The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Yes, every single priest in every single Catholic church supports everything the Roman Catholic hierarchy does, and it is impossible to be Catholic and be pro-gay rights. Are you even fucking listening to yourself?
So, they work for, give money to, raise money for, help propagate and recruit for an organization that spends millions of dollars fighting gay marriage, and can't ever speak out about their beliefs, but in their heart of hearts, they truly believe in gay rights?
Are you even listening to yourself? Literally every action they take and the way they live their lives is completely anti-gay rights. Functionally, there is zero difference between them holding extremely pro-gay rights positions and them holding extremely anti-gay rights positions, because they're fighting the bad fight against gay rights. So, yes, it is functionally impossible for them to be pro-gay rights in any remotely significant fashion, though I guess they can be totally pro-gay rights in every way that doesn't matter even in the slightest.
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
I'd like it if they stopped being actively evil. Just because they do some good things on the side doesn't redeem them.
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
I'd like it if they stopped being actively evil. Just because they do some good things on the side doesn't redeem them.
You see it as evil, they see it as good.
So, unless you pass laws limiting their right to hold certain views, they're not going to stop. I mean, they do have 2000 or so years behind their views. The Catholic Church is probably the oldest continuously existing entity in the West. It, and its ideas, will probably be here long after you and I are gone.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
I'd rather the money that goes to them instead go to charities that do good without doing evil. I'm sure the Peace Corps could do a lot with the billions the Catholic Church spends on spreading AIDS, hate, and child rape.
Thanatos on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
I'd like it if they stopped being actively evil. Just because they do some good things on the side doesn't redeem them.
You see it as evil, they see it as good.
So, unless you pass laws limiting their right to hold certain views, they're not going to stop. I mean, they do have 2000 or so years behind their views. The Catholic Church is probably the oldest continuously existing entity in the West. It, and its ideas, will probably be here long after you and I are gone.
Being old doesn't make them good or right. It just makes them old.
So, unless you pass laws limiting their right to hold certain views, they're not going to stop. I mean, they do have 2000 or so years behind their views. The Catholic Church is probably the oldest continuously existing entity in the West. It, and its ideas, will probably be here long after you and I are gone.
They subsidize child rape, and provide safe harbor for child rapists.
I'm curious as to how, exactly, one interprets that as not evil...?
If you're born in America, there really isn't a realistic alternative to being American.
There are literally thousands of alternatives to Catholicism, and not only are they not difficult to get into, most of them actively encourage you to join. So, really, for the one, your choice is "uproot your entire family, leave everything and everyone you've ever known, pay a whole bunch of money, probably have to learn a new language, and try to maybe be able to get into another country, if you're lucky," and the other you have "spend Sunday morning with the child rapists, or have to drive a little further down the block to spend it with the non-rapists."
Little bit of a difference, there.
There are literally hundreds of different countries you could move to if you don't agree with the policies of the United States. Yes, you would have to radically alter your lifestyle depending on the country you move to.
That doesn't change the fact that you could do it, but choose not to.
Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that asking someone born into a religion or who has been part of a religion for many years to suddenly change what they believe is not so simple as you make it out to be.
asking someone born into a religion or who has been part of a religion for many years to suddenly change what they believe is not so simple as you make it out to be.
And yet missionaries ask people to do just this very thing, every single day, like it's no thing.
Some of the Jesus bashers in this thread are starting to resemble the anti-mosque protesters in NY.
"The Muslims danced on 9/11!"
"Mormon tithe money supports bigotry!"
"Islam is not a religion of peace - it's aggressive and militant!"
"Catholic clergy subsidize child rape!"
If you're born in America, there really isn't a realistic alternative to being American.
There are literally thousands of alternatives to Catholicism, and not only are they not difficult to get into, most of them actively encourage you to join. So, really, for the one, your choice is "uproot your entire family, leave everything and everyone you've ever known, pay a whole bunch of money, probably have to learn a new language, and try to maybe be able to get into another country, if you're lucky," and the other you have "spend Sunday morning with the child rapists, or have to drive a little further down the block to spend it with the non-rapists."
Little bit of a difference, there.
There are literally hundreds of different countries you could move to if you don't agree with the policies of the United States. Yes, you would have to radically alter your lifestyle depending on the country you move to.
That doesn't change the fact that you could do it, but choose not to.
Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that asking someone born into a religion or who has been part of a religion for many years to suddenly change what they believe is not so simple as you make it out to be.
Uh... actually, there aren't hundreds of countries you could move to if you don't agree with the politics of the U.S. I mean, if we restrict it to countries which have better politics, there are maybe a few dozen. Now, let's restrict it to those with with better politics than the U.S. that are reasonably easy to immigrate to... oh, wait, there aren't any, unless you're already living a fairly privileged life. So, for the vast majority of us, there really isn't an option.
