The Pope protects child molesters, dontchaknow.

I'm glad the Catholic church have decided to excommunicate these people. Hopefully now they'll be able to find a church that doesn't put God's law before God's love.

I'm glad you pointed that out SS, that's exactly what I wanted to talk about.

Alot, of Christians (espcially the Catholic ones) seem to have lost touch with what the religon is all about, love. God's love for all of mankind comes before his laws.

Also, I wish the Catholic church would stop condeming people who are diffrent and giving the majority of Christians a bad name.

Heretics! Love does not increase the power of the church hierarchy! Rules that can be used to excite the populace against other people do. Remember, that's how they stopped those uppity non-Catholics!

Alot, of Christians (espcially the Catholic ones)

To be fair it is the leadership that sucks, while many individual Catholics are more liberal than some other religions.

Bryan is correct, it's best that they aren't part of that unempathetic organization and I do wish them well from here on.

However.

Excommunication is not something that can be shrugged off. A person's faith is often set up as the foundation of their life and to first of all chose the life of this poor tortured child over everything they've been taught to believe in. But after doing that they are banished from their sanctuary of faith.

The family have gone through more than enough pain in all this mayhem and in a time they need their church, their faith and support, they're rejected. I cannot picture anything more soul shattering.

I hope the community at large is able to provide support that the catholic church are denying and I hope that God is able to forgive and protect them from future tragedy.

Y'know. My rants about organized religion being the biggest enemy of world peace just seem unnecessary when they keep pulling stuff like this. I wish they'd be a little sneakier about it so I can at LEAST pretend I'm outing some kinda evil conspiracy. If I replied with a rant here it'd be like shoving lemmings off a cliff.

~Rico

Organised religion is the bane of humankind.

Eh, without organized religion we'd just have something else everyone fights and +!#@**! about (which we already have plenty of). It's human nature to find fault with one another and cast them out at times when we feel they aren't cool any more. I'm always reminded of the South Park episode where Cartman goes into the future because he wanted to play the Wii. XD

Now, my mother and father both grew up Catholic. They tried to get my brother and I to church when we were kids, but they couldn't really hold me down and I seemed to be bored out of my mind. I'm honestly ashamed of how I was so disrespectful I was then (though I never did that on morning services) but somehow I remained faithful as I grew up. Aside from my brother, none of us really go to church, and for me it's mainly because I don't know of any good ones to go to. The family in general is not all that "religous" these days just due to problems with churches, and believing that many are still just out of touch with what it means to have faith. Or even more accurate in my mind , is that many people were out of touch, but it wasn't until recent decades until we started to question whether or not they're as holy as they say they are. It's thanks to people like this who judge others and think they're "right" are the reason why I get insulted all the time for my beliefs. I never talk about them, or push them on anyone, but their examples of why they chose to crack on me always have to do with idiots like this who feel as if they can pass judgment on everyone. It pisses me off.

Either way, I don't think anyone, no matter what they believe has it "right", and very few can even have the chance of being "close", so I wish everyone would just live and let live, love each other, and forgive and accept any faults or different views.

Religion has caused more death and misery than any other factor.

Religion has caused more death and misery than any other factor.

What about old age/natural death/illness? :O

Religion caused old age/natural death/illness! Bush Jr's presidency too! =O

*facepalm* I said rants are pointless. They are doing themselves in, hence making rants useless because you're just preaching to the choir (provided the priest hasn't already got 'em). Hence the lemming cliff comment.

You see this? Sonic is facepalming the Pope. Sonic. This is epic.

That is all.

Eh, without organized religion we'd just have something else everyone fights and +!#@**! about (which we already have plenty of). It's human nature to find fault with one another and cast them out at times when we feel they aren't cool any more. I'm always reminded of the South Park episode where Cartman goes into the future because he wanted to play the Wii. XD

Now, my mother and father both grew up Catholic. They tried to get my brother and I to church when we were kids, but they couldn't really hold me down and I seemed to be bored out of my mind. I'm honestly ashamed of how I was so disrespectful I was then (though I never did that on morning services) but somehow I remained faithful as I grew up. Aside from my brother, none of us really go to church, and for me it's mainly because I don't know of any good ones to go to. The family in general is not all that "religous" these days just due to problems with churches, and believing that many are still just out of touch with what it means to have faith. Or even more accurate in my mind , is that many people were out of touch, but it wasn't until recent decades until we started to question whether or not they're as holy as they say they are. It's thanks to people like this who judge others and think they're "right" are the reason why I get insulted all the time for my beliefs. I never talk about them, or push them on anyone, but their examples of why they chose to crack on me always have to do with idiots like this who feel as if they can pass judgment on everyone. It pisses me off.

