next »

[husqvarna]

-won't get into the whole theocracy thing because we've been there before, but I'm in agreement with what jobhunter has been saying.  I think there's confusion about the differences between a theocracy, a society that has a strongly religious population, a state church set-up, and a society where religion plays an active role in the public square.  None of these things should be conflated into any other, although there are of course areas of overlap.  To call the U.S. a theocracy has more rhetorical value than it does intellectual value.

-jackit, I'd agree with you that US Catholic bishops disagree about how to handle the situation.  But U.S. Catholic bishops are themselves a small minority within Catholicism, and don't exactly exert a whole ton of influence on the Church.  Here's a link to USCCB's page on abortion, if anyone is interested.

-scheherazade, just caught your post... I'll grant all of what you say, but let's not forget that the discussion of abortion and Catholicism began with ideagirl's relatives disagreeing over its status as a "sin".  While issues of policy and penitence are interesting and important to discuss, and may indeed involve many grey areas and matters of disagreement, that isn't what the exchange was originally about.  On the question of abortion's status as a sin, and the related (rather subjective, to be sure) assessment of someone as a "good" or "bad" Catholic because of their views on abortion as a sin, Catholic teaching and practice is much more clear-cut. 

I'd love to get back to the election, but haven't checked the news yet today.  Hopefully I can contribute something at some point...

[scheherazade]

Actually, hvernon, that's not at all what ideagirl said.  She never made reference to "sin."  What she was referring to was Kay's comment that one cannot allow the legality of abortion and still be a good Catholic.  The entire quote is below.

HAHAHAHA you have zero qualifications for determining who is or is not a "bad Catholic" (whatever that means). If you had ever set foot in a Catholic church you would (or should) know that Catholics who disagree with the church on abortion are allowed to take communion, unlike, say, Catholics who have divorced and remarried, so apparently the church disagrees with you on whether they're "bad Catholics." And call me crazy, but I'm going to defer to the Catholic church on that, rather than to some anonymous cretin on a web chatboard.

And, "cynical desire"? What? How it's cynical to want to continue communing with one's god in the company of one's community, I cannot imagine.

[goldstein]

   Actually, if anything the EU is closer to Iran, though that admittedly is a big stretch as well. [1]A number of EU nations such as Britain have established churches with close ties to the government/crown.
    I'm glad we aren't like Europe. Religion thrives in America, [2]while it is moribund in Europe. [3]Then, again with stagnant economies, weak military forces, and well-below replacement birth-levels, Europe itself is starting to look pretty moribund as well.

jh06   

You do understand that this post is some where between self contradictory and nonsensical.  If 1 is true, 2 is not.  And of course 3 describes the US economy and military, not the European.

You may have unwittingly slipped from parody to self-parody.

[husqvarna]

Obama chose the church community over the sometimes bizarre statements of his pastor

Yes, exactly. And he's not alone. My aunt and uncle go to church every Sunday, but they get up and walk out if the priest gives a sermon that says abortion is a sin; they completely disagree (as many Catholics do, papal dicta notwithstanding). But, even though the pastor sometimes gives sermons that offend them, they go to church regularly; they're part of the community. Many other parishioners don't make a statement by getting up and leaving during certain sermons, but they nevertheless disagree.

...and K16's response immediately below didn't mention legality.

[husqvarna]

   Actually, if anything the EU is closer to Iran, though that admittedly is a big stretch as well. [1]A number of EU nations such as Britain have established churches with close ties to the government/crown.
    I'm glad we aren't like Europe. Religion thrives in America, [2]while it is moribund in Europe. [3]Then, again with stagnant economies, weak military forces, and well-below replacement birth-levels, Europe itself is starting to look pretty moribund as well.

jh06   

You do understand that this post is some where between self contradictory and nonsensical.  If 1 is true, 2 is not. 

eh?

[scheherazade]

Gotcha.  We're looking at different posts.  I would say that most Catholics do believe abortion is a sin, but like many sins, they occasionally commit it.  Most Catholics that get upset about the sermons have issues with the legal issue.  I can't speak for Ideagirl's family per se, but that's the general attitude.  There was a poll I read regarding this - I'll have to try and find it.

[husqvarna]

Alright... I invite anyone to the Religion & Society thread.  For any newer posters/readers, I created this thread a little while back when a lot of religion conversations popped up here and distracted from Election 2008 topics of a more general nature.  It's worked pretty well as a venue for conversation since then.  Feel free to use it if you wish- just pick up at the end where our last conversation ended off.

[flipper]

quote: "Of course the difference is that atheists/agnostics/secularists and some of the more liberal theists base our morals on things like "doing no harm to others" instead of faith that some uber-being in the sky told a bunch of guys thousands of years ago what to write down for all of humanity to live by forever, and then that those varied messages somehow survived the cannonizing process. In other words, we deal with the reality on the ground."

