Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-01-2011, 10:37 PM   #26
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
The study is still flawed by using one kind of Protestantism to speak for Protestants, and Weber also gave most of his attention to Calvinism as well. Which is odd overall given that Sweden and other Scandanavian countries have state Lutheran churches.

The Reformation destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. I wouldn't be surprised that Catholics would be more likely to agree with state intervention when their Church owns their own little city country and remembers the good old days when they ruled Europe. And even then Ashley isn't too wrong, the Vatican is very self conscious about PR; they were during the Reformation and introduced the Counter Reformation to assure people they had the people's interests in mind, and they did it again with Vatican II. Ratzinger was actually part of Vatican II which really explains why he backpedals on issues like condoms. Since ruling with an iron fist they've been careful to have an image of a loving, fatherly church.

Meanwhile, the term "Protestant" is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of religions, from insanely dogmatic denominations to incredibly liberal denominations. Its an issue of multivocality and dissent, not a strong sense of individualism inherent in every denomination. That wasn't really part of Weber's argument about Protestantism anyway, his argument was that ascetic Protestantism took control of everyday life and secular work was now valued, and this eventually led to capitalism, whereas with Catholicism secular life was a distraction from divinity and inferior to religious life. For example, under protestantism, family life become divine and the duty of a woman was to be a wife and mother, whereas under Catholicism being a nun was considered a better decision, being a wife was a mundane, secular choice. He also did not believe this was the sole cause of capitalism, but merely one of many causes.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2011, 10:41 PM   #27
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Motherfucker I was raised by WOLVES, and I'll tell you that had ZERO effect on me: I am currently chowing down on a deer carcass and howling at the moon because venison is delicious and the moon had it coming. I am an island An island of fur and teeth and those teeth are RED WHITE AND BLUE and don't run (except when chasing deer).

Now these wolves also vote Republican and attend Mass if you must know, but seriously, I don't doubt the veracity of the article, I just think it's silly.

I also don't doubt that Stern sees this as some indication of Catholic superiority, which is also rather idiotic, considering how much responsibility holy mother church bears for the current state of economic inequality in the world today.

TLDR: run on sentences are awesome.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2011, 11:15 PM   #28
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
The study is still flawed by using one kind of Protestantism to speak for Protestants, and Weber also gave most of his attention to Calvinism as well. Which is odd overall given that Sweden and other Scandanavian countries have state Lutheran churches.

The Reformation destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. I wouldn't be surprised that Catholics would be more likely to agree with state intervention when their Church owns their own little city country and remembers the good old days when they ruled Europe. And even then Ashley isn't too wrong, the Vatican is very self conscious about PR; they were during the Reformation and introduced the Counter Reformation to assure people they had the people's interests in mind, and they did it again with Vatican II. Ratzinger was actually part of Vatican II which really explains why he backpedals on issues like condoms. Since ruling with an iron fist they've been careful to have an image of a loving, fatherly church.

Meanwhile, the term "Protestant" is an umbrella term that covers a wide range of religions, from insanely dogmatic denominations to incredibly liberal denominations. Its an issue of multivocality and dissent, not a strong sense of individualism inherent in every denomination. That wasn't really part of Weber's argument about Protestantism anyway, his argument was that ascetic Protestantism took control of everyday life and secular work was now valued, and this eventually led to capitalism, whereas with Catholicism secular life was a distraction from divinity and inferior to religious life. For example, under protestantism, family life become divine and the duty of a woman was to be a wife and mother, whereas under Catholicism being a nun was considered a better decision, being a wife was a mundane, secular choice. He also did not believe this was the sole cause of capitalism, but merely one of many causes.
Not only do I not disagree with any of that, but I actually depend on those facts for my argument.
Yet we come up with different conclusions from it.
Let me ask you something.
Do you think I am somehow defending catholics over protestants? Do you believe these findings would imply so?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2011, 11:32 PM   #29
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
I think she just wants to defend progressive Canadian Christians.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2011, 11:49 PM   #30
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Not only do I not disagree with any of that, but I actually depend on those facts for my argument.
Yet we come up with different conclusions from it.
Let me ask you something.
Do you think I am somehow defending catholics over protestants?
No, I just think you and the article is being incredibly simplistic and relying on the assumption that one small denomination speaks for global Protestantism. I also protest "Protestants have a individualist mindset", given that at the very beginning, there were some Protestants who were individualistic, and some who oppressed those Protestants in the name of the nobility, such as in the Peasants' War, and was used to justify feudalism and nationalism and the slaughter of thousands of peasants who dared to use Protestantism as a tool for individualistic political empowerment instead of nationalistic patriotic obedience. Luther was pretty notorious for throwing peasants under the bus to protect the nobility he relied on. Protestants weren't any kinder than the Catholic overlords nor any different at first, and they were far more successful than the individualistic denominations. Its not just Sternn's superiority complex, the Reformation was an incredibly turbulent event that caused a lot of unintended effects and that shit alone is complicated and Weber had and has criticisms even when he was accommodating of how many different factors went into the rise of capitalism. Reducing an entire group of people's opinion because they belong to a group that is defined by what they aren't (Catholic) more than any unity, and were fractured when the movement started hundreds of years ago and only drifted further apart since, defining their mindset on a tiny denomination's opinion on economic state intervention is laughable at best.

