Condell: The Arrogance of Clergy
Religion • Views: 6,582
Pat Condell’s latest video is a brutally direct and very powerful indictment of organized religion.
374 comments
1 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:47:06pm |
For any of you who would like to get some of my version of 'guilt on' check it out! (warning: LDS General Conference Session link. It's going on today.)
heh.
| 2 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:47:59pm |
everyone put on a poncho to protect your clothes from the exploding grey matter about to take place ...
| 3 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:48:51pm |
re: #1 Oh no...Sand People!
For any of you who would like to get some of my version of 'guilt on' check it out! (warning: LDS General Conference Session link. It's going on today.)
heh.
From what I understand...Catholic guilt is guilt about everything. Jewish guilt is guilt over all the things you should have done for your mother and haven't.
Mormon guilt is a generalized sense of guilt at the end of the month.
Inside joke, sorry.
| 4 |
Randall Gross Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:49:39pm |
There isn't a word he says in this that hasn't been said by some very religious people. It's really an indictment of how some head clergy live and operate compared to the actual tenets of their religion.
| 5 |
Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:50:17pm |
I agree with Pat. I've always thought Jesus' message was against organized religion- that's why they targeted Him. Instead He taught we could each have our own relationship with God. It's pretty anti-clergy, imo, when you take out the middleman.
| 6 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:50:20pm |
re: #3 EmmmieG
From what I understand...Catholic guilt is guilt about everything. Jewish guilt is guilt over all the things you should have done for your mother and haven't.
Mormon guilt is a generalized sense of guilt at the end of the month.
Inside joke, sorry.
Bwaahahahahah!!
In the end...guilt is guilt is guilt and business is good.
| 7 |
Sheila Broflovski Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:51:03pm |
Pat Condell claims to hate Jews "less" than he hates other religions, but he is still incredibly naive to claim that if only the Jews will relinquish their claim to Jerusalem, peace will flutter down upon the Middle East.
| 8 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:53:30pm |
re: #7 Alouette
Pat Condell claims to hate Jews "less" than he hates other religions, but he is still incredibly naive to claim that if only the Jews will relinquish their claim to Jerusalem, peace will flutter down upon the Middle East.
he's still a brit ... and you know what that means ...
| 9 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:56:44pm |
re: #5 Sharmuta
The template of leadership that Christ gave us is service to others, not power over other people.
| 10 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:59:26pm |
3:45 to 5:03
Just blows it out of the park...for me anyway.
His rational and logic is impeccable. I laughed out loud literally.
| 11 |
Summer Seale Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:59:30pm |
I have to say, Pat is more right on this one than he's ever been before - and that's saying a lot. =)
| 12 |
Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:59:45pm |
re: #9 EmmmieG
The template of leadership that Christ gave us is service to others, not power over other people.
Some of the most Christian behaving people I know don't consider themselves Christians.
| 13 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:59:54pm |
I don't know who Pat Condell is, but in my opinion he's bang on the mark with respect to the hypocrisy of organized religion. I've been a long time agnostic, but now, in my middle age, I find myself moving a step closer to atheism with each new day...
By the way -- can someone translate British into English for me? What the heck does "poxy" mean, as in "poxy religion?"
| 14 |
SixDegrees Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:00:51pm |
re: #5 Sharmuta
I agree with Pat. I've always thought Jesus' message was against organized religion- that's why they targeted Him. Instead He taught we could each have our own relationship with God. It's pretty anti-clergy, imo, when you take out the middleman.
Apparently, a lot of the early Christians agreed with you. I'm sure this will draw the usual howls from some quarters, but if you're not familiar with Elaine Pagels I would recommend you have a look at The Gnostic Gospels, which summarizes Pagels research into the earliest Christian documents, which ones made it into the New Testament and which were left out, and why.
One recurring theme among the Gnostics was the concept of achieving personal enlightenment without the aid of a church hierarchy. There is some speculation that early Buddhists may have wandered into the Middle East at some point, planting the seeds for such notions, but whatever their history there's little doubt that in a contest between a highly structured, hierarchical organization and a loosely-knit band of folks each fumbling toward their own personal enlightenment, the hierarchy is going to win if they're so inclined.
| 15 |
Sheila Broflovski Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:02:10pm |
Here it is. Pat says, "If Jews would just give up Jerusalem, they would be the most popular people on the planet."
| 16 |
SixDegrees Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:02:19pm |
re: #13 insert name here
I don't know who Pat Condell is, but in my opinion he's bang on the mark with respect to the hypocrisy of organized religion. I've been a long time agnostic, but now, in my middle age, I find myself moving a step closer to atheism with each new day...
By the way -- can someone translate British into English for me? What the heck does "poxy" mean, as in "poxy religion?"
Think "contagious disease," like the pox (smallpox).
| 17 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:03:35pm |
re: #15 Alouette
Here it is. Pat says, "If Jews would just give up Jerusalem, they would be the most popular people on the planet."
That's probably true. After we were all slaughtered by those we'd given Jerusalem to, we'd be even MORE popular.
| 18 |
bluecheese Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:03:54pm |
This is ugly.
I own personal views are the same as this guy when it come to religion. But the condescending, and evangelical tone he takes is offensive.
Contemporary religion gives folks a sense of community, and helps to organize their moral compass. It also does a lot of great work for other people.
Let people find their own belief systems, and let's not scorn them for doing something different than us... mmmkay?
| 19 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:05:01pm |
This sounds like an internal fight to me. Is this guy an ex-Catholic by any chance?
| 20 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:05:07pm |
re: #18 bluecheese
This is ugly.
I own personal views are the same as this guy when it come to religion. But the condescending, and evangelical tone he takes is offensive.
Contemporary religion gives folks a sense of community, and helps to organize their moral compass. It also does a lot of great work for other people.
Let people find their own belief systems, and let's not scorn them for doing something different than us... mmmkay?
Absolutely! Just send your check or money order to Oh no...Sand People! P.O. Box...
/
| 21 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:05:15pm |
re: #15 Alouette
Here it is. Pat says, "If Jews would just give up Jerusalem, they would be the most popular people on the planet."
he's dead wrong on that, and his own lack of knowledge of history is on display with that comment. even if the Jews would just give up everything, they'd still be targeted for irrational hatred.
| 22 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:06:09pm |
"That Jesus is going to be a very wealthy young man if he comes back."
| 23 |
Sheila Broflovski Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:06:24pm |
re: #17 SanFranciscoZionist
That's probably true. After we were all slaughtered by those we'd given Jerusalem to, we'd be even MORE popular.
Holocaust Museums would become really the "in" place for all the hipsters to go!
| 24 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:07:00pm |
re: #22 SanFranciscoZionist
"That Jesus is going to be a very wealthy young man if he comes back."
"money grubbing logo in human history..."
classic.
| 25 |
Mark Pennington Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:07:40pm |
Thanks for this post! I've seen most of his video's already. My favorite is Hook, line and rapture.
| 26 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:07:42pm |
re: #15 Alouette
Here it is. Pat says, "If Jews would just give up Jerusalem, they would be the most popular people on the planet."
Yeah ,,, because for all those eons prior to 1948 Jews were the most popular people in the entire universe!!
oh ,, wait ,,,WHA!?!?!?!?!
| 27 |
Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:08:54pm |
re: #22 SanFranciscoZionist
"That Jesus is going to be a very wealthy young man if he comes back."
I always figured He'd be pretty pissed off to see the hypocrisy going on in His name, but that's just me.
| 29 |
Surabaya Stew Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:11:35pm |
Pat Condell is pretty much on target as usual here. The point of his message is clear and strong, minor quibbles notwithstanding. Many Christians (and Muslims) I know tend to pray alone and rarely set foot in a Church (or Mosque) precisely because of the hypocrisy they see with the clerical orders dictating how their co-religionists should run their lives. As a Cultural Catholic and Deist, I have respect for Mr. Condell for speaking clearly and eloquently about these maters.
Would love to comment more, but the missus calls for attention! Will check back in on the late night thread; take care, Lizards!
| 30 |
Ojoe Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:12:49pm |
It took me a long time to get over some public humiliation at the hands of a frickkin nun
| 31 |
albusteve Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:12:52pm |
Condell is a superstar...imo
articulate, fearless and always right...and I like his unforgiving style
| 32 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:13:38pm |
Pats stop ravens on 4th down at midfield ... yes!
| 33 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:14:12pm |
| 34 |
abbyadams Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:14:27pm |
re: #12 Sharmuta
Here here. My supervisor is a lapsed Catholic who took care of her parents when they were in their 90s and infirm, driving 120 miles each way to another state to do so. She sacrificed everything for them until they passed away.
| 35 |
Ojoe Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:14:56pm |
re: #13 insert name here
Well if it is poxy on the internet it will be epoxy.
| 36 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:15:34pm |
| 37 |
Killgore Trout Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:16:05pm |
I wish more internet pundits who post rants would learn. There are no edits in Pat's monologues. You aren't really ranting if there are edits every 5 seconds.
| 38 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:16:24pm |
re: #34 abbyadams
Here here. My supervisor is a lapsed Catholic who took care of her parents when they were in their 90s and infirm, driving 120 miles each way to another state to do so. She sacrificed everything for them until they passed away.
Some of the most humane people I know are lapsed Catholics.
| 40 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:17:43pm |
| 41 |
Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:18:11pm |
re: #18 bluecheese
This is ugly.
I own personal views are the same as this guy when it come to religion. But the condescending, and evangelical tone he takes is offensive.
Contemporary religion gives folks a sense of community, and helps to organize their moral compass. It also does a lot of great work for other people.
Let people find their own belief systems, and let's not scorn them for doing something different than us... mmmkay?
I didn't see this as Mr Condell scorning believers- just the people who are taking advantage of organized religion. I personally don't see much need in attending organized services, but I still do attend them when the urge strikes me. Of all the things I've learned attending Mass or other Christian services is that Jesus asked us to love each other. It was the only commandment He gave, and yet there sure seem to be a lot of Christians out there who have failed to learn this relevant lesson of their own faith. Sometimes I wonder why that is, and other times I can't help but suspect it has something to do with maintaining a power structure over other power structures.
| 42 |
Ojoe Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:19:04pm |
| 43 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:21:04pm |
Ravens driving ... 2:00 left ... Pats need to come up big to hold on in this one ...
| 44 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:21:32pm |
re: #42 Ojoe
Unconcho ...
(Zappa reference)
"Camarillo Brillo"
great googley moogley also a zappa raference ...
| 46 |
bluecheese Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:22:27pm |
re: #41 Sharmuta
I didn't see this as Mr Condell scorning believers- just the people who are taking advantage of organized religion. .
I think he could have articulated this - but didn't. Believers are not going to hear anything he says, because he comes off as a douche. IMHO
| 47 |
Mary Garth Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:22:31pm |
As a deeply conflicted sort-of Christian, I find some of Condell's rant hard to take, but I have to acknowledge the truth of part of it. I have a friend (who directed me to LGF by the way) who became a Catholic because he believed that they had an easy answer to his problem of wanting to feel good about himself: obey the rules and you're saved. I know Catholics who have a much more sophisticated theology than that, but my friend is probably not even close to alone in his belief that obedience is the highest good. A religion which values obedience above all is indeed one that that will lead to powerful and corrupt clergy.
However, that is not my impression of all Catholics and is certainly not true of some of the individual clergy members (Protestant pastors and at least one rabbi) that I have known who are deeply compassionate and giving and in no way have enriched themselves by their service to the church.
| 48 |
mr.JA Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:22:49pm |
Poxy means something along the lines of stupid or crappy...
He's bang on, again - a nice kick in the bollocks of clergy, I like it.
On another note, friends parents were the most militant atheists I've ever met, they send their daughters every Sunday to a local, boring Catholic church so they would hate the church and everything associated by the time they were 12-ish.
Worked like a treat!
| 49 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:23:10pm |
re: #46 bluecheese
I think he could have articulated this - but didn't. Believers are not going to hear anything he says, because he comes off as a douche. IMHO
I'm not sure who the target audience for this is.
| 50 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:25:02pm |
re: #8 _RememberTonyC
he's still a brit ... and you know what that means ...
What is this supposed to mean?
I'm hoping you forgot a sarc tag.
| 51 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:25:08pm |
I suppose what I dislike about this is that I tend to abide by a basic code of 'I don't say your religion or lack thereof is false, and you'll do likewise for me'. People like Condell do not seem to think this applies to them. The lack of courtesy is rather shocking.
| 52 |
KingKenrod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:25:30pm |
I don't really disagree with Condell's points about organized religion and its involvement in politics. However, in a free society, people are allowed to organize into religions, and if some free people want to take orders like "don't use condoms" from clergy, that's their business, not Pat Condell's. It's interesting the video is entitled "The arrogance of clergy" when it should be called "The arrogance of Pat Condell". He's got no more claim to The Truth than anyone else.
And btw, most clergy don't live in palaces, they live in third world shitholes doing things like providing medicine and education to folks who can't get it anywhere else. And most protestant pastors in the US make very little money and spend their entire lives dedicated to bettering their communities knowing they will never live in a palace, or even a nice home.
| 53 |
bratwurst Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:25:53pm |
re: #45 Ojoe
Oops I don't remember that one
Frequently exclamation during "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow" live.
| 54 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:26:05pm |
re: #48 mr.JA
Poxy means something along the lines of stupid or crappy...
He's bang on, again - a nice kick in the bollocks of clergy, I like it.
On another note, friends parents were the most militant atheists I've ever met, they send their daughters every Sunday to a local, boring Catholic church so they would hate the church and everything associated by the time they were 12-ish.
Worked like a treat!
And what on earth is the point of that? They couldn't have used those Sundays to do something that would educate or interest their daughters?
| 55 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:26:15pm |
| 56 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:26:53pm |
re: #46 bluecheese
I think he could have articulated this - but didn't. Believers are not going to hear anything he says, because he comes off as a douche. IMHO
Disagree. He comes off as passionate. And there is a difference (as has been pointed out upthread, and as Condell himself points out at both the beginning and the end of the video) between being a believer and blindly obeying/supporting the clergy.
| 57 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:27:06pm |
re: #50 iceweasel
What is this supposed to mean?
I'm hoping you forgot a sarc tag.
the brits are known to be pretty anti semitic ... would you like to dispute that?
| 58 |
Ojoe Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:27:15pm |
A beatific Madonna (Della Robbia)
It is not as bad as some make it out.
| 60 |
HelloDare Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:28:29pm |
life sucking ... trained monkey
He forgot to mention the clown suit.
| 61 |
Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:28:42pm |
re: #46 bluecheese
I think he could have articulated this - but didn't. Believers are not going to hear anything he says, because he comes off as a douche. IMHO
A believer that is so dogmatic they can't bear to hear criticisms is likely not the audience Condell is going for anyways. The man is well know for not sugar coating as well as his dislike for all organized religions in general. It's likely this latest rant will be found offensive by those it was meant to offend. Had he rephrased some of his points to be less... abrasive he would likely still be offending the exact same people, so why shouldn't he speak as plainly as he likes?
| 62 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:29:00pm |
re: #56 iceweasel
Disagree. He comes off as passionate. And there is a difference (as has been pointed out upthread, and as Condell himself points out at both the beginning and the end of the video) between being a believer and blindly obeying/supporting the clergy.
I don't see passion, I see arrogance.
| 64 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:29:26pm |
| 65 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:30:05pm |
re: #62 SanFranciscoZionist
I don't see passion, I see arrogance.
And I see a comedian. I thought it was funny as hell.
| 66 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:30:06pm |
re: #57 _RememberTonyC
the brits are known to be pretty anti semitic ... would you like to dispute that?
Yes.
I suggest you refrain from sweeping characterisations of others.
If you'd like to say that there is antisemitism in the UK, or speak specifically about the antisemitic influences on the UK left, or in the BNP, or make any other informed qualified statement, great.
Smearing everyone British as antisemitic however is not on.
| 67 |
bluecheese Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:30:21pm |
| 68 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:30:43pm |
Jeez Ice ... am I hitting a bit too close to home for you? Have you spent too much time listening to the Beeb?
| 69 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:31:05pm |
Condell seems to have a very personal axe to grind. That's fine with me.
I agree with Thanos upstairs. This is old stuff -- true in many cases, but still ... merely recycled.
*yawn*
/and for . the . record, I'm one of the un-churched
| 70 |
walkman Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:31:29pm |
As a spiritual person and believer in God, all I have to say is bravo and bingo. I have always wanted to say this to the hypocrites in all of the offices I have ever worked. The sycophancy (is that a word?), back stabbing, careerism, along with reminding everyone that they go to church each and every Sunday. He nailed it on Jesus' teachings. I don't know anyone who approaches that kind of behavior.
| 71 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:31:46pm |
re: #66 iceweasel
Yes.
I suggest you refrain from sweeping characterisations of others.
If you'd like to say that there is antisemitism in the UK, or speak specifically about the antisemitic influences on the UK left, or in the BNP, or make any other informed qualified statement, great.
Smearing everyone British as antisemitic however is not on.
Thanks for the Pot/ Kettle laugh after your condemnation yesterday (or the day before) re; "the right"
I needed that!
| 72 |
swamprat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:31:59pm |
re: #61 Sharmuta
I will pray for him.
well
I will pray for those he is trying to reach..
uh, those he is reaching?
What the heck!
Prayers for EVERYBODY!!
| 73 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:32:25pm |
re: #57 _RememberTonyC
the britBrs are known to be pretty anti semitic ... would you like to dispute that?
I don't think it's true of Brits in general any more than it's true of Americans in general. Growing up in Britain, I experienced at first hand no anti-semitism. Past UK governments have, on the other hand, tended to be far less pro-Israel than the US, and Britain's approach to Israel historically has left a lot to be desired. However, it's too much of a sweeping generalization to allege that Brits are or are known to be pretty anti semitic.
| 74 |
Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:32:28pm |
re: #67 bluecheese
Heh. I see a giant douche.