Either way, I don't think anyone, no matter what they believe has it "right", and very few can even have the chance of being "close", so I wish everyone would just live and let live, love each other, and forgive and accept any faults or different views.

Probably, but if not for the influence of religion, I doubt it would be as easy for people to convince followers that they're virtous in doing so.

As for the subject at hand, I don't know much about excommunications, but I'm guessing it means the church no longer considers them members. And if it's their church, it's up to them who they consider members, regardless of their reasons. That said, stories like this just go to show a problem with such dogmatic ideas as "god's law vs. man's law"; the idea that the laws of a particular book written by humans are the same ones of some all-powerful being (and that laws from outside of it just aren't) sounds like quite an illogical favoritism.

As for Vec's comment about the members vs. leadership, I think the real question should be, if they don't agree with the leadership, what are they doing in a church with those leaders? Maybe it's none of my business, but I just want to look into why people so willingly conform to cultures contradictory to their own views.

Because religion is an ascribed status to most people, as in they are born into it, IMO converts have a greater claim.

Organised religion is the bane of humankind.

Okay, this is a topic about a very specific issue regarding the particular beliefs, attitudes and practices of a particular group of Catholics...

... and then Rishi responds to it with a one-line generalization that includes a simple and cliche assertion without anything to back it up.

And! And! And! Worst of all? For a moment I was surprised at this.

Man, I have been away from the Marble Garden for way too long.

Anyway: PEOPLE WHO ENCOURAGE ABORTION ARE EVIL AND WE SHOULD WAG OUR FINGERS AT THEM MENACINGLY okay??

edit: Also, I agree with what Vec just said on some level, and I see the logic in what he's saying, but as a person of no great faith myself I think that sheep are sheep.

... and then Rishi responds to it with a one-line generalization that includes a simple and cliche assertion without anything to back it up.

Nothing to back it up? How about billions and billions of unnecessary deaths?

Rish. Please dignify your profound and hugely important statement with more than a single line.

If you actually believe the borederline hatefilled thing you're saying, then back it up with the same wall of text approach you do with the rest of the crack-pot things you suggest. I'm sure if we can get 30 replies to your airsquid theory, there might actually be something worth discussing in the idea that about 80-90% of the world's population are supportive of these "banes of mankind".

If you actually believe the borederline hatefilled thing you're saying, then back it up with the same wall of text approach you do with the rest of the crack-pot things you suggest. I'm sure if we can get 30 replies to your airsquid theory, there might actually be something worth discussing in the idea that about 80-90% of the world's population are supportive of these "banes of mankind".

What I'm saying is not 'hate-filled', perhaps resentment-filled, but not 'hate-filled'..... at least not toward the adherents of any religion. I hate no religious adherents. In fact, I hate no-one. But what I DO hate (and rightfully so) are the intolerant dogmas and COUNTLESS atrocities which ultimately stem from religion (usually 'organised' religion, but religion nonetheless), which are justified by religion, condoned by religion and done in the name of a religion/religions. What I hate is peacefully and quietly minding my own business waiting at a train station only to be annoyed by some stupid old lady who quickly and almost forcefully gives me a pamphlet singing the praises of Christianity and stating that I'm not 'saved' if I don't follow such a religion. What I hate is being told in high school by some douchebag student that those who adhere to different religions believe evil things even ONLY by virtue of the fact that those religions are simply not Christianity. What I hate is being told I'm a 'baby killer' simply for supporting Obama. These and MANY, MANY other things are what I hate. NOT people, but these particular things. And guess what? They're ALL linked by one common denominator: RELIGION
Granted, some religions are less violent than others (Buddhism and Jainism comes to mind for me), but religion as a whole (especially the organised/institutionalised variety) has done FAR more harm than good and I stand by this comment. I stand by this comment fiercely.