Quote:
Do you believe these findings would imply so?
I believe the wording of the findings implies something that it didn't find, and given its mostly blogs reporting it and I can't find the actual survey anywhere, we have no clue what the actual findings are.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2011, 01:49 AM   #31
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Wow, it's pretty impressive to be mentioned a dozen times in a thread and blasted for views when I haven't even posted any yet.

I didn't conduct the study, nor did I publish the article. I just posted it here sure.

I think it is pretty simple actually. The Catholic Church teaches the idea of helping others and those who cannot help themselves on a level that you do not see in Protestant religions.

All Protestant religions in America for the most part stem from the small groups of Puritans who colonized the country. The same can be said for other countries. These groups introduced the Protestant Work Ethic, also known as the Puritan Work Ethic. At the time when they were living rough in harsh foreign territory they needed everyone pulling their weight just to survive. This mentality never dissipated in in fact morphed into much of what we see today.

The whole anti-socialism mentality can be traced back to the original colonists. They weren't being mean, they were trying to help the people there survive. It has however led to a mentality which has had detrimental effects since it's original introduction.

The proof of this still stands today where you have Protestant churches that preach socialism is bad. It all comes from a common background. Sure as it was pointed out this isn't ALL churches as the thing with Protestants is they are always breaking off and forming new sects based on what a few of them think. Some have adopted other ideas, but the reality is many still hold values which can be traced back to a common causality.

Anyone raised in either environment will inevitably have their belief system molded in some way around these ideas, no matter if they later continue to practice the religious side of these beliefs or not.

This can be seen also in more common daily life as well.

When I lived in Richmond there was a huge homeless population. One homeless guy was a mate of mine who I met that I occasionally went for a few drinks with. He also attended mass at the same church I did. He informed me of a few things I didn't know about being homeless in Richmond.

First, Protestant Churches out number Catholic ones like ten to one. There are only a handful in the area and only one in the downtown area. As far as homeless shelters the city ran a couple, but the best one was run by the local Catholic Church. He always had stories about how great it was in comparison and if I ever found myself caught out and having to live on the street, that I should go there. They had hot food and always were polite where as the city operated places had bologna sandwiches every day and the staff were always in a bad mood and never had time to listen to you, and that was if you were lucky enough to get in before they filled up. Then you had the Protestant churches in the area - they had no homeless shelters and on special occasions like Christmas or Thanksgiving you might be lucky if they walk around downtown and hand out a few turkey sandwiches, but that is about it. That was the best all of those groups with all of their members and the tithes they took in could afford the homeless in the city.

He never said it like that, but the message is still clear. Even though they were 1/10th the size in the community, the Catholic Church still went of out it's way to help the less fortunate while the larger Protestant community only made a small effort on special occasions. I should also point out the local Catholic Church was built in the 1800's and could only hold a few hundred people max, while the Protestant Churches in the area had basketball courts, youth centres, gyms, and a few even had studios inside so they could broadcast on the free cable channels.

I personally think it is quite telling when you see where a church of any sort puts the money it gets from it's members.