What is more douche-like: saying that some members of the clergy abuse their positions and live in wealth at the expense of those they're supposed to serve as being the antithesis of the teachings of Christ, or is it more douche-like to abuse the teachings of Christ to enrich yourself personally?
| 75 |
HelloDare Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:32:32pm |
re: #46 bluecheese
I think he could have articulated this - but didn't. Believers are not going to hear anything he says, because he comes off as a douche. IMHO
Yes he did articulate it. Listen to the first 30 seconds again.
| 76 |
mr.JA Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:33:23pm |
re: #54 SanFranciscoZionist
And what on earth is the point of that? They couldn't have used those Sundays to do something that would educate or interest their daughters?
Sure, but they grew up in a place where many of the kids in school would go to southern baptist church, and they were very afraid of them becoming religious zealots. You can try to tell your kids that god doesn't exist, but I think this strategy was particularly effective... if I ever have kids (god forbid) i'd do the same...
| 77 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:33:42pm |
re: #66 iceweasel
Yes.
I suggest you refrain from sweeping characterisations of others.
If you'd like to say that there is antisemitism in the UK, or speak specifically about the antisemitic influences on the UK left, or in the BNP, or make any other informed qualified statement, great.
Smearing everyone British as antisemitic however is not on.
Of course, not every Brit is anti semitic. But it may be a bit more extensive than you claim. I listen to the BBC regularly and never hear any defense of Israel. That tells me something ...
| 78 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:34:48pm |
re: #71 sattv4u2
Thanks for the Pot/ Kettle laugh after your condemnation yesterday (or the day before) re; "the right"
I needed that!
I've made it clear over and over again that I'm talking about the insane right, or the fringe right, or the wingnut right, as opposed to everyone who is on the right or is conservative.
Feel free to continue to try to misinterpret me though. It's all you've got.
| 79 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:35:11pm |
re: #77 _RememberTonyC
Of course, not every Brit is anti semitic. But it may be a bit more extensive than you claim. I listen to the BBC regularly and never hear any defense of Israel. That tells me something ...
Sorry. You can't infer from a negative.
| 80 |
Gus Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:35:16pm |
re: #66 iceweasel
Yes.
I suggest you refrain from sweeping characterisations of others.
If you'd like to say that there is antisemitism in the UK, or speak specifically about the antisemitic influences on the UK left, or in the BNP, or make any other informed qualified statement, great.
Smearing everyone British as antisemitic however is not on.
It read like a feeble attempt at poisoning the well once again. Convict Pat Condell as being "anti-Semitic because he's British" and go from there. They do this with Hitchens and Dawkins and it's essentially a broken record. The other cliches are that they're "arrogant" or "bitter." Funny you know, From my experience the most arrogant people in this spectrum are the clergy that Condell speaks of.
| 81 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:36:34pm |
re: #76 mr.JA
Sure, but they grew up in a place where many of the kids in school would go to southern baptist church, and they were very afraid of them becoming religious zealots. You can try to tell your kids that god doesn't exist, but I think this strategy was particularly effective... if I ever have kids (god forbid) i'd do the same...
I find it a very disturbing idea.
| 82 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:37:04pm |
re: #78 iceweasel
I've made it clear over and over again that I'm talking about the insane right, or the fringe right, or the wingnut right, as opposed to everyone who is on the right or is conservative.
Feel free to continue to try to misinterpret me though. It's all you'veClear as mud !
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 83 |
Ojoe Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:37:28pm |
re: #81 SanFranciscoZionist
Sounds like they were manipulating their kids a little bit there.
| 84 |
bluecheese Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:37:28pm |
re: #74 Sharmuta
What is more douche-like: saying that some members of the clergy abuse their positions and live in wealth at the expense of those they're supposed to serve as being the antithesis of the teachings of Christ, or is it more douche-like to abuse the teachings of Christ to enrich yourself personally?
See the video above for what's douche-like.
| 85 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:37:29pm |
re: #78 iceweasel
I've made it clear over and over again that I'm talking about the insane right, or the fringe right, or the wingnut right, as opposed to everyone who is on the right or is conservative.
Feel free to continue to try to misinterpret me though. It's all you've got.
Clear as mud
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 86 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:37:33pm |
re: #76 mr.JA
Sure, but they grew up in a place where many of the kids in school would go to southern baptist church, and they were very afraid of them becoming religious zealots. You can try to tell your kids that god doesn't exist, but I think this strategy was particularly effective... if I ever have kids (god forbid) i'd do the same...
I didn't start going to church until I was 7 or 8 years old (the neighbors took us kids). My problem was, I really got into science a couple of years before that, especially dinosaurs, and so when we finally got around to reading Genesis, I was wondering why they left out the dinosaurs.
And it's been downhill ever since...
| 87 |
swamprat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:37:45pm |
Condell is doing what he likes to do;
Causing a fuss and making people think.
Outraged?
He loves it!
Offended?
He loves it!
| 88 |
Gus Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:38:10pm |
re: #85 sattv4u2
Clear as mud
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
I see. So instead of staying on topic you want to vilify Iceweasel?
| 89 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:38:18pm |
re: #79 iceweasel
Sorry. You can't infer from a negative.
don't talk to me about "negative" when you down ding my comments because you 're having a hissy fit about my opinions ...
| 90 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:39:26pm |
re: #88 Gus 802
I see. So instead of staying on topic you want to vilify Iceweasel?
Why yes,,, yes I do
I didn't know I needed your permission!
| 91 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:40:12pm |
| 92 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:40:29pm |
re: #80 Gus 802
It read like a feeble attempt at poisoning the well once again. Convict Pat Condell as being "anti-Semitic because he's British" and go from there. They do this with Hitchens and Dawkins and it's essentially a broken record. The other cliches are that they're "arrogant" or "bitter." Funny you know, From my experience the most arrogant people in this spectrum are the clergy that Condell speaks of.
Completely agree. There's also a tendency to elide the distinction between being critical of some of Israel's actions with the idea that someone is not supportive of Israel-- and those are of course two different things. My Israeli friends would be surprised to learn they're 'not supportive of Israel' on this metric.
(Although IIRC Dawkins isn't supportive of Israel)
| 93 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:40:47pm |
re: #77 _RememberTonyC
Of course, not every Brit is anti semitic. But it may be a bit more extensive than you claim. I listen to the BBC regularly and never hear any defense of Israel. That tells me something ...
Yes, that's certainly true of the BBC, but all that you (and I) can infer from it is that the BBC is monumentally biased against Israel. It always has been, and I suspect it always will be. This fact is well known in Britain and does not in any way reflect the sentiments of the population as a whole. Some of the BBC's nonsense stems from pure ignorance. There was a local BBC radio station in my home town, and at one point when I was a boy, my father hosted a quiz show. He got to know the general manager of the station, an apparently well-spoken educated and polite Englishman. My father recalled the following conversation:
Pater familias: Why does the BBC talk about Tel-Aviv as the capital of Israel?
General Manager: Oh, isn't it? (he was really surprised)
| 94 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:40:52pm |
re: #72 swamprat
About prayer.. maybe you can clarify something for me? Why don't you just pray for everybody all the time?
I mean.. what good would specific prayers do? I assume the deity is omniscient, so it hardly needs a reminder, or a "to do" list.
| 95 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:41:02pm |
re: #89 _RememberTonyC
don't talk to me about "negative" when you down ding my comments because you 're having a hissy fit about my opinions ...
You smeared everyone British as being antisemitic. Yes, you get a downding. Deal.
| 96 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:41:04pm |
re: #80 Gus 802
It read like a feeble attempt at poisoning the well once again. Convict Pat Condell as being "anti-Semitic because he's British" and go from there. They do this with Hitchens and Dawkins and it's essentially a broken record. The other cliches are that they're "arrogant" or "bitter." Funny you know, From my experience the most arrogant people in this spectrum are the clergy that Condell speaks of.
OK Fine ... if Condell (whom I actually agree with on many issues) thinks Jews will be the most popular people on the planet if they just give up Jerusalem, at best he's monumentally ignorant about prejudice against Jews. And at worst, he may not like them. Feel better?
| 97 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:41:54pm |
re: #87 swamprat
Condell is doing what he likes to do;
Causing a fuss and making people think.
Outraged?
He loves it!
Offended?
He loves it!
More experiencing a sense of distaste. I am accustomed to hearing fierce criticism of the Catholic hierarchy--from Catholics. From this guy, whatever.
| 98 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:42:41pm |
re: #85 sattv4u2
Clear as mud
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Of course, for someone who ISNT failing at reading comprehension, it's clear that i'm talking about the people in the GOP who only want to obstruct, etc.
But feel free to continue to try to derail the thread and vilify me. It's helpful you've admitted that's your intent.
| 99 |
Gus Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:42:41pm |
re: #96 _RememberTonyC
OK Fine ... if Condell (whom I actually agree with on many issues) thinks Jews will be the most popular people on the planet if they just give up Jerusalem, at best he's monumentally ignorant about prejudice against Jews. And at worst, he may not like them. Feel better?
What's with the "feel better" comment? This isn't about me feeling better. And how does his past comments on Israel equate towards being prejudiced against Jews? Did you take a poll?
| 100 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:43:14pm |
re: #92 iceweasel
There's also a tendency to elide the distinction between being critical of some of Israel's actions with the idea that someone is not supportive of Israel-- and those are of course two different things.
Yes, sometimes. However, I recall more than a few occasions where criticism of Israel was a disguise for anti-semitism. It's not always the case, but I'm always on my guard when I encounter the former, in case it's concealing the latter.
| 101 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:43:23pm |
re: #98 iceweasel
Of course, for someone who ISNT failing at reading comprehension, it's clear that i'm talking about the people in the GOP who only want to obstruct, etc.
But feel free to continue to try to derail the thread and vilify me. It's helpful you've admitted that's your intent.
Always willing to assist. No problem
| 102 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:43:31pm |
re: #77 _RememberTonyC
Of course, not every Brit is anti semitic. But it may be a bit more extensive than you claim. I listen to the BBC regularly and never hear any defense of Israel. That tells me something ...
Hmmm...I have a close Jewish friend who has been extremely critical of Israeli policies. Does this make him anti-semitic?
| 103 |
Bagua Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:44:02pm |
re: #77 _RememberTonyC
Of course, not every Brit is anti semitic. But it may be a bit more extensive than you claim. I listen to the BBC regularly and never hear any defense of Israel. That tells me something ...
If you are basing your opinions as to what British people believe based upon what you hear or see on the BBC then you are speaking from ignorance.
The BBC is its own entity, has its own distorted agenda and bias, and represents only the views of the cultural elite in Britain.
| 104 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:44:56pm |
re: #102 insert name here
Hmmm...I have a close Jewish friend who has been extremely critical of Israeli policies. Does this make him anti-semitic?
No. Not necessarily.
Do you understand why I get twitchy when I hear that question?
| 105 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:45:09pm |
re: #99 Gus 802
What's with the "feel better" comment? This isn't about me feeling better. And how does his past comments on Israel equate towards being prejudiced against Jews? Did you take a poll?
countering ignorant remarks (Condell's, not yours) is what discussion is all about. When Condell says he "hates Jews" less than he hates other religions, how should we interpret it?
| 106 |
HelloDare Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:45:26pm |
re: #15 Alouette
Wow, does Condell ever have it wrong on that one. "Giving up Jerusalem might make Jews the most popular people on the planet?" He said it without sarcasm.
| 107 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:45:37pm |
re: #46 bluecheese
I think he could have articulated this - but didn't. Believers are not going to hear anything he says, because he comes off as a douche. IMHO
This isn't directed at you, but it just brought something to my mind.
A lot of the crowd that I ran around with stateside are all about 'presentation'. Especially at church, for example a guy gives a fantastic 'sermon' / 'talk' during church meeting and completely 'full of substance' but because he wasn't a 'dynamo' at the pulpit, they discount it and say, "Wow that was boring". It drives me batty.
So I have referred a bunch of my acquaintances to this place here on the interwebs and the same thing happens, "Oh, I can't believe what people type on that site! Too much bad language...blah blah blah..." and completely discount the intellectual honesty and 'substance' this site has to offer. Sad in my opinion.
I guess I am just a substance kind of guy and don't care about the special effects so much.
| 108 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:45:43pm |
re: #102 insert name here
Hmmm...I have a close Jewish friend who has been extremely critical of Israeli policies. Does this make him anti-semitic?
no ...
| 109 |
BlackFedora Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:46:55pm |
*shrug*
He's said all this stuff before. I think its a perfectly valid criticism of organized religion but not terribly original.
| 110 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:48:00pm |
re: #95 iceweasel
You smeared everyone British as being antisemitic. Yes, you get a downding. Deal.
3 down dings, Ice. Be honest now ...
| 111 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:48:04pm |
re: #100 John Neverbend
Yes, sometimes. However, I recall more than a few occasions where criticism of Israel was a disguise for anti-semitism. It's not always the case, but I'm always on my guard when I encounter the former, in case it's concealing the latter.
I read someone recently who said Not everyone who criticises Israel hates Jews...but everyone who hates Jews criticises Israel.
Definitely true IMO.
| 112 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:48:06pm |
re: #107 Oh no...Sand People!
For some reason, your story made me think of those fancy dinners where you are outmatched by utensil placement.
Style over substance indeed.
| 113 |
Sharmuta Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:48:15pm |
re: #84 bluecheese
I disagree. He's been very consistent in his rants, and he's done nothing here but speak in his typical blunt style. He did distinguish between Believers and Clergy- he just didn't sugar coat his words as much as you would like.
He reminds me of a friend of mine- very blunt, but always speaks the truth. He just doesn't mince words, and like Mr Condell, speaks as a voice of brutal reality. It's actually quite refreshing for some of us. The fact is- reality is harsh. Sugar coated words are a dime a dozen, but the truth is priceless.
| 114 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:48:30pm |
re: #110 _RememberTonyC
3 down dings, Ice. Be honest now ...
Only for the comments where you continued to be a jerk about it.
| 115 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:48:51pm |
re: #104 SanFranciscoZionist
No. Not necessarily.
Do you understand why I get twitchy when I hear that question?
I just hope it isn't your trigger finger that's twitchin.
I absolutely agree that anti-semitism can be cloaked in anti-Israeli sentiments, but the reverse isn't necessarily true, and I believe one should be careful about labeling a person (or a larger group) as anti-semitic if they disagree with some (or many) Israeli policies.
| 116 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:49:09pm |
re: #80 Gus 802
They do this with Hitchens and Dawkins and it's essentially a broken record.
I heard Hitchens speaking at the Oxford Union in the early '80s on the same side as a clearly anti-semitic British MP and others whom I don't remember. On the other side was Chaim Herzog, a British journalist called Patrick Cosgrave and others whose names escape me. I didn't like what Hitchens was saying, and I suspected him then of anti-semitism, but in the light of what I saw of him later on, I think I was mistaken. At worst, I think he's ill-informed on many of the issues he has with Israel. I also have no evidence that Dawkins is anti-Jewish, although he has said some less than helpful (and less than intelligent) things about Israel, as has been outlined in LGF in recent weeks.
| 117 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:49:48pm |
re: #102 insert name here
Hmmm...I have a close Jewish friend who has been extremely critical of Israeli policies. Does this make him anti-semitic?
If he's Norman Finkelstein, the answer is yes.
| 118 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:50:37pm |
re: #114 iceweasel
Only for the comments where you continued to be a jerk about it.
please note that I have addressed you in a civil manner, even though I think your skin is quite thin. and I will allow you to even call me names without getting pissed at you.
| 119 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:50:51pm |
re: #115 insert name here
I just hope it isn't your trigger finger that's twitchin
(By the way, that was meant to be a joke, SFZionist, just in case it came across clumsily...)
| 120 |
BlackFedora Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:50:56pm |
The fanatical anti-religionists and the fanatical religionists are starting to sound the same to me. I personally am not sure I want to carry a card for either club.
| 121 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:52:03pm |
gonna say goodbye ... gotta buy some groceries ... have a great day ...including you, Ice :)
| 122 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:53:09pm |
re: #115 insert name here
I just hope it isn't your trigger finger that's twitchin.
I absolutely agree that anti-semitism can be cloaked in anti-Israeli sentiments, but the reverse isn't necessarily true, and I believe one should be careful about labeling a person (or a larger group) as anti-semitic if they disagree with some (or many) Israeli policies.
I agree, but I've been through far too many rounds of 'well, if you're at ALL critical of Israel you get called an anti-Semite" not to be slightly wary. Also, there are a lot of people out there who are not anti-Semites, but have been fed a load of crap by people who are truly, deeply anti-Israel, and while they innocently feel that they are just being critical of bad stuff, they're learning to discount the legitimate existence of the state.
That said, I have been called an anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist self-hating Jew a few times meself.
| 123 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:53:45pm |
re: #113 Sharmuta
He did distinguish between Believers and Clergy ...
IMHO, yes, but not by much. The opening statement showed extreme arrogance toward "Believers".
Condell has a very sharp intellect, but has another side too. He's not altogether rational at all times.
/and he does have a decided tendency toward self-inflation
| 124 |
Pacificlady Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:54:11pm |
I have been an atheist since I was 12 years old. I remember two things that started me thinking that there is no god. One, I read the Diary of Anne Frank which was my introduction to the Holocaust. The second was sitting in synagogue and reading prayers. Most prays have to do with praising god, etc. I kept thinking if there were a god, he must suffer from low self-esteem.
| 125 |
swamprat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:56:22pm |
re: #94 cenotaphium
my point exactly
Also a bit of fun over those who pray, rather than act, of which I, too, am guilty.
| 126 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:57:10pm |
re: #121 _RememberTonyC
gonna say goodbye ... gotta buy some groceries ... have a great day ...including you, Ice :)
Later, RTC! I left you two updings as well, btw, if that makes you feel better. :)
| 127 |
BlackFedora Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:58:03pm |
re: #124 Pacificlady
Even as someone who tries to follow Christ. The idea that an all powerful being needs our praise and adoration has always struck me as profoundly odd...
| 128 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:59:43pm |
re: #122 SanFranciscoZionist
I agree, but I've been through far too many rounds of 'well, if you're at ALL critical of Israel you get called an anti-Semite" not to be slightly wary. Also, there are a lot of people out there who are not anti-Semites, but have been fed a load of crap by people who are truly, deeply anti-Israel, and while they innocently feel that they are just being critical of bad stuff, they're learning to discount the legitimate existence of the state.
