Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the students are NOT attending Cath. School 'of their own free will.' Their parents picked the school.

From My Experience, Catholic schools can range from good to horrific, depending upon the quality of the staff. My gf's schooling was in the 'horiffic' range from a human rights perspective, but a 'decent' education-wise.

Anecdote: In grade school (2nd grade, I think), my gf's class was assigned to draw portraits of the stained-glass windows of the church. Julie drew the Virgin Mary. Her teacher/nun vehemently objected to the drawing, because Julie drew Mary in a red dress under her blue robe, and "Mary would NEVER wear red! She's not a 'scarlet woman!'" Julie insisted that that's how the window was made. Teach insisted the dress was blue all over. So teach dragged her back to the church, where lo and behold... the dress WAS red. (I've seen it.) Did teacher apologize, or even admit it? NO! She insisted that Julie say that the dress was blue all over. Julie wouldn't. They stayed there for THREE HOURS, in a battle of wills. Finally, the eight-year-old gave in... outwardly. But it's still red.

She remembers this incident every time we watch "Chains of Command," which is now one of her favorite episodes. "There are FOUR lights!"

Oh, and that school is STILL threatening kids with the old 'if you have a sin on your sould when you go to First Communion, you'll catch on fire when the priest puts the wafer in your mouth.

They're not ALL out of the dark Ages, RC.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

quote:

---

Once again, I know of no Catholic schools that "force" students to accept its beliefs.

---

You don't... I do. The situation varies per state, but there are such schools (not necessarily catholic).

quote:

---

However, I see no harm in exposing students of all faiths (or lack of) to what the Church believes, especially when it has been charged to do so by what it believes to be the almighty.

---

quote:

---

"When it has been charged to do so"

---

Don't you recognize the dangerous (unintentional or not) undertone in that statement? My mind goes back to 09-11-2001...

quote:

---

Likewise, I think Catholics can learn from exposing themselves to information on other religions.

---

Agreed. Unfortunately, most religious groups see their beliefs as superior to all others, thus they don't even want to expose themselves.

[fixed quote tags -TSN]

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]

quote:

---

Incidentally, it should be pointed out that the students are NOT attending Cath. School 'of their own free will.' Their parents picked the school.

---

Two things rub me the wrong way. Mojo, you posted that my suggestion that exposing students (that is, merely teaching them, and letting them "decide for themselves") to Catholic beliefs, especially since God asks us (believers) to spread the "good news," has a dangerous undercurrent. Yet you agree exposing Catholics to other religions/beliefs is good. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems a bit hypocritical. What is good for the gander is good for the goose (or vice-versa; however it goes).

Second, TSN, while I agree that a more in-depth study of Judeo-Christian history should come earlier in education, too early of a presentation would just be lost on students. After all, the meaning of the number "0" changes numerous times throughout a child's education; a child is not capable of understanding all of the implications of "0" early on. Likewise, intense Judeo-Christian study is probably beyond most children. I guess one could teach them nothing, or one could get accross "the important points" (I personally find either option viable; the sentence is not meant as a conclusion). I wonder about your tone, though. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but it just seems to me like you dismiss the whole Catholic/Christian education system as a vast conspiracy to keep kids ignorant. I could be reading too much into your post.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raw Cadet:
Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but it just seems to me like you dismiss the whole Catholic/Christian education system as a vast conspiracy to keep kids ignorant.

---

I'm not TSN, but I essentially agree with that idea. Religion as a whole has to keep people--not only children--ignorant of certain things lest they realize that it's illogical. I'm not saying there is an actual cnspiracy, with people meeting in dark rooms and planning ways to hide the truth. It's merely a tradition of ignorance, extending back millennia. Religions sprang up when we didn't have knowledge about the world and the universe and our origins, and that mystery is a vital component.

First religion explained the physical world... then some ape-man realized that he would die and he had a hard time dealing with that reality. Eventually, the idea of life after death and the idea of beings controlling the physical worlds merged, got shaken up here and there, and out comes modern theology. We realized the world was round... religion resisted, but ultimately admitted the error when the evidence was insurmountable. We realized that Earth is not the center of the universe... religion resisted, but ultimately admitted the error when the evidence was insurmountable. We realized that we are part of the animal kingdom... religion mostly still resists, even if many of its adeherents have moved on. We're realizing even now in labs that mind is the brain's software and not a mysterious "soul," and we're realizing that there may not be a need for a "first cause" to the universe... but these, religion has already rejected out of hand because they have far more detrimental implications than what shape Earth is. After all, if we're products of a causeless natural world, what room is there for God?