When asked the question feed the homeless, or build a new racquetball ball court for our church members, which one actually followed the path that Jesus would have chosen?

The religious aspect of this report seems to be an issue for some people, but the reality is you can ignore it and just look at the overwhelming results in society to see that some seem to practice what they preach a bit more than others, who seem to ignore the message they claim to themselves follow.

Looking back at their roots you can see why.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2011, 08:14 AM   #32
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternn
I personally think it is quite telling when you see where a church of any sort puts the money it gets from it's members.
Particularly when that money is used to move priests around in order to conceal that they're molesting altar boys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternn
When asked the question feed the homeless, or build a new racquetball ball court for our church members, which one actually followed the path that Jesus would have chosen?
ooh! I've got biblical precedent:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 26:6-13
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. "Why this waste?" they asked. "This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor." Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
Just sayin': Jesus probably would've gone with the racquetball center, so long as he got to use it before he got killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterrn
The religious aspect of this report seems to be an issue for some people, but the reality is you can ignore it and just look at the overwhelming results in society to see that some seem to practice what they preach a bit more than others, who seem to ignore the message they claim to themselves follow.

Looking back at their roots you can see why.
See? Right here is the problem Sterrn, the Catholics don't "practice what they preach" any more than protestants. The history of the Catholic church is one of ****, murder, torture, and authoritarianism. If being Catholic suddenly made you "practice what you preach" they would've done something during the holocaust besides step to the side and let Hitler round up and ethnically cleans a race of people they hated. If Catholicism were really about helping the downtrodden (and not using charity as a tool for expanding it's ministry) you wouldn't have Pope Sideous saying stuff like "Aids may be bad but condoms are worse" in the middle of a continent-wide health crisis.

Now, Protestants aren't much better mind you. But the point is, neither Protestants nor Catholics are overly concerned with the plight of the poor, they use service as a ministry tool, but they aren't nearly as interested in making life better for their fellow man today, as they are in saving souls and ensuring as many as possible a place in the next world. You can't even blame them for it, according to their magic zombie that's what's most important.

I mean, aren't you all about the IRA? When does that whole "Turn the other cheek" thing kick in then? Don't you, as a Catholic, practice what you preach?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2011, 08:58 AM   #33
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
No, I just think you and the article is being incredibly simplistic and relying on the assumption that one small denomination speaks for global Protestantism. I also protest "Protestants have a individualist mindset", given that at the very beginning, there were some Protestants who were individualistic, and some who oppressed those Protestants in the name of the nobility, such as in the Peasants' War, and was used to justify feudalism and nationalism and the slaughter of thousands of peasants who dared to use Protestantism as a tool for individualistic political empowerment instead of nationalistic patriotic obedience. Luther was pretty notorious for throwing peasants under the bus to protect the nobility he relied on. Protestants weren't any kinder than the Catholic overlords nor any different at first, and they were far more successful than the individualistic denominations. Its not just Sternn's superiority complex, the Reformation was an incredibly turbulent event that caused a lot of unintended effects and that shit alone is complicated and Weber had and has criticisms even when he was accommodating of how many different factors went into the rise of capitalism. Reducing an entire group of people's opinion because they belong to a group that is defined by what they aren't (Catholic) more than any unity, and were fractured when the movement started hundreds of years ago and only drifted further apart since, defining their mindset on a tiny denomination's opinion on economic state intervention is laughable at best.
You know, I give you a lot of shit Saya, but this is a really good post. My HILARIOUS antics aside, seriously, Kudos.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2011, 01:53 AM   #34
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
Particularly when that money is used to move priests around in order to conceal that they're molesting altar boys.

See? Right here is the problem Sterrn, the Catholics don't "practice what they preach" any more than protestants. The history of the Catholic church is one of ****, murder, torture, and authoritarianism. If being Catholic suddenly made you "practice what you preach" they would've done something during the holocaust besides step to the side and let Hitler round up and ethnically cleans a race of people they hated.
No one is saying there haven't been problems in the past, but the fact everyone knows about them and they are out in the open being addressed means it's time to move on. I might post a few threads about the antics of the American government, but you do not see me droning on about how Americans were slave owners and how Americans supported slavery? Do I ever mention blacks being lynched for dating white women or them being forced to sit at the back of the bus? The knife cuts both ways. If you want to drudge up the past which has been addressed and use it as a cudgel, one could say Americans in general have their own sorted history. I choose to look at the current state and argue the finer points of what is happening now, not revert back to decades or centuries ago and use those as my talking points for an argument.