That said, I have been called an anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist self-hating Jew a few times meself.
Yes. That goes on all the time and is even more disturbing than the outright haters to me. The haters are easily identified as such.
| 129 |
Charles Johnson Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:59:54pm |
re: #7 Alouette
Pat Condell claims to hate Jews "less" than he hates other religions, but he is still incredibly naive to claim that if only the Jews will relinquish their claim to Jerusalem, peace will flutter down upon the Middle East.
If you watch the video you linked, I don't see how you can describe his views like that. He doesn't say he "hates Jews" at all. In fact, he makes it clear that of the three major religions, he likes Judaism best. He never says anything at all about hating anyone -- he's criticizing the religions, not the people.
| 130 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:00:33pm |
re: #127 BlackFedora
Even as someone who tries to follow Christ. The idea that an all powerful being needs our praise and adoration has always struck me as profoundly odd...
...as is the idea that we need to pray to get his attention. I thought he was all-powerful. Doesn't he already know what needs fixing?
(And by the way -- a sorta semi-serious question...why is God always referred to as "he?")
| 131 |
PaisleyCow Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:01:27pm |
Wow. My first thought upon viewing this was, "Geez, this guy probably had a really bad experience with a nun or priest at some point."
I see some of you have praised his "logic," but I fail to find much logic in this at all. Many of my good friends are (or will be soon) Catholic priests, and they are the most intelligent, wise, and self-sacrificing men I've ever met. The Catholic Church is the world's largest charitable organization, and instructs more students than any other private institution. I've been to slums in Argentina and helped re-evangelize many of the Catholics there, and even beside the spiritual benefit, there is a very obvious material benefit to those people. You could tell the house of believing Christian just by looking: they worked harder, kept better care of their house, had nicer things, better behaved children, a better quality of life overall, and were much more welcoming and hospitable. So as to this guy's question "Who benefits on Earth?", I'd say, "A whole lot of people," even if you're only looking at it from a secular point of view.
Was it a secularist who went into India and provided material, emotional, and spiritual comfort to the Untouchables of India, or was it a Catholic nun, likely to be canonized as a saint? And you can bet that Mother Theresa did all of those things, and started her order, explicitly because of her Catholic faith. I worked with some of the Missionaries of Charity in Argentina too, where they had a home for elderly men with no family/place to stay as well as a place for mothers and children in desperate circumstances. I didn't find a single atheist or agnostic among either the Sisters or the volunteers. Do Sisters count as clergy in Condell's eyes or not?
And his claim that clergy don't want you to think is preposterous. What does he base that on? Because the missionary priests I know have encouraged all of the Catholic students here not only to be better students in their given majors, but to study philosophy as well, simply for the benefit of their own intellects. They praise and encourage reading of Cardinal Newman, who espoused the pursuit of knowledge and truth as a worthy pursuit in and of itself ("The Idea of a University"). Even if he's basing this claim on some vague proclamation the Pope made about obedience (I'm not sure if Condell was saying that was an exact quote or not), I think you'd again be hard pressed to apply Condell's claims of moral ineptitude to this Pope (except for the condom thing, which the Pope did say, and is not moral ineptitude). Pope Benedict is (I think most of us would agree) incredibly intelligent and well-studied, very measured in his rhetoric, on record as praising democracy and being able to choose religion freely (see his talks during his US visit), and one of the most outspoken opponents of moral relativism. In fact, I think that the differences between the Catholic clergy, Anglican clergy, and Muslim clergy are really so different that it's unfair to really even lump them all together as representing "the clergy". Even if I agreed with Condell (which I don't in any way) I think I would at least differentiate among the different clergies and try to condemn them for their particular beliefs/failures/whatever.
But what is Condell's point about "using religion as a crutch if you have to?" That sounds like he's encouraging people to deny reality (as he sees it). How is that defensible?
| 132 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:02:50pm |
re: #119 insert name here
(By the way, that was meant to be a joke, SFZionist, just in case it came across clumsily...)
No, no, got that! ;)
| 133 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:03:39pm |
re: #123 pre-Boomer Marine brat
The (Condell's) opening statement showed extreme arrogance toward "Believers".
I should elaborate.
Condell has the right, as a human being, to think whatever he wishes. What he believes, or doesn't, does not matter in the slightest to me.
However, what gives anyone the right to look down one's nose at another human being who is acting with sincerity?
Condell believes he has that right.
/just making the point
| 134 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:03:42pm |
re: #120 BlackFedora
The fanatical anti-religionists and the fanatical religionists are starting to sound the same to me. I personally am not sure I want to carry a card for either club.
You can join my husband's club. He is an apathetic agnostic.
| 135 |
Enkidu90046 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:04:08pm |
Aren't the list of abuses by the RCC given in this video the reason why Martin Luther started Protestantism?
| 136 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:04:43pm |
re: #127 BlackFedora
Even as someone who tries to follow Christ. The idea that an all powerful being needs our praise and adoration has always struck me as profoundly odd...
For me it's in the sense that he did for me what I am incapable of doing myself, ie: living a perfect life, (which, though I have the desire to do so, who or what opinion determines what is 'perfection'?) and taking on the burdens of my sins so I don't have to since I am a pretty weak entity in many aspects.
I just hate the 'public self flagellation's' / guilt that tend to come with it to appease the neighbors...
| 137 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:06:36pm |
re: #116 John Neverbend
I heard Hitchens speaking at the Oxford Union in the early '80s on the same side as a clearly anti-semitic British MP and others whom I don't remember. On the other side was Chaim Herzog, a British journalist called Patrick Cosgrave and others whose names escape me. I didn't like what Hitchens was saying, and I suspected him then of anti-semitism, but in the light of what I saw of him later on, I think I was mistaken. At worst, I think he's ill-informed on many of the issues he has with Israel. I also have no evidence that Dawkins is anti-Jewish, although he has said some less than helpful (and less than intelligent) things about Israel, as has been outlined in LGF in recent weeks.
There is a tendency to give Jews a special break when it comes to criticizing religion, whereby any criticism can be called "racist" or "bigoted", but if the exact same points are made about, say, the Pope then it is not racist.
Obviously there are particularly current issues relating to Jews as a people, but that should not make them immune to criticism of their religious habits and beliefs, and they have some doozies.
The overly sensitive and politically correct listener has trouble making that distinction.
On the other hand I think I have known more Jewish atheists than ex Catholics, but the former are still allowed to call themselves Jews. Strange stuff all this.
| 138 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:06:54pm |
re: #133 pre-Boomer Marine brat
However, what gives anyone the right to look down one's nose at another human being who is acting with sincerity?
Maybe I missed something in your reasoning, but "sincerity" in this context seems very vague. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that?
| 139 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:08:21pm |
re: #130 insert name here
...as is the idea that we need to pray to get his attention. I thought he was all-powerful. Doesn't he already know what needs fixing?
(And by the way -- a sorta semi-serious question...why is God always referred to as "he?")
Patriarchy.
Judith Plaskow, a Jewish feminist theologian, makes a rather interesting point about this. She says that to use the masculine exclusively is a form of idolatry, since it ascribes a human characteristic to God.
| 140 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:08:33pm |
re: #137 Naso Tang
On the other hand I think I have known more Jewish atheists than ex Catholics, but the former are still allowed to call themselves Jews.
Isn't this just the usual conflation of religious adherence and cultural identity?
| 141 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:09:00pm |
re: #127 BlackFedora
Even as someone who tries to follow Christ. The idea that an all powerful being needs our praise and adoration has always struck me as profoundly odd...
FYI, for what it's worth, there's a line in Attenborough's movie "Shadowlands". Lewis (Hopkins) says (something close to, I can't recall the exact dialogue): "My prayers don't change God. They change me."
/perhaps the praise isn't to be for God's benefit? ... just askin'
| 142 |
PaisleyCow Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:09:15pm |
Egads, sorry about the long post. I haven't posted in awhile and I've clearly forgotten internet comment style/brevity.
But just to reinforce that last question I had, since many of you are saying he's showing "compassion"--how is it compassionate to encourage suffering people to embrace a worldview he finds ludicrous, untrue, and destructive? Seems, um...counterintuitive, to say the least.
| 143 |
swamprat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:09:15pm |
re: #127 BlackFedora
Even as someone who tries to follow Christ. The idea that an all powerful being needs our praise and adoration has always struck me as profoundly odd...
There is a place in the bible where it says something like;
"God does not need your bull".
That isn't short for BS, it is talking about sacrificing a bull on an altar.
It goes on to say he has plenty of cattle anyway. And implies or says that those sacrifices are for us, not him.
And to tie all this together, why are clergy living in castles?
| 144 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:09:53pm |
re: #139 SanFranciscoZionist
Patriarchy.
Judith Plaskow, a Jewish feminist theologian, makes a rather interesting point about this. She says that to use the masculine exclusively is a form of idolatry, since it ascribes a human characteristic to God.
Hey, my club thinks we got a Heavenly Father and Mother...with bodies of flesh and bone.
We even had a conference in which a student prayed to 'Heavenly Mother'.
Go figure.
| 145 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:10:05pm |
re: #139 SanFranciscoZionist
Patriarchy.
Judith Plaskow, a Jewish feminist theologian, makes a rather interesting point about this. She says that to use the masculine exclusively is a form of idolatry, since it ascribes a human characteristic to God.
Oh, that's GOOD! I like that!
Interesting isn't it? That's may be the only human characteristic we ascribe to God as well. Why that one? Pretty obvious.
| 146 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:10:46pm |
re: #129 Charles
If you watch the video you linked, I don't see how you can describe his views like that. He doesn't say he "hates Jews" at all. In fact, he makes it clear that of the three major religions, he likes Judaism best. He never says anything at all about hating anyone -- he's criticizing the religions, not the people.
Yes, this was also my understanding. Parts of the video were actually quite funny, but his comments on Jerusalem were simultaneously ill-informed, unhelpful and downright silly.
I still marvel at how any rational person can possibly think that it's a good idea to ask an established country, now 61 years old, with an established capital city to "give it up", no matter what the alleged grievances are, particularly in the case of Israel where there is no reason whatsoever to do this.
| 147 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:12:02pm |
re: #144 Oh no...Sand People!
Hey, my club thinks we got a Heavenly Father and Mother...with bodies of flesh and bone.
We even had a conference in which a student prayed to 'Heavenly Mother'.
Go figure.
Please forgive my extreme ignorance, Oh no...San People, but what club is this? I'm guessing the one in SLC, but that's just a wild stab...
| 148 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:12:28pm |
re: #143 swamprat
And to tie all this together, why are clergy living in castles?
There is a very good episode of Terry Jones' "Medieval Lives" which illustrates the problem of keeping to the ideals of poverty and purity.
Here's a bit of it:
| 149 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:12:39pm |
re: #137 Naso Tang
There is a tendency to give Jews a special break when it comes to criticizing religion, whereby any criticism can be called "racist" or "bigoted", but if the exact same points are made about, say, the Pope then it is not racist.
I can't think of an example of this. Do you have one?
| 150 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:12:46pm |
re: #138 cenotaphium
Maybe I missed something in your reasoning, but "sincerity" in this context seems very vague. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" and all that?
Yes, I understand that saying. My use of it had nothing at all to do with that idea.
Perhaps I should have said, sincere faith.
| 151 |
Eclectic Infidel Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:12:51pm |
100% on target once again. I do, however, disagree with his position regarding the Jews and Jerusalem (of course).
| 152 |
HelloDare Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:13:11pm |
re: #137 Naso Tang
There is a tendency to give Jews a special break when it comes to criticizing religion, whereby any criticism can be called "racist" or "bigoted", but if the exact same points are made about, say, the Pope then it is not racist.
Obviously there are particularly current issues relating to Jews as a people, but that should not make them immune to criticism of their religious habits and beliefs, and they have some doozies.
The overly sensitive and politically correct listener has trouble making that distinction.
On the other hand I think I have known more Jewish atheists than ex Catholics, but the former are still allowed to call themselves Jews. Strange stuff all this.
I can't recall a Jew ever getting in my face about religion the way some Christians do. Maybe this is one reason they get a break when it comes to criticizing religion.
| 153 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:13:34pm |
re: #135 Enkidu90046
Aren't the list of abuses by the RCC given in this video the reason why Martin Luther started Protestantism?
The bits about wealth and corruption are similar. The rest, I don't think Luther would have agreed with in the slightest.
There's an utterly delicious bit in one of Garrison Keillor's books, where a man from Lake Wobegon has written up a list of theses attacking his Lutheran childhood. He's going to nail it to the door of the Lutheran church, but there's a scout meeting inside, and he's afraid of being heard, and also he doesn't want to make nail holes in a good piece of wood, so he slides it under the door of the local newspaper.
| 154 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:14:02pm |
re: #145 iceweasel
Oh, that's GOOD! I like that!
Interesting isn't it? That's may be the only human characteristic we ascribe to God as well. Why that one? Pretty obvious.
Good lord, I'm dense. Took me awhile to figure that out.
| 155 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:14:20pm |
re: #147 insert name here
Please forgive my extreme ignorance, Oh no...San People, but what club is this? I'm guessing the one in SLC, but that's just a wild stab...
Yup. In post #1 you can see what the 'clergy' is even saying right now. Conference is on got a link to it... you can get my version of 'guilt'. heh.
LDS / Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints / Mormons / Cult / etc. etc.
| 156 |
Floridagirl Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:15:46pm |
hmmm, first real post, here goes...
I attended a very controlling church (didn't start out that way, became so) for many years (25). Many of the church leadership were as he describes. I left, tried other churches and now jokingly refer to myself as agnostic atheist. The further detached I am from organized religion, the more I agree with some of the things he said.
But...I experience him much the same as I did many of the church leaders, arrogant, condescending, judgmental. Ewww. A$$holes in and out.
| 157 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:15:55pm |
re: #154 insert name here
Good lord, I'm dense. Took me awhile to figure that out.
Well, religion and patriarchy are issues I've thought about before, that's all.
| 158 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:16:07pm |
re: #140 cenotaphium
Isn't this just the usual conflation of religious adherence and cultural identity?
Hey. We don't call it conflating. We just think other folks have divided a perfectly simple thing into a bunch of parts for no good reason. ;)
| 159 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:16:12pm |
re: #139 SanFranciscoZionist
Patriarchy.
Judith Plaskow, a Jewish feminist theologian, makes a rather interesting point about this. She says that to use the masculine exclusively is a form of idolatry, since it ascribes a human characteristic to God.
In fact, I can think of at least one common Hebrew prayer where God is addressed in the feminine.
| 160 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:16:38pm |
re: #142 PaisleyCow
But just to reinforce that last question I had, since many of you are saying he's showing "compassion"--how is it compassionate to encourage suffering people to embrace a worldview he finds ludicrous, untrue, and destructive?
Ever heard of placebo? Even if you're against homeopathy, since it's unsubstantiated nonsense, why should you try to pry away what comfort one individual can get out of it?
I don't see any conflict with accepting that someone can take solace from a belief system that's entirely false and still be against the belief system as a whole. As a religious person, I assume you let people of other faiths go about their way without trying to convert them, since their way gives them solace? Even though I also assume that you wouldn't hesitate to proclaim your religion the true one, and the others not true.
| 161 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:17:16pm |
re: #140 cenotaphium
Isn't this just the usual conflation of religious adherence and cultural identity?
Yes of course, although different groups exhibit that to different degrees.
Islam certainly is up there with orthodox Jews at least, and perhaps one can throw in Mormons as well. No doubt it would be interesting to create a points scale defining cultural/social/religious connection strengths (EG, which hand must be used to wipe one's butt type of dictates);
but I don't have the time.
| 162 |
AuntAcid Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:17:24pm |
re: #141 pre-Boomer Marine brat
FYI, for what it's worth, there's a line in Attenborough's movie "Shadowlands". Lewis (Hopkins) says (something close to, I can't recall the exact dialogue): "My prayers don't change God. They change me."
/perhaps the praise isn't to be for God's benefit? ... just askin'
I always thought God had bigger fish to fry than saving my sorry ass. God isn't 911. If I were to guess, God's concerns are that the whole infinity/eternity thing is going to eventually come around and bite him/her in the ass big time.
| 163 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:18:07pm |
re: #141 pre-Boomer Marine brat
FYI, for what it's worth, there's a line in Attenborough's movie "Shadowlands". Lewis (Hopkins) says (something close to, I can't recall the exact dialogue): "My prayers don't change God. They change me."
/perhaps the praise isn't to be for God's benefit? ... just askin'
That's certainly what I would say. I'm not saying that God is great because God needs to be reminded. I, on the other hand, maybe do.
Lewis was a smart man.
| 164 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:18:35pm |
re: #150 pre-Boomer Marine brat
Yes, I understand that saying. My use of it had nothing at all to do with that idea.
Perhaps I should have said, sincere faith.
I understand it's not the point you were trying to make, I'm just curious as to why (it seems to me) you are trying to say that someone of a "sincere faith" can't be outright wrong (or, that a person of "sincere faith" deserves respect on that alone)?
I might have missed the point entirely though. I'm only Swedish. :/
| 165 |
Enkidu90046 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:18:36pm |
re: #153 SanFranciscoZionist
Yeah, I wasn't meaning to imply that Martin Luther would agree with everything in there, only the abuses of the RCC church.
| 166 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:20:46pm |
I like Pat Condell, and I'm a Catholic.
Just one little Gedanenexperiment, if I may?
Take that video and, every time he mentions a specific faith or institution or person, dub in "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "Chief Rabbi".
Would he sound like a bigot then?
If not, why not?
| 167 |
Enkidu90046 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:21:16pm |
re: #162 AuntAcid
I always thought God had bigger fish to fry than saving my sorry ass. God isn't 911. If I were to guess, God's concerns are that the whole infinity/eternity thing is going to eventually come around and bite him/her in the ass big time.
So you are saying that God isn't responsible for every professional athlete who wins in his given sport and then gives thanks to God?
SHOCKA!!!
/
| 168 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:21:30pm |
re: #161 Naso Tang
Yes of course, although different groups exhibit that to different degrees.