More wars and more suffering have been inflicted in the name of "god" than any other cause. Simple historical fact.

Most religious institutions are expressly organizations with the goal of telling people what to think, excluding independent thought, assigning officials with authority over thought, and acting as a divine proxy. That is such an obvious formula for corruption that it is quite reasonable for them to consider any wrong religion evil, because only divine guidance could keep it from being used as such.

And holy crap Craig you got Rishi to say something meaningful. 😛

More wars and more suffering have been inflicted in the name of "god" than any other cause. Simple historical fact.

Is that true? Probably. Is it true that, if we were all atheists (as I am), that we would find something else to wage war and inflict suffering over? Of course we would. I don't think that belief in God motivates people to cause suffering. It just happens to be the most convenient excuse for it.

And holy crap Craig you got Rishi to say something meaningful. 😛

Dude, I know. I even ended up surprising myself!

Wow, this thread is full of epicness. <.<<br />
Seriously though, religon isn't the problem (At least when it isn't organized...), its the power people can and do attain through religon.

Its like the old saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

"Religon doesn't kill people, power through Religon kills people."

Seriously though, religon isn't the problem (At least when it isn't organized...), its the power people can and do attain through religon.

That's the thing though, man. The OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of religion is organised. Hence we have churches, mosques, mandirs etc.

The main reason organized religon is bad though, is because it leads to someone having power over the group, and power corrupts as we all know. So basically, it isn't religon that is bad, but rather the power that comes from itself, is what I'm trying to say.

I personally have no problem with the good Cardinal excommunicating those who helped with the Abortion. They're a church and allowed to make any rules they want doctrinally one of 'em is the Pope and the guys in red are always right and if you don't like it, you don't have to be Catholic. Religious freedom means the right to exclude people you consider immoral/heretics as well. In fact, if a church doesn't strongly address the question of morals then what's the point of the church? I can worship god well enough on my own.

As for the question of if religion is the bane of humanity, all of you are ignoring a more important player in all conflicts. It's not the church, but the state. Most wars have been wars of nationalism. The church merely serves as a propaganda point, however, any gathering of people can serve well as a propaganda point...such as compulsory schooling(where you can easily brainwash the young, you have them for half the day, five days a week after all; churches generally only get a kid for a few hours a week at best).

I personally have no problem with the good Cardinal excommunicating those who helped with the Abortion.

However I look upon the situation as this:
The step father had raped his nine year old daughter who got pregnant with twins as a result.
The daughter has a uterus that would not be able to accommodate the twins, therefore putting the daughter is mortal risk of her life (thus her life plus the twins would be lost).
Thus the daughter would in essence have been murdered by the father.
Doctors can save the life of the nine year old kid, however this would cause the "death" of the twins (i am not debating in these circumstances the sentience of unborn the feotus').
Now we have a situation where we have one daughter who is alive yet without the twins.
Would a "God" want to allow the slow and painful death of one of his creations in a situation that has no hope? Would you leave an injured man in the street to die after being attacked by another individual?
This isn't a cut and dry debate and this thread should try to focus upon the abortion in similar circumstances.

I like how people up and say that religion is the main reason for deaths. If everybody in the world were Angelican Christians, do you really think there would be wars on religion?

Of course, I'll never understand how the stepfather wasn't excommunicated first. =/

First thing, the reason why the mother and physicians were excommunicated before the father is quite simple. The abortion is an objective fact(the physicians documented it after all) while the father has not been convicted yet. Being accused of something doesn't mean you did it(the Duke Lacrosse rape accusation for instance).

Second, I view this more as a case of conflicting ethics between two groups. The Cardinal has a duty to enforce canon law. The physicians have a duty to help their patient live(and their patient in this case is the girl, not the fetuses). Therefore, the Cardinal had a duty to punish the physicians for their violation of canon law. The physicians had a duty, being the girl's physicians, to perform the abortion which(I assume) is within their legal and ethical rights to do in Brazil. However, I do think as a matter of punishment, the Cardinal went off the deep end. Excommunication is extreme for a group of people who had good motives in doing the abortion. A better punishment might of been to deny them mass till they went to confession and did a religious punishment(like forcing 'em to go on a pilgramage to a holy site, or forcing them to do a catechism class again). Excommunication should be reserved for religious heretics(such as the four catholic women who wanted to ordain themselves priests). Basically, the physicians did the right thing but the Cardinal had a duty to fulfill himself. He was too harsh in the punishment though.

