Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Thomas, Apr 10, 2018.
Ok. How does this work out in the context of the catholic pope's address?
I think it may be clearer not to think here of Catholics or Christians, but of children forced into violence and murder by Boko Haram in Nigeria, or other violent sects in lawless countries. There's little personal choice involved, after a while -- if someone hopes to preserve his own head on his shoulders.
So, Pope Francis is, I believe, mostly addressing the leaders and shakers of these murderous religious sects, to persuade their followers not to use their scriptures to encourage violence and murder, etc.
But of course there's zero chance they'll listen to what the Christian Pope has to tell them, imo.
No need to point at the heathens in Africa.
Spain is still struggling with the consequences of Franco's dictatorship, which drew (and its supporters continue to draw) heavily on the catholic church for its legitimacy.
The Croatian fascists also strongly identify as catholic, and they are alive and ... um ... kicking...
Both basically on the Vaticans doorstep.
I want to apologize for my tone. I got too personally entangled in this argument.
My observation about the Pope having plenty to deal with in his own religion still stands.
Well, I'm not that familiar with either situation. But as far as I know Croat Muslims are not persecuted by Catholics. It's the Serbs who are persecuted.
And although the Spanish and Italian facists may be mostly Catholic, as are most Spaniards and Italians, fascism is not essentially a religious movement. Most Germans are Lutheran and Germany was the home of fascism.
So if you're saying there are Catholics who behave badly, of course that's true. But it's nationalism, there's no Catholic jihad religious war mentality?
So say, a German Catholic fascist citing their concern for "Western Christian values" to justify their fascist activism, is not a challenge to peaceful Catholics, but rather it is a challenge to peaceful Germans, is what I understand you to be saying here.
And I understand the pope to be saying that he is bothered by this regardless of nationality, and by addressing powerful Catholic clergymen, I assume he does not think Catholics should be unperturbed by it.
A thousand years ago, a pope did indeed instigate religiously motivated and justified warfare, lasting centuries, and which even spilled over to the new world. Now the pope calls for an end to this kind of thing. I like this development!
I'm saying not many Christians use their scripture to justify violence and murder against those who aren't Christians. Not in the 21st Century.
EDIT: I doubt these new facists own any scripture.
Oral tradition then?
Anyway, I think we've each said what we have to say regarding this. In the next round we would maybe critique our respective argument styles and rhetorical figures, but I'm not too fond of that. Thanks for the candid words!
The problem is how do those true to the spirit of the tradition deal with those who live by the letter?
Meet fire with fire? It's a Catch-22 isn't it?
Islam, for example, is hamstrung because the moderate voices fear speaking out – understandably so – and when they do speak out, they are ignored by the media, so their risk is in a sense doubled; they risk being silenced when they are unheard anyway.
Meanwhile the mainstream listen and lap up what the news media tells them, and news media is not generally interested in peace, moderation, etc.
Pope Emeritus Benedict's Regensburg address is a classic example. In a 90 minute delivery, 1 comment was extracted and broadcast totally out of context, intended to cause uproar and outrage, in which it was successful.
Pope Francis, on the other hand, is loved by the media for his off-the-cuff soundbites that apparently – in the opinion of the uninformed – turned doctrine on its head, his more conservative statements go unmentioned.
If Ratzinger had made similar pronouncements as Francis has this week past, then there would be another uproar. But Francis said it, and he's popular with the media at the moment, so it passes without comment. When he falls out of favour, no doubt these comments will be dragged up.
Islam in general is much less dependent on hierarchically structured clergy than Christianity. There are exceptions in both religions of course. So its kind of hard to find parallels between the pope's address and the muslim world. Similarly for Buddhism, Judaism, and so on.
There are many dissident voices here in Germany, from all kinds of religious backgrounds, who are under pressure from their groups. Christian, Jewish, Muslim - I know people from all these faiths who will have very critical views, but only "off the record".
This is not even limited to religion. Political parties, corporate in-fighting... very similar patterns.
True, but does it not seem as dependent on local clerical hierarchy? I'm thinking of the Khomeini's in Iran, and the source of the whole Middle East mess with the emergence of the House of Saud.
Yep. The problem's man ...
The Shi'a are more inclined towards having a Religious Hierarchy than the Sunni. Leadership for the Muslim Nation/Comminity is more clearly defined and belief in the Imamate is one of the Usool ud-Deen (Roots of the Religion), hence The Islamic Republic of Iran.
The emergence of Saudi Arabia was less Religious than the Islamic Revolution if Iran and much more political. The Wahhabi sect did unify with the Saud clan, but it was primarily a Tribal War eventually won by the Saudi with a lot of support from western powers.
More seriously: What is Christmas, or Easter, or most of the sacraments, if not tradition outside scripture? They certainly are not found in the Bible.
I am guessing the fascists who hold "western Christian values" dearly, while advocating things that go against the letter and spirit of Jesus' words, might be referring to this kind of "oral" (in the sense of "not scriptural") tradition.
But who is using and where is the phrase 'Western Christian Values' being used as a call to violence and murder of innocent people?
Some people might feel justified to use violence to defend their rights, and this might be manipulated by their leaders. But where is this phrase being used -- by church going Christians, let's say -- to justify going out and attacking non-Christians?
I'm running with this on the basis that 'religion is the cause of most wars and violence.' As if taking away religion would end war and violence. As if warlike and violent people would not find another moral justification to talk their followers into committing atrocities with a good conscience?
I certainly do not believe that 'religion is the cause of most wars and violence'.
Of course not. But it's used by anti-theists who'd like to ban 'God'.
Hm. Where did that come from all of a sudden? I did not intend to imply this in any way.
Separate names with a comma.