Islam certainly is up there with orthodox Jews at least, and perhaps one can throw in Mormons as well. No doubt it would be interesting to create a points scale defining cultural/social/religious connection strengths (EG, which hand must be used to wipe one's butt type of dictates);
but I don't have the time.
I completely agree. Your question actually prompted me to ponder what I'd make of myself were I travelling abroad, or even a citizen of another nation. I think the cultural heritage of "Swede" would travel with me far beyond any connection I'd make to it living here.
| 169 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:22:31pm |
re: #159 John Neverbend
In fact, I can think of at least one common Hebrew prayer where God is addressed in the feminine.
?
| 170 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:23:32pm |
re: #164 cenotaphium
I understand it's not the point you were trying to make, I'm just curious as to why (it seems to me) you are trying to say that someone of a "sincere faith" can't be outright wrong (or, that a person of "sincere faith" deserves respect on that alone)?
I might have missed the point entirely though. I'm only Swedish. :/
Yes, a person acting in sincerity can be wrong.
Does a person of sincere faith deserve respect because of that -- not to mention, because of that alone?
Permit me to say that I believe a person deserves respect. ... Period.
/and there's not a single thing wrong with being Swedish
| 171 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:23:42pm |
re: #160 cenotaphium
Ever heard of placebo? Even if you're against homeopathy, since it's unsubstantiated nonsense, why should you try to pry away what comfort one individual can get out of it?
I don't see any conflict with accepting that someone can take solace from a belief system that's entirely false and still be against the belief system as a whole. As a religious person, I assume you let people of other faiths go about their way without trying to convert them, since their way gives them solace? Even though I also assume that you wouldn't hesitate to proclaim your religion the true one, and the others not true.
I actually kind of liked his analogy to artificial sunlight. We do seem to thrive on spiritual beliefs. I can't think of anything that would be better about my life if I were less religious. So why would I worry?
| 172 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:24:13pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
I like Pat Condell, and I'm a Catholic.
Just one little Gedanenexperiment, if I may?
Take that video and, every time he mentions a specific faith or institution or person, dub in "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "Chief Rabbi".
Would he sound like a bigot then?
If not, why not?
ummm ,,, errr ,,, ahhh ,,, uhhh ,,,
| 173 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:25:43pm |
re: #143 swamprat
There is a place in the bible where it says something like;
"God does not need your bull".
That isn't short for BS, it is talking about sacrificing a bull on an altar.
It goes on to say he has plenty of cattle anyway. And implies or says that those sacrifices are for us, not him.
The sacrifices were for us and not for the gods or god, at least initially for the Greeks. They'd wrap the fat around the bones and burn that for the gods, while the animals themselves would be used for a feast for the people.
The word "holocaust" initially came from a greek word referring to the sacrifice of the entire animal, by burning all of it.
The term holocaust originally derived from the Greek word holókauston, meaning a " whole (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god.
IIRC that was done extremely rarely.
There's a fantastic book about this that i can recommend very highly:
Homo Necans: the Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth
Amazon link here.
| 174 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:26:09pm |
re: #162 AuntAcid
God isn't 911.
Angels soaring through the air
as they did in Bethlehem
Angels answer every prayer
once they get around to them
Please be patient, an angel will be with thee shortly
Due to increased prayer amounts
Seraphim will have delays
Servicing thy prayer accounts
For the next five million days
Please be patient, an angel will be with thee shortly
Please continue thee to hold
All thy ills will be relieved
Every human grief consoled
In the order’ twas received
Please be patient, an authorized prayer technician will be with thee shortly
Or to save thee time, wait for the chime
Sung by Feist, on the Stephen Colbert Christmas special. To the tune of "Angels Have We Heard on High".
| 175 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:26:32pm |
re: #146 John Neverbend
I still marvel at how any rational person can possibly think that it's a good idea to ask an established country, now 61 years old, with an established capital city to "give it up", no matter what the alleged grievances are, particularly in the case of Israel where there is no reason whatsoever to do this.
I didn't hear it that way. He was making the analogy that aside from the religion aspect (and this applies not only to Jews), Jerusalem would just be another historically interesting city, but basically still just some real estate.
The "suggestion" was obviously sarcastic, nothing more.
| 176 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:27:22pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
I like Pat Condell, and I'm a Catholic.
Just one little Gedanenexperiment, if I may?
Take that video and, every time he mentions a specific faith or institution or person, dub in "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "Chief Rabbi".
Would he sound like a bigot then?
If not, why not?
Yes. Because he would sound like an outsider attacking a minority group. Should he be able to do it with Christian groups? I ain't sure.
| 177 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:27:27pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
I like Pat Condell, and I'm a Catholic.
Just one little Gedanenexperiment, if I may?
Take that video and, every time he mentions a specific faith or institution or person, dub in "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "Chief Rabbi".
Would he sound like a bigot then?
If not, why not?
What I said.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 178 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:27:55pm |
re: #171 SanFranciscoZionist
I actually kind of liked his analogy to artificial sunlight. We do seem to thrive on spiritual beliefs. I can't think of anything that would be better about my life if I were less religious. So why would I worry?
I did too. I just figured PaisleyCow wanted another analogy to make sense of it.
I have exactly your reasoning. Only in reverse. That is, I can't think of anything that'd improve my life were I spiritual or religious. So why should I bother?
I think "Is it not enough to see that the garden is beautiful, without having to imagine fairies at the bottom of it?" (Douglas Adams) says it best for me.
| 179 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:28:29pm |
re: #159 John Neverbend
In fact, I can think of at least one common Hebrew prayer where God is addressed in the feminine.
I'm sorry, my ? didn't seem sufficient. Which one are you thinking of?
| 180 |
Oh no...Sand People! Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:28:44pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
I like Pat Condell, and I'm a Catholic.
Just one little Gedanenexperiment, if I may?
Take that video and, every time he mentions a specific faith or institution or person, dub in "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "Chief Rabbi".
Would he sound like a bigot then?
If not, why not?
Hmm..
In my opinion. If I can lay into Islam, then that gives anyone the right to put my beliefs, LDS, to task and lay into them with just as much ferocity. I will play apologist of course, but at the same time, I would love it if someone from Islam would pop in and defend what they do.
I may be projecting, but I don't think he is attacking 'groups' wholesale or even the Catholic Church, but what the 'leadership' has done to the 'proles' to keep them in 'line'.
| 182 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:29:16pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
I like Pat Condell, and I'm a Catholic.
Just one little Gedanenexperiment, if I may?
Take that video and, every time he mentions a specific faith or institution or person, dub in "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "Chief Rabbi".
Would he sound like a bigot then?
If not, why not?
Yes,-- but because then the video would be about an attack on the clergy of ONE faith, not all.
That's why the Gedanenexperiement fails.
| 183 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:32:22pm |
Of course, saying that all clergy are parasites - there's nothing blanket or sweeping about that statement, now, is there?
| 184 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:32:37pm |
re: #165 Enkidu90046
Yeah, I wasn't meaning to imply that Martin Luther would agree with everything in there, only the abuses of the RCC church.
I had the same thought, specifically about the idea that the priest or clergy need to act as an intercessor between god and man.
| 185 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:32:39pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
Gedanenexperiment
Gedankenexperiment.
Sorry. It's the specter of my evil German teacher come to haunt me.
| 186 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:32:59pm |
re: #170 pre-Boomer Marine brat
Does a person of sincere faith deserve respect because of that -- not to mention, because of that alone?
You raise a good point...
For me, I guess it's a question of what "sincere faith" actually is. If the person behaves the way I believe the Bible teaches one to behave, they have my utmost respect, despite my personal feelings about organized religion. (And I understand, I'm defining this from my perspective.)
But if "sincere faith" includes those who want to tell me, or, even worse, want to pass laws directing me to live my life according to their particular religious beliefs (and if not, I'm going to hell, or worse), well, frankly, piss on 'em.
| 187 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:33:01pm |
re: #182 iceweasel
Yes,-- but because then the video would be about an attack on the clergy of ONE faith, not all.
That's why the Gedanenexperiement fails.
And what is wrong with picking on one faith? We do that here often.
There's always tomorrow for another one.
| 188 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:33:33pm |
re: #185 cenotaphium
Gedankenexperiment.
Sorry. It's the specter of my evil German teacher come to haunt me.
It was a typo.
You're teaching German to a professional translator.
But thanks.
| 189 |
Gus Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:33:37pm |
re: #131 PaisleyCow
You might want to watch this:
Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens (1 of 3)
Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens (2 of 3)
Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens (3 of 3)
| 190 |
Enkidu90046 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:34:59pm |
Was it Bill Mahr (who I really don't like that much and because of his smug obnoxious condescending demeanor more than the message of what he says) who said something to the effect of religious differences really being about the same as saying "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend"?
BTW, this video has been around for a while, but it seems apropos for some reason:
| 191 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:36:15pm |
re: #187 Naso Tang
And what is wrong with picking on one faith? We do that here often.
There's always tomorrow for another one.
Of course-- I'm just responding to the point about this video and what would happen if every instance of a mention of a religion were replaced in the way Cato suggests. This particular video would then come off as bigoted.
This is not to say that there cannot be criticisms of only one faith or religious institution ever, of course.
| 192 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:36:25pm |
OK get your dings ready for the opinion of a 40yr. lapsed Catholic who doesn't believe the hype for Jesus or against. I've only gone to church for weddings. The next funeral I go to will be my own.
Pat Condell is a parasite. This and his other screeds, and they are one sided hate filled screeds, full of clever name calling, focusing on his perverted view of organized religion, highlight and magnify the real and perceived hypocrisy and corruption. All the while utterly ignoring the good and charitable works of the organizations he hates so rabidly. This isn't a critical analysis of purpose or product of religion, it is simply a you tube rant by someone who apparently likes seeing himself there. Those of you who think this is on target aren't looking too deep into the issues. If his targets disappeared tomorrow, he'd have no one to rant about or buy his 'comedy', and no St. Vincent de Paul or similar org. to feed him if he got hungry.
not on target, not lucid and not funny.
| 193 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:36:27pm |
re: #188 Cato the Elder
You're teaching German to a professional translator.
Professional translator? Never met anyone doing that. For whom or what do you translate? Newspapers, publishers, ambassadors?
| 194 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:36:51pm |
re: #169 SanFranciscoZionist
?
Modim anachnu lach... in the Amidah.
Some argue that "lach" in Hebrew is used for both the female form and the male form "lecha", but I've seen it argued on orthodox web sites that it has a deeper significance.
| 195 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:37:22pm |
re: #186 insert name here
You raise a good point...
For me, I guess it's a question of what "sincere faith" actually is. If the person behaves the way I believe the Bible teaches one to behave, they have my utmost respect, despite my personal feelings about organized religion. (And I understand, I'm defining this from my perspective.)
But if "sincere faith" includes those who want to tell me, or, even worse, want to pass laws directing me to live my life according to their particular religious beliefs (and if not, I'm going to hell, or worse), well, frankly, piss on 'em.
Well, fine. But I have similar feelings about a guy like Condell who feels the need to track me down on the internet and tell me that my beliefs are false (although apparently better than some other people's false beliefs), and give me permission to keep them as long as I don't let a clergyman tell me not to use condoms.
I swear, it's like dealing with a college sophomore who's discovered philosophy. (Condell, I mean).
| 196 |
William of Orange Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:37:39pm |
Man! That was bang on the money. Religion is almost equal to politics. Most of the world conflicts all were born fruit of religious violence. And do not blame Islam alone! In the eyes of a believer an atheist has no future. God has a much too big place in politics. Religion should be a local event.
| 197 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:37:48pm |
re: #156 Floridagirl
I left, tried other churches and now jokingly refer to myself as agnostic atheist.
Thanks for the great moniker, Floridagirl. I'm going to start describing myself this way, too!
| 198 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:38:49pm |
re: #180 Oh no...Sand People!
I would love it if someone from Islam would pop in and defend what they do.
Heh. You asked for it (except that I'm an un-churched Methodist and devout Christian, and this is a VERY targeted response.)
It's hard to get past the legends surrounding Rabia al-Adawiyya's life (a major, and early, Sufi saint), but her most significant contention was that neither desire for gain nor fear of punishment is a valid basis for worship of God. The only valid basis for worship is love of God.
| 199 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:38:53pm |
re: #175 Naso Tang
I didn't hear it that way. He was making the analogy that aside from the religion aspect (and this applies not only to Jews), Jerusalem would just be another historically interesting city, but basically still just some real estate.
The "suggestion" was obviously sarcastic, nothing more.
If he meant it purely sarcastically, then it was over my head. He did say, however, that it did not belong to the Jews, and the very concept of "giving it back" to somebody, suggests that there is a prior and rightful owner. I would disagree with that point.
| 200 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:38:53pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
VIMF (Vorschau ist mein Freund): Gedankenexperiment
Das volldeutsche (entgegen dem dt.-lat. Mischling) Wort ist Gedankenversuch. Einsteins Lichtgeschwindigkeits-Zug mit Fahrer und Beobachter ist vielleicht das berühmteste Bespiel eines Gedankenexperiments.
| 201 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:39:22pm |
re: #193 cenotaphium
Professional translator? Never met anyone doing that. For whom or what do you translate? Newspapers, publishers, ambassadors?
What you got? I'm a freelance.
| 202 |
SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:39:56pm |
re: #194 John Neverbend
Modim anachnu lach... in the Amidah.
Some argue that "lach" in Hebrew is used for both the female form and the male form "lecha", but I've seen it argued on orthodox web sites that it has a deeper significance.
Hah. Well I'll be. Never noticed that before.
Thanks!
| 203 |
Eclectic Infidel Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:40:24pm |
re: #122 SanFranciscoZionist
I agree, but I've been through far too many rounds of 'well, if you're at ALL critical of Israel you get called an anti-Semite" not to be slightly wary. Also, there are a lot of people out there who are not anti-Semites, but have been fed a load of crap by people who are truly, deeply anti-Israel, and while they innocently feel that they are just being critical of bad stuff, they're learning to discount the legitimate existence of the state.
That said, I have been called an anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist self-hating Jew a few times meself.
At the last Israel in the Gardens festival in San Francisco, our SFV4Israel table was visited by an older couple on vacation. Both were from the West Bank. They looked at our material, looked at our photographs and said very little. Finally the husband said, "I can't distinguish your group from the rest of the crowd (despite the fact that the pictures clearly showed us as the only ones with Israeli flags). Where do you stand on the settlements?" Someone sitting next to me said, "We're neutral on that point," and on that note the guy muttered something about us being "part of the problem" and walked away in a huff. It was an interesting experience but somewhat disturbing as well.
| 204 |
Racer X Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:41:08pm |
re: #183 Cato the Elder
Of course, saying that all clergy are parasites - there's nothing blanket or sweeping about that statement, now, is there?
Pat makes a lot of good points - but you're right, this is not one of them. Clergy exist to provide spiritual teaching and guidance. Some do it better than others.
In a perfect world clergy would refrain from the "my religion is so much better than yours", and the "this life means nothing, the next one is the important one" talking points.
| 205 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:41:24pm |
re: #201 Cato the Elder
What you got? I'm a freelance.
Maybe you should start charging for you lance!
| 206 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:41:39pm |
re: #186 insert name here
But if "sincere faith" includes those who want to tell me, or, even worse, want to pass laws directing me to live my life according to their particular religious beliefs (and if not, I'm going to hell, or worse), well, frankly, piss on 'em.
Go back up and look at the first sentence of my response.
/IMHO, you're "preaching" (perhaps unwittingly) to "the choir" (me)
| 207 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:41:40pm |
re: #201 Cato the Elder
What you got? I'm a freelance.
C.A.T.O.:
Consistently Alert Translating Organism.
| 209 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:42:53pm |
re: #8 _RememberTonyC
he's still a brit ... and you know what that means ...
One can infer antisemitism from the mere fact that he is British? Critising alleged bigotry while expressing actual, uncontestable bigotry = massive fail, FYI.
Many downdings. (which I am sure you will not cry about because you are so - um - thick skinned and all...)/
| 210 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:44:02pm |
re: #209 Jimmah
One can infer antisemitism from the mere fact that he is British? Critising alleged bigotry while expressing actual, uncontestable bigotry = massive fail, FYI.
Many downdings. (which I am sure you will not cry about because you are so - um - thick skinned and all...)/
Not to mention NOT HERE!
| 211 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:44:35pm |
re: #166 Cato the Elder
I like Pat Condell, and I'm a Catholic.
Just one little Gedanenexperiment, if I may?
Take that video and, every time he mentions a specific faith or institution or person, dub in "Jewish" or "synagogue" or "Chief Rabbi".
Would he sound like a bigot then?
If not, why not?
I think he would sound like a bigot, but only if he repeatedly stuck to one religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, whatever), and not if he gave more than one religion a hard time. The odd thing is that I suspect he'd be less likely to be called out for bigotry if he only concentrated on Christianity. Oh, and by the way, I knew that you had accidentally missed pressing a key for the German word.
| 212 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:46:23pm |
re: #197 insert name here
re: #156 Floridagirl
I left, tried other churches and now jokingly refer to myself as agnostic atheist.
It's not a joke, it exists. I use it myself. It's thought of as the same as "weak atheism".
In a nutshell, it's the difference between seeing a sliding scale of (atheist - agnostic - theist), and seeing it as two separate axes of atheist/theist on one side and agnostic/gnostic on the other.
There's a nice little graph over at Evolving Thoughts.
| 213 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:46:53pm |
re: #206 pre-Boomer Marine brat
Go back up and look at the first sentence of my response.
/IMHO, you're "preaching" (perhaps unwittingly) to "the choir" (me)
Ooops -- thanks for the correction (I really should read more carefully).
| 214 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:47:43pm |
re: #182 iceweasel
Yes,-- but because then the video would be about an attack on the clergy of ONE faith, not all.
That's why the Gedanenexperiement fails.
Actually, no.
With the exception of a nod to the Muslims, he picked on one faith - Christianity. Different flavors, but one faith.
Maybe he thinks Buddhist monks or shamans or rabbis might actually serve a useful purpose now and then. I wouldn't know.
Of course it would be silly to think that of any Christian minister, anywhere, ever. Or at least it would spoil his point.
What was his point again?
Ah, yes - priest = parasite.