Quote:
If Catholicism were really about helping the downtrodden (and not using charity as a tool for expanding it's ministry) you wouldn't have Pope Sideous saying stuff like "Aids may be bad but condoms are worse" in the middle of a continent-wide health crisis.
While there is truth to the fact they use this time to expand their ministry, you cannot ignore the fact they are helping many people in the process. Also, most Catholics today don't really listen to the whole birth control arguments any more and they are on their way out, much like the eating fish on Friday. We acknowledge it and officially if you ask a Priest they will say it is a rule, but most people have accepted this practice as a bit dated.

Quote:
Now, Protestants aren't much better mind you. But the point is, neither Protestants nor Catholics are overly concerned with the plight of the poor, they use service as a ministry tool, but they aren't nearly as interested in making life better for their fellow man today, as they are in saving souls and ensuring as many as possible a place in the next world. You can't even blame them for it, according to their magic zombie that's what's most important.
I would disagree. I have seen and experienced the concern you say doesn't exist first hand.

Quote:
I mean, aren't you all about the IRA? When does that whole "Turn the other cheek" thing kick in then? Don't you, as a Catholic, practice what you preach?
You do realise the IRA was stood down years ago and there have been no armed conflicts or killings in over a decade don't you? That being said the Founding Fathers in America were also of the Christian faith, yet they too took up arms to defend their freedom. Defending your family is not against any teachings in the Bible, but then again, you are going back decades trying to make an argument for something here that is more apples than oranges.

I think you are missing the main point of the study. Your references are towards the leadership in the Church. The followers for the most part are not to blame and many never saw any of the abuses or other atrocities which you outlined. It's not like every single church had a Priest who abused someone, there were some but in the grand scheme of things the multitudes were vastly unaffected and were raised with the the ideals and values which were intended. This in turn setup the mindset for their views on society.

Your obvious hatred towards religion in general seems to be clouding your ability to look at the sociological aspects of what this study has presented. It's not even about religion, it's about defining why some nations act in a certain manner while others take a different path and what makes it brilliant is that it follows right alongside the works of Weber and Marx.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 11:12 AM   #35
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn View Post
No one is saying there haven't been problems in the past, but the fact everyone knows about them and they are out in the open being addressed means it's time to move on. I might post a few threads about the antics of the American government, but you do not see me droning on about how Americans were slave owners and how Americans supported slavery? Do I ever mention blacks being lynched for dating white women or them being forced to sit at the back of the bus? The knife cuts both ways. If you want to drudge up the past which has been addressed and use it as a cudgel, one could say Americans in general have their own sorted history. I choose to look at the current state and argue the finer points of what is happening now, not revert back to decades or centuries ago and use those as my talking points for an argument.
The sex abuse scandals and the current condom-related insanity are contemporary, not even as far back as the 1960's they're happening right now. Right now, because of what the Pope said, aids is spreading in Africa and South America.

As far as the "old" crimes of holy mother church, while I agree that it's not always kosher to dreg up the past, there is a case for the argument that the only reason the church is NOT continuing to engage in it's horrifying campaign of authoritarian suppression, is that it has lost a great deal of it's power, and thus could not get away, with ordering the deaths and imprisonment of folks like Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins.

The American Civil Rights movement, on the other hand, happened at the height of our power (or a little bit after that power began to decline) It was a conscious choice that we as Americans chose, to turn our backs on racism and segregation. Similarly, the Civil war was a purely American struggle. We weren't compelled by outside factors to end the slave trade (though England almost entered into the war...on the side of the South)

Meanwhile, we have a name for the height of the power of the Catholic Church The Dark Ages.

But I digress lest this become a historical dick-waving contest. Lets just agree that everything and everyone sucks and stay on topic:

Quote:
While there is truth to the fact they use this time to expand their ministry, you cannot ignore the fact they are helping many people in the process.
Tell me Sternn, what's more important to a Christian, helping someone have a better life in this world, or saving their soul from eternal damnation?

