Pope Warns of the Dangers of Progressivism

[Symmetry]

All dogmatists are freaks.

A troll too far.

[BigBallinStalin]

All dogmatists are freaks.

A troll too far.

Wasn't Michael Caine rather smashing in that film?

[thegreekdog]

Impossible to have thought control legislation yes, but not impossible to weed out of a reasoned argument:

Why do you oppose abortion?
Because the Bible/my preacher says foetuses have souls.
XXXBEEPXXX Invalid Argument

Why do you oppose abortion?
Because I think it's murder.
XXXDINGXXX Valid argument (so far, still plenty of time for follow-up questions and counter-arguments / cross examination)

Anyone standing up in a political arena and making any appeal to a religious basis for any legislation should be immediately and permanently barred from any public office imo. Either a case is good enough to stand up on objective, reasoned grounds, or it's not.

The logical nature of religious peoples' arguments stem from #2. They can say "I think abortion is murder" and then say "that's why I oppose abortion" without involving religion in the second part (just the first).

That's why I said "plenty of time for follow-ups". So then we ask "what is murder" and we get something close to "the taking of a human life". So then we need to define what a human life is. There are early developmental stages where a single embryonic cluster (not sure of the correct scientific term for that) could still split into multiple feotuses. There could also easily be defects within that cluster that would mean that it will never reach term, and so to remove it from the womb would not in any way prevent it growing into a human being. With advanced enough scanning technology or DNA sampling there is no technical reason why we can't eventually scan earlier and earlier and for more and more information. But for now we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Where do we draw that line and why?

If all of these questions are answered by rationality and reason as best we know how then there's no problem because the debate will end up with our best understanding given our current knowledge. If someone has to go to a religious argument then they abandon any foundation to their argument and declare the equivalent of "I'm right you're wrong and nothing anyone can say will ever change my opinion" and worse, they prevent or attempt to prevent the debate being conducted with both honesty and integrity (because they have to sacrifice one or the other to make a baseless claim to knowledge).

I couldn't agree with you more.

[mrswdk]

Great! Let's abandon this blind adherence to religion and revel in another ridiculous moral code instead.

[Dukasaur]

You all can follow me if you want. I'm pretty cool.

Or, you can follow His Divine Holiness, Chewbacca, though I am not sure how many adherents there still are for this religion.


--Andy

This is an example of a church in Decline. A thousand years from now Chewbacca will be on the dung-heap of has-been failed gods, just like HUN-BATZ and HUN-CHOEN, the monkey brothers of the defunct Mayan pantheon.

[AndyDufresne]

This is an example of a church in Decline. A thousand years from now Chewbacca will be on the dung-heap of has-been failed gods, just like HUN-BATZ and HUN-CHOEN, the monkey brothers of the defunct Mayan pantheon.

In your last moments on Earth however, you'll be lookin' up at the big Kashyyyk in sky, and you'll wish you wouldn't have said such vile things?!!!?


--Andy

[khazalid]

and that you hadn't let andy force his 'homosexuality' down your throat

[Dukasaur]

Are you speaking from experience, or is this more of an allegorical prophecy?

[Frigidus]

Great! Let's abandon this blind adherence to religion and revel in another ridiculous moral code instead.

I hate to say it dude, but if you seriously have a problem with two guys having consensual sex in the privacy of their homes you're a fucking moron. There really isn't any wiggle room on this one.

[BigBallinStalin]

Great! Let's abandon this blind adherence to religion and revel in another ridiculous moral code instead.

I hate to say it dude, but if you seriously have a problem with two guys having consensual sex in the privacy of their homes you're a fucking moron. There really isn't any wiggle room on this one.

or a troll

[Phatscotty]

[mrswdk]

Great! Let's abandon this blind adherence to religion and revel in another ridiculous moral code instead.

I hate to say it dude, but if you seriously have a problem with two guys having consensual sex in the privacy of their homes you're a fucking moron. There really isn't any wiggle room on this one.

At no point have I said I have a problem with people being gay, ya 'fucking moron'.

[mrswdk]

To make it clear, my comment about 'moral code' was in response to tgd's post.

