The Hobby Horses of Belief (and assorted hazards)

Bannasidhe

Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »

So-called? So it was not horrendous discrimination?

How sad, that you persist in trying to downplay and equivocate about the treatment of Catholics in Britain and England. With your comments you are engaging in what was and is one of the common traits of the bigot, holding an entire group of people responsible for actions and statements of their leaders. (of course, the date you chose to start your trip down history lane is interesting). But, leaving aside and rights or wrongs of who done what; commentary holding Jews, Muslims etc. collectively responsible and justifying collective punishment of them, or even equivocating about it is horrendous and objectionable. Yet you are doing the same about Catholics here? So you think it is ok to treat a group of people a certain way because of their religion? It is not clear that you are engaging in your "explanation" of "so-called" horrendous discrimination as a means to illustrate how the English and British went wrong and were terribly wrong in what they did


Eh, I'm not the one trying to "explain" and equivocate about persecutions here. That is you. Have a look in the mirror. Do I need to make a comment on the misdeeds of the Catholic church because I am a Catholic? Why? If a Muslim rightly points out issues of religious discrimination and treatment do you say to them, "What about jihad? What about 9/11, what about x"? If it were a Muslim who became PM (an interesting prospect as Smacl says) and a fellow Muslim said it was interesting, or whatever, given the past treatment of Muslims would you criticise them for not mentioning x, y and z? Would you equivocate, downplay and "explain" their past treatment? A certain group of people would do exactly that, you are in terrible company.


The reason why it is noteworthy is the previous treatment of Catholics.

It's amazing really what you are doing here. A Catholic observes that it is interesting and noteworthy that a fellow Catholic is now PM of Britain given the historic treatment of Catholics and you seek to "explain" and downplay the suffering and experience of my fellow religious. Well more than that really, you are bordering on outright justification here. Horrendous.

I can only hope that, on reflection, you will realise that you have misspoke here (it happens to everyone) and have gone about this in totally the wrong way (again, this happens us all). Despite our disagreements I certainly have respect for your opinions, but this has been a rather poisonous display which I hope is the product of misspeaking, rather than a true reflection of your thoughts.

Personal attacks on me combined with spluttering outrage and yet not one refutation of the evidence of Papal interference in the Realm of England up to and including funding an invasion force.

No.

I will not dispute the evidence of the Primary Sources - including Vatican ones, simply because it does not suit your narrative of perceived victimhood.

The fact is the monarchs of England who engaged in the most heinous crimes of religious prosecution via public executions of 'dissenters' were both Roman Catholic. Crimes such as having a copy of the Bible in English were a death sentence.
This is not to say the Protestant monarchs were tolerant - simply that they tended to execute Roman Catholics after they had actually (with Papal blessing) rebelled.
The exception being in Ireland where regardless of religion the Colonial project took precedence.

Hotblack Desiato

Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »

the Catholic faith of the PM

They said he was a catholic, they didn't say anything about faith!!!

Seems quite likely that if he was actually serious about it, as opposed to keeping the wife happy, some would indeed have a problem with it.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes, it is noteworthy if the UK has a Roman Catholic PM - and it will be interesting to see how his Unionist allies react.

Best comment so far in from Katy Brand:

https://twitter.com/KatyFBrand/status/1398960997000527872

Bannasidhe wrote:

From a strictly security of the realm perspective there were serious issues with Papal interference.

Any time I hear one or other of the various christian sects claim a unique victimhood at the hands of one or other of another christian sect, I'm reminded of the forlorn, final paragraph of Chapter 16 of Decline and Fall:

