Natural Rights

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith

User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:
Wosbald wrote:So, Catholicism is too religious for the Tank and too political for the Close?
Feel free to speak of Catholicism. Or quote others speaking about Catholicism. But, as was said in The Outlaw Josey Wales, don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. A post like
The Republicans said A. The Republicans did B. The Republicans don't like C. God is love.
ain't about God's love.
That's certainly not how Catholicism sees it.

Working for Justice is (or rather, can be) a manifestation of God's love, both liberating the oppressed and admonishing the sinner doing the oppression (whether that oppressor is a private individual, a corporation, a statesman, a party-platform or a government entity).

Just as an off-the-cuff example:

Is not this the kind of fasting I, the Lord, have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every burden?
    — Isiah 58:6


Doubtless, further quotes from Scripture, from the Magisterium, from Popes and Sages and Saints could be adduced ad nauseam.

Nevertheless, such is an academic point and in no way is meant to imply that the Close's posting guidelines are inherently "wrong". Rather, the facts on the ground dictate that I'll simply hafta figure out some way to both satisfy the Close's posting parameters and speak Catholically about what is Right and Good. That's on me to man-up and work-out.


Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Zarathustra wrote:It's the combination of, "This political opinion is true because of this religious tenet" that gets you into trouble. In the Tank, we couldn't argue against that justification without debating religion, which no one wants to do in the Tank [you realize this is what killed the Tank, right? The frustration one member had with your trolling insistence of forcing religion where no one wanted it provoking behavior that was deemed "an embarrassment." Just sayin.]
I couldn't say if any specific thing ended the Tank, or what role (if any) those specific posts of Nihilo's played. Personally, I didn't have a problem with those posts. (Other than the one that he admitted was going to far.) I was hoping Wos would respond to them. Even though it wasn't so much a political issue, it seems important.

As we're talking about priests raping children, it might fall under the purview of The Close in general. But even if not, since the authority of rapists, when their authority is how they are able to rape (as opposed to things like beating, immobilizing, and threatening) is not always due to their standing in a religious organization, rape - whether or not the victim is a child - certainly involves Natural Human Rights. So the question is, how do you support an organization when some of its members use their authority to rape children, others find ways to keep the rapists out of trouble, and those at the top ignore it all? At what point is an organization too evil to support?

Zarathustra wrote:Don't you get tired of being a mouthpiece for another man you don't know? Why don't you ever just post your own opinions?
Maybe his opinions are always exactly what the Pope's are. Or maybe, regardless of having a different opinion, he accepts the Pope's infallibility, so ignores his own opinions. Either way, there's no point in his own words.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Wosbald wrote:That's certainly not how Catholicism sees it.

Working for Justice is (or rather, can be) a manifestation of God's love, both liberating the oppressed and admonishing the sinner doing the oppression (whether that oppressor is a private individual, a corporation, a statesman, a party-platform or a government entity).

Just as an off-the-cuff example:

Is not this the kind of fasting I, the Lord, have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every burden?
    — Isiah 58:6
That angle seems to be somewhere between 90 and 180°. This does not mention any specific person or group. We certainly get the idea that bad things are being done. Injustice, oppression. But it's a general idea.
Wosbald wrote:Nevertheless, such is an academic point and in no way is meant to imply that the Close's posting guidelines are inherently "wrong". Rather, the facts on the ground dictate that I'll simply hafta figure out some way to both satisfy the Close's posting parameters and speak Catholically about what is Right and Good. That's on me to man-up and work-out.


Image
They aren't the Close's guidelines and parameters. They are the Watch's. Until further notice, we are not going to have political discussions taking place. I suspect you would get the same response if you posted quotes about any particular political party's wrongdoings in any other forum. For the time being, it's not going to be part of the site. Nearly everything touches on politics, so conversations will touch on it now and then, also. In the past, if I had seen a conversation becoming more politically oriented, I would have suggested it be taken to the Tank. If someone had tried to start a political conversation, I would have more firmly guided it there. But now, there's no place to guide it. That doesn't mean we'll do it here. It means we're not doing it.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:[…]
Wosbald wrote:Nevertheless, such is an academic point and in no way is meant to imply that the Close's posting guidelines are inherently "wrong". Rather, the facts on the ground dictate that I'll simply hafta figure out some way to both satisfy the Close's posting parameters and speak Catholically about what is Right and Good. That's on me to man-up and work-out.


