Can We Be Good Without God?

[trevster2k]

This is the title of a book I read a few years back. I heard the author on a radio talk show and realized that many of his views on life were similar to my own.

There is a section in the book discussing non-theist core principles.

1. The human species has evolved as - and remains as- part of nature.

2. Human consiciousness is a function of the activity of the human brain.

3. Human beings require (to some extent) a system of belief in order to function.

4. Humanists believe that in all its forms the supernatural is a myth.

5. The human species is capable of achieving a great deal using its resources of collaboration and creativity. The results of these endeavours often benefit our species and planet, but we are also capable of using the same abilities in acts of destruction and cruelty.

6. Humanists do not believe that the rules of human conduct have been set or preordained by any deity or external intelligence.

7. Individuals who are aware of the consequences of their actions on other individuals, on the community and on the species are likely to behave in a more considerate, more reasonable and more ethical way.

8. Humanists believe that equality of opportunity is a fundamental principle on which humankind can base its behaviour.

9. Life on earth is relatively fragile and requires care and attention to continue.

10 Humankind's destiny is not predetermined- much of it lies in our own control.

There is also a suggestion: if you have children, do your best to like them.

Just an alternative viewpoint.

Peace out.

 

[beli]

Well, this is not something I have said very often in FYM - I agree. Well said

 

[A_Wanderer]

I have maintained that for a good long while.

 

[intedomine]

Can we be good without God?

Of course we can.

 

[Dreadsox]

Can we be bad without Satan?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Most certainly.

 

[Irvine511]

secular rationality creates ethics, which are much better than morals.

an ethical person would never crash airplanes into buildlings, or strap bombs to his chest.

a moral person *might* be capable of such acts, since only the fear of/faith in God could drive a human being to suppress his/her survival instinct and destroy himself.

 

[starsforu2]

Whose God? The Christian God and it's morals is decidely different than the Muslim god and their morals.

And which kind of atheist are your referring to? It would be hard to remove the atheist from the culture that informs him. An atheist in communist China would certainly have a different ethical cast than say a European atheist or a American atheist.

True, even Christians differ on some moral principles but at least there is a rule book which is supposed to help mediate.

Although many atheists are indistinguishable from Christians in their morals and ethics, do you believe that the world would be a better place if there were no religion? Would you want the United States to be 300 million atheists with their moral code determined by their secular rationality? Who then decides what is right and wrong?

Could you imagine the destruction wrought by legions following the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche, wait, that happened in Nazi Germany. I believe that Communism is ostensibly a godless political philosophy as well... Over a hundred million died because of that experiment as well.

Governments who have derived their rule of law based on Judeo-Christian principles have been far more successful than their counterparts of the time. And have treated their citizens better.

And I would argue that the fall of the Roman Empire, the decline of Europe and (eventually) the decline of America are tied to the distance that the general populous is from God.

The question was asked whether we need God to be good, and I don't think you can ask that question divorced of a 20,000 foot view of it. Individually, any one person can be good, but the questions lacks teeth without asking if people tend to be better or not without God. I would say no.

I would also ask the question, what is good? I bet few of you here think they are bad, and if they do, why do they think they are bad? And then what is the solution?

 

[melon]

Secular humanism and similar values from the Enlightenment are what founded America, not Christianity. Communism and modernism/fascism were failures, yes, but hell...secular humanism even gave rise to the theories of capitalism.

Religion, as a whole, is deathly afraid of change, and it will kill to keep things the same. You can blame Nazi Germany on Nietzche, but anti-Semitism was part of Europe for centuries, and Jews were ghettoed and killed in Europe far before WWII by bigoted Christians, who would quote the New Testament to justify their anti-Semitism. You can't blame that on Nietzche. In fact, Jews felt more comfortable in the "Muslim" Ottoman Empire than they did in "Christian Europe."

And, sure, you can point at communism and call it a failure, because it is. But for every failed "godless" communist regime, you can count at least two oppressive theocracies in history.

As for the fall of the Roman Empire? You can't blame that on "distance from God," because the empire converted to Christianity from A.D. 313. Coincidentally, the same emperor that converted the Roman Empire to Christianity is the same emperor that moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), thus, essentially, dividing the Empire into two. I guess, with similar specious reasoning, I could say that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire.

The decline of Europe? Europe's "decline" is the result of America's military and economic supremacy following WWII. Europe started the 20th century with antiquated monarchies, all of which were "Christian." They the culminated in the two world wars, both waged by nations that claimed to be "Christian," with an *allied* Soviet Union thrown in for good measure.