I hope he donates any money he makes from these videos to a nice charity somewhere. If he drinks so much as one beer or makes one car payment from his anti-preaching preaching to the non-faithful, guess what, Pat? You're a leech.
| 216 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:48:33pm |
re: #210 sattv4u2
Not to mention NOT HERE!
Oh what a shame. Well, he'll be able to read the comment when he gets back so all is not lost now is it?
| 217 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:48:38pm |
re: #201 Cato the Elder
What you got? I'm a freelance.
German and English, do you have any more languages up your metaphorical sleeve?
| 218 |
John Neverbend Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:49:19pm |
re: #202 SanFranciscoZionist
Hah. Well I'll be. Never noticed that before.
Thanks!
You're welcome, but I am still conscious that some orthodox Jews would argue that it's simply the feminine being used for the masculine. There are other examples of this amphibolous usage, I think, in Torah. I really don't know the answer.
| 219 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:50:05pm |
re: #192 poteen
Your opinion is understandable, and probably shared by most people to the extent that we can all imagine the same speech made with some of the more derogatory expressions removed; yet without removing the essential point that he considers Organized Religion to be largely self serving.
But if he did that, then he wouldn't get as many viewers; neither from those who like or love him, nor from those that hate him. He would just be another reasonable blogger.
He is hardly alone in using that style of expression, and I don't mean only with regard to opinions of religion.
| 220 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:50:10pm |
re: #213 insert name here
Ooops -- thanks for the correction (I really should read more carefully).
No problem.
I deliberately avoided the urge to add examples to that sentence -- Osama bin Laden and my father's Southern Baptist mother came to mind.
| 221 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:50:37pm |
re: #214 Cato the Elder
He's picking on the clergy and on religion as an organised institution-- not on faith or believers.
We'd actually agree on the idea that he's smearing all members of the clergy by comparing them all to the higherups. The priest working in a small and impoverished parish is not subject to the criticisms he's laying at the feet of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and others).
| 222 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:51:10pm |
re: #214 Cato the Elder
What was his point again?
Ah, yes - priest = parasite.
I thought he made it pretty clear it was clergy in general? I thought he spent a good bit of time attacking the very concept of a hierarchy in belief too?
| 223 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:51:17pm |
re: #215 iceweasel
What do you care?
I'm very caring
Compassionate
Alert
Interested
Fascinated, even
| 224 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:51:58pm |
re: #217 cenotaphium
German and English, do you have any more languages up your metaphorical sleeve?
Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Russian, and Albanian, in roughly that order of non-fluency. (Actually I'm kidding about Albanian - just put it in there to tease Kejda.)
You've really never heard of a professional translator? How do you think all the crappy Dan Brown books get sold overseas?
| 225 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:52:39pm |
re: #216 Jimmah
Oh what a shame. Well, he'll be able to read the comment when he gets back so all is not lost now is it?
I don't think anything was "lost", except your attempt to engage with someone who isn't here
| 226 |
insert name here Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:52:58pm |
re: #214 Cato the Elder
If he drinks so much as one beer or makes one car payment from his anti-preaching preaching to the non-faithful, guess what, Pat? You're a leech.
Your points are well taken, Cato, but for me there's a huge difference between Condell's "preaching" (hey, I'd buy him a beer) and those who preach that, unless we follow their path, we're going to burn in everlasting hellfire. Two very different kettles of fish.
| 227 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:53:04pm |
re: #221 iceweasel
He's picking on the clergy and on religion as an organised institution-- not on faith or believers.
We'd actually agree on the idea that he's smearing all members of the clergy by comparing them all to the higherups. The priest working in a small and impoverished parish is not subject to the criticisms he's laying at the feet of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and others).
Oh, no, don't pull that one. He's very explicitly talking about all clergy everywhere.
Which his his perfect right.
As it's mine to call him a bigot.
| 228 |
HelloDare Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:53:30pm |
I doubt if any boxer will take the moniker The Burqa Bomber.
Muslim women boxers to wear hijab at 2012 Olympics
THE burqa boxers are coming. Young women are training in Afghanistan to fight in Islamic dress at the 2012 London Olympics.
Wearing hijabs beneath their headguards and clothes that cover their bodies, 25 female pugilists are preparing for their bouts in gruelling training sessions at Kabul’s Olympic stadium, once the scene of public executions by the Taliban.
The team, whose ages range from 14-25, were recruited by their coach, Fadir Sharify, a former professional boxer. He persuaded the girls’ families that it would not be inappropriate for them to take to the ring.
The 2012 summer Games will be the first time women have been allowed to box under the Olympic banner.
The International Boxing Association (IBA), which regulates the sport, said the women could observe religious dress requirements providing their faces were uncovered so the judges could record the number of punches they received. They must also wear breast guards beneath their outfits.
“At the moment there is nothing preventing women boxers from wearing full Islamic dress. Obviously, religious requirements should be taken into account and we want to be as inclusive as we can,” said an IBA spokesman.
The Afghan team is being sponsored by Oxfam as part of a project designed to promote peace and women’s rights. “In a country ravaged by 30 years of war and run by a conservative male-dominated society, these female boxers are Afghanistan’s most improbable ambassadors for peace,” Oxfam said.
“We are proud to support these athletes who challenge preconceived notions about Afghan women through peacebuilding.”
Mirwais Wardak, who runs Fighting for Peace, the Kabul boxing programme, said the team were challenging stereotypes in Afghanistan about how women should behave.
| 229 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:53:41pm |
re: #221 iceweasel
We'd actually agree on the idea that he's smearing all members of the clergy by comparing them all to the higherups. The priest working in a small and impoverished parish is not subject to the criticisms he's laying at the feet of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and others).
I don't know. If you're complaining about an entire structure, each bit part plays its role. If we were talking about why communism is bad, surely no-one would think we'd be attacking the one bureaucrat in a province trying to get the most public works done for the people in his sector?
| 230 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:54:17pm |
God on Trial:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 231 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:55:24pm |
DAMN!
I just up-dinged Cato!
I must now don my hair shirt!
/ ... :D ... teasing myself, Cato
| 232 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:55:40pm |
re: #225 sattv4u2
I don't think anything was "lost", except your attempt to engage with someone who isn't here
If/when he's here he can engage all he wants; either way I have expressed my opinion about this guys idiotic statement, and I'm happy with that.
| 233 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:55:49pm |
re: #209 Jimmah
One can infer antisemitism from the mere fact that he is British? Critising alleged bigotry while expressing actual, uncontestable bigotry = massive fail, FYI.
Many downdings. (which I am sure you will not cry about because you are so - um - thick skinned and all...)/
That was what I wanted to express but didn't. :) Jimmah FTW!
(as usual)
| 234 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:55:58pm |
re: #222 cenotaphium
I thought he made it pretty clear it was clergy in general? I thought he spent a good bit of time attacking the very concept of a hierarchy in belief too?
I think you're a bit slow. Priest I used as stand-in for clergy - all clergy, as you rightly state. His target.
Sometimes I go for alliteration. You have to think metaphorically with me. When asked, I'm reluctantly willing to s.p.e.l.l. i.t. o.u.t., though. ;^)
| 235 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:56:10pm |
re: #224 Cato the Elder
Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Russian, and Albanian, in roughly that order of non-fluency. (Actually I'm kidding about Albanian - just put it in there to tease Kejda.)
You've really never heard of a professional translator? How do you think all the crappy Dan Brown books get sold overseas?
The ones I've heard about usually only know 3-4 languages. I'll make a note of your skills somewhere. It's not every day you meet someone who knows that large a variety of languages.
/I notice you neglected the Scandinavian branch of languages.. no Snorre's Edda for you!
| 236 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 2:57:44pm |
re: #234 Cato the Elder
Well I never claimed to be a fancy pants professional linguist! :P
| 237 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:00:03pm |
re: #235 cenotaphium
The ones I've heard about usually only know 3-4 languages. I'll make a note of your skills somewhere. It's not every day you meet someone who knows that large a variety of languages.
/I notice you neglected the Scandinavian branch of languages.. no Snorre's Edda for you!
It's one thing to speak and understand, it's another to write and translate. I know a few in the former category but English is the only one I could translate TO. I'm curious if Cato can go between any of those listed.
| 238 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:01:13pm |
Condell is a critic of religion in general. Like many critics of religion these days. he does tend to focus more on the abrahamic faiths.
Leaving those Zeus worshippers to get off scot-free, as usual. ;-)
| 239 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:02:55pm |
re: #232 Jimmah
If/when he's here he can engage all he wants; either way I have expressed my opinion about this guys idiotic statement, and I'm happy with that.
I'm so happy you're happy!
Should we do the Happy Dance??
| 240 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:02:58pm |
re: #238 Jimmah
Condell is a critic of religion in general. Like many critics of religion these days. he does tend to focus more on the abrahamic faiths.
Leaving those Zeus worshippers to get off scot-free, as usual. ;-)
And yet their priests can still charge for their services in hecatombs, if they feel like it!
| 241 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:04:21pm |
re: #237 Naso Tang
It's one thing to speak and understand, it's another to write and translate. I know a few in the former category but English is the only one I could translate TO. I'm curious if Cato can go between any of those listed.
Not hardly - at least not to charge money for it.
My mead and brett come from German.
| 243 |
Enkidu90046 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:09:46pm |
re: #238 Jimmah
Leaving those Zeus worshippers to get off scot-free, as usual. ;-)
Yeah... and those worshipers of Gozer the Gozerian never get their due either!!
| 244 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:11:15pm |
re: #221 iceweasel
He's picking on the clergy and on religion as an organised institution-- not on faith or believers.
Exactly. If Pat Condell wanted to say "All priests are bastards" - he'd just say that.
| 245 |
Eclectic Infidel Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:16:22pm |
re: #214 Cato the Elder
A mere nod to Muslims? Pat Condell regularly blasts Muslims in his videos - the radical ones anyway. Hypocritical Christians are not the only ones targeted by Pat. Look him up on YouTube.
| 246 |
Cato the Elder Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:18:12pm |
re: #245 eclectic infidel
A mere nod to Muslims? Pat Condell regularly blasts Muslims in his videos - the radical ones anyway. Hypocritical Christians are not the only ones targeted by Pat. Look him up on YouTube.
I was talking about this particular video. Been watching him for years, thank you very much.
| 247 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:18:14pm |
re: #239 sattv4u2
I'm so happy you're happy!
Should we do the Happy Dance??
You're happy? really? Cos you sound a wee bit butthurt to me :
| 248 |
former_secret_agent Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:19:05pm |
Somewhat off topic, but I have always been amused by the term "organized religion". Still trying to find a "disorganized religion." And that reminds me of the old Will Rogers saying, that he wasn't a member of an organized political party. He was a democrat.
| 249 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:19:55pm |
re: #247 Jimmah
You're happy? really? Cos you sound a wee bit butthurt to me :
Me!?!?!?
Nahhh .. See ,, I actually engage people who are ,, well,, HERE!
Makes me (and them) happier that way!
:0)
| 250 |
offensive_username Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:20:50pm |
re: #171 SanFranciscoZionist
Kashrus? Zmanim? Ma'aser? Hilchos niddah? Yeihareig v'al ya'avor?! There's a whole Shulchan Aruch!
| 251 |
Stuart Leviton Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:21:41pm |
Other than his more superficial comments about Priest's in palaces, the speaker seemed ignorant of his subject matter.
| 252 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:28:52pm |
| 253 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:29:41pm |
re: #249 sattv4u2
Me!?!?!?
Nahhh .. See ,, I actually engage people who are ,, well,, HERE!
Makes me (and them) happier that way!
:0)
Um, so do I. satttv, as I'm sure you must have noticed. However, if you think I'm going to let someone off with a smear like that against the group I belong to just because he happens to have toddled off down to the shops you've got another thing coming.
What a bizarre and stupid idea - that offensive posts are not to be criticised unless one has ascertained that the poster is still logged in. Amazing the shit some people try to pull.
| 254 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:33:41pm |
re: #253 Jimmah
Um, so do I. satttv, as I'm sure you must have noticed. However, if you think I'm going to let someone off with a smear like that against the group I belong to just because he happens to have toddled off down to the shops you've got another thing coming.
What a bizarre and stupid idea - that offensive posts are not to be criticised unless one has ascertained that the poster is still logged in. Amazing the shit some people try to pull.
Not "pulling" anything. At the time he posted it he was querstioned/ chastised/ critiqued about it. I just think it's useless to engage someone thats not here to answer!
You know you'll "see" him again.
| 255 |
~Fianna Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:37:18pm |
re: #62 SanFranciscoZionist
I don't see passion, I see arrogance.
That's where I stand, as well.
The frustrating thing is that I agree with most of the things that fanatical athiests hold to be true. Science and human knowledge are pretty nifty, etc... but the scolding tone of Cordell and Dawkins towards people who believe is as irrational, IMO, as people who think that the world is 2000 years old and going to end tomorrow.
I think they tend to take the absolute worst aspects of religion (and even as a believer, I'm not going to deny that there are a lot of negative aspects, especially if you look at the historical record) and then set that up as the argument against all religion any time anywhere.
Absolutely awful things have been done in the name of religion - just like awful things have been done in the name of any ideology. Ideologies, whether they're religious, political or scientific have been used as tools by human beings. Some of those human beings have used them as wonderful tools, and built communities of compassion, constructed magnificent buildings, produced cures for diseases, succored the poor, made strides towards treating people equally under law and other really good things. Some other people have built death camps, made biological weapons, constructed economies built on slavery and exploitation and committed other great acts of evil - all using the same justifications.
What often turns me off about the message is the delivery. I'm not a monotheist, but I'm a person of very deep faith. I strongly believe that Deity exists and that has an influence on how I live my life. That's my framework for making understanding of the world, of my role in it and of what the right ways of being and acting are. There are certainly other ways of doing so, some involving other deities, some involving no deity at all. But to say that someone is delusional, irrational, less intelligent or just plain foolish for believing doesn't make people like Dawkins smarter or more rational. It just makes them jerks.
It also alienates people because for most of the things that they're arguing against (clergy abuse, fundamentalist anti-intellectualism, wars in the name of God, etc) I'm on their side. I agree. They're totally right.
But I have no interest in listening to the argument of someone who starts out with "you're stupid."
| 256 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:39:16pm |
re: #252 trendsurfer
She makes a far cuter spokesperson for this cause than I do.
| 257 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:41:12pm |
re: #219 Naso Tang
Your opinion is understandable, and probably shared by most people to the extent that we can all imagine the same speech made with some of the more derogatory expressions removed; yet without removing the essential point that he considers Organized Religion to be largely self serving.
But if he did that, then he wouldn't get as many viewers; neither from those who like or love him, nor from those that hate him. He would just be another reasonable blogger.
He is hardly alone in using that style of expression, and I don't mean only with regard to opinions of religion.
True. He regards religion as self- serving and it is self-serving for him to omit the good done by his targets. He then becomes simply a comedian and his 'essential points' become nothing more than his 'shtick'.
My point is that his 'expression' is not good commentary and I don't think it was even good comedy. Sam Kinison was loud,obnoxious and funny.
Condell, IMO, is just loud and obnoxious.
| 258 |
tracycoyle Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:43:25pm |
I like Condell, I generally like his approach. As an agnostic, I appreciate his POV on religion in general. I think anyone that is offended, should be.
| 259 |
Floridagirl Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:44:23pm |
re: #252 trendsurfer
That was good/cute...
Ok, well I was the one who originated "Shrillary" to describe Hill's speaking style...threw it out while talking to someone at Publix back in the 90's and it took off!!!
| 260 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:48:12pm |
re: #254 sattv4u2
Not "pulling" anything. At the time he posted it he was querstioned/ chastised/ critiqued about it. I just think it's useless to engage someone thats not here to answer!
You know you'll "see" him again.
Yes you are. This is all because you took his side against iceweasel - it's perfectly obvious.
As I already pointed out to you, my intention was to voice my opinion on his stupid post. His engagement or not is very much a secondary issue. Now I'm off to get my dinner - which means you have to shut up, according to your 'rule'.
| 261 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:51:09pm |
re: #260 Jimmah
Yes you are. This is all because you took his side against iceweasel - it's perfectly obvious.
As I already pointed out to you, my intention was to voice my opinion on his stupid post. His engagement or not is very much a secondary issue. Now I'm off to get my dinner - which means you have to shut up, according to your 'rule'.
Wrong. I didn't take anyones 'side". I pointed out to iceweasel that it was disengenouos for her to call out someone for broadbrushing when she had done it herself (as to the linked comment)
But nice try, and at least I'm here, so KUDOS !!
| 262 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:51:51pm |
re: #256 cenotaphium
She makes a far cuter spokesperson for this cause than I do.
Yeah, ...(sigh) if only I were 20 years younger. :)
| 263 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:52:05pm |
re: #260 Jimmah
and BTW ,,, comment allowed according to YOUR rule!!
:)
| 264 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:52:45pm |
re: #262 trendsurfer
Yeah, ...(sigh) if only I were 20 years younger. :)
If I were 20 years younger I'd STILL be 20 years too old!
| 265 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:52:50pm |
re: #255 ~Fianna
Absolutely awful things have been done in the name of religion - just like awful things have been done in the name of any ideology.
But to say that someone is delusional, irrational, less intelligent or just plain foolish for believing doesn't make people like Dawkins smarter or more rational. It just makes them jerks.
I don't know. I made an example using Communism earlier. Let's try that again.
If we were bashing Communism as a political system, do you think people would be as quick to feel personally insulted? I know I don't take it personal when someone bashes socialism (something very often done without any greater insights into the actual practices of the system), even though I live in a country predominantly defined by a long socialist tradition.
I don't take it personally when people point out that Sweden had a very morally ambiguous position during WWII. And yet these are things I identify personally to.
Maybe it's just me, perhaps my reaction is abnormal? Maybe I should start waving our flag about and shout slogans as soon as my country's actions are questioned?
Or, do you think there's some great divide between the connection to ideology in general, or nationality and religion at large?
| 266 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:54:34pm |
re: #259 Floridagirl
That was good/cute...
Ok, well I was the one who originated "Shrillary" to describe Hill's speaking style...threw it out while talking to someone at Publix back in the 90's and it took off!!!
