I don't do this very often -- i.e., quoting scripture and thumping the Bible and all -- as I tend to be quiet about my faith. More to the point, I prefer to project it from the inside out rather than the other way around. Even more to the point, I try not to justify any of my actions, or my advocacy on any issue, or justify any of the things I say about them, on the basis of faith alone. My faith is my super-structure, but I try not to let it show. I try very hard to argue on the basis of the facts and logic alone, because, frankly, I believe that God is everywhere. Thus, if my faith is true, strong, accurate and consistent, I should be able to do that with Him at my back. I should not have to push Him out in front. If I have to do that, maybe I'm not seeing things right. Said in another way... to me, God IS the same as common sense -- whether or not anyone appreciates the convergence on whatever level. He created it all, so He should be -- you just have to look hard enough.
Anyway... a central tenet of my belief system is that faith illuminates, but it never in itself justifies. That tenet is itself illuminated by Jesus's words: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John, 18:36). I interpret that to mean that there is a distinction between the corporeal and the spiritual worlds, and that "moral action" means somewhat different things in different contexts.
With that in mind (and I will justify it further later), as I see it, Mark's (and others) recurring mistake is his/their insistence on convolving whatever concepts which he/they is/are against into the person or group that he/they attribute as largely responsible for the concept -- and holding the people responsible rather than the idea. In other words, Mark seems to be more intent to concentrate his attack against the individuals or group(s) that produced the anti-catholic cartoon rather than concentrating his attack against the idea of bigotry in general. To my mind, the first method of attack (i.e., against those responsible for the cartoon) serves to entrench those on either side and to incite them to do more battle, whereas the second method of attack (i.e., against bigotry) serves to transcend the battlelines and to (at least potentially) bring people together. Taking the two methods to extremes the difference ultimately becomes one of "holy war" versus "holiness". Obviously both are religiously motivated. But the first is a terrible thing, the second is a wonderful thing. And to my mind, the distinction is whether you find it necessary to push God out in front of you in the first in place, or if you are willing to rely on Him to watch your back in the second. To me, the latter is a far truer expression of faith than the former. In fact, I would say that if you have to do the former, you're not much more than a chicken-shit with an impromptu cross on your shield.
One central tenet of my own belief system is the concept of grace. Unfortunately I can't really explain the concept in words, because words always fall short of that I mean. But I guess the closest I can come is to say that grace is that which illuminates and actualizes faith. Faith without acts is nothing. In fact, it is pretty clear to me that it is the acts you perform that will be judged in the end, not so much the nature or content of your faith. That distinction is mentioned many times in the New Testament, but perhaps it is most clear in Jesus' own words, as quoted by Matthew (25:31-46):
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do to one of the least of these, you did not do to me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
The point is that in the preceding passage, Jesus established no pre-conditions on the basis of faith, but on the basis of the acts each individual performs. Certainly there are many other passages that stress the importance of faith, but equally clearly faith itself is not enough. Faith serves only as a guiding light, not an end in itself. It is what you do with your faith that is important. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is very similar in both content and meaning.
Mark, I pray for the day when you concentrate on your own inner light and dedicate yourself to making that light stronger, rather than concentrating on how well you reflect the darkness of others and/or your allegiance to those which who you feel more an ideological rather than a moral obligation. I pray that someday you will understand that you will ultimately stand alone, to be judged by the good works you yourself perform, not by how few others do. God doesn't grade on a curve. I pray that you will someday stop concentrating on the lack of virtue in "the other" and start concentrating on the virtue within yourself. And I pray the same things for everyone - and most of all for myself.
"Anti-Catholicism has a long and dishonorable history in the United States from the Protestant Know-Nothings of the 1850's to the, well, secularist Know-Nothings of 2007...it is deeply ingrained in America and the modern left has embraced the most crude examples of it."
Mark, why, in heaven's name, would you want to show the same intolerance towards others that you say has been shown to you? Most religions seem to make their followers more closed-minded, judgmental and less likely to accept fellow human beings for what they are. They feel that their religion is the only true one and all others must be on the wrong path. Why should this be? I just don't understand the hypocrisy that is embedded in religion, I don't get it.
CO,
Well, that would be a leftwing canard - that people of religion are narrow. In my view, it is the non-religious who have the narrow, cramped view of the world. If all you think there is is what you can see at the moment, then there's really nothing to see...and in the end, nothing at all. Much more broad-minded to believe in the life of the world to come.