On the contrary, "Judeo-Christian" governments have been some of the most oppressive in history, because it's theology is grossly intolerant of competing viewpoints. Religion begets autocracy, it seems, and the Catholic Church is credited for starting modern capital punishment with all the medieval torture devices they used during the Inquisition. Did you know they used to saw living people in half upside down?

If it weren't for secular humanism, capitalism and democracy wouldn't exist, and we would most likely be little different from the Middle East dictatorships that execute you for breaking "moral laws."

Overall, I see the institution of religion as the problem, not the solution. If America is in decline, it's because of the religious zealots that are consistently trying to erode the secular humanist values that have successfully preserved minority rights for nearly 230 years.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

And I would argue that the fall of the Roman Empire, the decline of Europe and (eventually) the decline of America are tied to the distance that the general populous is from God.

really? i'd love to see you make this argument.

 

[Dreadsox]

I would say God used the Roman Empire to spread his word.

 

[starsforu2]

I would separate Catholicism from the Christian church post-reformation. Sorry, I should have been more specific on that one. I'm gonna get killed from both sides on this one, but I believe that when Catholicism became more a function of government than a church and as it began to create it's own laws separate from the teachings of the bible it collapsed under it's own hubris. And when I refer to Europe, I should have mentioned England specifically, because England was predominately protestant and their empire was vast.

*shite* Note to self. Must make short punchy statements than actually try to introduce a whole philosophical battleground *

Ok, I got into this and knew that it was going to waste more time than I had...

On the contrary, "Judeo-Christian" governments have been some of the most oppressive in history, because it's theology is grossly intolerant of competing viewpoints. Religion begets autocracy, it seems, and the Catholic Church is credited for starting modern capital punishment with all the medieval torture devices they used during the Inquisition. Did you know they used to saw living people in half upside down?

Barbaric to be sure and far away from the bible's teaching in my estimation, it sounds much more like Sadaam's torture. The inquisition, the Crusades all done by the Catholics which I believe has distanced itself away from the bible over time with their belief that what the Pope says is canonized. Whereas the bible states that no one is to add or subtract from it's text. I also believe that as the Catholic leadership strayed further from the bible, by adding extra-biblical instructions or outright ignoring the teachings, the Roman Empire's decadence caught up to it.

As the protestant reformation took hold, England's Empire grew with it. (I'll concede that I don't know why England's empire shrunk. But I can say that church membership is much lower than in the US at this time and they are much more secular than the US)

The puritans and other protestant sects inhabited and eventually formed our government (along with good folks like Thomas Jefferson) and the fruit of is apparent. France was awash with enlightenment thought and now their swimming in their own morass largely divorced of Christian principles in favor of anything goes secularism.

Doing a comparison of North and South America reveals a fault-line where North America is largely protestant and South America is largely Catholic. For what that's worth.

I should also clarify that I don't desire America or any other country to be a theocracy. I said in my original post that as the PEOPLE moved away from God, bad things happened. But since we have a government by the people and for the people, it makes sense that it's going to reflect the beliefs of the people. And if you think this country is repressive than I wonder which secular nation offers the freedom you seek.

Overall, I see the institution of religion as the problem, not the solution. If America is in decline, it's because of the religious zealots that are consistently trying to erode the secular humanist values that have successfully preserved minority rights for nearly 230 years.

It was largely Christians who dissolved the slave trade, not elites who benefited from the labor of negroes.

It's Christians who support property rights, against environmenalist zealots who believe that the rights of the many trump the rights of the few.

And please don't get indignant about a little opression of ideas compared to the wholesale slaughter of millions of people.

Protestant Christianity taken to it's infinite end doesn't compare to when you've taken Secularism to it's infinite end which has resulted in far more deaths. Starting with Abortion and ending in Euthanasia. They are both lives, but secular humanist thought doesn't count them as important enough to preserve.

If you believe that a fetus is a life then secular practice has led to 20 million deaths in the last 30 years right here in the US. Oh and puncturing a skull and sucking the brain out it is right up there with cutting a man in half. They both result in death.

Have Protestant Christians participated in evil, oh yeah, we still have free choice or may be Christians in name only, but as a movement it hasn't sought to wipe out entire peoples.

And anti-semitism is currently advocated most by Arab nations and the left. It's the Evangelical Community who have most supported Israel from neighbors who want to destroy it. And Israel is a far more prosperous nation than the one's around it.

Um, I have to get back to work now. I opened up way too large of a can....