Geez, rough crowd in here.

Really, I've found 2 years ago that any atheist can be as bad as those of the religious kind. I lost friends, had slander on me, and even faced violence from the same people because I believe in God. I'm a dark, rowdy, crazed person for the most part who never even mentions it even. As I said before, human beings are just vile at times. They'd kill for God, a politician, a way of governing, race, the sake of their own wallets, anything. I'm not necessarily jumping on the bandwagon that feels that the religious are to be persecuted and hated in later years for being such a way, but I will say I think both "sides" of this imaginary battle has enough crap on their shoulders. As I said in a political topic "How does one debate opinion"? I still have some faith in the idea of an organized religion here and there, but really, when you have anything, ANYTHING organized and grow in numbers, chances are you just use your power and numbers improperly.

This isn't a cut and dry debate and this thread should try to focus upon the abortion in similar circumstances.

Can you clarify that? Because I KNOW I'm misreading that. I think you're trying to dehumanize the girl for the sake of debate. I'm wrong, right?

~Rico

Vec, how exactly are people "born into" it? Even if they were raised in a particular faith, it's up to them whether to stay or go. I was raised anglican, that doesn't make me conform to it. My point was more so about your distinction between the "leaders" and the "followers"; by remaining followers, they're encouraging the leaders to keep going down the path they're going.

As for Coyote comparing compulsory schooling to the church in terms of being a "propaganda point"; if you had said that to me a few years ago I don't know how I'd have reacted to such a comparison, but I don't think I'd have liked it. That said, I'm not as inclined to disagree now as I would've been then. There's a difference between education and indoctrination, but then again, schools can somewhat blur the lines sometimes, such as with their "education" in terms of illegal drugs like marijuana, for example; those aspects could use some fixing. But I think it's a somewhat weak analogy; schools are secular, or at least are supposed to be, and at least they teach about different religions in the world, etc. as different cultures, whereas the pamphlets churches give to little kids refute doubts like "what about other religions, what if they're right?" with blatant scare-tactics like "these are just doubts the devil fills your mind with"; it's completely manipulative, whereas at least the supposed goal of public education is to, well, educate people. In hindsight, I'm not so sure now if I trust their approach either.

And natw, you talk about the circumstances of the abortion, but I can't help but think you're missing Coyote's point; if it's their church, it's up to them what their standards are, regardless of their reasons. Those who don't like it don't have to be members. You ask about if "god" would want one of "his" creations to die a slow and painful death, but really, who gets to say what "god" wants? Isn't it rather presumptuous to begin with? And if a particular church has a certain stance on that, and certain people don't like that stance, then what are those people doing in that church?

However, I do think as a matter of punishment, the Cardinal went off the deep end. Excommunication is extreme for a group of people who had good motives in doing the abortion. A better punishment might of been to deny them mass till they went to confession and did a religious punishment(like forcing 'em to go on a pilgramage to a holy site, or forcing them to do a catechism class again).

Why should they get any punishment at all? If you take it as the anti-abortion point of view, they saved 1 life instead of killing her AND the twins.

Vec, how exactly are people "born into" it? Even if they were raised in a particular faith, it's up to them whether to stay or go.

It is a major ascribed status and even if they leave that religion is what they started with. People are far less likely to switch to another religion than stick with the religion that they are ascribed.

And natw, you talk about the circumstances of the abortion, but I can't help but think you're missing Coyote's point; if it's their church, it's up to them what their standards are, regardless of their reasons. Those who don't like it don't have to be members. You ask about if "god" would want one of "his" creations to die a slow and painful death, but really, who gets to say what "god" wants? Isn't it rather presumptuous to begin with? And if a particular church has a certain stance on that, and certain people don't like that stance, then what are those people doing in that church?

Except that the religion is powerful in the country so they are essentially being expelled from their society.

Also, the ruling is only being done as a political statement. Would they excommunicate a lifeguard who saved only the swimmer he could?

While the idea that the church could have anything in common with Jesus is laughable, must I point out how he condemned the use of rules by pharisees to oppress the people?