry

there is some valid criticism of religion, and there is some that is just plain bigotry. Some of this bigotry is malicious and some is just due to ignorance or immaturity.

The Christian Right is deceptively blurring the lines, and calling ALL criticism bigotry, which is false. But every instance of bigotry plays into their hands, especially when it is associated with progressive politics.

[quaker bill]

98. The absence of religion is not immune to criticism either

Freedom of speech and Freedom of Thought or Religion is not a license to carelessly offend.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

101. certainly "I" could never be accused of that

and burned at the stake

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

107. electrocution, dog attacks, torture, injection, hanging, are all approved

by the modern followers of the prince of peace. in the old days, stoning was the socially acceptable method, or crucifixion.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mopaul]

111. beheading is no more brutish than electrocution, brother bush's method

so much is made of the 'barbaric' practice of lopping off the head.

it's all relative to the executee, as is his religion

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

99. Criticizing religious teachings is also not bashing Christians.

The cries of persecution here are a bit over the top, and feed right into the RW bullshit meme of "Democrats are against people of faith".

Christians are NOT being persecuted here. Being critical of religious tenets is NOT persecution.

[mopaul]

102. dissent of govt. is patriotic, as is critique of religion

[Zhade]

105. I don't know if the latter is patriotic, exactly, but it IS necessary.

NT!

[mopaul]

108. exactly

thanks, my severe brain damage kicks in a lot. too much antacid in the sixties.

[thecai]

109. Sure! They Criticized Jesus, Too...

...and called him a liar, said he had a demon, but too often people attack the messesnger, rather than the message.

[mopaul]

112. & jesus never commanded that we not criticise him, or his followers

that i know of