Quote:
Also, most Catholics today don't really listen to the whole birth control arguments any more and they are on their way out, much like the eating fish on Friday. We acknowledge it and officially if you ask a Priest they will say it is a rule, but most people have accepted this practice as a bit dated.
1) Fish on Friday was officially done away with during Vatican 2 (Where have you been?) Condoms on the other hand, are actively opposed, by the current pope, and hundreds of thousands of people have died because of it.

2) "Most Catholics" (re: first world Catholics) don't listen to the condom rule, because they don't really believe that the pope knows what he's talking about. They don't really believe they'll go to hell/it's a sin to use protection.

This is not true for third-world, this is certainly not true for Africa, this is not true for anyone who really believes in the teachings of the Church and if you don't really believe in the teachings of the Church, then why the fuck are you a Catholic?

Quote:
I would disagree. I have seen and experienced the concern you say doesn't exist first hand.
I didn't say the concern doesn't exist, I said it's secondary (at best) to the mission of saving souls (ie: expanding the ministry). Again, what's more important, this world or the next?

You know what, you don't have to answer that. I'll let Jesus take this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 6:31-34
So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
First. Seek. His. Kingdom. and god will provide. It's all there in black and white, straight from your savior's lips. Expanding the church is more important than putting food in bellies and clothing on backs.

Quote:
You do realise the IRA was stood down years ago and there have been no armed conflicts or killings in over a decade don't you? That being said the Founding Fathers in America were also of the Christian faith, yet they too took up arms to defend their freedom. Defending your family is not against any teachings in the Bible, but then again, you are going back decades trying to make an argument for something here that is more apples than oranges.
Yes, the IRA officially stood down in 2005 (though they stopped blowing shit up in 1998) But you're still linking sites selling T-Shirts that say "Kill all Huns" How is that Christian?

The American founding fathers were Deists, basically the atheists of their day. Many of them (Thomas Jefferson especially) were outwardly hostile to the Church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest
The United States being founded as a Christian Nation is a myth perpetrated by the religious Right as an attempt to legitimize their quest for theocracy.

Quote:
I think you are missing the main point of the study. Your references are towards the leadership in the Church. The followers for the most part are not to blame and many never saw any of the abuses or other atrocities which you outlined.
The Pope directly commanded the celebration of Hitler's birthday up until his death. The former Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Francis Law not only knew about the r@ping of children by the clergy, but directly covered it up. He is an international fugitive, who fled the country just hours before he would have been arrested and currently, he's enjoying a comfortable position as a Cardinal in Rome, personally appointed by the Pope.

Quote:
It's not like every single church had a Priest who abused someone, there were some but in the grand scheme of things the multitudes were vastly unaffected and were raised with the the ideals and values which were intended. This in turn setup the mindset for their views on society.
Catholic sex abuse has taken place in nearly every country in the world. This is not an isolated thing, this is systematic child ra.pe and subsequent cover-up/enabling on a scale which has never been seen before, and hopefully never will be seen again.

And you're handwaving it because it didn't affect people?



Quote:
Your obvious hatred towards religion in general seems to be clouding your ability to look at the sociological aspects of what this study has presented. It's not even about religion, it's about defining why some nations act in a certain manner while others take a different path and what makes it brilliant is that it follows right alongside the works of Weber and Marx.
My hatred towards religion is anything but general. It is specifically targeted at Abrahamic Monotheism, as those are the religions most likely to subvert my politics, oppose scientific and medical advancement, indoctrinate and r@pe children on a mass-scale, and kill me or those I care about either in an explosion or a needless war designed to bring on Armageddon.

The other religions are silly, and I'll mock them, but until they start actively oppressing me, I don't give a crap.

As far as the sociological implications of this study go...well Saya already pointed out that it isn't all that accurate with regard to protestantism. A Anglican is vastly different, both in history and outlook from a Methodist, which is vastly different from a Calvinist of any stripe.

And removing the religious element from it you've only pointed out that people from different cultural background have different political outlooks.

Wow. That's positively RIVETING.