Not to mention that any country you move to is going to do at least some fucked-up shit, whereas there are plenty of open-minded religions you could switch to (or just become secular) that don't really do any fucked up shit at all.
Some of the Jesus bashers in this thread are starting to resemble the anti-mosque protesters in NY.
"The Muslims danced on 9/11!"
"Mormon tithe money supports bigotry!"
"Islam is not a religion of peace - it's aggressive and militant!"
"Catholic clergy subsidize child rape!"
It's almost as if Catholicism and Mormonism are monolithic religions with single leaders, whereas Islam is divided into numerous sects with many different beliefs.
Some of the Jesus bashers in this thread are starting to resemble the anti-mosque protesters in NY.
"The Muslims danced on 9/11!"
"Mormon tithe money supports bigotry!"
"Islam is not a religion of peace - it's aggressive and militant!"
"Catholic clergy subsidize child rape!"
It's almost as if Catholicism and Mormonism are monolithic religions with single leaders, whereas Islam is divided into numerous sects with many different beliefs.
Almost...
Catholicism and Mormonism aren't religions, they're sects of Christianity. The same way Sunni and Shia are sects of Islam. Or, denominations, if sect is too divisive a word.
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Would you like to show where the church has promoted terrorism to accomplish a goal?
Some churches donate to organizations like the Catholic Worker, too. It's not like every penny people give goes directly to heinous efforts. Catholic Workers' Catholicism is very important to them, but their mission is the opposite of hateful. They're not a subsidiary of the RCC, but individual churches do donate to them.
The Catholic Church also does a shit-ton of charity work in some of the most awful parts of the world. Probably moreso than any other non-governmental organization in the world.
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
Would you rather they not be out there doing the charity work at all? The ban on contraception is pretty well supported, based on Catholic teaching and history. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is part of their ideology.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Would you like to show where the church has promoted terrorism to accomplish a goal?
Abortion bombings in some cases, but that's not near the same level.
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Would you like to show where the church has promoted terrorism to accomplish a goal?
In Africa, they've promoted mysticism to the point where people rape virgins in an effort to kill AIDS, and lobbied Uganda until they nearly passed a law imposing the death penalty on gay people. They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
I would classify all of that as various forms of terrorism.
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Would you like to show where the church has promoted terrorism to accomplish a goal?
In Africa, they've promoted mysticism to the point where people rape virgins in an effort to kill AIDS, and lobbied Uganda until they nearly passed a law imposing the death penalty on gay people. They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
I would classify all of that as various forms of terrorism.
While horrific, they aren't terrorism as they don't seek to further a political goal, with the possible exception of the bit about gay people.
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Would you like to show where the church has promoted terrorism to accomplish a goal?
In Africa, they've promoted mysticism to the point where people rape virgins in an effort to kill AIDS, and lobbied Uganda until they nearly passed a law imposing the death penalty on gay people. They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
I would classify all of that as various forms of terrorism.
While horrific, they aren't terrorism as they don't seek to further a political goal, with the possible exception of the bit about gay people.
I would consider preventing the use of birth control to be a political goal. I would consider concealing horrific crimes committed by the priesthood to be a political goal. I would most definitely consider genocide to be a political goal.
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Would you like to show where the church has promoted terrorism to accomplish a goal?
In Africa, they've promoted mysticism to the point where people rape virgins in an effort to kill AIDS, and lobbied Uganda until they nearly passed a law imposing the death penalty on gay people. They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
I would classify all of that as various forms of terrorism.
While horrific, they aren't terrorism as they don't seek to further a political goal, with the possible exception of the bit about gay people.
I would consider preventing the use of birth control to be a political goal. I would consider concealing horrific crimes committed by the priesthood to be a political goal. I would most definitely consider genocide to be a political goal.
I would consider preventing the use of birth control to be a political goal. I would consider concealing horrific crimes committed by the priesthood to be a political goal. I would most definitely consider genocide to be a political goal.
asking someone born into a religion or who has been part of a religion for many years to suddenly change what they believe is not so simple as you make it out to be.
And yet missionaries ask people to do just this very thing, every single day, like it's no thing.
Some do. Some say something along the lines of, "This is our religion, do you think this is for you? If so, we'd be happy to talk more with you about it and include you in our religious services."
Those are two different things. To lump all missionaries together under the first is prejudicial--if you're okay with being prejudiced, fine, but that's what it is.
If you're born in America, there really isn't a realistic alternative to being American.