Image
They aren't the Close's guidelines and parameters. They are the Watch's. Until further notice, we are not going to have political discussions taking place. I suspect you would get the same response if you posted quotes about any particular political party's wrongdoings in any other forum. For the time being, it's not going to be part of the site. Nearly everything touches on politics, so conversations will touch on it now and then, also. In the past, if I had seen a conversation becoming more politically oriented, I would have suggested it be taken to the Tank. If someone had tried to start a political conversation, I would have more firmly guided it there. But now, there's no place to guide it. That doesn't mean we'll do it here. It means we're not doing it.
UPDATE: Nevertheless, such is an academic point and in no way is meant to imply that the Watch's (formerly, "the Close's") posting guidelines are inherently "wrong". Rather, the facts on the ground dictate that I'll simply hafta figure out some way to both satisfy the Watch's (formerly, "the Close's") posting parameters and speak Catholically about what is Right and Good. That's on me to man-up and work-out.


Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Seems a simple matter to me. Just tell us what you think is Right and Good. Can you not say, "It is good to X," without also saying, "The Republicans/Democrats refuse to do it."? Or "Doing Y is evil," without also saying, "But the Democrats/Republicans do it."? You can even say why you think X is good or why is evil without mentioning any political party. I would imagine you would do so by mentioning scripture or quoting members high up in the Church's organization. The former certainly won't be mentioning Democrats or Republicans. The latter might be more difficult.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Fist and Faith wrote:Seems a simple matter to me. Just tell us what you think is Right and Good. Can you not say, "It is good to X," without also saying, "The Republicans/Democrats refuse to do it."? Or "Doing Y is evil," without also saying, "But the Democrats/Republicans do it."? You can even say why you think X is good or why is evil without mentioning any political party. I would imagine you would do so by mentioning scripture or quoting members high up in the Church's organization.
I'm afraid this wouldn't be enough to keep it from being politically contentious. Just because we think something is good or evil doesn't mean 'X' isn't political. One could say, "It is good to have open borders because Pope says so," and easily get around your rule. And I can't argue against that position for the reasons I think such a policy is foolish because they are political in nature and have nothing to do with religion. So my reasons would be deemed 'off-topic' or inappropriate for this forum. But then that biases KW toward religious people, against secular people, because the former could voice opinions on political issues while the latter could not.

Maybe the problem is trying to tell others what they should do, e.g. "It is good to do X." If you're going to eliminate an entire set of reasons for people to hold such a belief, then perhaps people should not be engaging in advocacy for any reason on KW. It may sound ridiculous, but so is trying to be 'fair' in a situation where you are picking which views are allowable and which are not. It's certainly not a road I would have volunteered to go down.
I don't envy your job, Fist.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I don't think national borders is a religious topic. I can see how a discussion about National borders could come out of a discussion about helping people in need. But it's a at least a few steps removed from the that discussion.

And that discussion doesn't necessarily involve religion. It doesn't with me. If I saw somebody starving to death, I'd buy them a meal. I'd see if there was any way for me to help them not starve to death, aside from feeding them for the rest of my life or theirs, whichever ended first. Doesn't have anything to do with religion. It's just the way I feel.

None of that has anything to do with religion or politics. It could obviously be moved in either direction on a dime. Religion is entirely appropriate in the Close, so no problem if it goes there.

Politics is not appropriate in the Close. And it has been clearly demonstrated that politics cannot be discussed at the Watch with anything close to civility, so it can't go there.

But we can discuss charity without it, on a personal level.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Zarathustra wrote:Wos, you don't have to put it in tiny letters, I'm proudly anti-religion. I think it's a mish-mash of superstition, irrationality, authoritarianism, and inauthenticity.

[…]
I didn't mean to imply "Anti-Religion". Anti-Religion is a theologico-philosophical position which is at least conceptually defensible, containing as it may, diverse nuggets of truth.

Rather, I meant to imply "AntiCathoicism", itself being nothing but an indefensible, bigoted slur oft-admixed in a slurry of tenuous historical inferences, conspiratorial ramblings and personal invective.


Image


=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Zarathustra wrote:
Wos wrote: So, Catholicism is too religious for the Tank and too political for the Close?
Let's approach that in steps. Step 1: …

[…]
FWIW, Zarsplaining your AntiCatholicism in steps is still AntiCatholicism.

Just sayin'.

Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Wosbald wrote:Rather, I meant to imply "AntiCathoicism", itself being nothing but an indefensible, bigoted slur oft-admixed in a slurry of tenuous historical inferences, conspiratorial ramblings and personal invective.
I didn't know what word you were going for, either.

