"5 stupid things about atheists"

[MG1962]

I think there's an important distinction to be made between a Prime Minister who is a Christian, and a Prime Minister who is acting on behalf of the Church. As it is, the public message about personal religious beliefs from Blair's team was "we don't do God", and he waited until he was out of office to convert to his wife's Catholicism. This is really not the same as Bishops serving in the House of Lords.

I did not reference Tony Blair for his religious affiliations but highlight his membership in the Christian socialist movement, which according to post 227 can't possibly exist.

 

[Nihilianth]

Being presented with other people's ideas is not "creating conflict."

And where back to atheist basically having to stay in the closet lest we be seen as troublemakers.

Yes it is. At least, in my experience it is.

Conservative Christian nut: "Obama's state department called the 500+ Christians in Ramadi a "setback." Christians are persecuted EVERYWHERE! *CRY*

Me: "Well, actually, it wasn't the state department that called it a set-back. (Gave the actual quotes from the state department.) It was Obama himself that called it a "tactical setback," in a larger conversation about the military situation on the ground. And they weren't Christians that were slaughtered. They were mostly Muslims."

Conservative Christian Nut: "**** you, and your novel-length excuses! You are stoo00000pid!"

See? Conflict.

 

[yomero]

I disagree.

Organized religion is, in general, intrinsically conservative. In many ways the core purpose of that organization is for the maintenance of the status quo, the very definition of conservatism.

Progressive or liberal religious groups earn those labels by comparison to the mainstream religious positions.

Nor do I think that the U.S. is somehow unique. Western Europe tends to be more relaxed about religion, but the farther from that Western culture, and the farther from wealth and privilege you get the more conservative religious practice becomes. There's a reason that they are enacting death penalties for gays in parts of Africa, and it isn't because of their enlightened religious beliefs.

Sure. Generally in spite of the core church hierarchy. The Catholic Church as an entity has a well documented history of working in concert with the established political power. The handful of priests and nuns who agitate against the political status quo in those Catholic dominated Christian countries are rarely doing so with the blessings of their superiors, and often in direct disobedience.

Evidence? Oh wait what was I thinking....never mind, smoke them if you got them

I can't tell if MG1962 is being serious or ironic. Quadrigenta's last sentence is correct. A good example is Father Ernesto Cardenal, a supporter of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. I believe he was Minister of Culture after the revolution.

When John Paul II arrived in Managua, he publicly scolded Cardenal right on the airport for disobedience.

I am being very serious

And what was the actual act of disobedience that Cardenal was scolded for? And yes I do know the answer.

"You should regularize your situation".

So, what? That episode still stands as evidence for Quadrgenta's statement.

 

[MG1962]

"You should regularize your situation".

So, what? That episode still stands as evidence for Quadrgenta's statement.

No it does not, because he was chastised for accepting a position within the government - Minister for arts. Which was essentially banned by the Catholic Church in 1983.

 

[yomero]

"You should regularize your situation".

So, what? That episode still stands as evidence for Quadrgenta's statement.

No it does not, because he was chastised for accepting a position within the government - Minister for arts. Which was essentially banned by the Catholic Church in 1983.

Yes it does. We are talking about Quadraginta's phrase that says: "The handful of priests and nuns who agitate against the political status quo in those Catholic dominated countries are rarely doing so with the blessing of their superiors and often in disobedience."

 

[MG1962]

Yes it does. We are talking about Quadraginta's phrase that says: "The handful of priests and nuns who agitate against the political status quo in those Catholic dominated countries are rarely doing so with the blessing of their superiors and often in disobedience."

How? It had nothing to do with his political opinion. It has to do with anyone in the clergy above Bishop being a member of a government. And anyway how is this guy agitating against a government when he accepted to be a member of that government?

 

[quadraginta]

How? It had nothing to do with his political opinion. It has to do with anyone in the clergy above Bishop being a member of a government. And anyway how is this guy agitating against a government the status quo when he accepted to be a member of that government?

FTFY

If you had any faith in your argument you wouldn't need to lie about what I said.

It is perfectly possible to try to change a government or any other structure from within. Often, if not usually such efforts are met with resistance and disapproval.

On occasion the reactions can be even more vehement than those against dissenters outside the group.

Why do you believe it has to be a dichotomy?

 

[MG1962]

Why do you believe it has to be a dichotomy?

Because you are trying to shoehorn an event to match your world view. When the particular example has nothing to do with the debate.

And even if it was true your point is nonsensical. Before he joined the Catholic clergy had been a failed Socialist revolutionary. A Socialist revolutionary government comes to power, he joins that government then you argue the Pope ripped into him because he was trying the change the government

On what level exactly does that scenario make sense to anyone?

 

[quadraginta]

Because you are trying to shoehorn an event to match your world view. When the particular example has nothing to do with the debate.

And even if it was true your point is nonsensical. Before he joined the Catholic clergy had been a failed Socialist revolutionary. A Socialist revolutionary government comes to power, he joins that government then you argue the Pope ripped into him because he was trying the change the government

On what level exactly does that scenario make sense to anyone?

I'm not trying to shoehorn anything. It wasn't 'my' event. Perhaps you should review the past few posts.

I just pointed out why your response was ridiculously based on erroneous assertions.

Unless you want to explain the rationale behind the dichotomy you claimed existed.