TL;DR The Catholic Church is not a force for good
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 11:50 AM   #36
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Oh! I forgot the Church's complicity and participation in the slaughter of 800,000 people in Rawanda (Africa's most Catholic Country) in 1994, where Tutsis would seek refuge in Catholic churches, and the Priests and Nuns would call the mob over and open the doors so that the Hutus could slaughter the "cockroaches" with machetes.

My bad. It's kinda hard to remember all this stuff, as there's SO so much of it.

But it's very nice to hear that Catholics are slightly more likely than protestants to favor progressive taxation.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 01:45 PM   #37
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
So apparently this thread has gone completely retarded in both sides and instead of it being about a sociological tendency it's a "catholics are better/worse"
Sternn, I gave you leeway because the study has nothing to do with catholic benevolence, just with politics and heremeneutics, but now whatever legitimacy my argument had is gone because you motherfucker took it over as just another excuse to flaunt your chauvinism.

I'm done with this thread, but I first have to correct two untrue facts in Desp's comment:
"The American Civil Rights movement, on the other hand, happened at the height of our power (or a little bit after that power began to decline) It was a conscious choice that we as Americans chose, to turn our backs on racism and segregation."
Bullshit. You're using a high school history class understanding of the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was largely unpopular even in the north and was only accepted and glorified in retrospective. Black people and progressive (almost always young) white people had to fight with teeth and nails for the movement to have legitimacy.

"Meanwhile, we have a name for the height of the power of the Catholic Church The Dark Ages."
You're over half a century late in knowledge of medieval history if you call it the "Dark Ages" in a derogatory manner.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 04:53 PM   #38
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
So apparently this thread has gone completely retarded in both sides and instead of it being about a sociological tendency it's a "catholics are better/worse"
Sternn, I gave you leeway because the study has nothing to do with catholic benevolence, just with politics and heremeneutics, but now whatever legitimacy my argument had is gone because you motherfucker took it over as just another excuse to flaunt your chauvinism.
Hey look, Alan said the same thing I said, just in a more elementary manner. Good for you Alan!

Quote:
I'm done with this thread, but I first have to correct two untrue facts in Desp's comment:
"The American Civil Rights movement, on the other hand, happened at the height of our power (or a little bit after that power began to decline) It was a conscious choice that we as Americans chose, to turn our backs on racism and segregation."
Bullshit. You're using a high school history class understanding of the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was largely unpopular even in the north and was only accepted and glorified in retrospective. Black people and progressive (almost always young) white people had to fight with teeth and nails for the movement to have legitimacy.
Uhhh, yeah. Duh. It was a struggle, but...they won. That's kind of the point. Unless you're saying they didn't win and we've just got legislation FORCING the majority of Americans who are racists to not be racist. Which you might have a case for, but the fact is, it is socially unacceptable to be outwardly racist in America today. Even conservatives are aware of that, which is why they work so hard to conceal it.

Quote:
"Meanwhile, we have a name for the height of the power of the Catholic Church The Dark Ages."
You're over half a century late in knowledge of medieval history if you call it the "Dark Ages" in a derogatory manner.
I'm sorry. I thought the "Dark Ages" or the "Age of Faith" or the plague ridden years of the healing prayer and sucked.

Please enlighten me, why should I not be referring to medieval times, the height of the Church's power, in a derogatory manner, everything that I've ever read about it, besides fantasy novels, indicates that it fucking sucked.

You Mad. Y u so mad?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 08:20 PM   #39
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
Hey look, Alan said the same thing I said, just in a more elementary manner. Good for you Alan!
You attacked even the study itself just because you didn't like how Sternn would interpret it.
It's NOT the same thing at all.



Quote:
Uhhh, yeah. Duh. It was a struggle, but...they won. That's kind of the point. Unless you're saying they didn't win and we've just got legislation FORCING the majority of Americans who are racists to not be racist. Which you might have a case for, but the fact is, it is socially unacceptable to be outwardly racist in America today. Even conservatives are aware of that, which is why they work so hard to conceal it.
You said that Americans consciously chose to move past racism and segregation.
Bullshit. It was never a "you know what, discrimination is so last tuesday."
People had to fight for decades and still have to fight against the remnants of both social and institutional discrimination.
"They won." Doesn't mean America did a conscious decision of being more progressive. That progress was fought for; not decided upon.