There are literally thousands of alternatives to Catholicism, and not only are they not difficult to get into, most of them actively encourage you to join. So, really, for the one, your choice is "uproot your entire family, leave everything and everyone you've ever known, pay a whole bunch of money, probably have to learn a new language, and try to maybe be able to get into another country, if you're lucky," and the other you have "spend Sunday morning with the child rapists, or have to drive a little further down the block to spend it with the non-rapists."
Little bit of a difference, there.
There are literally hundreds of different countries you could move to if you don't agree with the policies of the United States. Yes, you would have to radically alter your lifestyle depending on the country you move to.
That doesn't change the fact that you could do it, but choose not to.
Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that asking someone born into a religion or who has been part of a religion for many years to suddenly change what they believe is not so simple as you make it out to be.
Uh... actually, there aren't hundreds of countries you could move to if you don't agree with the politics of the U.S. I mean, if we restrict it to countries which have better politics, there are maybe a few dozen. Now, let's restrict it to those with with better politics than the U.S. that are reasonably easy to immigrate to... oh, wait, there aren't any, unless you're already living a fairly privileged life. So, for the vast majority of us, there really isn't an option.
Not to mention that any country you move to is going to do at least some fucked-up shit, whereas there are plenty of open-minded religions you could switch to (or just become secular) that don't really do any fucked up shit at all.
Your point is that people who have a certain religious belief and religious structure can easily choose to be apart of a different belief and structure. From your perspective that may be true, but from theirs? Not so much. Aside from those religions that condemn a person to hell for not following their tenets, we're talking about lifetimes of socialization and development with a core of particular religious beliefs and practices.
Secondly--you always have a choice. If you need to justify the choice to pay taxes to a government waging a war you disagree with by saying you'd be thrown in jail if you didn't pay taxes, that's fine--you're still on the hook for being an ignorant war-mongering American. If you want to be prejudicial about all members of a religion you disagree with, fine--but it's still ridiculous prejudice.
I would consider preventing the use of birth control to be a political goal. I would consider concealing horrific crimes committed by the priesthood to be a political goal. I would most definitely consider genocide to be a political goal.
Not when the motivations are religious
...
... ...
For real?
Ok I shouldn't post while trying to wrap up work for the afternoon lol.
I would consider preventing the use of birth control to be a political goal. I would consider concealing horrific crimes committed by the priesthood to be a political goal. I would most definitely consider genocide to be a political goal.
Not when the motivations are religious
...
... ...
For real?
Ok what I was getting at before I failed so massively was that terrorism necessitates a political purpose or cause. Religion can be a facet of the specific act or group, but a religious element to violence does not itself terrorism make.
So when you talk about these actions abroad I don't think you can label it terrorism, as the political motivation largely missing.
I would consider preventing the use of birth control to be a political goal. I would consider concealing horrific crimes committed by the priesthood to be a political goal. I would most definitely consider genocide to be a political goal.
Not when the motivations are religious
...
... ...
For real?
Ok what I was getting at before I failed so massively was that terrorism necessitates a political purpose or cause. Religion can be a facet of the specific act or group, but a religious element to violence does not itself terrorism make.
So when you talk about these actions abroad I don't think you can label it terrorism, as the political motivation largely missing.
Making a distinction between politics and religion is a very recent, very western idea. For the majority of human history the two have been so intertwined as to be inseparable.
In Africa, they've promoted mysticism to the point where people rape virgins in an effort to kill AIDS]
The Catholic Church is not behind this. I challenge you to come up with any evidence of this ridiculous claim.
and lobbied Uganda until they nearly passed a law imposing the death penalty on gay people.
The Catholic Church opposed that bill, as did a number of prominent American Evangelicals.
They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
Corrupt people in a large organization did shitty things. Of course, the fact that their actions went against the established dogma of that organization is a point you conviently ignore.
As is common with you, you're just making shit up and spewing stuff you know is untrue.
I would classify all of that as various forms of terrorism.
Plus, you don't know how to use a dictionary.
I can't believe you're making me defend the RCC.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
Corrupt people in a large organization did shitty things. Of course, the fact that their actions went against the established dogma of that organization is a point you conviently ignore.
As did the bishops and archbishops who shielded the offenders and moved them to new parishes.
They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
Corrupt people in a large organization did shitty things. Of course, the fact that their actions went against the established dogma of that organization is a point you conviently ignore.
As did the bishops and archbishops who shielded the offenders and moved them to new parishes.
Yeah, any large corporation is going to have good people and evil people in it. But at what point should the "good" people take a look at all the shit the evil people are doing and getting away with and either A) make them stop or if they're unable to make them stop, leave and form their own God-club that doesn't involve molesting kids?