Religion prevents millions of people in Africa, and elsewhere, from protecting themselves from being ravaged by AIDS. Religion makes thousands of people afflicted with chronic illnesses spend their time and money on uneffective faith healing, when they could be spending it on treatment. Religion forces people to die horribly from painful afflictions rather than offer them the option of ending the pain. Religion prevents us from potentially curing dozens of horrible diseases with the knowledge that could be gained from cloning and stem cell research.

And religion offers hope. Nobody, atheist or otherwise, can deny that. But at what cost? Imagine, just imagine, the achievements that mankind could have experienced if all of the hours spent in prayer and the money spent in tithe could be put towards science, or medicine, or even buying food for the hungry. Imagine where we'd be if countless scientists and doctors throughout history had been heralded as heroes instead of hated for their heresy.

At what cost does religion provide hope? The cost is human progress. Give me a harsh reality over a pleasant fiction any day.

Whew, that was a little more exhaustive than I'd planned.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:

Religion as a whole has to keep people--not only children--ignorant of certain things lest they realize that it's illogical.

---

As you clearly stated, you are not implying that (most) religions have a vast underground conspiracy to keep people ignorant. But what exactly are you implying? I hope you would grant that if you asked most religious clergy, clerics, educators, etc. if they are keeping people ignorant they would honestly answer no (even if they are, in your opinion; they do not consider it ignorance). If one grants that a higher power exists (as these religious do), what is ignorant and illogical to one might be inspired and sensible to another.

quote:

---

It's merely a tradition of ignorance, extending back millennia.

---

Unfortunately, that was true, but many of your current beefs are off base. The Catholic Church states that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with Church doctrine (provided, of course, you grant that the big guy upstairs started it all ). I do not know what other religions have to say about this. As for the "soul," I doubt you could find a legitimate contemporary Catholic cleric, or one of any denomination, for that matter, who would say it is a discoverable region. The mind is a complex and fascinating component of humanity, and (most) religions encourage its scientific study.

quote:

---

Religion prevents millions of people in Africa, and elsewhere, from protecting themselves from being ravaged by AIDS..

---

You are undoubtedly referring to the Catholic Church's stance against artificial birth control. Yes, the Church is against it. No, the Church is not in charge of condom distribution in Africa; I wonder where you got the idea it prevents people from protecting themselves. By the way, I believe most other religions allow artificial birth control, so your "religion . . . " claim is a bit broad and unfair.

Africans are being ravaged by many things, however, and the Church has devoted many resources to combatting hunger, human rights abuses, and lack of education, among other things. Meanwhile, the United States sits back and allows racial genocide to go unchecked, costing millions of lives.

quote:

---

Religion makes thousands of people afflicted with chronic illnesses spend their time and money on uneffective faith healing, when they could be spending it on treatment.

---

I am not quite sure what you are referring to. There are stories of parents withholding medical treatment from their children for "religious reasons," but I can assure you no Catholic (or Hindu, or Jew, etc.) approves of such a decision. Also, anyone who lives in a major city probably knows of at least one professional, scientific hospital run by a religious organization.

quote:

---

Religion forces people to die horribly from painful afflictions rather than offer them the option of ending the pain.

---

Just as no religion has control over the African condom supply, no religion can control how and when you die. John Ashcroft is trying to force people to die horribly; John Paul II, though he disapproves of suicide, cannot stop you.

quote:

---

Religion prevents us from potentially curing dozens of horrible diseases with the knowledge that could be gained from cloning and stem cell research.

---

Once again, religion has no direct control over this matter. I am sure Vatican Cardinals were having coronaries over the news that a human had been cloned. Do you not think they would have stopped it if they could?

The main problem with each of your claims, as I pointed out above, is that they hold religion responsible for things it has little control over. It also shows an ignorance of a very important aspect of my religion. In the papal encyclical "Humanae Vitae," released by Pope Paul VI, it is stated that the morality of decisions are ultimately determined by a well developed conscience, not dogma. Thus, if in good, well developed conscience one can use a condom during sex, commit Euthenasia, and destroy embryos to advance medical science, then one may do so and still "face God on 'Judgement Day' with a 'clear conscience."

quote:

---

And religion offers hope. Nobody, atheist or otherwise, can deny that. But at what cost? Imagine, just imagine, the achievements that mankind could have experienced if all of the hours spent in prayer and the money spent in tithe could be put towards science, or medicine, or even buying food for the hungry. Imagine where we'd be if countless scientists and doctors throughout history had been heralded as heroes instead of hated for their heresy.

---

Oh, come on. Prayer can be used as a form of meditation or relaxation. Are you "against" meditation? As for "the tithe" (Catholics stopped tithing a long time ago; I think Mormons still do), where do you think the money goes? The various religions of the world feed millions, and contribute invaluable information through the research at religious institutions, with the funds they receive.

