My religion professor brought up an interesting point tonight...

[Reverend_Smitty]

We were discussing boundary laws in relationship to the laws spelled out in the Torah. Meaning, the laws that were presented in Exodus, Leviticus, etc, were used by early Jews (and present day Jews) to create a cultural/national identity. He brought up the fact that religions today still do this. His example was, 50 years ago, a person could tell if someone was Roman Catholic just by knowing someone's nationality or even by knowing what section of town that person lived in. In a way that was a kind of boundary law that created a cultural identity for Roman Catholics. Today however it is not like that any more. His hypothesis about the new Catholic boundary laws are the pro-life issue. It is used as a rallying point for many (not all, since I and many others happen to be pro-choice Catholics) Catholics as a way to maintain a cultural identity. I guess the same could go for other Christian religions, as geography and nationality no longer become part of a religion, more religions are moving to political issues to form an identity.

I think it is an interesting point, what do you guys think?

[kixot]

1. I agree.

Slowly as we mesh into this global village the boundaries were we taught to know don't apply anymore and in compensation we will create new ones, now being idealistic boundaries rather geographic, but just the same. We have to deal now with idealistic bigotry instead of racial or national bigotry. Its time will come and pass like all things, though. Just keep a watch out for the next hate-trend.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. My 3yo is in love with your flying pig.

She won't let me get away from this page.

[kixot]

7. HAH!

Thanks, it IS cute. I can't claim any credit for it, though. I just use it in response to the clichéd jokes lodged by republicans about when the progressive movement will take hold on the U.S. and help inspire its people. The time is now.

Check more animated goodies for the little one here:

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/pigs.htm

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

15. And about the "banging head" icon

She says the guy has no hands and has to type with his nose.

[Fenris]

2. I often find it humorous

That the official philosopher of the Roman Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, did not believe that the soul entered a foetus until a point just before birth. Up until that point, Aquinas believed, the human foetus was on par with an animal. And at the point of conception up until the early stages of development, on par with plant matter.

Notice that when the Pope speaks on abortion, he does not do so ex cathedra.

[bobbieinok]

3. this is still the official RCatholic philosophy/theology, right????

[Fenris]

6. I am relatively certain it is.

But they don't talk about that particular opinion by Aquinas.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church, but not "the official philosopher."

And the pope doesn't have to say "I am speaking ex cathedra" when he's speaking about something that's clearly spelled out in the catechism of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas was/is an important Catholic scholar and influential in Catholic theology, but his ideas about fetal life are quite outdated. Quoting Aquinas on fetal development is like quoting any of the pre-Galileo scientists who taught that the sun revolved around the Earth and suggesting the scientist is "the astronomer of the Church."

[carpetbagger]

5. A majority of American Catholics support legal abortion.

I think abortion is merely the only scrap of dogma that the Church can demand allegiance to without getting laughed out of town. Until the 1980's, I remember birth control being the big point on which Catholic allegiance "depended". Most of my Catholic relatives (my father grew up Catholic) and most of the Catholics I otherwise knew simply ignored the commands. Today, most American Catholics have a sense of fair play and compassion (which are good legacies of the church), so gay rights issues will never succeed outside specific pockets.

Since "Supply-Side Jesus" and "American Jihad-Jehovah" are not worshipped in the Catholic Church, that leaves abortion.

I think Catholics retain their ethnic identity in part through the church, but it's a two-way street. Because they feel the church owns them, they also feel they own the church. An ex-Catholic is still a Catholic, and still owns that as part of their culture. Also, I'd point out the recent (last 20 years or so) resurgance of ethnic pride in certain Catholic groups, especially Irish-Americans and Hispanic Americans, as further evidence of efforts to retain cultural ties.

[kixot]

8. This one does!!

I'm of Latin decent and so the RC Church intills much pride and historic sense of my heritage in me though I disagree with what I consider to be doctrine suffering from the "Galileo Lag", or the delay it has taken for the curch to come to accept much of modern thought. It evolves with time, as all things must.