As for holding a religion to be the most correct - what is wrong with that? You hold that a certain political ideology is more correct than others, does that make you ipso-facto closed minded?
Honestly you'd think that it was only catholics that experienced discrimination; what about Jews, Muslims, Gypsies and so on. Peple are allowed to believe that the Catholic Church is wrong. Why should Catholiscism not get slagged like other religions? Yes I am a protestant and I know about sectarianism I live in West Central Scotland where it is rife. Ever since I was wee there have been fights between Catholic and Protestant, it doesn't matter whether you actually care about religion or not you still get drawn in. my sister was jumped by 3 guys just for being protestant or so they assumed because we went to the 'non-denominational' school rather than the catholic one.
The IRA and UVF and so on are as bad as each other. You can not define protestants as know nothings any more than i could or would call catholics know nothings. Just because the practices of your faith and beliefs are not the same does not make one superior. This is why I do not like religion, it just causes more problems than it solves, Northern Ireland, Thailand, etc.
weefee:
Here ends your history lesson for today.
"Well, that would be a leftwing canard - that people of religion are narrow. In my view, it is the non-religious who have the narrow, cramped view of the world. If all you think there is is what you can see at the moment, then there's really nothing to see...and in the end, nothing at all. "
Mark, I have to ask you this - do you really think all people who do not believe in one particular faith are narrow-minded and think only of "what they can see at the moment?" If so, you are completely misguided. Just because someone is not a Christian or Catholic DOES NOT mean they are narrow-minded, and DOES NOT mean that they look ONLY at this world. I happen to feel that opening the door and listening to other's beliefs will broaden a person's world-view, AND their image of an afterlife. I might say that it is just as acceptable to me to believe that we were created from beings from another galaxy or Universe as you would believe we were created by God. BOTH or these views are equally imaginative, and both as possible as the other, seeing as we have no ACTUAL proof of either. But one thing in common with these theories is that NEITHER of them looks ONLY at Earth and our lives here.
Mark, beliefs are much more complicated than you try to make them. Just because someone is not a Christian does not make them inferior to you, or erroneous in their beliefs in some way. It also does not make them narrow-minded. I know of many athests who do not ridicule Christains for their beliefs. It is usually the Christians telling the atheists if they do not beieve in God they will go to Hell.
Mark, the world is NOT black and white - and you seem to always feel like there are atheists and Liberals out to get you. Stop the paranoid delusions and realize that we ALL are here and we ALL have to get along. Just because someone is not religious DOES NOT mean they are out to get you and persecuite you for you Catholic belief. Geez, take a look around you, man, there are good people of ALL faiths out there. Look more at them instead of your ridiculous "Liberals are responsible for the evil of the world and leftwing thinking is stupid" crap. Stop your attacks on Liberals and maybe they will stop their attacks on you. Maybe you should treat Liberals like Jesus Christ would, Mark, with love and compassion. Christ wouldn't judge a Liberal on their beliefs, or political faction, or their religion. He loved ALL people. Jesus Christ was neither a Republican or a Democrat. Maybe you should listen to the teachings of Christ more often and live by His example.
Thanks for that sounds interesting so I am gona look it up, however there was no need to be patronising as for obvious reasons I am unlikely to know much about American history other than the obvious. The same discrimination was faced in Scotland due to the legacy of John Knox who despised the pope and catholic church and also the time of the Jacobites.
It does not change the fact that all religions or people are discriminated against or at least believe that they are. Discrimination is not confined to one race,religion colour etc.
I know about religious hatred I live in an area notorious for it. Gangs fight because of it, IRA, UVF slogans are everywhere, the catholic and 'non-denominational schools have to end at different times to stop fighting and the police are always there when the schools come out.
Despite being brought up in a religious family, there are two ministers in it, I am agnostic. That is not to say that I discount or riducule others beliefs in fact I find them interesting and am open minded. If I go to hell for living my life in a decent way but not believing in God/Allah/Buddha then there is nothing I can do so why worry about it. I do believe in life after death I just don't know what its like, I see death as an adventure(Cheesy I know). We will all find out one day so might as well not worry about it.
weefee,
You are correct, and I apologise for that.