Saying AntiCatholicism is nothing but an indefensible, bigoted slur oft-admixed in a slurry of tenuous historical inferences, conspiratorial ramblings and personal invective doesn't make it so. I rather think it's a well-grounded position, grown in the soil of historical and contemporary atrocities. It seems the indefensible thing is adhering to the organization and venerating the people at various levels of its hierarchy who commit evil. At least I've not heard a defense for that. What reason is there for thinking AntiCatholicism is the correct way of thinking?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:
Wosbald wrote:Rather, I meant to imply "AntiCathoicism", itself being nothing but an indefensible, bigoted slur oft-admixed in a slurry of tenuous historical inferences, conspiratorial ramblings and personal invective.
I didn't know what word you were going for, either.

Saying AntiCatholicism is nothing but an indefensible, bigoted slur oft-admixed in a slurry of tenuous historical inferences, conspiratorial ramblings and personal invective doesn't make it so. I rather think it's a well-grounded position, grown in the soil of historical and contemporary atrocities. It seems the indefensible thing is adhering to the organization and venerating the people at various levels of its hierarchy who commit evil. At least I've not heard a defense for that. What reason is there for thinking AntiCatholicism is the correct way of thinking?
Putting a person or a people in the dock to defend their identity — to justify their existence — is the textbook definition of bigotry.

'Nuff said.


Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

What is telling people they should not speak out against evil the definition of?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:What is telling people they should not speak out against evil the definition of?
If Zar wants to make a rational critique of elements of Catholic belief and practice and whatnot, he's welcome to do so. We've got 2000 years of history, so there's plenty to choose from. He's free to voice his disagreement with this or that.

And if he thinks that specific Catholics or specific Catholic institutions have broken certain laws, he's free to contact the authorities in the relevant jurisdiction.

I'd just rather he check the sweeping Metanarratives of Evil at the door.

There are 1.3 billion Catholics in the world and we are all Catholic Church. And I can confidently say that none of us — whether we are liberal or conservative or American or foreigner or whatever — want to be called an Evil Force.

Now, I can't stop him from doing so. And I'm not expecting you to stop him. But no matter how much he tortures me, I'm not gonna give up the secret-identity of the Catholic Grand Poobah, the plans to the Catholic Space Laser, or the hidden location of our Star Chamber where we plot the future course of Mankind.

It's really just that simple.


Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I'm not speaking for Z.

What is concocting nonsense and claiming that's what the accuser is saying in order to avoid addressing the actual accusations the definition of?

It seems to me any organization can, and I wouldn't be surprised if all do, have some members who act against the organization's stated ways and purposes. It seems to me an organization can have so many members of this type that those wanting to follow the stated ways and purposes would have to ask themselves if the organization is in need of an overhaul. When those acting against the stated ways and purposes are doing so in evil ways that cause massive harm, I do not think those who want to stay true to the stated ways and purposes should turn a blind eye, and continue to venerate the evil doers.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:I'm not speaking for Z.

What is concocting nonsense and claiming that's what the accuser is saying in order to avoid addressing the actual accusations the definition of?

It seems to me any organization can, and I wouldn't be surprised if all do, have some members who act against the organization's stated ways and purposes. It seems to me an organization can have so many members of this type that those wanting to follow the stated ways and purposes would have to ask themselves if the organization is in need of an overhaul. When those acting against the stated ways and purposes are doing so in evil ways that cause massive harm, I do not think those who want to stay true to the stated ways and purposes should turn a blind eye, and continue to venerate the evil doers.
Once more from the top.

There is no overarching "THE Catholic Organization" writ-large.

Insisting that there is such a thing and demanding Catholics justify their existence thereby is an indefensible, bigoted slur. I.e. AntiCatholicism.

It's easy.


Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I thought the pope was the head of all catholics. I'm surprised to learn some Catholics, and priests, and bishops, don't see it that way. No hierarchy going from every Catholic up to the pope.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:I thought the pope was the head of all catholics. I'm surprised to learn some Catholics, and priests, and bishops, don't see it that way. No hierarchy going from every Catholic up to the pope.
It's easy. Unless one wants to make it hard.

Image

BTW, I'm still not giving up the plans to the Catholic Space Laser.


Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

What's easy?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:What's easy?
That, regardless of whatever "hierarchy" may or may not exist in the Catholic Church, there is no overarching "THE Catholic Organization" writ-large.

Insisting that there is such a thing and demanding Catholics justify their existence thereby is an indefensible, bigoted slur. I.e. AntiCatholicism.

It's easy. So easy.


Image


Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23441
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I'm asking why Catholics venerate a hierarchy that does what this one does. Saying I am demanding Catholics justify their existence is as accurate as saying I'm demanding Catholics take down their space lasers. Both are dodges.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Gaius Octavius
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3331
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:32 pm

Post by Gaius Octavius »

Did I miss some drama? Been a while since I posted and it looks like some interesting things happened.
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”