Edward Gibbon wrote:

it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels. During the ages of ignorance which followed the subversion of the Roman empire in the West, the bishops of the Imperial city extended their dominion over the laity as well as clergy of the Latin church. The fabric of superstition which they had erected, and which might long have defied the feeble efforts of reason, was at length assaulted by a crowd of daring fanatics, who, from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, assumed the popular character of reformers. The church of Rome defended by violence the empire which she had acquired by fraud; a system of peace and benevolence was soon disgraced by the proscriptions, wars, massacres, and the institution of the holy office. And as the reformers were animated by the love of civil as well as of religious freedom, the Catholic princes connected their own interest with that of the clergy, and enforced by fire and the sword the terrors of spiritual censures. In the Netherlands alone more than one hundred thousand of the subjects of Charles V. are said to have suffered by the hand of the executioner; and this extraordinary number is attested by Grotius, [...] If we are obliged to submit our belief to the authority of Grotius, it must be allowed that the number of Protestants who were executed in a single province and a single reign, far exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries, and of the Roman empire.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Any time I hear one or other of the various christian sects claim a unique victimhood at the hands of one or other of another christian sect, I'm reminded of the forlorn, final paragraph of Chapter 16 of Decline and Fall:

Interesting that two years after its publication, Waugh converted to Catholicism.

Igotadose

From that twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/DamienHellewell/status/1398962155538599940

Hotblack Desiato

All Henry VIII wanted to do was "take back control", see how that turned out! :pac:

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Interesting that two years after its publication, Waugh converted to Catholicism.

(I don't think Robin was talking about the novel by Waugh, published in 1928, but about the six-volume history by Edward Gibbon, published between 1776 and 1789.)

(It's ripping stuff, but it's fair to point that Gibbons' interpretation of events, particularly in relation to the role played by Christianity, are not widely shared by modern historians.)

Peregrinus

Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »

That's interesting. It is said that Blair felt it expedient to wait until he was out of office before he converted, because of potential issues (perceived or otherwise) a Catholic PM would result in.

Opinion on Boris aside, it is a very welcome development, historically noteworthy, that a Catholic is and can be PM, given the horrendous discrimination and persecution that the English and British state inflicted on Catholics for hundreds of years.

smacl wrote: »

I'm not sure Catholicism is an issue for many if any British people in this day and age. Now if the elected a Muslim PM on the other hand, that would be more rather more interesting.

Not so fast, smacl! This one could be quite interesting.

If he is a Catholic, then under Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 s. 18, still very much in force in the UK, it is not lawful for him to advise the Crown in relation to church appointments. And . . .

. . . if any such person shall offend in the premises he shall, being thereof convicted by due course of law, be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the Crown.

Johson, of course, is Prime Minister and in that capacity his functions include advising the monarch on a wide range of church appointments - not just bishops, but a slew of appointments to several hundred positions in the Church of England. This isn't a formality; there's team in the Cabinet Office that works on selecting candidates to fill church offices for which the Crown is the patron.

If Johnson's a Catholic, he should have arranged for another Minister who is neither a Catholic nor a Jew — Jews are under a similar disablity — to advise the Crown on these appointments. But, being Boris Johnson, he didn't. He's not really a details man. So the extreme likelihood is that Johnson is already in breach of s. 18, on multiple occasions.

If he's charged and convicted, lifetime disqualification from office is not optional; it's automatic and mandatory. How long before someone brings a private prosecution?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

(I don't think Robin was talking about the novel by Waugh, published in 1928, but about the six-volume history by Edward Gibbon, published between 1776 and 1789.)

Indeed

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's ripping stuff, but it's fair to point that Gibbons' interpretation of events, particularly in relation to the role played by Christianity, are not widely shared by modern historians.

Gibbon's main criticism of christianity was that it took an empire which was generally tolerant of many religions and turned it into an empire which tolerated one. He was also dismissive of the cloud of religious workers who congregated about the empire and took much from it while contributing little. And he condemns with a special energy the bent and doubtful historians upon whom the whole edifice of christianity was based. His three chapters on the brief interlude offered by the apostate emperor Julian are unbeatable. And while I'm sure that many modern historians would point out christiany's many hypocrisies with a greater degree of diplomacy, and certainly with duller prose, than he did, I'm not sure that they disagree with the fundamentals.

However, Gibbon maintained that christianity was just one contributory factor in the decline and fall, and certainly not a principal factor, amongst which he listed a decline in military and administrative strength and discipline, weak, corrupt or indolent emperors and the strength and numbers of invading barbarians. Modern historians have added deteriorating economic conditions and declining individual health to that list, and they continue to debate the relative importance of the various causes, but Gibbon's basic list of reasons stands.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's ripping stuff [...]