It is true that religious discrimination of all sorts is all too common in world history - but as regards purely American history, anti-Catholicism is standard. No real surprise as America was largely founded by Protestants at the time when Reformation and Counter-Reformation were both in full, bitter flower. Still, it is there and it is pervasive and it is wrong.
Robert,
It is true that I should show more love towards my liberal and leftwing opponents, and I do actually feel bad when I let my anger get the better of me...but this rank anti-Catholicism is, well, a bit provocative...and it also passes without comment among liberals and leftists who are all too quick to accuse we Catholics of being bigoted.
But you are also a bit unfair here - I didn't say that you had to adhere to my religious views to be broad minded - I'm saying that if you are of no religious background at all, then you have severely cramped your view of the world...of life, as it were.
I find it interesting that people put up anti-Catholic stuff a lot, despite the fact that nearly all (JFK's the only exception I can think of) of our country's leaders have been Protestant. I am left wing (as you know) and am not in the least anti-Catholic. In fact, I think JFK was a GREAT president. I do dislike Born Agains, but that's because they treat unbelievers as though they were sinners. There's also a holier-than-thou mindset that they kinda have. But they're Protestants, I think. Right?
ThELefTYFoOL
but as regards purely American history, anti-Catholicism is standard.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at April 21, 2007 04:53 PM
Even with all the hardship Catholics have had to endure in America, Mark, you were still able to put JFK in the Oval Office.
"The Socially Acceptable Bigotry: Anti-Catholicism". Yeah. I'd also expand that to the socially acceptable bigotry: anti-Christianity. It's pervasive. Christians are being murdered, tortured, raped and enslaved just because they are Christians-usually by Muslims. It's awful.
Here's Islam, doing it's violent and vile thing:
"MUSLIM: Militants blow up part of American school in Gaza"
From ReligionOfPeace.com:
"113 Dead as Islamic Militias Wage Jihad in Somalia..."
"Palestinian Leader Calls for America's Annihilation'..."
UK: 'Sex slave girl bought for £50'
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.1342386.0.restaurant_sex_slave_raped.php
I would agree with Freedom (again :p ) that it's more that it's perfectly fine to make fun of Christians. There's very little "public outcry" when Christians are made fun of, especially compaired to making fun of a Jew or a Muslim. About the only religion I can think of that if you make fun of it very few people react, would be Buddhism. *Shrugs*
Draw pictures of Mohammed or a random muslim and you get riots, heck a story about peeing on the Koran gets people to RIOT. Put a crucifix in a bottle of piss and it's art. The reaction levels are quite different.
Thank you, Gozer the Gozerian!
:)
CO says - " Most religions seem to make their followers more closed-minded, judgmental and less likely to accept fellow human beings for what they are."
CO, how many religions are there? And, what constitutes most?
Your statement says a lot about you, actually. What are you? A Global Warmingite?
You're quite welcome Freedom, but I'm Gozer the Carpathian. The Gozerian was my mom. ;)
CO, how many religions are there? And, what constitutes most?
Posted by: Kahn at April 21, 2007 08:34 PM
I can't tell you how many religions are practiced throughout the world, Kahn, perhaps there is one for everyday of the year, but I was referring to the major ones we all know. Most try to convert the non-believers to their faith because they feel that they, and only they, hold the keys to paradise, and with Islamic fanatics, it is with a lot more force. The one exception, could be Buddhism; it seems to be a peaceful, non-warring, accepting and showing respect for others type of religion.
"There's very little "public outcry" when Christians are made fun of, especially compaired to making fun of a Jew or a Muslim."
The "War on Christmas" is only 8 months away...
Gar Wood
The KKK and other rightwing groups hate(d) catholics. Even in 1960 catholic bigotry expressed itself against Kennedy. And like I said usually from the right. They also have historically hated the Jews. The Jews usually vote Democrat (87%) so if you hate Democrats you probably (87%) hate Jews
CO, I actually took a class called "Religion in the Human Experience". It was fascinating, and made me realize how ignorant I was. Unfortunately, virtually EVERYTHING said in the class was on the tests and it was actually a pretty tough class.
There are three monotheistic religions that all worship the same God. These are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Each has various splinters and sects. But the BIG religions are Hinduism and Buddhism generally regarded as a Hindu reform movement. There are sects within ALL of the above. For example, The Church of Latter Day Saints or the Mormons could be classified as a Christian religion.