They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
Corrupt people in a large organization did shitty things. Of course, the fact that their actions went against the established dogma of that organization is a point you conviently ignore.
As did the bishops and archbishops who shielded the offenders and moved them to new parishes.
Yeah, any large corporation is going to have good people and evil people in it. But at what point should the "good" people take a look at all the shit the evil people are doing and getting away with and either A) make them stop or if they're unable to make them stop, leave and form their own God-club that doesn't involve molesting kids?
Name me one large organization that isn't full to the hilt with corruption that doesn't only crack down when it's easy or when pressured? I doubt you can.
The Catholic Church is made up of humans, with human failings. I works as an large institute does, and suffers even more problems because frankly it's fucking gigantic.
Their idiotic stance on priest sexuality has lead to some terrible problems, this is true and they should be pushed into fixing it. Maybe the good priests are trying to fix it from within? There is a ton we don't know due to the nature of the Vatican. For all the good the Catholic Church does (and their charity efforts are fucking massive) it's rather odd to pillage them all for a few bad actions.
It's not like Vatican city itself is run like some country where you can have multiple wives, mutilation is common, kid porking is a nightly activity, injecting people with aids takes place of bingo, and at happy hour you lynch you a fag.
So, is it ever the fault of the organization when it's members do something terrible, or can it always be brushed aside as the actions of "a few corrupt people?"
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
Corrupt people in a large organization did shitty things. Of course, the fact that their actions went against the established dogma of that organization is a point you conviently ignore.
As did the bishops and archbishops who shielded the offenders and moved them to new parishes.
And the Catholic Church has said that they are treating the sex abuse problem with the utmost seriousness. In fact, they've now declared that raping children is as bad as ordaining women.
They also let their priests rape children, then protect them from any sort of repercussions.
Corrupt people in a large organization did shitty things. Of course, the fact that their actions went against the established dogma of that organization is a point you conviently ignore.
As did the bishops and archbishops who shielded the offenders and moved them to new parishes.
Actually neither of these things are, in the strictest sense, dogmas of the Church - that refers to specific fundamental articles of faith concerning things like the unity and trinity of God. Child sex abuse is certainly against the teaching of the Church. The issue of how members of the Church hierarchy dealt with it and whether or not such matters are, or even should be, reported to the secular authorities is a rather more thorny topic.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
So, is it ever the fault of the organization when it's members do something terrible, or can it always be brushed aside as the actions of "a few corrupt people?"
Yes.
Let's use Enron as an example. Here is an organization that ran itself into the ground, bankrupted a shit ton of people, wrecked California, and fucked over an entire city in Texas. Not to mention the damage caused by dirty politics and it's advocation of deregulation. I think we can all universally agree that was a gigantic mess.
Who's fault was it?
Well, all their actions were completely inline with their company ethos and they knew the entire time what they were doing was highly illegal and they were fucking over millions of people. Yet they did it anyways out of greed and pride. This came universally from the top and they didn't give a fuck and knew it was wrong. Enron was a bad organization.
But it's not fair to condemn everybody there. As some came out against it, got brushed under the rug, and many didn't know.
I'd say it comes down to the actual ethos of the organization and it's values.
Posts
Like any large organization, there are good aspects and bad aspects to the RCC.
Rigorous Scholarship
While they're out there doing their charity work, they spend their time telling people that condoms don't do anything to prevent AIDS and in fact make you more likely to get it.
The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. I challenge you to find any large organization that gets everything right.
Rigorous Scholarship
Are you even listening to yourself? Literally every action they take and the way they live their lives is completely anti-gay rights. Functionally, there is zero difference between them holding extremely pro-gay rights positions and them holding extremely anti-gay rights positions, because they're fighting the bad fight against gay rights. So, yes, it is functionally impossible for them to be pro-gay rights in any remotely significant fashion, though I guess they can be totally pro-gay rights in every way that doesn't matter even in the slightest.
I'd like it if they stopped being actively evil. Just because they do some good things on the side doesn't redeem them.
So, unless you pass laws limiting their right to hold certain views, they're not going to stop. I mean, they do have 2000 or so years behind their views. The Catholic Church is probably the oldest continuously existing entity in the West. It, and its ideas, will probably be here long after you and I are gone.
Rigorous Scholarship
Being old doesn't make them good or right. It just makes them old.
You see, it's the conservative, largely Christian people who are into passing laws to restrict other people's lives.
I'm curious as to how, exactly, one interprets that as not evil...?
There are literally hundreds of different countries you could move to if you don't agree with the policies of the United States. Yes, you would have to radically alter your lifestyle depending on the country you move to.