Well, that's your opinion that you deal with "the reality on the ground." You're certainly entitled to it, but many such as myself disagree with you.
   I'd say for starters that killing the unborn by the millions is hardly "doing no harm to others." But if you are a atheist/agnostic/secularist and really deal with "the reality on ground" you won't especially care about morality in the first place.  Morality without God is just a bunch of sentimentalism. It's about as superstitious as one can get. Oh, I know that secularists aren't all immoral. I just don't see any logical reason why they should even believe in morality at all. If I didn't believe in God, I'd be a be a nihilist and wouldn't care one way or the other about quaint things like humanity or murder. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die would be the only logical course of action.
     I realize that the above will cause predictable shrieks of outrage from some secularists on this board. I'm not especially interesting in debating it with you. Sorry, be there done that. Nonetheless, you should know that many religious people would describe your religious views (or lack thereof, however one wants to characterize this) with many of the same negative terms (irrational, superstitious, immoral, etc.) that you view religious people for worshiping "some über-being in the sky" as it you so politically incorrectly have put it.
    None of is "neutral" in our religious beliefs, whatever they may be. It would be nice to simply recognize this. It would also be nice to recognize that while we are a pluralistic society and should protect everyone's First Amendment rights (and that very much includes the rights of atheists/agnostics/secularists), that a large number of people in this country, including a large number of Democrats are in fact Christians whose beliefs matter a great deal to them. One thus shouldn't be surprised to see expressions of faith and reference to religion in politics and/or the public square. As long as this country has a large number of people who practice their faith, religion isn't going to be something that is in the closet. That's just "the reality on the ground" as you say. Get over it.

jh06

Interesting. You are moral so God won't torch your a** for eternity. Neat. I'm moral because I have empathy for other humans, as well as other beings.

I realize that the majority of Americans believe in God. I'm also aware that a large number of them believe every word of the Bible is true. That doesn't make it any less a reliance on faith, which by definition is that which can not be proven. And so yes, back to my phrase "the reality on the ground" that seemed to bug you so much. The reality on the ground is that people suffer, and a lot of it is unnecessary and happens because so-called Christians, as well as those of other faiths, choose to judge others instead of leaving that to God, think it's fine to go invade other countries, and ignore the Christian call of charity. Of course, there are immoral non-Christians and non-Theists of all stripes, as well, but as you point out, we're in the minority.

[goldstein]

Nothing complicated.  Either EU countries have close and operative religious/governmental ties, or religion is moribund in Europe.  Pick one and argue the point.

[husqvarna]

Nothing complicated.  Either EU countries have close and operative religious/governmental ties, or religion is moribund in Europe.  Pick one and argue the point.

http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,46700.msg949503.html#msg949503

[t_r_b]

I've put my take on the religion stuff over on the R&S thread.

In the meantime, actual election news: Obama is starting to creep ahead in the polls, which many of us predicted and/or hoped would happen after Clinton's concession:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/polls_here_comes_obamas_postpr.php

Presumably a big part of this is Clinton supporters following her endorsement. It'll be interesting to see what happens to these numbers over the next week or so.

[kaysixteen]

You simply have to go ahead and ignore the teachings of the Catholic church to suggest that a Catholic who believes abortion is not sinful can be a 'good Catholic' anyhow.  Many priests/ bishops will not excommunicate or even deny communion to those Catholics who support abortion rights, but this ain't the same as affirming these people to be 'good Catholics'.  It astounds me that Americans of most all religious traditions can feel that a smorgasbord, hyperindividualistic approach to their religion, wherein they (essentially) say 'I'm a good _____ regardless of what I believe and don't you dare say different, snotbucket', well...

[scheherazade]

<ahem> Religion thread, Kay.

[john_proctor]

I realize that the majority of Americans believe in God. I'm also aware that a large number of them believe every word of the Bible is true.

If anyone cares, we actually have some pretty rockin, current numbers.

Only about 26% of Americans identify as "Evangelical" Christian.  

16% are unaffiliated.

FWIW, mainline protestants comprise about 18% and Roman Catholics about 24%.

Evangelicals are the largest single block of Christian self-identifiers (and the largest single group among the "affiliation" reports) but are hardly the "majority" of Americans.

Add in non-Christian faiths plus those who self-identify as atheists, etc., and the number of non-Christians in the US is about equal to the number of evangelicals.

In other words, about 75% of Americans are NOT evangelicals.

Also, go outside the us and Evangelicals are almost unknown in terms of population percentages (except for some African nations which have historically be targeted by evangelical missions; also, there are pockets of eastern Europe, eastern Russia, China and Southeast Asia where evangelicals have hit hard).

Evangelicalism is a reasonable percentage of world Christianity, but decidedly a minority.

By the way, these are "self-reported" numbers.  I'm sure there's more than a few folks who would self-identify as "evangelical" whom the true hard-liners would say were not "really serious" about their faith.

Frankly, these recent numbers not only seem to counter media appearences, but also surprised many of us in the field.  Shouldn't have, in hindsight.  With all the noise and rankor, we should have assumed some pretty well balanced opposite poles (with about a third or more in the middle watching).  If one side were really dominant, then there'd be no argument.  With two sides each shrill in accusations of the dominance of the other, we'd exepect that both are pretty well matched (and fighting for the middle).

And the field is, indeed, dynamic.  about 40% of Americans report shifting in religious affiliation in the last decades (with an astonishingly high number moving not just secular-to-religious/religious-to-secular or cross denominational lines, but into whole new religious traditions).   That only heightens the intensity and shrill argument.

If anyone cares about real numbers, see:

http://religions.pewforum.org/

http://pewforum.org/

[goldstein]

"Get a life."  Yeah, I agree.  How's that working for you, K?