It is, but difficult to get into, until, by accident, I came across Philip Madoc's reading which brings out the rich irony and sonority - not to say purpleness - of Gibbon's prose, without which emphasis, I think Giboon is hard or impossible to read.

Sample here:

https://naxosaudiobooks.com/decline-and-fall-of-the-roman-empire-part-1-the-abridged/

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Indeed

Yikes! Backs slowly away from the keyboard....

nozzferrahhtoo

Draven Savory Supernova wrote: »

Taking an oath to God is serious business. Taking such an oath and not upholding it is even more serious.

Well, serious to YOU perhaps, and SOME people who might take such an oath. Though since people with no faith at all can claim to have faith, it sort of makes such an "oath" as worthless as any other oath or verbal contract really.

Around here of course, seeing as we have not been shown a shred of evidence this "god" entity even exists... the oath in question stops being "serious" at all and start to be somewhere between comical and outright mockery of the already dubious notion of taking an oath in the first place.

It is about as "serious" and meaningful around these parts as a pinky swear, or a child promising on the life of his imaginary talking three eared pink bunny friend.

I am going to make a time saving assumption, for an assumption is all it is at this point.... that you are going to be no more capable (that is, entirely incapable in any shape or form) to substantiate the existence of this god entity that any of the theists who have previously ambled through this corner of the website?? So I would be wasting my time even asking you to consider doing so?

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Yikes! Backs slowly away from the keyboard....

Morto for you.

:P

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The guidelines are that the ceremonies should be deferred.

The Department has apparently suggested that the bishops they should defer them, but McNamara is saying the bishops should refer the decision to priests. This is not McNamara urging what the decision should be; he is urging who should make the decision — priests rather than bishops. "The State should not interfere with the church's internal decision making"; i.e. it's not for the State to say who, within the churches, should make decisions about the deferral of ceremonies.

And he's not "clearly saying that they should do what they want". He suggests who should make the decision, but he says nothing about how they should go about making it. In particular, he doesn't suggest that priests would or should attach any less weight to advice from the Department than Bishops would or should.

As for McNamara saying "saying the Sacraments are special and should go ahead", (a) he doesn't say the second bit, and (b) why would he? By his own reasoning, it's not for him to say whether the sacraments should go ahead or not. If the State should not interfere with the church's internal decision making, then neither should a TD.

Come off of it Peregrinus, this is just "Fox News" level of "didn't actually use those exact words" semantics.

If McNamara really believed that the Government, the bishops and the priests were all going to have the same ideas with respect to having ceremonies or not, then he wouldn't need to say the Government shouldn't interfere.
If McNamara believed in the Governments advice over the opinions of the priests and bishops, then he wouldn't be telling the Government not to interfere with the priests and bishops.

But he literally told the Bishops to only trust the priests decisions about holding ceremonies, while telling the government not to interfere because of the sacraments importance to him.

Peregrinus

He doesn't believe that the government, the priests and the bishops are all going to have the same ideas - he doesn't say anything of the kind. And he may well be motivated to suggest that the decision should be delegated to priests because - for whatever reason - he thinks the priests are most likely to make the decision that he, personally, would approve of.

But that's the opposite of urging the priests to do what he wants them to do. On that view, he doesn't need to urge priests to do that; he's advocating that the decision be left to them because he thinks they are already minded to do that.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

He doesn't believe that the government, the priests and the bishops are all going to have the same ideas - he doesn't say anything of the kind. And he may well be motivated to suggest that the decision should be delegated to priests because - for whatever reason - he thinks the priests are most likely to make the decision that he, personally, would approve of.

But that's the opposite of urging the priests to do what he wants them to do. On that view, he doesn't need to urge priests to do that; he's advocating that the decision be left to them because he thinks they are already minded to do that.