There are many other religions. Some are animistic, meaning they assign spirits to inanimate objects like trees and rocks. I think some environmentalists follow a form of animism without realizing it. Obi Wan and Yoda have this kind of religion (think about it).
Why do people embrace religion? Good question. Billions of people past and present have, so there must be some draw. Raised Catholic, I went through a period of serious soul searching about 27-28 years ago. I looked at Christianity and I looked at Buddhism. To me, they were representative of the two diverging ways of looking at our place in the Universe. Christianity… life, spirit ever new. Each new life with a new spirit that joins the continuum and joins with God after death. Buddhism… life as a continuum. Individual spirits like drops of water that leave the river and rejoin it over and over. Actually more similar than many people realize.
Religion is a comfort. It’s a tool. It’s a way to help an individual make sense of the Universe. Christian nuns and brothers in deep prayer can enter a state almost exactly similar to the deepest meditation of Buddhist monks. They have described the state as ecstasy. Most people do not follow the teachings of any religion to the extent they reach this state. But some do.
The point of my post is, I guess that just as I was you are pretty damn ignorant of religion. Even if you don’t want to believe anything – you owe it to yourself to examine the truths and teachings of at least the big five. How was the Koran written? And by whom? Or more accurately, by what? Because Mohammed didn’t write it. He was only present as it was written. Do Jews believe in heaven and hell? What’s up with the Caste system in India? Really – read. Even if you are not religious, it is an extremely fascinating subject. And you ignorant and derisive statement still says more about you than it does religion. It says you’re ignorant. I do not mean this in a derisive sense. Maybe you should refrain from talking about things you know so little about.
Why don't we get back to topic, which was Tony Auth's despicable cartoon, OK? There's no question it was idiotic, is there? I mean, can't we all agree on that??? Indeed, it inspired me to write the following letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer today:
To the Editor,
Tony Auth's latest insult to the intelligence may be his most depraved ever. His tries to sell us the following ideas: (1) that our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation dedicated to the proposition that every woman has the right to suck her baby's brains out of its skull as it's on its way out of her womb; (2) only a Catholic would find that abhorent; and (3) there's something wrong with Catholics who feel that way.
Well, FYI, Tony Auth, lots of people -- Catholic and otherwise -- feel it's abhorent to allow a woman to suck her baby's brains out of its skull as it's on its way out of her womb. And FYI, there's absolutely nothing wrong with their feeling that way. If you feel otherwise, well, frankly, you're a sick individual.
Oh, and to the Inquirer -- please cancel my subscription effective immediately. What? You mean I canceled my subscription 2 years ago, in response to your editorialmercials in favor of our modern-day Benedict Arnold, John Kerry? Well, then, please subscribe me back, so I can cancel you all over again.
Sincerely,
JPL
If you want to give them a piece of your mind, too, here’s where to e-mail your letter:
Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com
"You're quite welcome Freedom, but I'm Gozer the Carpathian. The Gozerian was my mom. ;)"
Posted by: Gozer
I stand corrected. My humblest of apologies!
(Luv the name!)
:)
lefty fool,
They are Protestant - but they are also my brothers and sisters in Christ. They are no more judgemental than the next person, but they are called judgemental because they think some things liberals approve to be wrong. And we all know that the disagree with a liberal is to be quite heathenish...
The Jews usually vote Democrat (87%) so if you hate Democrats you probably (87%) hate Jews.
Strawman alert! Way to go, JR--this is akin to saying that 66% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the war, so 66% of Americans are anti-war. Moron.
Thailand, weefee? Thailand? What, pray tell, is the religious bigotry being practiced in Thailand? Hint: I'll bet Freedom1 can answer this...
I don't do this very often -- i.e., quoting scripture and thumping the Bible and all -- as I tend to be quiet about my faith. More to the point, I prefer to project it from the inside out rather than the other way around. Even more to the point, I try not to justify any of my actions, or my advocacy on any issue, or justify any of the things I say about them, on the basis of faith alone. My faith is my super-structure, but I try not to let it show. I try very hard to argue on the basis of the facts and logic alone, because, frankly, I believe that God is everywhere. Thus, if my faith is true, strong, accurate and consistent, I should be able to do that with Him at my back. I should not have to push Him out in front. If I have to do that, maybe I'm not seeing things right. Said in another way... to me, God IS the same as common sense -- whether or not anyone appreciates the convergence on whatever level. He created it all, so He should be -- you just have to look hard enough.