This is why I hate FYM, views so disparate as to not even be helpful to debate... and now I'm going to get creamed by the Catholics too

Hey anybody totally dig the new U2 album?, hehe

 

[melon]

I would separate Catholicism from the Christian church post-reformation. Sorry, I should have been more specific on that one. I'm gonna get killed from both sides on this one, but I believe that when Catholicism became more a function of government than a church and as it began to create it's own laws separate from the teachings of the bible it collapsed under it's own hubris. And when I refer to Europe, I should have mentioned England specifically, because England was predominately protestant and their empire was vast.

Sorry. That excuse doesn't work. Catholicism is "Judeo-Christian," and I would say that any religion, when given that much power, will do the exact same thing as Catholicism. I'm keeping my eye on the Christian Coalition.

And you can't just single out England as an example. No, you have to look at all of Europe.

As the protestant reformation took hold, England's Empire grew with it. (I'll concede that I don't know why England's empire shrunk. But I can say that church membership is much lower than in the US at this time and they are much more secular than the US)

The puritans and other protestant sects inhabited and eventually formed our government (along with good folks like Thomas Jefferson) and the fruit of is apparent. France was awash with enlightenment thought and now their swimming in their own morass largely divorced of Christian principles in favor of anything goes secularism.

At the time of the American revolution, the Puritans were a hated group. Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston in the early 1700s, but left it for Philadelphia, because he couldn't stand their conservatism. On the contrary, both the American and French Revolutions were swimming in secular humanist thought, which came from England, of all places.

I should also clarify that I don't desire America or any other country to be a theocracy. I said in my original post that as the PEOPLE moved away from God, bad things happened. But since we have a government by the people and for the people, it makes sense that it's going to reflect the beliefs of the people. And if you think this country is repressive than I wonder which secular nation offers the freedom you seek.

America has been, and, at this writing, is still a secular nation. Of course, nothing says that Bush's Religious Right pandering won't try and bring on a theocracy just to win elections.

And, do tell, what "bad things" have happened? I want specifics. Because the thing is, "bad things" happen on a regular basis to "Christian countries." When tornadoes and hurricanes and floods pummel the Bible Belt, should I take that as a sign that God is angry with their morality? Because the "Blue States" here seem to be relatively free of natural disasters, minus California. So maybe, by that logic, I could argue that God is angry with the Bible Belt.

It was largely Christians who dissolved the slave trade, not elites who benefited from the labor of negroes.

The South quoted from the Old Testament to support slavery, and following the Civil War, it isn't as if the Bible Belt was welcoming blacks with open arms. No, they encouraged segregation for 100 years afterwards.

It's Christians who support property rights, against environmenalist zealots who believe that the rights of the many trump the rights of the few.

Fine. I'm going to petition my Congressmen to rapidly increase oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, and if there's a massive oil spill that washes up on the Deep South, then so be it. Coastal Louisiana is already sinking from all the oil drilling, and they want $14 billion from the federal government to deal with it.

And I laugh and laugh at the idea of Christians being the champions of minority rights. Isn't this the same group trying to ban gay marriage? In other words, don't they believe that the rights of the many trump the rights of the few?

Protestant Christianity taken to it's infinite end doesn't compare to when you've taken Secularism to it's infinite end which has resulted in far more deaths. Starting with Abortion and ending in Euthanasia. They are both lives, but secular humanist thought doesn't count them as important enough to preserve.

Forget abortion and euthanasia. Are you willing to pay more taxes to promote a truly "pro-life" society? That means universal health care. That means universal and affordable access to education--not burdening people with mortgage-sized student loans. And what about adoption? We're worried about saving millions of aborted fetuses, when we have millions of unadopted children.

If you believe that a fetus is a life then secular practice has led to 20 million deaths in the last 30 years right here in the US. Oh and puncturing a skull and sucking the brain out it is right up there with cutting a man in half. They both result in death.

And so does hooking up a convicted felon to an electric chair. Or are they no longer human?

Have Protestant Christians participated in evil, oh yeah, we still have free choice or may be Christians in name only, but as a movement it hasn't sought to wipe out entire peoples.

You forget the American Indians. And Nazi Germany was Protestant.

And anti-semitism is currently advocated most by Arab nations and the left. It's the Evangelical Community who have most supported Israel from neighbors who want to destroy it. And Israel is a far more prosperous nation than the one's around it.

Jerry Falwell's support for Israel is based on his view of the apocalypse, where Israel and the Palestinians are embroiled in a war ("Armageddon"). In his words, at the end, 2/3 of Jews will die and 1/3 will convert to Christianity. Hence, no more Jews. That's quite blatantly anti-Semitic.

