Yeah, thats actually wrong, like objectively wrong, if you generalize to all religions. Certain sects and religious orgs are often on the forefront of progressive movements.
Even catholic churches organize for domestic issues like stopping capital punishment, aide for the homeless, and drug rehabilitation (vs incarceration)... not to mention fighting for more far reaching and dire global issues like ending sex trafficking and providing global disease immunization.
Even catholic churches organize for domestic issues like stopping capital punishment, aide for the homeless, and drug rehabilitation (vs incarceration)... not to mention fighting for more far reaching and dire global issues like ending sex trafficking and providing global disease immunization.
But that church could do all of those things without also opposing gay rights, sex education, abortion rights, and contraception.
If a serial killer saves a puppy, he's still a serial killer.
Oh, congratulations to the Roman Catholics for lagging about 50 years behind secular humanism on basic social issues that its chief prophet taught 2,000 years ago. Bravo. Very progressive. Now let's get the pope to move forward on century-old medical ethics issues like reproductive rights.
Oh, congratulations to the Roman Catholics for lagging about 50 years behind secular humanism on basic social issues that its chief prophet taught 2,000 years ago. Bravo. Very progressive. Now let's get the pope to move forward on century-old medical ethics issues like reproductive rights.
Look, I'm one to rag on the church too, but for an organization that old and stodgy to actually shift their stance on anything is an accomplishment.
It's progress. It's not as much as we want, but it's happening. We have to keep the pressure on to keep them moving, but you won't make any friends by simultaneously disregarding the progress they have made.
So they're puppy-saving serial killers. Apply all descriptors appropriately.
Yeah, thats actually wrong, like objectively wrong, if you generalize to all religions. Certain sects and religious orgs are often on the forefront of progressive movements.
Oh, congratulations to the Roman Catholics for lagging about 50 years behind secular humanism on basic social issues that its chief prophet taught 2,000 years ago. Bravo. Very progressive.
Considering the catholics used to use missionaries to forcefully convert other cultures, you're right, it is very progressive... and would seem to go against their long standing, less-than-humanist doctrine. Quick wikipedia search tells me the US Catholic church, taken as a singular entity (the CRS), provides humanitarian aid to about 130 million people.
Thats probably more than most 'secular' organizations, save of course for the Red Cross. This is an enormous shift towards progressivism (and an important ability to actually be swayed by a change in society), which unfortunately no, has not seen emergence into more first-worldy domestic issues.
That sucks shit, but religious orgs like this are surely not wholly regressive entities, and their ability to stay organized and provide global aid on such a massive scale is amazingly significant, ESPECIALLY in a world where there is a freakin massive gap between first-world and third-world social issues. The catholic church does stuff like fight literal slavery, which is such a ridiculously regressive concept that it's not even on American moral radar any more, save for historical context.
But that church could do all of those things without also opposing gay rights, sex education, abortion rights, and contraception.
If a serial killer saves a puppy, he's still a serial killer.
Yes, and he's also a puppy saver. A single entity or individual can of course be a couple of different things at a time. There's no reason everything has to be easily wrappable into generalized, polarizing structures. Religion as a big generalized being is both regressive and progressive simultaneously.
Some sects pursue wholly progressive ends, and some really fucked up ones are totally regressive weirdos. I just think its super weird to completely "otherize" religious organizations with regards to progressiveness when they can actually be useful for such ends.
Hell, that's even a kind of regressive stance to take in itself, as it furthers falsely dichotomous social structures that were actually first instituted by ancient, regressive, religious entities.. like the necessary delineation of non-secular and secular being first posited as the difference between the holy church and the evil pagan.
I'll change my mind when the Catholic Church's official position on condoms is changed. Your progressive humanitarianism argument rings hollow when they still actively oppose any meaningful steps towards preventing HIV/AIDS.
I would argue that it's a fairly modern practice when one considers the whole scope of human history. It's progressive in that sense.
Again, if you assume Jesus was real, it's not progressive to fall in line with 2,000-year-old teachings. Just like agreeing to no longer murder and torture for political power is not progressive.
If a serial killer saves a puppy, he's still a serial killer.
And he still saved a puppy.
Yeap. Done a good deed.
But I wouldn't support him in his general endeavors.
I would like to support the good things the person did and condemn the bad things they did, not really any different from anyone else. Is he a net-bad person? Probably. But I don't really feel like we have to measure peoples "net" so-much. It gets more messy when you have to treat a single set of actions and the intent of those actions for both their good and their bad obviously, as real shit gets complicated... afterall... ethics... but...
We're talking about an incredibly broad religious organization like an individual in this analogy. There's a problem there. At some point, everyone that was involved in the crusades died. And their children died. And their children's children died. If the people in the organization did some genuine good today, I'm not going to cry out "but the crusades!"