P.S. Forgive me if I was patronizing at any point; as I said, that was not my intention.

[ November 30, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]

Actually, I thought that was an excellent post and rebuttal.

However,
The points made about 'religion' are largely generalities, and largely true.
The points made about 'Catholicism' are largely true, as well.

But we're talking generalities versus specifics. It should also be pointed out that this 'enlightened' Catholic church is a relatively recent phenomenon, (coming, as it does, AFTER the Inquisitions, Witch hunts, Crusades, persecutions, etc., etc.) and not necessarily a permanent situation. Watch must be kept.

Similarly, although the power of Fundamentalism in the US is currently fairly weak, we should not lose sight of the fact that many of these people WOULD be just like the Taliban, if they could get away with it. Since they can't, they try to worm their way into our lives by doing things like pushing for Creationism to be taught in schools, trying to ban 'Harry Potter', and similar things. Religion also gives us self-appointed 'moral champions' like Robertson, Falwell, Torquemada, and BinLaden.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raw Cadet:
I will try to respond to you, Ryan McReynolds, with my knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church, in which I am fairly well versed, and with my information on other religions. Please note that if this post comes across as inflammatory, that was not my intention. I would not spend an hour putting this together if I did not respect the respondent.

---

Thank you, and please, call me Ryan. Just for background, I was raised Catholic, started questinging around junior high, and officially "came out" as an atheist at the end of high school.

quote:

---

As you clearly stated, you are not implying that (most) religions have a vast underground conspiracy to keep people ignorant. But what exactly are you implying? I hope you would grant that if you asked most religious clergy, clerics, educators, etc. if they are keeping people ignorant they would honestly answer no (even if they are, in your opinion; they do not consider it ignorance). If one grants that a higher power exists (as these religious do), what is ignorant and illogical to one might be inspired and sensible to another.

---

Of course. And that is exactly what I meant to imply. Religion's negative influence is not the result of individuals, it is a result of the existence of religion itself. That's why I specified it as a tradition of ignorance rather than a more clear-cut conspiracy.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, that was true, but many of your current beefs are off base. The Catholic Church states that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with Church doctrine (provided, of course, you grant that the big guy upstairs started it all ). I do not know what other religions have to say about this. As for the "soul," I doubt you could find a legitimate contemporary Catholic cleric, or one of any denomination, for that matter, who would say it is a discoverable region. The mind is a complex and fascinating component of humanity, and (most) religions encourage its scientific study.

---

I was not speaking specifically about Catholicism. I know that the Church doesn't have a problem with evolution (and many other ideas), but many Protestant denominations do, and Islam does. It is the evangelical religious right (in the United States) that has taken the role that the Catholic Church held in centuries past. Religion as a whole continually plays a game of back-stepping to change its doctrines in light of new discoveries... if it didn't exist, there would be no need to bother.

With regard specifically to the mind and/or soul, the problem is simply one of faith. Personally, and I fully grant that this is a personal choice, I believe that no belief is justified without evidence. It doesn't have to be proven in any definitive way, but I always go with what has the most support at any given time. There is increasing evidence that the mind can be explained in physical terms. There is no evidence that a non-physical soul exists. If one day soul is redefined to mean simply "mind," then I would have no problem affirming its existence.

quote:

---

You are undoubtedly referring to the Catholic Church's stance against artificial birth control. Yes, the Church is against it. No, the Church is not in charge of condom distribution in Africa; I wonder where you got the idea it prevents people from protecting themselves. By the way, I believe most other religions allow artificial birth control, so your "religion . . . " claim is a bit broad and unfair.

---

Yes, it is broad, and intentionally so. My point is not that group-x does this and group-y does that. I merely chose random examples. My point is that religious thinking, of all kinds, can lead to problems. As soon as you think you have a source of authority other than the use of rational thought, you open the door to irrationality.

No, religion doesn't control the distribution of condoms, but it does play a role in influencing people into accepting or rejecting them. If somebody is convinced by somebody they consider an authority that birth control of any sort is immoral, then it doesn't matter how many condoms they are given.

quote:

---

Africans are being ravaged by many things, however, and the Church has devoted many resources to combatting hunger, human rights abuses, and lack of education, among other things. Meanwhile, the United States sits back and allows racial genocide to go unchecked, costing millions of lives.

---

No need to mention the United States foreign policy; most of my complaints about religion apply to present governments as well.

quote:

---

I am not quite sure what you are referring to. There are stories of parents withholding medical treatment from their children for "religious reasons," but I can assure you no Catholic (or Hindu, or Jew, etc.) approves of such a decision. Also, anyone who lives in a major city probably knows of at least one professional, scientific hospital run by a religious organization.