[thegreekdog]

To make it clear, my comment about 'moral code' was in response to tgd's post.

The pope's point is that we (Catholics) have other things to worry about. And I think he's right (and have always thought same).

[mrswdk]

Than abortion?

[thegreekdog]

Than abortion?

Yes. A rather significant criticism of the church (and, frankly, a criticism of a lot of people) is to get your own shit together before you go around yelling at other folks. I think Pope Francis is talking about the pedophilia issues with the church to a certain extent, but he's focused on the spirtual well-being of Catholics generally as well. That's sort of my view (with a liberal sprinkling of "live and let live" which I can only attribute to something other than religion).

[mrswdk]

I still think it's bogus to say that religious principles should not be allowed to influence policy but principles not explicitly based in religion* are fine bases for government action.


*I mean, really, why do you think it's wrong to kill?

[thegreekdog]

I still think it's bogus to say that religious principles should not be allowed to influence policy but principles not explicitly based in religion* are fine bases for government action.


*I mean, really, why do you think it's wrong to kill?

Some people (e.g. athiests, agnostics) can differentiate between the moral and the religious. I like to think that most atheists and agnostics who hear something like "a fetus is viable at 3 months" would be supportive of limiting legal abortions to prior than 3 months (and making illegal abortions after 3 months). And that's where we get a lot of current conflict. People who hung their hat on "Fetus is not viable" are now backing away from that interpretation and relying on "but, but, Roe v. Wade and it's our body" type arguments where science has advanced such that very young fetuses can live outside the womb.

Theoretically though (i.e. ignoring the realities of policy), if one passes a law outlawing abortions and one looks at the legislative history and sees something like "Senator Smith voted in favor of the law because he is Catholic," that's a huge problem for me. It's a clear violation of the separate of church and state.

[crispybits]

Maybe because I don't want to live in a society where someone is allowed to choose to kill me - the law acts as a major deterrent for that (and it's not 100% successful, but then no law is)

You can base "do not kill" off one of the 10 commandments fine, but to make it a law you have to be able to justify in terms that everyone in the society accepts are valid why it's a good idea. If you can't justify in terms acceptable to everyone why a given policy is a good idea then you shouldn't be allowed to enforce it either. The fact there are non-believers and adherents of alternatives faiths in this society means that religious arguments based on any religion (not just christianity) are not valid - or you're opening the door for the muslims to demand shariah law, the hindus and buddhists etc to demand their own codes, etc etc. You cannot deny them the ability to influence policy based on their religions if you do so with your own. THAT is the true strength of the whateverth amendment that the creatards keep trying to twist out of shape, it keeps all the nutjobs of all varieties from demanding stupid things because their magic book says so.

[PLAYER57832]

Pope Francis had a stark warning for those who listened to his latest homily at St. Martha’s House, about the dangers of today’s rising secularism: Don’t fall into the pit of progressivism, which puts the emphasis on the collective instead of on the spirit of the individual.

Specifically, the pope spoke against “adolescent progressivism,” Vatican Radio reported. He said that those who were tempted to fall in line with such popular, worldly beliefs should resist and overcome. Hold on to faith, he said, and don’t take the bite of the “progressive” apple – a label he defined as a cultural and political move toward a single-minded purpose that may not bring benefits for all.

“The spirit of worldliness also exists today, today also brings us this desire to be progressive, following a single thought,” the pontiff said.

He advised believers to sidestep the “spirit of the word that negotiates everything.” In other words, some things are absolutes, he suggested. The pope also counseled followers of the faith to stand fast on principle, and avoid compromising on values, just to be accepted by the world.

“And this is a contradiction — we do not negotiate values, but faithfulness. And this is the fruit of the devil, the prince of this world, who leads us forward with the spirit of worldliness.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z2lFFomq2l

I think you SERIOUSLY missed some things. This Pope is not a huge proponent of western style materialistic capitalism.

He is also not a proponent of judgementalism,including the idea that people's wealth is somehow a reflection of their spirituality.