Further you've got various different sub-groups under these umbrella's. And specific individuals (motivated by the religion) that do good or bad things.
I'm of the opinion that if a persons religion motivates them to do something I can genuinely commend, then I can commend that persons religion for a portion of that. You can attempt to diagnose whether the religion is a net good or a net bad, but I feel you have to support the good in a thing where you can.
And obviously there are very gray individual issues and problems. Shit gets complicated, fast. But that's life.
I'm of the opinion that if a persons religion motivates them to do something I can genuinely commend, then I can commend that persons religion for a portion of that. You can attempt to diagnose whether the religion is a net good or a net bad, but I feel you have to support the good in a thing where you can.
And obviously there are very gray individual issues and problems. Shit gets complicated, fast. But that's life.
Yeah absolutely! Thats why I think the truly messed up thing is how conservative politicians (the truly regressive rhetorical force) focus on exploiting the polarizing, controversial issues regarding religion... and posit everything as a black and white kind of thing. Shit, most christians who just go to church once a week probably hear more religious doctrine as told by the convservative leaders and media than they do their local priest.
I would argue that it's a fairly modern practice when one considers the whole scope of human history. It's progressive in that sense.
Again, if you assume Jesus was real, it's not progressive to fall in line with 2,000-year-old teachings. Just like agreeing to no longer murder and torture for political power is not progressive.
Well, actually, it is progressive to fall in line with 2,000 year old teachings, because it's taken that long to get here. The church makes very slow progress.
The teachings might be 2000 years old, but remember how most people were illiterate until, I dunno, the 15th century or so - and even then, it was only the wealthy or the clergy that were literate? The church was introducing these concepts via oral tradition to a populace that was struggling to survive for most of its history. And even then, the majority of the populace couldn't afford books until the mid-1800's. That's when people could actually start communicating with each other of their own accord, rather than through the medium of the church.
So it's taken a long time for people to actually be able to consider the philosophical implications of the church's stance on various topics. That's why progress is so slow - the church hasn't needed to respond to the world for most of its existence. The advent of literacy really gave people the tools they needed to question the necessity of the church, and that situation has forced the church to actually adapt to society to the extent that it has.
I'll change my mind when the Catholic Church's official position on condoms is changed. Your progressive humanitarianism argument rings hollow when they still actively oppose any meaningful steps towards preventing HIV/AIDS.
Pete, I see what you're saying, but that's a really disingenuous application of "progressive." It's akin to saying that the KKK is progressive because they're fighting for change too.
Pete, I see what you're saying, but that's a really disingenuous application of "progressive." It's akin to saying that the KKK is progressive because they're fighting for change too.
Sure, but the point there is that the church DOES contain progressive elements - as well as regressive elements. You can't just paint them with a single brush. Instead, call out the regressive elements for what they are and demand change while simultaneously acknowledging the progressive elements. Then you tell them 1) what needs to be changed and 2) into what form it should change.
But how can a religious system/organization change without repudiating its previous beliefs? Is X now not a sin? Says who? "God?"
Because the Pope is infallible. A-duh. Whatever he says comes directly from God.
When you just make shit up anyway, changing the made up shit with a contrivance that allows it to be internally consistent is trivial. And this isn't exactly the sort of organization that promotes lots of rigorous logical inquiry of its belief system.
But how can a religious system/organization change without repudiating its previous beliefs? Is X now not a sin? Says who? "God?"
The church.. or its leaders, I guess! Religion is interestingly enough not as stubborn as reactionary atheism likes to say it is. Most religions understand themselves as an organization that interperets a religious text, so it's not impossible to change by any means.. tho it is of course much more difficult than most thinking bodies that don't adhere to faith based principles. But still, the wacko sects that take everything literally are the vast minority. Fundamentalism is the exception, not the rule.
e: Yeah, catholicism itself is also historically much slower to change because of the centralized authority of the Pope, and their whole hierarchy crapola... but even then they're not really like evangelicals, who probably are literally incapable of changing any beliefs thanks to reading literally.
Ah, but they have an older rule that says the Pope is infallible, therefore it was right in the eyes of God (which is the only kind of right the church cares about) until the moment it was changed.
But to change the rules means to say that the faith was wrong up to that point.
Not true, one could simply say the human understanding of God's word was wrong.
The infallible part from the bible doesn't say pope is always right, it simply says that the laws created on earth will also be binding in heaven. Laws can be changed on earth and the corresponding law in heaven will also change.
Ah, but they have an older rule that says the Pope is infallible, therefore it was right in the eyes of God (which is the only kind of right the church cares about) until the moment it was changed.
This. God has demonstrably changed his mind, or at least changed what he was telling people to do, several times in the Bible. To do the same now would not be inconsistent with the faith.