---

Yes, naturally. I was speaking of the large-scale (usually Charismatic) revival healings in which the pastor puts his hands on heads and says "be cured" and people fall over. I was speaking of the mass healings of the 700 Club, and the like.

I have no fault with religious organizations running hospitals... but the point is that these things could be run just as well without religion, while "faith healing" requires it. If religion disappeared today, we'd still have hospitals; the difference is that the people who were wasting their time with Benny Hinn could get real treatment instead.

quote:

---

Just as no religion has control over the African condom supply, no religion can control how and when you die. John Ashcroft is trying to force people to die horribly; John Paul II, though he disapproves of suicide, cannot stop you.

---

Right. But why do most people (and I am definitely using the qualifier "most" here) reject "death with dignity?" Because of the commandment that condemns killing. Suicide is one thing, but assisted suicide is another entirely. While I'm sure anyone would agree that there should be safeguards against someone getting depressed and acting rashly, it seems that a fundamental right to any person is the right to choose whether or not to exist. Religion attempts to deny that right, not through direct control, but through the control of moral standards.

quote:

---

Once again, religion has no direct control over this matter. I am sure Vatican Cardinals were having coronaries over the news that a human had been cloned. Do you not think they would have stopped it if they could?

---

Nowhere in my post did I suggest that religion directly does anything. However, religious ideas about souls are overwhelmingly influential in the opposition to stemp cell research, abortion, and cloning. Again, if religion disappeared today, there would be no debate over souls. People might object to these things for different reasons, but they would have to be testable, investigatable reasons rather than "God says no."

Or take a look at evolution. The pressure from the religious right is powerful enough that over half of all public-school biology teachers don't even mention it at all. Nevermind that evolution is the basis of modern biology, integral to nearly every single thing we know about life on our planet. Are you saying that religion isn't responsible for this omission simply because they don't ahve direct authority over the curriculum?

No, the Vatican Cardinals can't stop cloning from happening. But they can tell people that it is wrong. They can erode public support. Religious leaders of all affiliations are quite possibly the most powerful people on the planet, above any government. My girlfriend, a former fundamentalist, used to think that any clones wouldn't have souls. Can you imagine the abuse and mistreatment that would befall a cloned child if nobody thought it had a soul?

quote:

---

The main problem with each of your claims, as I pointed out above, is that they hold religion responsible for things it has little control over. It also shows an ignorance of a very important aspect of my religion. In the papal encyclical "Humanae Vitae," released by Pope Paul VI, it is stated that the morality of decisions are ultimately determined by a well developed conscience, not dogma. Thus, if in good, well developed conscience one can use a condom during sex, commit Euthenasia, and destroy embryos to advance medical science, then one may do so and still "face God on 'Judgement Day' with a 'clear conscience."

---

Catholicism, while the largest specific religious group, it not the only group. Despite the fact that many Baptists, for instance, believe that belief in Jesus is the only thing required for salvation, they are still by far the most vocal group against what they call "immorality."

It's an irony. I am often asked, as an atheist, "If there is no God, can't you do anything you want?" If there is a God that forgives any sin, then it is the religious who can do whatever they want! I also find myself asking them, "If you found out God didn't exist tomorrow, would you go around murdering and raping since there aren't any eternal consequences? No? Then why would I?"

quote:

---

Oh, come on. Prayer can be used as a form of meditation or relaxation. Are you "against" meditation?

---

No. If someone needs to relax, they can do whatever they want, even pray. But I honestly believe that the time spent praying, or attending church service, could be better spent on other things. What if everyone took an hour every Sunday to read a classic work of literature, or the writings of philosophers, or a science book?

quote:

---

As for "the tithe" (Catholics stopped tithing a long time ago; I think Mormons still do), where do you think the money goes? The various religions of the world feed millions, and contribute invaluable information through the research at religious institutions, with the funds they receive.

---

They also build churches, cathedrals, mosques, and temples. That's probably a drop in the bucket, but it is still a waste of money from an atheist's point of view. And again, as with the hospital remark above, what if religion disappeared? There would still be charity, people could still feed the hungry. All of that money could skip the middle man and do all of the same things. Religion isn't required for those things... it's only required for churches and people to fill them.

Also, let me specify that I was using poetic license with the "tithe" part. I was referring to all financial contributions to churches and religious groups.

quote:

---

P.S. Forgive me if I was patronizing at any point; as I said, that was not my intention.

---

I don't think so at all. I'm an atheist, I find myself discussing this stuff on a daily basis.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]