[Book Lover]

10. Well, who says what it means to be a Catholic?

The Church may speak, but the laity will do what it will. In sophomore year in my all-girls RC high school, we were frankly taught about birth control methods. We were taught that abortion was wrong and a sin, but we were also equipped with the information needed to not get pregnant. This was in NYC in the 80's. So much for the absolute control of the Church over doctrine.

[vajraroshana]

11. Interesting from a cross-religion viewpoint...

This is very fascinating from a comparative religious viewpoint, for me personally, in that this is exactly what in my particular form of Buddhism (Vajrayana, aka Tibetan Buddhism) has been struggling with.

In our case "vows" related to the "Lama" have seen a turmoil. For many Westerners, the Lama is "provisional" yet pointing to the Absolute; a teacher that we admire and trust, and at a certain point (if we take "vows") can be seen as a proxy to the Buddha. But this is a *technique* of this type of Buddhism, and many can maintain it in that spirit; yet others see it as an axiom that becomes inviolable. This is, of course, problematic and cultic (too uncomfortably so for many of us) and anathema to many, if not most, of our most-cherished Western values.

When examined in context, the vows are "boundary"-related. They have to do with identity issues. It's pretty much related to what you are exploring in your class.

I don't know if your class is geared toward examining these issues with regard to religious expression outside of the mainstream . But if you're interested in seeing the most extreme expression of what I'm talking about you can read some intense apologetics of this current in one little corner of "Western" expression of the Tibetan Buddhist religious world on www.damtsig.org. The "Buddha and Marcuse" (http://www.damtsig.org/articles/niceness.html) article is particularly fascinating as a document of its sort.

But on the whole I find this rhetoric (of the damtsig.org website) explosively reactionary; and especially callously disregarding of the dangerous cultic mentality that it instills.

Perhaps interesting for a religion student. For us that are participants,...well, a lot of us find it disturbing in the extreme.

Check it out if you have the time. It really speaks to your study in religious-identity/ boundary issues. At least it may give a different angle, yet showing that these issues of boundary/identity are shared characteristics of religious involvement.

...hope this is helpful in your studies...

[Reverend_Smitty]

12. Thanks I'll check it out...

I'm not a divinity student or anything, I'm just taking an intro to the bible class as a general education class. However I am absolutely fascinated by religion especially the cultural influences of them. So I will definitely check out that site.

[vajraroshana]

13. be forewarned, this stuff is not typical of american Tibetan Buddhists

Some really weird (even though done by obviously very well educated Westerners) non-mainstream type stuff. Sort of the "right-wing" of American Tibetan Buddhism.

I didn't know that you were talking about an intro type class, so it might be boring, or just too much information.

Damn, I hope you don't get the wrong impression of us American Tibetan Buddhist types. But anyway this stuff has been out for a while (it's caused its own controversy in our teeny little religious corner) and definitely does represent only one peculiar corner of "our" religious landscape. Most of us though (and I speak from nearly 20 years on the American TB scene) are much much much less extreme. And way more tolerant. Maybe you can discuss it in class, but be sure to tell them that it only represents a tiny fraction of opinion.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Fifty years ago, you could tell who was Catholic

every Friday -- they were the ones eating fish sticks or mac & cheese in the cafeteria.

I don't see the pro-life stance as a truly unifying Catholic belief. Too many Catholics today consider themselves pro-choice.

Reason: most Catholics don't want to impose their beliefs on others, no matter how much they are concerned about abortion. Some (and I see this as the smallest group, though it no doubt is the largest group in some parishes) would go for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, others would restrict abortion more than it is at present but not ban it, others don't think it's any of their business to say or do anything about abortion. For those reasons, I don't see it as a boundary law, although the concept is an interesting one and there has to be something that acts as boundary law.

(I'm in the middle group, believing we have a moral responsibility to work for social change, trying to reduce or stop any type of killing. We don't stop the killing by demonizing women who have abortions or men who fight in wars but look to the larger economic and social forces that contribute to women conceiving babies they feel they can't care for and men having to fight in wars that solve nothing while further enriching the armaments makers.)