The infallible part from the bible doesn't say pope is always right, it simply says that the laws created on earth will also be binding in heaven. Laws can be changed on earth and the corresponding law in heaven will also change.
Well, actually, papal infallibility includes the ability of the pope to make dogmatic statements with no other origin. He is not universally infallible; rather, he can specifically issue a proclamation or teaching while invoking papal infallibility.
It's basically the power to issue a decree that is accepted as dogmatic by all Catholics. The pope has this ability because of his divine connection to God.
So yes, they can change the rules. However they see fit, whenever they see fit.
EDIT: And it's not of biblical origin specifically. The Catholic church is not an organization of biblical literalism - this is an important thing to remember. Their teachings are based on the bible and the writings of theologians. So it's been an interpretive organization since its inception.
Comments
If a serial killer saves a puppy, he's still a serial killer.
It's progress. It's not as much as we want, but it's happening. We have to keep the pressure on to keep them moving, but you won't make any friends by simultaneously disregarding the progress they have made.
So they're puppy-saving serial killers. Apply all descriptors appropriately.
But I wouldn't support him in his general endeavors.
Thats probably more than most 'secular' organizations, save of course for the Red Cross. This is an enormous shift towards progressivism (and an important ability to actually be swayed by a change in society), which unfortunately no, has not seen emergence into more first-worldy domestic issues.
That sucks shit, but religious orgs like this are surely not wholly regressive entities, and their ability to stay organized and provide global aid on such a massive scale is amazingly significant, ESPECIALLY in a world where there is a freakin massive gap between first-world and third-world social issues. The catholic church does stuff like fight literal slavery, which is such a ridiculously regressive concept that it's not even on American moral radar any more, save for historical context. Yes, and he's also a puppy saver. A single entity or individual can of course be a couple of different things at a time. There's no reason everything has to be easily wrappable into generalized, polarizing structures. Religion as a big generalized being is both regressive and progressive simultaneously.
Some sects pursue wholly progressive ends, and some really fucked up ones are totally regressive weirdos. I just think its super weird to completely "otherize" religious organizations with regards to progressiveness when they can actually be useful for such ends.
Hell, that's even a kind of regressive stance to take in itself, as it furthers falsely dichotomous social structures that were actually first instituted by ancient, regressive, religious entities.. like the necessary delineation of non-secular and secular being first posited as the difference between the holy church and the evil pagan.
We're talking about an incredibly broad religious organization like an individual in this analogy. There's a problem there. At some point, everyone that was involved in the crusades died. And their children died. And their children's children died. If the people in the organization did some genuine good today, I'm not going to cry out "but the crusades!"
Further you've got various different sub-groups under these umbrella's. And specific individuals (motivated by the religion) that do good or bad things.
I'm of the opinion that if a persons religion motivates them to do something I can genuinely commend, then I can commend that persons religion for a portion of that. You can attempt to diagnose whether the religion is a net good or a net bad, but I feel you have to support the good in a thing where you can.
And obviously there are very gray individual issues and problems. Shit gets complicated, fast. But that's life.
The teachings might be 2000 years old, but remember how most people were illiterate until, I dunno, the 15th century or so - and even then, it was only the wealthy or the clergy that were literate? The church was introducing these concepts via oral tradition to a populace that was struggling to survive for most of its history. And even then, the majority of the populace couldn't afford books until the mid-1800's. That's when people could actually start communicating with each other of their own accord, rather than through the medium of the church.
So it's taken a long time for people to actually be able to consider the philosophical implications of the church's stance on various topics. That's why progress is so slow - the church hasn't needed to respond to the world for most of its existence. The advent of literacy really gave people the tools they needed to question the necessity of the church, and that situation has forced the church to actually adapt to society to the extent that it has.
When you just make shit up anyway, changing the made up shit with a contrivance that allows it to be internally consistent is trivial. And this isn't exactly the sort of organization that promotes lots of rigorous logical inquiry of its belief system.
e: Yeah, catholicism itself is also historically much slower to change because of the centralized authority of the Pope, and their whole hierarchy crapola... but even then they're not really like evangelicals, who probably are literally incapable of changing any beliefs thanks to reading literally.
The infallible part from the bible doesn't say pope is always right, it simply says that the laws created on earth will also be binding in heaven. Laws can be changed on earth and the corresponding law in heaven will also change.
See, they've got their bases covered. See, this I can get behind.
It's basically the power to issue a decree that is accepted as dogmatic by all Catholics. The pope has this ability because of his divine connection to God.
So yes, they can change the rules. However they see fit, whenever they see fit.
EDIT: And it's not of biblical origin specifically. The Catholic church is not an organization of biblical literalism - this is an important thing to remember. Their teachings are based on the bible and the writings of theologians. So it's been an interpretive organization since its inception.