Okay, I'll give you "Shrillary" ;) ... you must have posted at FR back in the day. Or maybe a person who overheard you at the grocery. :)
| 268 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:56:47pm |
| 269 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 3:58:19pm |
re: #257 poteen
True. He regards religion as self- serving and it is self-serving for him to omit the good done by his targets. He then becomes simply a comedian and his 'essential points' become nothing more than his 'shtick'.
My point is that his 'expression' is not good commentary and I don't think it was even good comedy. Sam Kinison was loud,obnoxious and funny.
Condell, IMO, is just loud and obnoxious.
I said I can agree with you on some of this, but on the other hand I don't have a lot of respect for his targets, if they get their knickers in a knot because their idealism bubble has been pricked.
As an atheist since my early teens, I have seen and heard too many hypocritical theists of all colors whine and cry when they are criticized, then turn around and blame all the world's ills on people like me.
I find Condell entertaining, whether I agree with everything he says or not. Those who are offended can blame it on me for all I care, but they will NOT get my respect.
| 270 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:00:43pm |
re: #126 iceweasel
Later, RTC! I left you two updings as well, btw, if that makes you feel better. :)
[Video]
Love (and updings) heal many things :)
| 271 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:02:04pm |
re: #268 cenotaphium
Well, you're probably smarter than me when I was your age. So you got that going for you. :)
| 272 |
~Fianna Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:04:11pm |
re: #265 cenotaphium
I don't know. I made an example using Communism earlier. Let's try that again.
If we were bashing Communism as a political system, do you think people would be as quick to feel personally insulted? I know I don't take it personal when someone bashes socialism (something very often done without any greater insights into the actual practices of the system), even though I live in a country predominantly defined by a long socialist tradition.
I don't take it personally when people point out that Sweden had a very morally ambiguous position during WWII. And yet these are things I identify personally to.Maybe it's just me, perhaps my reaction is abnormal? Maybe I should start waving our flag about and shout slogans as soon as my country's actions are questioned?
Or, do you think there's some great divide between the connection to ideology in general, or nationality and religion at large?
I wonder if there's a certain "USian-ness" to our differing reactions.
I also think that there is something that's particularly personal about religion that's a bit different than politics. Religion is, for many people, an immutable thing. It's part of your family traditions, part of the way you were raised and part of your world view that is much, much harder to change than a political theory, which for most people changes as their life changes. There are a lot of people I know who have switched parties or changed ideologies as they've aged, or acquired property, or more education or access to different knowledge. There aren't a lot of people who completely change their religion, and even a lot of those people still use the forms and ceremonies to mark momentous occasions like weddings, births and deaths - even if they don't really "believe" they still use the form to connect themselves to their heritage.
Another thing that I was also trying to make clear is that criticism, provided it's fair, is totally appropriate. But the snarky, paternalistic tone is, for me, just not. There's a HUGE difference between saying, for example, "Sweden had a morally questionable position during World War II" and "Swedes are stupid and evil and all their women are blonde bimbos who can't think for themselves and all the men must be Nazis because they're blond and supported Hitler."
| 273 |
Floridagirl Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:04:46pm |
re: #266 trendsurfer
It had to have been someone who overheard me since I am always late to technology and that was back in the 90's, but sheesh, it took off like wildfire!!
What's FR?
| 274 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:10:59pm |
FR is FreeRepublic.com. A site I used to visit regularly when Drudge (via Limbaugh) linked to it during the Lewinsky mess. I used to be a conservative back then. I'm an unapologetic liberal today. :)
| 276 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:13:14pm |
re: #261 sattv4u2
Wrong. I didn't take anyones 'side". I pointed out to iceweasel that it was disengenouos for her to call out someone for broadbrushing when she had done it herself (as to the linked comment)
And you were wrong. I did no such thing, as the linked comment demonstrates to those who aren't lacking in reading comprehension.
| 277 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:13:53pm |
re: #276 iceweasel
And you were wrong. I did no such thing, as the linked comment demonstrates to those who aren't lacking in reading comprehension.
uh huh!
| 278 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:19:16pm |
re: #275 Floridagirl
The Religious Right, Limbaugh, and our banking system. :)
| 279 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:20:18pm |
OK jimmah ... sorry your knickers are all twisted up because this poor fellow in New England has insulted the 55,000,000 Brits. Good for you for standing up for your country. Now chill out for a moment. Could I have been more precise in my characterization of british antisemitism? Sure. But the overreaction to mu clumsiness is way out of proportion to my intent. Allow me to clarify my position. All Brits are not anti semitic. In fact, I'm sure that millions are not. But many believe there is a casual anti semitism in the British DNA that may not be apparent to you, but is apparent to a lot of Jews.
[Link: www.haaretz.com...]
[Link: www.americanthinker.com...]
[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]
Pretend it doesn't exist if you'd like. Maybe it's embarrassing. And I repeat: not every Brit hates Jews. But there's a lot of bad stuff going down and it's much worse in the UK than it is in the US. So downding me from now until you go to sleep, but sometimes people who protest too much need to calm down and allow their emotions to subside before going nuclear.
| 282 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:23:04pm |
re: #279 _RememberTonyC
In fact, I'm sure that millions are not. But many believe there is a casual anti semitism in the British DNA that may not be apparent to you, but is apparent to a lot of Jews.
You invoke genetics into the picture that casually? One would think that for someone defending the jewish cause, you'd be more careful in your choice of words.. :/
| 283 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:24:24pm |
re: #282 cenotaphium
You invoke genetics into the picture that casually? One would think that for someone defending the jewish cause, you'd be more careful in your choice of words.. :/
thanks professor
| 284 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:25:26pm |
| 285 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:27:54pm |
re: #263 sattv4u2
and BTW ,,, comment allowed according to YOUR rule!!
:)
Why would you be going by MY rule and not your own? Oh yes that's right - because you're a hypocrite.
| 286 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:28:56pm |
re: #279 _RememberTonyC
But many believe there is a casual anti semitism in the British DNA that may not be apparent to you, but is apparent to a lot of Jews.
This is offensive and untrue. And I know plenty of Jews in the UK who would disagree with your statement as well.
| 287 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:29:45pm |
re: #283 _RememberTonyC
thanks professor
Co-opting the phrases or expressions of the despicable people you are supposed to be against, and using the language to smear your opponents is pretty weak. It's the same achillies heel of the "anti-jihadists" that choose to use the same rethoric that you'd find in any neo-nazi organization if you just switched the words to the appropriate jewish equivalent.
You may think it pedantic, but I think it's especially important that those standing up for what's right make a point to distance themselves from any semblance of the idiots they oppose.
| 288 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:30:29pm |
re: #285 Jimmah
Why would you be going by MY rule and not your own? Oh yes that's right - because you're a hypocrite.
How shall I ever face another day!
| 289 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:31:35pm |
re: #285 Jimmah
Why would you be going by MY rule and not your own? Oh yes that's right - because you're a hypocrite.
Exactly.
re: #284 _RememberTonyC
oh well ... thanks for your support
Don't be so quick to construe him as supporting you. He's merely pleased to have an excuse to carry over a discussion from yesterday and to attack Jimmah and myself where he can.
| 290 |
Floridagirl Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:32:31pm |
re: #278 trendsurfer
hmmm, interesting path...
To me, 2 of the 3 have equally annoying opposites, and I am in real estate...the banking system seems to have its' feet firmly planted in both camps...
Another interesting path from right to left has been my bro, BGen, ret. USArmy. Fun to watch that one.
I am an agnostic independent ...well, basically, I hate people telling me what to do...
| 291 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:32:34pm |
re: #289 iceweasel
Don't be so quick to construe him as supporting you. He's merely pleased to have an excuse to carry over a discussion from yesterday and to attack Jimmah and myself where he can.
"ATTACK",,
someone upthread mention something about thin skin!?!?!
| 292 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:33:27pm |
re: #286 iceweasel
This is offensive and untrue. And I know plenty of Jews in the UK who would disagree with your statement as well.
we can disagree and still remain cordial ... i like that.
| 293 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:34:46pm |
re: #279 _RememberTonyC
All Brits are not anti semitic.
And I repeat: not every Brit hates Jews.
Didn't exactly come across in the wording of your first post did it?
he's still a brit ... and you know what that means ...
Nice try though - except that it isn't, particularly when you begin you post with the very deliberately dismissive "OK jimmah ... sorry your knickers are all twisted up because this poor fellow in New England has insulted the 55,000,000 Brits. "
Just try to imagine the shitstorm that would blow up here if someone made such a comment about Americans, or Jews.
| 294 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:36:34pm |
re: #291 sattv4u2
"ATTACK",,
someone upthread mention something about thin skin!?!?!
You're too thick to realise your posts only prove my claim. Like this one:
90 sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 1:39:26pm replyquote
* -4
* down
* up
* favorite
* reportre: #88 Gus 802
I see. So instead of staying on topic you want to vilify Iceweasel?
Why yes,,, yes I do
I didn't know I needed your permission!
Engage sputtering backtracking defence!
| 295 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:36:34pm |
re: #287 cenotaphium
Co-opting the phrases or expressions of the despicable people you are supposed to be against, and using the language to smear your opponents is pretty weak. It's the same achillies heel of the "anti-jihadists" that choose to use the same rethoric that you'd find in any neo-nazi organization if you just switched the words to the appropriate jewish equivalent.
You may think it pedantic, but I think it's especially important that those standing up for what's right make a point to distance themselves from any semblance of the idiots they oppose.
I guess I'm just not as sophisticated as you are ... but I think your lectures are pretty tedious. In fact, I can barely figure out what your "points" really are. Maybe I'm just too hopelessly stupid to grasp your extremely insightful line of reasoning.
| 296 |
jaunte Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:38:39pm |
re: #295 _RememberTonyC
Claiming that antisemitism is built into a particular nationality's DNA is stupid.
| 297 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:38:54pm |
re: #293 Jimmah
Nice try though - except that it isn't, particularly when you begin you post with the very deliberately dismissive "OK jimmah ... sorry your knickers are all twisted up because this poor fellow in New England has insulted the 55,000,000 Brits. "
Just try to imagine the shitstorm that would blow up here if someone made such a comment about Americans, or Jews.
you really ARE thin skinned. I guess when you're never on the receiving end of anything uncomfortable, it's not easy to deal with. I've seen and heard MUCH worse insults both to my face and on the internet. And guess what ... you make your point and move on. Which I hope is where we are headed.
| 298 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:39:07pm |
re: #295 _RememberTonyC
I guess I'm just not as sophisticated as you are ... but I think your lectures are pretty tedious. In fact, I can barely figure out what your "points" really are. Maybe I'm just too hopelessly stupid to grasp your extremely insightful line of reasoning.
I think it's odd I come across that way. Maybe it's the language barrier?
Let me boil it down for you; using the same language antisemites use to defend jews debases your entire point needlessly.
Better?
| 299 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:40:05pm |
re: #296 jaunte
Claiming that antisemitism is built into a particular nationality's DNA is stupid.
Another deliberate provocation, I thought.
| 300 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:41:35pm |
re: #284 _RememberTonyC
oh well ... thanks for your support
((( shhh ,,, wasn't really "support" ,,, just think it ludicrous to engage with someone that A) already left and B) responded to a post 2 hours old)))
| 301 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:42:20pm |
| 302 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:44:09pm |
re: #269 Naso Tang
I said I can agree with you on some of this, but on the other hand I don't have a lot of respect for his targets, if they get their knickers in a knot because their idealism bubble has been pricked.
As an atheist since my early teens, I have seen and heard too many hypocritical theists of all colors whine and cry when they are criticized, then turn around and blame all the world's ills on people like me.
I find Condell entertaining, whether I agree with everything he says or not. Those who are offended can blame it on me for all I care, but they will NOT get my respect.
This is where we're missing connection. He notes and rightfully attacks the Cardinal Mahonys and ilk but also wings into entire organizations and insults the people who operate them. He and you are ignoring, in your fervor, the massive amount good work they do. Its like saying that the rider is a highwayman so lets hang the horse too. Its not a stretch to say that, in this country anyway, church based (most denominations) programs feed more of the most vulnerable people than any other.
I live in a very affluent area and the Catholic church up the street, in which I have only been once for a wedding, gives out hundreds of boxes of food every week. They also donate to larger poorer parishes in bigger cities. They feed thousands. Whether you respect them or not, they don't deserve a lashing and Condell is a parasite for using them so.
| 303 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:44:45pm |
re: #301 sattv4u2
Guess you never got that SARCASM DETECTOR you wanted!
Oh well!
As predicted!
Engage sputtering backtracking defence!
It was very obvious you would pretend 'sarcasm' or 'joking'. Just as it's obvious to everyone what you're really doing. :)
| 304 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:45:46pm |
re: #298 cenotaphium
I think it's odd I come across that way. Maybe it's the language barrier?
Let me boil it down for you; using the same language antisemites use to defend jews debases your entire point needlessly.
Better?
I made an off hand remark, which I have admitted was an overgeneralization. However, there is evidence to support the idea that there is a kernel of truth in what I said. I guess I used the term DNA incorrectly. Maybe I should have said "psyche." In any event, I'm surprised at the level of outrage over my remarks. But the British certainly have a history of antisemitism. Their legacy in the middle east is an example of it. And in contemporary times, they have had more incidents of it. At any rate, I'm pretty much finished with this issue and I apologize to those I have offended.
| 305 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:45:46pm |
re: #299 Jimmah
Another deliberate provocation, I thought.
No, but the opening sentence certainly was. This was just incredibly sloppy speech (I hope)
| 306 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:46:19pm |
re: #303 iceweasel
It was very obvious you would pretend 'sarcasm' or 'joking'. Just as it's obvious to everyone what you're really doing. :)
Ahh ,, ya got me ,, because I REALLY REALLY was asking for Gus's "permission" to post!
Ahh ,, the abject shame!
| 307 |
Bagua Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:46:37pm |
re: #279 _RememberTonyC
OK jimmah ... sorry your knickers are all twisted up because this poor fellow in New England has insulted the 55,000,000 Brits. Good for you for standing up for your country. Now chill out for a moment. Could I have been more precise in my characterization of british antisemitism? Sure. But the overreaction to mu clumsiness is way out of proportion to my intent. Allow me to clarify my position. All Brits are not anti semitic. In fact, I'm sure that millions are not. But many believe there is a casual anti semitism in the British DNA that may not be apparent to you, but is apparent to a lot of Jews.
[Link: www.haaretz.com...]
[Link: www.americanthinker.com...]
[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]
Pretend it doesn't exist if you'd like. Maybe it's embarrassing. And I repeat: not every Brit hates Jews. But there's a lot of bad stuff going down and it's much worse in the UK than it is in the US. So downding me from now until you go to sleep, but sometimes people who protest too much need to calm down and allow their emotions to subside before going nuclear.
You seem to miss the salient point in your links:
You can't import two million indoctrinated Islamists from the NorthWest Territories of Pakistan and expect them to act like Anglican clergy.
Much, if not most of the upsurge in Anti-Semitic incidents is coming from the non "indigenous" population. Likewise, the BBC is over-weighted from this community and clearly panders to their bias.
| 308 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:46:40pm |
re: #149 John Neverbend
Sorry, missed this earlier. If you are still around; my point was prompted by a reference to Hitchens earlier, where he was interpreted as being possibly anti-semitic because he said unpleasant things about Semitism.
I think it was further demonstrated by numerous posts suggesting that if Condell had been talking of the Jewish religion in particular, he would have been considered anti- Semitic, when we know that he wouldn't hesitate to say the same about Islam, or any other organized religion.
| 309 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:48:27pm |
re: #297 _RememberTonyC
you really ARE thin skinned. I guess when you're never on the receiving end of anything uncomfortable, it's not easy to deal with. I've seen and heard MUCH worse insults both to my face and on the internet. And guess what ... you make your point and move on. Which I hope is where we are headed.
What a fucking stupid comment. I've had shit on this site for years for being British, not being right wing enough, being irreligious, not a creationist - oh yes - I've been told my kind weren't wanted here many times in past years. Recently, glad to say, the culture here has become a lot healthier. It is you who is having difficulty dealing with disagreement and criticism. And it is you who is thin skinned - whining about being taken to task for an obviously bigoted comment and crying about getting downdinged into the bargain.
And btw - I don't deny for one moment that there is a problem with antisemitism in some quarters in the UK - I've posted on that many times here before, particularly from the blog "Harry's Place" which I trust to keep me up to date on that issue. However, it is bigotry to surmise that someine is antisemitic just from their nationality and I don't appreciate being tarred with that brush.
| 310 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:48:32pm |
re: #306 sattv4u2
Ahh ,, ya got me ,, because I REALLY REALLY was asking for Gus's "permission" to post!
Ahh ,, the abject shame!
No, you really, really were seizing on a chance to derail the thread and vilify me. That's what you were doing. You know it, Gus knew it, and others know it too.
But you'll have to wave your little hateon without assistance now. I'm bored with you and I've seen better.
Carry on! :)
| 311 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:49:06pm |
re: #309 Jimmah
What a fucking stupid comment. I've had shit on this site for years for being British, not being right wing enough, being irreligious, not a creationist - oh yes - I've been told my kind weren't wanted here many times in past years. Recently, glad to say, the culture here has become a lot healthier. It is you who is having difficulty dealing with disagreement and criticism. And it is you who is thin skinned - whining about being taken to task for an obviously bigoted comment and crying about getting downdinged into the bargain.
And btw - I don't deny for one moment that there is a problem with antisemitism in some quarters in the UK - I've posted on that many times here before, particularly from the blog "Harry's Place" which I trust to keep me up to date on that issue. However, it is bigotry to surmise that someine is antisemitic just from their nationality and I don't appreciate being tarred with that brush.
Reposted for truth!
| 312 |
sattv4u2 Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:50:26pm |
| 313 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:53:11pm |
re: #290 Floridagirl
hmmm, interesting path...
...
I am in real estate...the banking system seems to have its' feet firmly planted in both camps...