Your original claim, that you are badly trying to semantic your way out of, was that McNamara wasn't telling the church what to do. However, as he was explicitly urging bishops that they should listen to their priests and not the government, your original claim is just completely wrong. McNamara was trying to tell the church (specifically the bishops) what to do.

That McNamara then adds on his personal opinion about sacraments to justify why he is telling bishops to do this, also debunks your irrelevant nonsense here.

Peregrinus

Suggesting that bishops should defer to priest is suggesting this decision should be made, not what the decision should be. Your really can't see the distinction here?

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Suggesting that bishops should defer to priest is suggesting this decision should be made, not what the decision should be. Your really can't see the distinction here?

Firstly, your original claim was "McNamara is clearly talking about what the State should not, not about what the Church should do". Here, you admit that he was talking about what the church should do (the bishops should listen to the priests). So you admit that your original claim was completely wrong?


Secondly, no, I don't see the distinction in this context. McNamara doesn't just say to leave the decision to the priests, regardless of what decision may be. He knows full well that the priests want to do the sacraments and he himself agrees with them that the sacraments are special and should be above the governments restrictions.

robindch

Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia (MBS - he of the murder of journalist, Jamal Khashoggi fame) has apparently signalled recently, in religious terms, a fairly major shift in religious thinking in Saudi Arabia:

https://www.investigativeproject.org/8891/saudi-crown-prince-decision-may-end-his-country

Full transcript is seemingly here.

Investigative Project wrote:

"We should engage in continuous interpretation of Quranic texts," bin Salman said, "and the same goes for the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH, and all fatwas should be based on the time, place, and mindset in which they are issued."

Saudis should not idolize any scholar, even Mohamed Abdel Wahab, the Muslim theologian and founder of Wahhabism, bin Salman said. The changes are vital if Saudi Arabia is to remain economically vibrant, he said.

"Now, we cannot grow, we cannot attract capital, we cannot have tourism, we cannot progress with such extremist thinking in Saudi Arabia. If you want millions of jobs, if you want unemployment to decline, if you want the economy to grow, if you want your income to improve, you must eradicate these projects for the other interest."

This change could open the door to Saudi Arabia nullifying a majority of the hadiths on which many Islamists base their doctrine. "When we commit ourselves to following a certain school or scholar, this means we are deifying human beings," bin Salman said. [... ]

It could be years before these religious and social reforms take root in full Saudi society. But if bin Salman's pledge to back away from Wahhabism takes root, radical Islamists have lost a key component used to spread their ideology.

robindch

Thread on the links between the SSPX catholic fundamentalist sect, and its variants, and various far-right actors and organizations. Includes the two hermit nuns in West Cork and some of their nearby friends.

https://twitter.com/IsAntifascist/status/1418525069001826315

Hotblack Desiato

Now the Gardai have arrested an activist critical of SSPX Resistance for "hate speech". You couldn't make it up.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40344509.html

robindch

Interesting to compare the tone of the Irish Times report from Saturday 17th July with the rather less deferential report from a week later:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/woman-to-be-arrested-over-allegations-from-ultra-conservative-religious-group-1.4622651

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/cork-activist-questioned-over-allegations-of-harassment-by-christian-fundamentalists-1.4629871

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/this-isn-t-bringing-me-closer-to-christ-it-s-giving-me-urinary-tract-infections-1.4627723

‘This isn’t bringing me closer to Christ. It’s giving me urinary-tract infections’

Mormon women are campaigning for an end to itchy, church-designed synthetic underwear     

Hotblack Desiato

Bishop talks bollox

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/archbishop-accuses-media-of-distorted-coverage-of-religion-1.4631086

“It is not uncommon to find the coverage of religion per se and religious affairs generally viewed through a political prism and treated in political terms,” he told his congregation.

Well stfu when there's a referendum on, then. Because telling people which way to vote is being political.

It had “become standard today to adopt and embrace a form of ‘group-think’ which allows some to believe they can determine our outlook and reactions to various situations and realities, and not least, our attitude to religion and matters of faith and morals,” he said.