That doesn't change the fact that you could do it, but choose not to.
Moreover, it doesn't change the fact that asking someone born into a religion or who has been part of a religion for many years to suddenly change what they believe is not so simple as you make it out to be.
And yet missionaries ask people to do just this very thing, every single day, like it's no thing.
"The Muslims danced on 9/11!"
"Mormon tithe money supports bigotry!"
"Islam is not a religion of peace - it's aggressive and militant!"
"Catholic clergy subsidize child rape!"
Not to mention that any country you move to is going to do at least some fucked-up shit, whereas there are plenty of open-minded religions you could switch to (or just become secular) that don't really do any fucked up shit at all.
Almost...
Would you rather the Taliban not be out there helping flood victims?
Would you like to show where the church has promoted terrorism to accomplish a goal?
Abortion bombings in some cases, but that's not near the same level.
I would classify all of that as various forms of terrorism.
While horrific, they aren't terrorism as they don't seek to further a political goal, with the possible exception of the bit about gay people.
Not when the motivations are religious
... ...
For real?
Some do. Some say something along the lines of, "This is our religion, do you think this is for you? If so, we'd be happy to talk more with you about it and include you in our religious services."
Those are two different things. To lump all missionaries together under the first is prejudicial--if you're okay with being prejudiced, fine, but that's what it is.
Your point is that people who have a certain religious belief and religious structure can easily choose to be apart of a different belief and structure. From your perspective that may be true, but from theirs? Not so much. Aside from those religions that condemn a person to hell for not following their tenets, we're talking about lifetimes of socialization and development with a core of particular religious beliefs and practices.
Secondly--you always have a choice. If you need to justify the choice to pay taxes to a government waging a war you disagree with by saying you'd be thrown in jail if you didn't pay taxes, that's fine--you're still on the hook for being an ignorant war-mongering American. If you want to be prejudicial about all members of a religion you disagree with, fine--but it's still ridiculous prejudice.
Ok I shouldn't post while trying to wrap up work for the afternoon lol.
Ok what I was getting at before I failed so massively was that terrorism necessitates a political purpose or cause. Religion can be a facet of the specific act or group, but a religious element to violence does not itself terrorism make.
So when you talk about these actions abroad I don't think you can label it terrorism, as the political motivation largely missing.
Making a distinction between politics and religion is a very recent, very western idea. For the majority of human history the two have been so intertwined as to be inseparable.
As is common with you, you're just making shit up and spewing stuff you know is untrue.
Plus, you don't know how to use a dictionary.
I can't believe you're making me defend the RCC.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah, any large corporation is going to have good people and evil people in it. But at what point should the "good" people take a look at all the shit the evil people are doing and getting away with and either A) make them stop or
Name me one large organization that isn't full to the hilt with corruption that doesn't only crack down when it's easy or when pressured? I doubt you can.
The Catholic Church is made up of humans, with human failings. I works as an large institute does, and suffers even more problems because frankly it's fucking gigantic.
Their idiotic stance on priest sexuality has lead to some terrible problems, this is true and they should be pushed into fixing it. Maybe the good priests are trying to fix it from within? There is a ton we don't know due to the nature of the Vatican. For all the good the Catholic Church does (and their charity efforts are fucking massive) it's rather odd to pillage them all for a few bad actions.
It's not like Vatican city itself is run like some country where you can have multiple wives, mutilation is common, kid porking is a nightly activity, injecting people with aids takes place of bingo, and at happy hour you lynch you a fag.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Actually neither of these things are, in the strictest sense, dogmas of the Church - that refers to specific fundamental articles of faith concerning things like the unity and trinity of God. Child sex abuse is certainly against the teaching of the Church. The issue of how members of the Church hierarchy dealt with it and whether or not such matters are, or even should be, reported to the secular authorities is a rather more thorny topic.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Priest rapes little boy in congregation- Swept under rug and moved to a different parish.
That makes sense.
Yes.
Let's use Enron as an example. Here is an organization that ran itself into the ground, bankrupted a shit ton of people, wrecked California, and fucked over an entire city in Texas. Not to mention the damage caused by dirty politics and it's advocation of deregulation. I think we can all universally agree that was a gigantic mess.
Who's fault was it?
Well, all their actions were completely inline with their company ethos and they knew the entire time what they were doing was highly illegal and they were fucking over millions of people. Yet they did it anyways out of greed and pride. This came universally from the top and they didn't give a fuck and knew it was wrong. Enron was a bad organization.
But it's not fair to condemn everybody there. As some came out against it, got brushed under the rug, and many didn't know.
I'd say it comes down to the actual ethos of the organization and it's values.