You're right. The Dems were right there in the mix. But the ideology was conservative. Deregulate--look the other way--that's what bankrupted our capitalistic banking system. We found out that when you allow investment bankers to game the system, they will. Conservatism won the day but ended up proving itself to be a bankrupt ideology. We needed to keep the banking system regulated. Even the Randian, Greenspan, realizes this now.
That is only a part of my conversion though. My road to Damascus was long.
I'd love to hear more about your brother. A friend of my father's (retired AF colonel) remarked--actually blurted out--that Dick Cheney was "evil" when his name came up in conservation. Only now, after my conversion, do I wonder how true that is. :)
| 314 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:53:23pm |
re: #302 poteen
This is where we're missing connection. He notes and rightfully attacks the Cardinal Mahonys and ilk but also wings into entire organizations and insults the people who operate them. He and you are ignoring, in your fervor, the massive amount good work they do. Its like saying that the rider is a highwayman so lets hang the horse too. Its not a stretch to say that, in this country anyway, church based (most denominations) programs feed more of the most vulnerable people than any other.
I live in a very affluent area and the Catholic church up the street, in which I have only been once for a wedding, gives out hundreds of boxes of food every week. They also donate to larger poorer parishes in bigger cities. They feed thousands. Whether you respect them or not, they don't deserve a lashing and Condell is a parasite for using them so.
I think you are missing a key point here. People do the good things you describe. They could do them with or without the churches, and probably would.
All you are saying is the the organization DESERVES the credit. Condell is saying the organization TAKES the credit.
| 315 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:54:52pm |
re: #309 Jimmah
What a fucking stupid comment. I've had shit on this site for years for being British, not being right wing enough, being irreligious, not a creationist - oh yes - I've been told my kind weren't wanted here many times in past years. Recently, glad to say, the culture here has become a lot healthier. It is you who is having difficulty dealing with disagreement and criticism. And it is you who is thin skinned - whining about being taken to task for an obviously bigoted comment and crying about getting downdinged into the bargain.
And btw - I don't deny for one moment that there is a problem with antisemitism in some quarters in the UK - I've posted on that many times here before, particularly from the blog "Harry's Place" which I trust to keep me up to date on that issue. However, it is bigotry to surmise that someine is antisemitic just from their nationality and I don't appreciate being tarred with that brush.
yawn ... bye bye fella ...
| 317 |
~Fianna Sun, Oct 4, 2009 4:59:47pm |
re: #316 poteen
The organization IS the people in it.
With varying degrees, though. The Catholic Church is the community of believers and the people in control. The Pope and the Cardinals and the rest of the Vatican apparatus matter more than what Joe in the third pew from the back at St. Boniface in Milwaukee in terms of shaping the views and policies of the institutional Church.
Same with any big organization. Yes, the employees matter... but the board sets the tone and direction.
| 318 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:01:06pm |
re: #272 ~Fianna
I wonder if there's a certain "USian-ness" to our differing reactions.
It's quite possible there is a cultural angle. I've talked a bit in earlier posts about how different the basic outlook on religion and its place is in this country. I got several great responses to a question about religious private schools from what seemed to be perfectly reasonable people with children in such institutions. Here in Sweden, the people you find wanting (since we don't really have any) religiously based schools are mostly nuts - they want their children safe from the horror of secular education and indoctrinated according to whatever sect they belong to.
I also think that there is something that's particularly personal about religion that's a bit different than politics. Religion is, for many people, an immutable thing.
This, in my mind, warrants the distinction between a privately held belief and an organized belief system once more. Large organized religion is not very different from a strong ideology. To the individual, I can understand that someone might feel closer to their religious belief, than their political point of view. But taken as a whole institution, it's another thing entirely.
I thought he did reasonably well in distinguishing between the critique of the personal belief from the institution of clergy.
As a cultural comparison, I find belief in Sweden to be very personal. I rarely come across anyone making a point of openly identifying with a religion, and those that do are often quick to point out that they only agree with part of whatever sect they belong to say (especially so when the prevalent values of the secular society comes in conflict with the religion - like the Catholic position on condoms). It's also very common to say that you're "spiritual, not religious", or that you simply don't know or care.
Another thing that I was also trying to make clear is that criticism, provided it's fair, is totally appropriate. But the snarky, paternalistic tone is, for me, just not.
As others have suggested, I suspect this is largely due to the format of the show. I mean, you could make a long-winded exposé style overview of the history, current practices and faults of the clergy. That wouldn't get very many viewers, and would be in a different category entirely in format.
What I'm getting at is that holding up your hands during a George Carlin bit and saying "hold on now, I like what you're saying, but I think we need some more facts on this topic" is missing the format entirely. That doesn't mean there can't be any truth in comedy (or angry snobbish rant, if you prefer), it's just that the standards are different.
That said, I can understand the desire to "set the record straight" expressed in many posts by people seeing the nuances of the question.
| 319 |
~Fianna Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:03:08pm |
re: #317 ~Fianna
With varying degrees, though. The Catholic Church is the community of believers and the people in control. The Pope and the Cardinals and the rest of the Vatican apparatus matter more than what Joe in the third pew from the back at St. Boniface in Milwaukee in terms of shaping the views and policies of the institutional Church.
Same with any big organization. Yes, the employees matter... but the board sets the tone and direction.
I suppose to make it clear, I'm agreeing with both of you, although with limits.
The role of the institution in shaping the values of the believers can't be denied. How many Catholics weren't motivated to help Jews during the Holocaust because the Church was (rather unforgivably, in my view) silent on the issue. However, some Catholics, including clergy, did help Jews, because they felt it was the right thing to do. The individuals could act morally without the Church, and the Church shouldn't be credited with these acts... although the religious values could, because helping Jews in the Holocaust seems pretty directly inline with what Jesus would have wanted from his followers.
| 320 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:11:47pm |
re: #317 ~Fianna
With varying degrees, though. The Catholic Church is the community of believers and the people in control. The Pope and the Cardinals and the rest of the Vatican apparatus matter more than what Joe in the third pew from the back at St. Boniface in Milwaukee in terms of shaping the views and policies of the institutional Church.
Same with any big organization. Yes, the employees matter... but the board sets the tone and direction.
Maybe. However most are volunteers, not employees. And despite the pedophiles and Swaggart style scandals that tone and direction feed a great many needy people.
Again, you don't believe what they believe and I don't either, but what they believe draws them together to do what they do. Condell's opinion of these people, under which ever banner they choose to unite, is unwarranted and crude.
| 321 |
Achilles Tang Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:12:45pm |
re: #316 poteen
The organization IS the people in it.
Yes it is, but the primary purpose of this, randomly chosen, organization is not to hand out food. That could be done a lot more effectively if the people volunteered to work in places purpose built to supply and help people in need, and there are such places.
I think it is disingenuous to claim that "religion" is such a good thing by pointing to the incidental aspect of charity work while dismissing the Archbishop's castles or the Rev. Wright's mansion as earned perks.
Having said that, I would imagine there are many church volunteers who would not do so if it was not a matter of maintaining face within the "organization", so there is probably a net positive effect from the system in that regard; but it is not one that one can legitimately credit the religion with. Are we to assume that without religion people are all evil, like atheists? ;=>
| 322 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:25:00pm |
re: #321 Naso Tang
Of course not. But where we started is Condells snide attacks on the intelligence of those who are religious.
He didn't go after the Cardinals and Archbishops, he went after the people who are in their churches.
I haven't ascribed evil or stupidity to religion or atheism but he did. Hatefully ignoring the charity that their 'stupidity' accomplishes.
Theist or atheist, I don't think he's anyone to support.
| 323 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:25:09pm |
re: #321 Naso Tang
I think it is disingenuous to claim that "religion" is such a good thing by pointing to the incidental aspect of charity work while dismissing the Archbishop's castles or the Rev. Wright's mansion as earned perks.
You put into words what I was thinking there. The vast wealth of the Vatican, for instance, is most certainly not going straight to charity.
And with an eye toward fiscal soundness, should we not also protest the use of such vast and opaque organizations? If charity work was really the focus of your religion, surely you'd want the money or time spent to be used to best advantage?
Are we to assume that without religion people are all evil, like atheists?
Speaking of good works, I've heard nice things about Kiva.org. Surely the community page listings is bound to frighten some fundie.
| 324 |
Floridagirl Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:25:38pm |
re: #313 trendsurfer
You're right. The Dems were right there in the mix. But the ideology was conservative. Deregulate--look the other way--that's what bankrupted our capitalistic banking system. We found out that when you allow investment bankers to game the system, they will. Conservatism won the day but ended up proving itself to be a bankrupt ideology. We needed to keep the banking system regulated. Even the Randian, Greenspan, realizes this now.
That is only a part of my conversion though. My road to Damascus was long.
I'd love to hear more about your brother. A friend of my father's (retired AF colonel) remarked--actually blurted out--that Dick Cheney was "evil" when his name came up in conservation. Only now, after my conversion, do I wonder how true that is. :)
I don't know how not to quote the whole thing...
But I think ANY ideology practiced in the extreme is ultimately bankrupt and we could probably spend years arguing that point...
But, irony of ironies, my father, USAF, Col. ret. vet of WW2, Korea and Viet Nam (2 tours), conservative, HATES Bush, and by extension, Cheney, I suppose. Historically, he had a red hot hatred for Gen. Westmorland. And my Gen. bro saves a lot of his disgust for Cheney as well...funny thing, dad thinks we need to be out of Afg, bro Gen, not so much, per my last conversation with him.
| 325 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:28:21pm |
re: #321 Naso Tang
Additionally, charity in most denominations is a primary task, not incidental.
| 326 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:40:27pm |
re: #15 Alouette
Here it is. Pat says, "If Jews would just give up Jerusalem, they would be the most popular people on the planet."
[Video]
I really can't express how angry this makes me. Condell usually so on point with so many things, but he completely misses the point of Jerusalem and Israel.
1. Justice for the Jews does not mean giving us half of Germany. I expect this argument to only come from Jihadis and ohhh so reasonable Brits who think they know everything.
Israel is the actual hereditary homeland of the Jewish people.
A hearty fuck you to anyone who says otherwise.
It is not in the wrong place any more than France is in the wrong place for the French. He forgets that Jews are also a people and not just a religion and that we came from somewhere and that we never gave that place up. For all of his bitching about Muslims coming to take over Britain, he could be a little more understanding of our claim to our very own home.
2. Jerusalem is not just about religion. It is the city of David.
David was king of:
a) England
b) China
c) Israel and the Jews.
d) Germany
Pat you should have guessed "c" rather than "d." Tell you what you hypocrite. You stop bitching about Islam taking over Britain and give them London - which is precisely what you complain about the most in terms of your far left, and then we can talk about Jerusalem. Until then stuff it.
| 327 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:43:19pm |
re: #299 Jimmah
Another deliberate provocation, I thought.
Except that is always some Brit twat who ohhh so reasonably wonders what all the fuss is over with our own homeland and our own capital. It isn't the screaming anti-semitism of the Jihadi, rather a certain sneering BS about oh how unreasonable those Jews are expecting others to respect their own homeland as much as Brits would like Britain respected.
| 328 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:45:14pm |
| 329 |
_RememberTonyC Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:45:53pm |
re: #327 LudwigVanQuixote
Except that is always some Brit twat who ohhh so reasonably wonders what all the fuss is over with our own homeland and our own capital. It isn't the screaming anti-semitism of the Jihadi, rather a certain sneering BS about oh how unreasonable those Jews are expecting others to respect their own homeland as much as Brits would like Britain respected.
you're on fire! and I agree with your sentiments.
| 330 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:46:14pm |
re: #324 Floridagirl
But I think ANY ideology practiced in the extreme is ultimately bankrupt and we could probably spend years arguing that point...
We wouldn't argue that because I agree.
But, irony of ironies, my father, USAF, Col. ret. vet of WW2, Korea and Viet Nam (2 tours), conservative, HATES Bush, and by extension, Cheney, I suppose. Historically, he had a red hot hatred for Gen. Westmorland. And my Gen. bro saves a lot of his disgust for Cheney as well...funny thing, dad thinks we need to be out of Afg, bro Gen, not so much, per my last conversation with him.
I'm not sure how my father would have looked upon the wars today since he's been dead for over 30 years (he was a full colonel in the AF, died active duty from a heart attack). With regard to torture, I always believed the U.S. was above that sort of treatment. Maybe that's how your father and brother feel and the reason they dislike Cheney. (?)
| 331 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:52:16pm |
re: #327 LudwigVanQuixote
Except that is always some Brit twat who ohhh so reasonably wonders what all the fuss is over with our own homeland and our own capital. It isn't the screaming anti-semitism of the Jihadi, rather a certain sneering BS about oh how unreasonable those Jews are expecting others to respect their own homeland as much as Brits would like Britain respected.
I wonder about this sometimes. Maybe it's because we're so used to the idea of fluctuating borders in Europe? If I were to look back 2000-3000 years, my heritage is probably nowhere near the northern parts of Europe, as is the case with most peoples that did not begin in the "cradle of civilization" (even though there were more than one).
There's also a sentiment that it's petty and destabilizing for each cultural group to strive for their own independence. Probably again much due to the strife around here (take the Balkan conflict for a recent example, or the long fight over northern Ireland). I know people would be shocked if the Same peoples decided they wanted a wholly autonomous region cutting off the northern tip of Scandinavia, for instance.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of questions about Israel that needn't be born out of malice, but rather ignorance. And a vital part about ending such ignorance is asking questions.
| 332 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Sun, Oct 4, 2009 5:54:53pm |
re: #331 cenotaphium
The Brits have a long history at sneering at what they consider to be the childish aspirations of lesser peoples. They therefore remember all the maps they have divided in their days and feel they still know best. Look how well that turned out in Yugoslavia and the middle east!
| 333 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:05:42pm |
re: #50 iceweasel
What is this supposed to mean?
I'm hoping you forgot a sarc tag.
It means that running rampant through British academia and their chattering class is a certain disdain for the Jew. It means that there is and has always been a certain sneering genteel and tone deaf view of the British chattering class that fails to see the Jew as an equal.
Oh yes, David was king of the Jews and Jerusalem was the center of Jewish culture for over 3000 years, they will admit that in one breath, and invalidate the entire history and culture by saying it isn't really ours and that our claims don't really matter.
It certainly doesn't matter in the face of appeasing Islamists. Which Ironically, is what Condell of all people is saying we ought to do to appease Achmidinijad - as if that would stop his aspirations.
The Brits lost their empire to mismanagement 60 years ago, but still maintain the same arrogance.
| 334 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:06:41pm |
re: #332 LudwigVanQuixote
The Brits have a long history at sneering at what they consider to be the childish aspirations of lesser peoples. They therefore remember all the maps they have divided in their days and feel they still know best. Look how well that turned out in Yugoslavia and the middle east!
Fair point in so far as we can paint whole nations with one brush. Perhaps better attributed to colonialism as a whole. The Brits weren't the only ones to draw lines in the sand figuratively and literally.
However, weren't they also a crucial part in drawing up the original plans for a Jewish nation to begin with?
| 335 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:08:22pm |
re: #334 cenotaphium
Fair point in so far as we can paint whole nations with one brush. Perhaps better attributed to colonialism as a whole. The Brits weren't the only ones to draw lines in the sand figuratively and literally.
However, weren't they also a crucial part in drawing up the original plans for a Jewish nation to begin with?
I am not painting the whole nation. I am very specifically referring to the British chattering class. I imagine hard working stiffs in York are a bit different.
| 336 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:08:37pm |
re: #327 LudwigVanQuixote
Except that is always some Brit twat who ohhh so reasonably wonders what all the fuss is over with our own homeland and our own capital. It isn't the screaming anti-semitism of the Jihadi, rather a certain sneering BS about oh how unreasonable those Jews are expecting others to respect their own homeland as much as Brits would like Britain respected.
As if the existence of some British antisemites justifies calling all Brits antisemites, or claiming that antisemitism is encoded in the British DNA. That's crap and you know it, and I'm sure you don't mean to imply that all Brits or even most Brits are anti-Israel.
| 337 |
The Left Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:10:10pm |
re: #333 LudwigVanQuixote
The Brits lost their empire to mismanagement 60 years ago, but still maintain the same arrogance.
WTF is up with condoning and promoting the gratutious smearing of one whole nation and all its people-- while claiming that's exactly the kind of behaviour you're opposing?
| 338 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:12:02pm |
re: #336 iceweasel
As if the existence of some British antisemites justifies calling all Brits antisemites, or claiming that antisemitism is encoded in the British DNA. That's crap and you know it, and I'm sure you don't mean to imply that all Brits or even most Brits are anti-Israel.
Repeat of 335:
I am not painting the whole nation. I am very specifically referring to the British chattering class. I imagine hard working stiffs in York are a bit different.
I am certain you are not discounting the very real and widespread phenomena I am talking about in Britain either.
In fact, Condell pretty much just made an incredible example of it in his video on Jews. Do you think it is an aberration, or something more endemic, like printed day in day out in the Beeb, or in the calls for Boycots, or even in Dawkins views?
Do you think this is something new?
Do you think the Jews haven't noticed the betrayal that went along with Balfour?
| 339 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:12:41pm |
re: #335 LudwigVanQuixote
I am not painting the whole nation. I am very specifically referring to the British chattering class. I imagine hard working stiffs in York are a bit different.
Okay. That wasn't very clear from your #332 post. My points about it being a phenomenon (or fault, if you will) of colonialism, and about Britains role in forming the Jewish state then?
| 340 |
Aye Pod Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:16:25pm |
re: #337 iceweasel
WTF is up with condoning and promoting the gratutious smearing of one whole nation and all its people-- while claiming that's exactly the kind of behaviour you're opposing?
Updinged and quoted for truth, ice-ski. And btw - as you know, I am not in any sense a 'wounded Brit' who is incapable of acknowledging the faults of elements of the British political scene. I've been posting about those elements here for years. Again, its the sometimes malicious, sometimes just lazy use of the broad brush that I object to.
Time to go upthread :)
| 341 |
Almost Killed by Space Hookers Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:17:51pm |
re: #337 iceweasel
WTF is up with condoning and promoting the gratutious smearing of one whole nation and all its people-- while claiming that's exactly the kind of behaviour you're opposing?