[mrswdk]

to make it a law you have to be able to justify in terms that everyone in the society accepts are valid why it's a good idea

So Obamacare should never have passed through Congress then? What about government legislation preventing under 21s from drinking alcohol, prohibiting most recreational drug use or the law in Florida that lets you shoot almost anyone you feel like if they come onto your property without permission?

Do you have a problem with religious people voting in a way that fits with their religious beliefs (e.g. refusing to vote for a pro-capital punishment politician because executions clash with their beliefs)?

[crispybits]

I'll try a different way to phrase it because you're still not getting it.

There's a difference between accepting the form of the argument as valid but disagreeing on the conclusion, and not accepting the form of the argument as valid at all.

I can hear a secular argument for ObamaCare, and I can disagree and point out flaws X Y and Z with the argument. The pro-OC people can then come back with counter-arguments why my objections are flawed, or modify OC in such a way as to get round those objections. This can continue until a sort of equilibrium is reached (and not everyone may be happy with that, but that's where the voter power comes into play, the voters give politicans majorities to decide who has the ultimate power to veto or force something through). The debate is open to all and the method forces compromises and workarounds to improve whatever the government is doing or they will get less votes next time round and lose power.

I can hear a religious argument for just about anything and there's nothing I can say except "pfft God doesn't exist". And all that can be said in return is "Yes he does!" That's not a debate, there's no way to find compromises or to find workarounds to improve the proposed legislation. It also says precisely nothing to anyone who believes in a different religion or does not believe at all. If you tell me "God likes X" then that has precisely the same power of justification of X as you saying "Santa likes X" or "The tooth fairy likes X". Would YOU vote for something if a politican told you the easter bunny approved of this legislation?

I have no problem with religious people voting in a way that fits their religious beliefs, that's a totally separate issue (actually I do have an issue with those peple, but it's not an issue that can be addressed via the democratic systems and so not relevant within this context). I have a problem with the politicians making votes an explicitly religious issue. It's lazy, it forbids compromise, and in a way it's downright cheating the system.

[mrswdk]

Supply and demand. America is full of godbods and the politicians recognise this. If you don't like your politicians being influenced by religious ideals then move to a country that isn't full of fundamentalists.

Lots of the arguments relating to policy follow the same logic of right and wrong that religious people subscribe to. What's wrong with decriminalising drugs? What's wrong with allowing 16 or 17 year-olds to engage in coitus with one another? "Drugs are bad!!!!", "Grrr, pedo!!!"

[crispybits]

Yeah OK, people use one line criticisms of things to validate legislation against those things....

There's no medical evidence at all that long term drug abuse (including caffeine, nicotine or alcohol) causes health issues. There's no evidence at all that allowing younger people to have sex causes other problems for them in the context of their future lives. Nope none at all, it's all just people saying "drugs are bad" or "grrr pedo" and leaving it at that....

Now, in the same way as we can point to hundreds of studies done in many different countries and cultures by many different scientists, that show by some majority that drug abuse (including long term use within reasonable limits of legal drugs like alcohol) causes health issues, descibe where the backup to the statement "The Bible says this is wrong" comes from (without being circular). If you can't, then THERE is the problem with using any religious claim as justification for legislation.

[mrswdk]

If health concerns are the reason then why are alcohol and tobacco legal? They are more harmful than most of the currently illegal drugs. Why did alcohol prohibition end in America and yet other drugs remained prohibited?
What problems do people who sex at the age of 16 or 17 have in their later lives? What a ridiculous assertion.

My point is that the main lobby against drugs, sex and all these other things is based on moral revulsion. I don't see why this kind of moralising is okay but religious moralising is treated with 'stupid godfags you so dumb gtfo!!!'. I'll get the references for this next part later if you like but right now I cba. A Dutch (I think) researcher once did a piece on young boys (12/13yo) who have consensual sexual relationships with much older men. The people he spoke to were all fine and the relationships were, far from harming the boys, actually good for them. He was, however, widely denounced by a bunch of conservative critics who made a series of patently false criticisms to try and undermine his credibility. The point is that they rounded on him purely because they found his conclusions distasteful, rather than out of any genuine academic concern.