Quote:
I'm sorry. I thought the "Dark Ages" or the "Age of Faith" or the plague ridden years of the healing prayer and sucked.

Please enlighten me, why should I not be referring to medieval times, the height of the Church's power, in a derogatory manner, everything that I've ever read about it, besides fantasy novels, indicates that it fucking sucked.
The name the "Dark Ages" was a chauvinistic term imposed in the 18th century to a period in history devoid of Hellenic influence, as if the value of mankind ended with Rome and was only restored with the Renaissance's obsession with it.
Afterwards they tried to keep the name "Dark Ages" to denote how little we actually know about the time period but even that is obsolete with new knowledge.

No one since the 19th century takes the name "Dark Ages" seriously as an index that "it fucking sucked", except, you know, people who don't know much about the middle ages, which started 600 years before the height of the Church and 300 after the last crusade.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 01:21 AM   #40
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
@Alan

You are right, sorry about that. I was trying as you stated to debate the sociological aspect without intertwining the religious aspect but I didn't do it too well. But on a good note, at least you were able to follow my thought pattern with this one.

@Despanan

You are aruging a whole different point here. Are you actually saying that religion has no bearing on society? Your attacks on organised religion are a tangent from the main topic. The topic is how various religions, two specifically here help to shape the countries in which they are prevalent. Your going off topic trying to debate the finer points of why you are an atheist. You are discounting the beliefs and the outcomes of following those said beliefs in large swaths of society because for what can only be described as a personal bias. You have ignored the entire argument and the substance of the report and have replaced the conversation with a diatribe of why you hate Catholics and churches.

To ignore the fact people in certain regions are directly effected in certain ways by the church in their areas just because you hate the idea of organised religion is a very short-sighted and shallow view. If you cannot even bring yourself to admit some people have had positive effects of some sorts without interjecting your personal views of the leadership and scandals from years ago then you are the one missing out as you are internationally ignoring an important sociological perspective which amazingly enough follows the teachings and theories of some of the greatest progressive minds of our past.

Here is the subtext you seem to be missing...

The European Centre Bank did a study and found religion to be a major factor in which people support socialism and socialist ideals and found a correlation between Catholics and socialism and an equal co-factory correlation between Protestants and capitalism. These results are pretty brilliant because they run parallel to sociological studies done decades ago by Marx and Weber.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 02:37 AM   #41
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn View Post
Are you actually saying that religion has no bearing on society?
Listen very closely to this question, Despanan, because it is an important one. I have noticed more and more that, in the name of an imagined enlightened atheism, you claim at the same time that 1) Religion always has a negative effect on society and 2) Religion has no effect on society.

With the former you try to demonize religion, while in the latter you try to take away its power over the history of mankind.
You can't have both. If it has been bad it's because it has been influential, and if it has monopolized things like ethics and epistemology, then it has changed ethics and epistemology for the culture beyond its institutionalized body. Your own caricature of the 'Dark Ages' shows an implicit assumption that "I will only consider the effects of institutionalized religion in society and hermeneutics if I can show it's detrimental"
In your defense, AshleyO is the one that really takes it up to the 11 and blames other cultures for their religious values without realizing that our atheism is only a very specific type of western atheism that isn't perfectly translatable to other cultures, but you're approaching that very dangerously.

And remember that I am an atheist; even an antitheist, but I do not have to fall into equivocation to be against religion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 07:03 AM   #42
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
*facepalm*

Where have I claimed that religion has no effect on society? Please show me the post I made which claims this, because I believe I've said the opposite multiple times.

I started out making fun of this study, because I think beyond it's usefulness as pro-catholic propaganda, it doesn't really say anything that compelling, and as Saya pointed out, it's kinda a large stretch to apply European Calvinism as the cultural outlook of "Protestantism".

The fact of the matter is that religion has a net negative impact on society, and Catholicism moreso.

Look Jill, I get it. This study backs up the work of a philosopher you like, great. Guess what? NO ONE BESIDES ACADEMICS CARE. The general public won't read this and say "hmmm. I should look into Max Weber" they're going to say "Catholics = more charitable and progressive than Protestants" which, while that MAY be technically true, completely ignores the very salient fact that neither group is particularly charitable or progressive to begin with. I'm sorry Alan, no one gives a fuck about Max Weber. To the average reader he's merely a footnote, an unknown name which backs up the thesis of the article, nothing more. I wish things were different but that's a reality you have to deal with.