I am talking about the British ruling and chattering class in specific. I am clearly not painting all brits. However, your Oxford, Cambridge "public" school types, the Foreign Office have a very very long history of this sort of thing. Why are you even trying to brush it under the rug?
Do we need to talk about the rise of the hous of Saud, or the games played with France in Transjorda?
Do we need to talk of the Balkins?
Or perhaps we could just open up the Guardian or the Beeb?
Sorry Ice. There is a point of honesty here. The British form of anti-Semitism is less anti-Semitic in as mucch as they view us on the same level they view those other little tribal peoples they used to dominate. Only now we are a pain in their ass for being so very proud of our religion, in a most non enlightened post cultural way (before it was just not Christian), and wouldn't it be nice if we just died so the Muslims would bother them less.
Not all Brits think this way and I never said they did, but you apparently are forgetting British academic class, if you are arguing the way you are.
| 342 |
Irish Rose Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:23:42pm |
Mr. Condells' criticism of organized religion is spot on.
This is one of the best essays that I've ever seen on the topic of spiritual abuse.
Worth bookmarking, for those of you who are as concerned as I am about the vicious, ugly hatred that is being marketed as "Christianity" these days.
| 343 |
Stuart Leviton Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:27:55pm |
re: #339 cenotaphium
And what British role in forming the Jewish state are you referring to? Do you mean the White Paper to keep Jews from reaching Palestine rather than die under the Nazi's? Do you mean events such as the Brits turning over munitions to the Arabs in Safed on the eve of Israeli independence.
| 344 |
Floridagirl Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:37:15pm |
re: #330 trendsurfer
I am sorry that your father died so young, I'm guessing mid/late 40's early 50's. I've not had a conversation with either my father or my bro the Gen about torture. I will with my bro, but my dad in the last 2 years, has been in decline, mentally.
I remember many, very intense conversations around the dinner table about the war policies of Nixon, whom he mainly supported at the time. His Viet Nam war experience was as a commander of air rescue squadrons. Over time, however, he came to view the war as civilian managed from afar, with young lives squandered needlessly in a war without end or purpose. He supported our invasion of Afghanistan but Iraq was a no-go for him from the beginning.
My bro the Gen works for a consulting company, makes many trips to the middle east for all sorts of fascinating reasons and we continue to have discussions/arguments, the last one being about the impact of all those generals who retired and started speaking out a few years ago. Good stuff, but he's bossy.
Getting late, good to chat, need to get high school daughter headed to bed, I'm sure I'll run into you again on here.
| 345 |
mikhailtheplumber Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:42:56pm |
Always enjoy a good anti-religious rant. I agree with Kilgore Trout: this man knows how to rant. Sadly, I also agree with others (Thanos, and I think some other peeps?) who stated that he wasn't adding much in terms of arguments.
Maybe the "palaces" bit. That was funny.
| 346 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 6:44:22pm |
re: #343 Stuart Leviton
And what British role in forming the Jewish state are you referring to? Do you mean the White Paper to keep Jews from reaching Palestine rather than die under the Nazi's? Do you mean events such as the Brits turning over munitions to the Arabs in Safed on the eve of Israeli independence.
I may have gotten the wrong impression entirely, conflating things that should be attributed to the League of Nations/UN with the British role. My apologies.
| 347 |
Plato Sun, Oct 4, 2009 7:23:57pm |
I've always though that like painters who 'see' the object before they paint it or 'hear' the music before they write it, some people perceive the spiritual realm better than others. Some are incapable and that's what I think about Pat Condell.
Then, when someone perceives that realm he needs a guide. That's where religious leaders come in. And they need recognition. Otherwise, how do you find them? To my knowledge, the ones he speaks of don't own their residences. They just crash there.
And there's nothing wrong about looking to the future. We work looking forward to retirement. Many act as if they want a nice life forever.
And who ever heard of the Greater London Athiest's Hospital or Chicago Athiest's. I wonder if Pat Condell gives charity.
| 348 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 7:34:38pm |
re: #347 Plato
Then, when someone perceives that realm he needs a guide. That's where religious leaders come in. And they need recognition. Otherwise, how do you find them?
Yeah, I hear Jesus was big on living in mansions and wearing gold jewlery to make sure people noticed him as a spiritual leader. Buddha too.
And who ever heard of the Greater London Athiest's Hospital or Chicago Athiest's. I wonder if Pat Condell gives charity.
Most Atheists never congregate into specific organizations, so whatever good they do wouldn't be noticed in the way you're used to. I posted a link earlier to the Kiva.org community rankings where the pretty nebulous group "Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious" top the charts.
| 349 |
Bagua Sun, Oct 4, 2009 8:10:00pm |
re: #341 LudwigVanQuixote
[...]
Not all Brits think this way and I never said they did, but you apparently are forgetting British academic class, if you are arguing the way you are.
Quite right, and note my comment which argued against using a broad brush to tar all Brits"
re: #103 Bagua
If you are basing your opinions as to what British people believe based upon what you hear or see on the BBC then you are speaking from ignorance.
The BBC is its own entity, has its own distorted agenda and bias, and represents only the views of the cultural elite in Britain.
The "cultural elite" I reference includes those of similar mind in academia and in the Media, Civil Service, Quangos, and Tranzies.
| 350 |
MPH Sun, Oct 4, 2009 8:11:43pm |
While I agree with Condell (and Hawking) 100%, I often wonder about the "in your face" approach -- "You religious rubes are pretty stupid" is what they are basically saying -- and I think it is mean and possibly counter-productive.
If I was to talk to my Catholic mother to help her understand my athiesm/agnosticism, I'm not going to start that talk by saying she's dumb -- because she isn't -- and neither are many people who follow some sort of organized religion.
If I am discussing the health care debate with someone who thinks we should have a socialized system, I'm not going to start out the conversation by telling that person they are an idiot. I'd be doing myself and my values a disservice to assume I'm dealing with a fool on the other end.
It's not that I don't enjoy hearing people like Condell, but perhaps he's only speaking to the converted and turning off many intelligent people on the margins.
| 351 |
fizzlogic Sun, Oct 4, 2009 8:20:22pm |
re: #344 Floridagirl
My father was in his mid forties when he died. I remember that he supported Nixon. He even dragged the family out to Andrews to wave goodbye when Nixon resigned. I think his support had a lot to do with Nixon procuring the release of the POWs from Vietnam. Which segues into why I brought up torture.
I hope your father has more than a few good years left. And I'll look forward to reading what you have to say regarding Cheney and military issues. :)
| 352 |
Chekote Sun, Oct 4, 2009 8:27:25pm |
I absolutely love Condell. And he is absolutely right about organized religion. The leadership is full of hypocrites. Bravo, Mr. Condell!
| 353 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 9:27:46pm |
re: #331 cenotaphium
The fight in Ireland goes back to Roman times. The fight over northern Ireland goes back to the middle 18th century when the English forcibly removed the indigenous people (mostly Catholic by that time) to Australia and the Americas and turned the land over to British subjects more loyal to the Crown and Church of England.
This gave rise to the Fenian rebels and later the IRA.
The religious division is a product, not a cause of the strife.
| 354 |
cenotaphium Sun, Oct 4, 2009 9:47:27pm |
re: #353 poteen
What I said in #331 had nothing to do (or at least wasn't intended) with religiously motivated division specifically. Just division.
| 355 |
Flavia Sun, Oct 4, 2009 10:03:46pm |
re: #15 Alouette
Here it is. Pat says, "If Jews would just give up Jerusalem, they would be the most popular people on the planet."
[Video]
He's not wrong: there are people who absolutely LOVE dead Jews.
Just think about it: people are never so nice to Jews then after
tons of us have been killed and they didn't do anything about it.
(Ok, there's sarcasm in there. But not too much)
| 356 |
poteen Sun, Oct 4, 2009 10:17:12pm |
re: #354 cenotaphium
What I said in #331 had nothing to do (or at least wasn't intended) with religiously motivated division specifically. Just division.
I understood. It was just a note for reference.
| 357 |
wishbone Sun, Oct 4, 2009 11:30:08pm |
Ah
From under my rock I hear the usual whinges and moans of the now boring 'Brits are jew haters ... Because they're British' crowd.
Nothing new under the sun, then.
Fucking morons still abound and still no cure. Why does this no longer surprise me?
| 358 |
Annar Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:35:30am |
Amen. May the supreme leader of the religion of the "O" take heed.
| 359 |
Locker Mon, Oct 5, 2009 6:54:13am |
Well I miss a Sunday at LGF and here is the result. Thanks so much for putting up the Pat Condell video. He is one of my heroes.
| 360 |
julia Mon, Oct 5, 2009 7:48:22am |
Wow, it's amazing how many people don't know anyting about Catholics. The Church has been around for 2000 years. It started the first hospitals, schools, universities, etc... It was the Church that stopped the Muslim invasion from spreading across Europe. The Catholic church I know is about love, charity, hope, forgiveness & strenght. A month ago I went to the Feast of the 3 Saints in my city...it was 3 day Italian celebration of faith, music, food, familes, confetti, laughing, etc...no guilt. Now, who is it that has a closed mind ?
| 361 |
Locker Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:09:45am |
re: #360 julia
I'm not quite sure how ignoring every point made by Pat, then inferring he has a closed mind carries much weight as a logical argument.
| 362 |
Land Shark Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:26:52am |
I've always enjoyed Pat Condell's videos, but in this latest rant he sounds, well, arrogant. The conduct he attacks, while sadly common with too many clergy, isn't universal. I have personal experience with Catholic, Protestant and Jewish clergy and while I've seen many behave as intolerant idiots, I've also seen many be good, humble people, and determined to help people of all walks of life.
He arrogantly paints all clergy with the same broad brush, and indeed he sounds as dogmatic and sure of himself and about what he's saying as the worst examples of clergy can. He's rather selective too. Yes, Catholics have had their embarrassing episodes opposing science and real education, but he completely ignores how Catholic monasteries helped keep knowledge alive during the dark ages, as well as the many Catholic educational institutions in existence throughout the world. Unlike Islamic schools that specialize in simply Islam, Catholic learning institutions have been open minded and offered a real secular education as well. I know, I attended a Catholic high school where we were taught real science including evolution. While the Catholics have been far from perfect, they have been a consistent supporter of education. And let's not forget how many devout Jews have received Nobel Prizes in many branches of science.
Condell's arrogant and know it all condescending attitude in that video isn't uncommon among those who worship at the altar of atheism. Trust me, atheists can be as "religious" in their atheism as the most passionate faithful. He makes valid points about clergy and religion, but then he paints ALL clergy and religions with the same broad brush. Why, if I didn't know any better, it almost looked like he was in full fledged rapture and speaking in tongues.
Get off your high horse and open your closed mind, Pat. Religion is like anything we humans are involved in. There's good, and there's bad. Period.
| 363 |
poteen Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:26:55am |
A last note if I may. Condell is the same as a rabid evangelist.
If you don't believe you're a fool and you'll burn in hell says the one.
If you do believe you're a fool and you're wasting your time says the other.
Different message, same attitude.
| 364 |
mph Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:54:44am |
I think Condell intends for you to substitute the word Clergy for any religious leader, be it the Pope, a Bishop, a Rabbi, Mormon prophets, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Islamic muftis, political demagogues, cult leaders --- any one who takes away peoples' time, money and reason by exploiting and manipulating Faith. In that sense, Condell believes all religious profiteers start from the same basic assumptions (and exploitations) -- even if the damage they inflict is clearly not equal.
| 365 |
offensive_username Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:10:03am |
re: #255 ~Fianna
Absolutely awful things have been done in the name of religion - just like awful things have been done in the name of any ideology. Ideologies, whether they're religious, political or scientific have been used as tools by human beings.
It's a shame when too much-or too little-force is exerted on the side of truth and justice. I don't envy those who had to determine America's strategic bombing policy in WWII.
But it's a tragedy when the objective being fought for is simply false. Then any violence done, any force exerted, any time spent is wrong.
I think they tend to take the absolute worst aspects of religion (and even as a believer, I'm not going to deny that there are a lot of negative aspects, especially if you look at the historical record) and then set that up as the argument against all religion any time anywhere.
These worst aspects are salient because they highlight the underlying falseness of each system-its incongruence with reality and human morality and experience. The more the religion derives its ethics from its foundational texts and tradition, the more obvious this is. On the other hand, the more it determines what is right and wrong before consulting its tradition, the less it deserves respect as a religion.
Conversely, it's not particularly interesting that a man made belief system can sometimes induce better behavior than reality does by invoking a divine supervisor, or by encouraging enlightened self awareness through prayer, or some other means. That doesn't point to its being true.
If it's conceded that there is no good reason for believing any of these systems, the argument against of their utility remains interesting, but becomes somewhat superfluous. Anyone smart enough to read this sentence can create a new false belief system that has more salutary effects than any extant religion in under 30 seconds. Yet, over the long run, how likely is it that we will act most in consonace with reality by misperceiving it?
| 366 |
poteen Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:12:37am |
re: #364 mph
I think Condell intends for you to substitute the word Clergy for any religious leader, be it the Pope, a Bishop, a Rabbi, Mormon prophets, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Islamic muftis, political demagogues, cult leaders --- any one who takes away peoples' time, money and reason by exploiting and manipulating Faith. In that sense, Condell believes all religious profiteers start from the same basic assumptions (and exploitations) -- even if the damage they inflict is clearly not equal.
True. And the fact that he doesn't make distinctions between charity and exploitation makes HIM a religious profiteer.
| 367 |
offensive_username Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:25:01am |
| 369 |
poteen Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:12:08pm |
re: #367 offensive_username And Charles.
Read upthread for 'evidence'.
| 370 |
Plato Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:25:04pm |
re: #348 cenotaphium
I went to the Kiva site and saw that the group you mentioned gave nearly a million out in loans. Very impressive.
But that's only in relation to how much the Anglican Church gave in the same time period. I don't know whether that's more or less.
True, if the emphasis of religion is spiritual...that is, non material, than what the heck are those people doing living the way they do?
I don't care. Who do they help? What does the congregation think? What do they get out of it? When hypocrisy gets too blatant the enterprise folds. I've heard attendance is down. People must be voting with their feet.
| 371 |
offensive_username Mon, Oct 5, 2009 4:28:11pm |
re: #369 poteen
What I meant to say is, there is basically the same body of evidence available to everybody, none of which points to anything supernatural, but different conclusions are reached by different people. If some people reach unlikely or inane conclusions and happen to have the same amount of confidence in their conclusion that reasonable people ought to have, that's neither an indictment of the best possible conjecture nor of having that level of confidence in a belief. Some are too confident or not confident enough in a right or wrong belief, certainly.
| 372 |
poteen Mon, Oct 5, 2009 5:01:35pm |
re: #371 offensive_username
The whole point of my comments was that regardless of the evidence against a god, any god, or faith in a higher being, Condell's spiel attacks the people who believe and the organizations they choose to belong to. Organizations that do a lot of good. He uses the crooks and liars to debase the good folks who care. In effect calling them stupid sheep. Same as a loony evangelist telling them they're terrible sinners and going to burn.
No difference.
And after visiting his website, I'm convinced he does it for personal gain. Same as that donation begging evangelist. Legal and understandable but so is going to church and volunteering at the food bank.
He doesn't come off as a 'spot on' commentator but a snide potshotter making a living off better people than himself.
| 373 |
Basho Mon, Oct 5, 2009 8:46:02pm |
You know a belief system is in trouble when the only defense is "but the believers do good deeds!"
Even the Bible admits that's freakin' lame:
"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?" (Matthew 5:46-47)
| 374 |
offensive_username Mon, Oct 5, 2009 9:19:09pm |
re: #372 poteen
Condell's spiel attacks the people who believe and the organizations they choose to belong to...In effect calling them stupid sheep.
Is there a set of words with which it is acceptable to argue that all religion is false and all public religion does harm? Or does it constitute an unacceptable attack to even raise the issue? He did not use insults like calling people sheep or attack people, he challenged beliefs that many people have chosen to make their core beliefs.
Organizations that do a lot of good.
Would you seek to quash any discussion of whether they do more good than ill? It is poor accounting to ignore a whole side of the ledger.
I personally dislike when atheists harp on religious hypocrisy, as if the problem with religion is that it isn't following its own tenets, because the obvious improvement from that is "good" religion. Abuses are relevant because of the overwhelming likelihood that some people will abuse power over people if you give it to them, and religions needlessly give clergy power over people.
However, the worst outcome of liberal religion is that it proclaims a set of beliefs to be outside of rational thought, and thereby provides cover to civilization's worst enemies. It blinds them to the reality that fanatics take their holy texts seriously, because they don't-a point America's native fanatics fortunately need no help in grasping, (though that doesn't make their religions good). Liberal religions serve as incubators for respecting evil texts, maintaining the potential that they will give rise to fundamentalism by those who actually treat those texts seriously. Perhaps worst of all, it prevents a rational attempt to fulfill humanity's transcendental desires by asserting exclusive jurisdiction over this area. Is this all to achieve an ostensibly higher than average rate of community and charity? Then keep the change. There is nothing done by religious groups that couldn't be done and isn't being done by secular groups.
I won't even bother explaining what's wrong with fundamentalist religion.
Same as a loony evangelist telling them they're terrible sinners and going to burn.
The evangelist is loony because his beliefs are false, not because he is raising the prospect of dire consequences. A doctor telling someone they will die soon is not loony, if they will. Someone insisting, even stridently, to someone who believes in an afterlife that they should settle their affairs with people on this earth would not necessarily be loony.
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ...
Cheechako
1 weeks ago
Views: 1,197 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 261 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1- Pictures From Today’s Exhibition of Paintings Done by Jane LilienthalPROPS TO MICHELE AND SAGEHEN FOR CATCHING THE SPELLING ERROR IN THE TITLE THAT MY DIABETIC EYES COULDN'T CATCH I wanted to share pictures of the art show I visited today. The portraits were created by the mother of my ...Joe Bacon ✅
2 weeks ago
Views: 371 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 11 
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
3 weeks ago
Views: 504 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 9
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
3 weeks ago
Views: 530 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 517 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 5- A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...KGxvi
3 weeks ago
Views: 424 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 4 
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 748 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 4
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 61 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 163 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