Irony meter exploded, bits everywhere. Brought to you by an organisation which ruthlessly suppresses internal dissent. They used to suppress external dissent, too, until burning people on stakes became frowned upon.

Now I know not everyone here is a big fan of Michael McDowell 😉, but he penned a riposte to the above guff:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-mcdowell-archbishop-in-no-position-to-talk-about-groupthink-1.4632039

It could be argued with greater force, I venture to suggest, that the failures of the churches to deal with such matters and with the status of women and gay people is the result of a far more obvious and dubious non-gospel based groupthink on their part. Those who argue for infallibility and moral magisterium might well ponder whether they are in any strong position to single out groupthink among others as the real cause of their present marginalisation.

Worth reading in full if you can, and perhaps that's not the most telling extract from it. However it assumes you take it as read that "gospel values" are all well and good. (What really grates on me is when "christian" is used as a synonym for "good" or "decent" or "civilised" when it's very frequently been the opposite of all of the above.)

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/allowing-communions-and-confirmations-will-help-spread-delta-variant-says-founder-of-priests-group-1.4637762

The co-founder of the Association of Catholic Priests has warned the decision of a number of Catholic bishops to allow First Communions and Confirmations to go ahead will “inevitably” contribute to the spread of the Delta variant.

Fr Tony Flannery said he could not understand the decision by the bishops given that the matter would no longer be an issue within five or six weeks.

Current Covid-19 measures say First Holy Communions and Confirmations should not take place at this time.

However, some Catholic bishops are allowing such ceremonies to take place in their dioceses this month, in defiance of public health advice.

Predictably, Kevin Doran and Phonsie Cullen are among the bishops in question.

Fr Flannery told RTÉ Radio’s Today Show the bishops had missed an opportunity to “relocate” the preparation for sacraments from schools to parishes so ceremonies would be for only those who “really want it”.

For many children and their families it was not the sacrament that was important, it was the social events after “and the money they will get”, he said, adding there was a commercial side to such events that had “cheapened” the ceremonies.

robindch

Cardinal Burke, one of the RCC's main US-based hardliners, a Trump supporter and a vaccine and covid-denier, has - unfortunately - come down with a dose of covid.

https://twitter.com/cardinalrlburke/status/1425239454487285761

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/vaccine-sceptic-cardinal-confirms-he-has-covid-19-virus-1.4645692

Hotblack Desiato

Several words come to mind, but none of them printable...

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117744901#Comment_117744901

***** the ***** ***** with a **** karmic stocking of ****

Hotblack Desiato

Are those just asterisks you typed? Haven't given the swear filter on the new site a proper try yet 😉

In other news:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/archbishop-advises-catholics-to-lighten-up-and-avoid-funeral-faces-1.4645501

The Archbishop of Dublin has advised Catholics against going around with “a funeral face”, a “sourpuss” or “a grimace that would stop a clock”.

“Our bitter thoughts and actions seep into our faces and infuse our words with a caustic bite; people notice when they look at us at Mass that we are a bunch of sour and dour faces,” Dermot Farrell said.

“Don’t forget to ask yourself this question: Am I a joyful person? Or, are am I one whose face is downcast, bitter and, at times, a grimace that would stop a clock? God loves someone who can give with joy, the cheerful giver.”

Speaking during a Mass at St Dominic’s Church in Tallaght, the archbishop said: “St Dominic can teach us that cheerfulness and kindliness, reflected in our faces, is a better witness to the gospel than the ‘funeral face’ sometimes mentioned by Pope Francis in his homilies.

“When Christians have more of a ‘sourpuss’ than a face that communicates the joy of being loved by God, they harm the mission and witness of the church.”

Scripture speaks “primarily to the heart, not to our intellect,” he said.

“It is not there to be understood, but to be approached as the threshold of mystery,” he continued.

That bit in bold had me howling with laughter 🤪 🤪 🤪

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117744301#Comment_117744301

Hmm. Sky fairy not listening: https://www.thedailybeast.com/vaccine-skeptic-cardinal-raymond-l-burke-breathing-via-ventilator-after-testing-positive-for-coronavirus