Anyway... a central tenet of my belief system is that faith illuminates, but it never in itself justifies. That tenet is itself illuminated by Jesus's words: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John, 18:36). I interpret that to mean that there is a distinction between the corporeal and the spiritual worlds, and that "moral action" means somewhat different things in different contexts.
With that in mind (and I will justify it further later), as I see it, Mark's (and others) recurring mistake is his/their insistence on convolving whatever concepts which he/they is/are against into the person or group that he/they attribute as largely responsible for the concept -- and holding the people responsible rather than the idea. In other words, Mark seems to be more intent to concentrate his attack against the individuals or group(s) that produced the anti-catholic cartoon rather than concentrating his attack against the idea of bigotry in general. To my mind, the first method of attack (i.e., against those responsible for the cartoon) serves to entrench those on either side and to incite them to do more battle, whereas the second method of attack (i.e., against bigotry) serves to transcend the battlelines and to (at least potentially) bring people together. Taking the two methods to extremes the difference ultimately becomes one of "holy war" versus "holiness". Obviously both are religiously motivated. But the first is a terrible thing, the second is a wonderful thing. And to my mind, the distinction is whether you find it necessary to push God out in front of you in the first in place, or if you are willing to rely on Him to watch your back in the second. To me, the latter is a far truer expression of faith than the former. In fact, I would say that if you have to do the former, you're not much more than a chicken-shit with an impromptu cross on your shield.
One central tenet of my own belief system is the concept of grace. Unfortunately I can't really explain the concept in words, because words always fall short of that I mean. But I guess the closest I can come is to say that grace is that which illuminates and actualizes faith. Faith without acts is nothing. In fact, it is pretty clear to me that it is the acts you perform that will be judged in the end, not so much the nature or content of your faith. That distinction is mentioned many times in the New Testament, but perhaps it is most clear in Jesus' own words, as quoted by Matthew (25:31-46):
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
"Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did to me.'
"Then he will say to those on his left, `Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do to one of the least of these, you did not do to me.'
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
The point is that in the preceding passage, Jesus established no pre-conditions on the basis of faith, but on the basis of the acts each individual performs. Certainly there are many other passages that stress the importance of faith, but equally clearly faith itself is not enough. Faith serves only as a guiding light, not an end in itself. It is what you do with your faith that is important. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is very similar in both content and meaning.
Mark, I pray for the day when you concentrate on your own inner light and dedicate yourself to making that light stronger, rather than concentrating on how well you reflect the darkness of others and/or your allegiance to those which who you feel more an ideological rather than a moral obligation. I pray that someday you will understand that you will ultimately stand alone, to be judged by the good works you yourself perform, not by how few others do. God doesn't grade on a curve. I pray that you will someday stop concentrating on the lack of virtue in "the other" and start concentrating on the virtue within yourself. And I pray the same things for everyone - and most of all for myself.
Errata: In my previous post I said, "God IS the same as common sense". What I meant to say is that God subsumes common sense. I believe that the former is much bigger than the latter, but that the latter is wholly subsumed within the former. Sorry.
It's not Catholics that Leftists hate - it's God, their Creator.
"They are Protestant - but they are also my brothers and sisters in Christ. They are no more judgemental than the next person, but they are called judgemental because they think some things liberals approve to be wrong. And we all know that the disagree with a liberal is to be quite heathenish..."
Sure, they're my brothers and sisters too (after all, we did evolve from a common ancestor), but that doesn't mean I can't dislike their ideals and what their religion teaches.
And, actually, we all DON'T know that the disagree with a liberal is to be quite heathenish...
Please explain.
ThELefTYFoOL
"Thailand, weefee? Thailand? What, pray tell, is the religious bigotry being practiced in Thailand? Hint: I'll bet Freedom1 can answer this..."
Posted by: keefer
A vicious and bloody Muslim jihad against Thai Buddhists.
It is true that religious discrimination of all sorts is all too common in world history - but as regards purely American history, anti-Catholicism is standard. No real surprise as America was largely founded by Protestants at the time when Reformation and Counter-Reformation were both in full, bitter flower. Still, it is there and it is pervasive and it is wrong.