This is why I get on you for not understanding people. You shoud've known that this article was light on the philosophy when they, like pretty much everyone misquoted Marx. You should've picked up on the subtext of how this misquotation was used. You should've known that Sternn saw this as a chance to promote his Chauvinism from the start. Do you think he's honestly interested in philosophy? No. He's interested in promoting his little club and their astonishingly backward way of life and paying leftist lip-service. Nothing more.

I'm sorry dude, I don't find these findings interesting. In point of fact I find them blatantly, overwhelmingly obvious, and I find the way in which these blindingly obvious findings have been presented to be suspect. There is a real danger to allowing such inanities to be repeated unchallenged, not because of what they SAY, but what they connotate.

Plus, I'll take any opportunity to compare Christians to twi-hearts: atheism is my let issue after all.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 07:28 AM   #43
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
By the way, as there seems to be some confusion about my ability to acknowledge the "good" that religion does. I freely acknowledge that religion has done good things. I freely aknowledge that Catholics probably are more likely to back socialist-type policies than Calvinists. Just because I have stated my argument with force and verve and a level of caustic mockery does not mean I'm not objective about this shit. I will give credit where credit is due.

That said, Alan, you're harping on the fact that I used terms like "Dark ages" and "Made a decision" as if I am unaware of the intricacies of these eras and political struggles. Not only is this point a semantic one (and a silly one at that) it ignores the fact that I never intended to go into detail on them specifically because they were throwaway examples, in a rebuttal, to an argument which was largely a red-herring to begin with. There is no reason to go into greater detail about the intricacies of medeival culture, or the political landscape of the American sixties because they are not even tertiarily related to the argument at hand

Edit: That should say "pet issue" in the post above. Stupid smartphone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 11:11 AM   #44
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Sternn's concept of how religion developed into North America is so stupid and clearly pulled out of his ass I don't know where to begin.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 11:35 AM   #45
JCC
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,678
I find the article's findings and Weber pretty interesting, but obviously the idea of 'protestantism' is so totally vague that it's clear that the article is talking about something much more specific but ill-defined. I mean, protestantism includes the Levellers, Diggers and Quakers as much as it includes the Puritans, Methodists etc
JCC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 02:16 PM   #46
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post


In your defense, AshleyO is the one that really takes it up to the 11 and blames other cultures for their religious values without realizing that our atheism is only a very specific type of western atheism that isn't perfectly translatable to other cultures, but you're approaching that very dangerously.
You know, Alan. I don't get where you find this information. I'm unaware that I blame other cultures for their religious values. In fact, I'd be the FIRST to say I can't really make much of a call on this whole other culture/other religion stuff because I'm frankly NOT part of that culture and I'm not qualified to make any sort of judgement on it because of that. However, I am NOT an anthropologist. I lack those tools to have a fair discussion about that particular issue and the only thing I DO have is my western atheism.

Matter of fact... I don't even know where the hell you got this dirt on me. Is it because of that Chinese thread?
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 02:58 PM   #47
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Chinese thread, and the times you've handwaved when I've mentioned liberation theology as a legitimate form of Marxism.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 03:43 PM   #48
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Chinese thread, and the times you've handwaved when I've mentioned liberation theology as a legitimate form of Marxism.
Allow me to clarify that. I don't question the legitimacy of that brand of Marxism. I'm more than able to recognize that there's several flavors about it. It's that I have a very hard line distrust of magical thinking from Evangelicals wanting to spread Christianity by the sword (blatantly obvious as to why I don't trust that), to those that become Marxist BECAUSE of their spirituality or religion (a Marxism based on hearsay and magical thinking that ISN'T honest enough for my liking, but in a pinch is ENOUGH).

Actually, BECAUSE of my inherent bigotry against magical thinking, I tend to err more on the side of NOT speaking up about it anymore.

As far as the Chinese thread goes, I'm able to chalk that up to my terrible ignorance of the subject and had no business saying anything about it in the first place.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:17 PM.