Melon

 

[trevster2k]

The title of the book "Can We Be Good Without God?" does not specifically mean the Christian God. Upon reading the book, the author refers to the concepts of the higher power,supreme being which tells people how to live their lives.

7. Individuals who are aware of the consequences of their actions on other individuals, on the community and on the species are likely to behave in a more considerate, more reasonable and more ethical way.

This principle if followed by a person would not result in such atrocities of the past referred to other postings. Obviously, the countries or individuals that have been involved in secular practices which lead to deaths are not following the above principle. The Soviet Union for example may have been a secular nation but they were not guided by the above principles.

This principle does seem similar to the Golden Rule "treat others as you would have them treat you". The author notes an important difference in the two. He notes that in the Golden Rule, you project your own expectations on the other person. Using consideration of consequences then you will try to anticipate the resulting effect on the other person (regardless of how you would feel if it was you) Our past experiences shape the way we view behaviours. SOMETIMES, not all the time, it can be used to justify the way we treat others because we would expect to be treated the same way if we were on the receiving end.

 

[trevster2k]

"True, even Christians differ on some moral principles but at least there is a rule book which is supposed to help mediate."

I don't think you need a rule book to meditate, if you need to meditate at all.

Principles 8 and 9 would guide an individual to not have the views of a Friedrich Nietzche.

"The question was asked whether we need God to be good, and I don't think you can ask that question divorced of a 20,000 foot view of it. Individually, any one person can be good, but the questions lacks teeth without asking if people tend to be better or not without God. I would say no.

I would also ask the question, what is good? I bet few of you here think they are bad, and if they do, why do they think they are bad? And then what is the solution? "

The question is not whether we need God to be good but can we be good without God? It is not an attack on religion, it just asking whether non-theists can be good people without being guided by a religious doctrine. The reason this is asked is that many people who are part of organized religion don't understand or believe a person can be "good" without a god. They question what motivates a person not to be evil or immoral if they don't have the word of God or some future reward in the afterlife to cause them to be a good person. This is the question that the author attempts to answer. The entire book examines this issue to answer this question. It does not concern itself with whether "one is better with or without God" as that is a divisive issue which I do not wish to discuss.

Yes, the definition of "good" is higly subjective. Their is no real agreed definition. For me being "good" would be not committing actions which hurt others. Everyone has their own concept of "good"

The name of the book is Can We Be Good Without God? Behaviour, Belonging and the Need to Believe by Dr. Robert Buckman. if anyone is interested in reading it.

 

[starsforu2]

Hi Melon! : ouch : I'm going to keep my comments brief because we are soooo far apart in our ideology.


Bad things happen means that bad behavior begets bad results.

For example, Christianity advocates that sex should only occur inside of marriage.

When the populace frequently disobeys that prohibition, you get more disease, more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, more adoptions. That's just a fact.

Full disclosure: I have miserably failed at upholding that standard, but it doesn't mean that the standard should be thrown out. I don't believe that the government should prosecute anyone for what they do in the bedroom, provided that they are consenting adults.

Forcing people to do things is much different than public advocacy which is something the government does all the time.

I also shouldn't have thrown in the whole government side of things into this debate. To my limited knowledge the Bible does not strictly advocate one form of government over another. But there is a great deal of instruction about what each individual is responsible for.

I just feel that it's important to recognize that both communism and nazism were responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and neither ran the flag of Christianity or Judaism or even Islam up the pole. Instead their pride was in Man or the governmental system that Man devised. And even if you say that the Catholics were brutal, the death toll for them still is far behind government sanctioned genocide. Rwanda wasn't Christian, Pol Pot and the Killing Fields weren't Christian. Idi Ami? Infamous murders never follow the Bible. Instead, they become God and take life indiscriminately.

----

But, I pulled this debate far away from the intended point. I thought by highlighting Godlessness in a grand scale it would make a point, and instead it totally detracted from it.

I still think the question "Can we be good without God?" still begs another question "What is good?" Because we can disagree on what is good. If we were to agree on what is good, we probably wouldn't disagree as much as we do on everything else.




so much for brief.

 

[melon]

I know I'm a bit harsh on my rhetoric here. I just wanted to let you know that it isn't personal. We can agree to disagree.

Going back to the original question, can we be good without God? It's a loaded question, because it automatically leads people to the Bible. Personally, I don't think the Bible has a great track record on morality. The Old Testament "God" is a fairly bloodthirsty Deity who sanctions genocide in Deuteronomy and Joshua ("The Ban") and supposedly prescribes a whole bunch of offenses (some of them minor) that are "punishable by death."

Secondly, we can say that the Bible says sex should only occur inside of marriage, but, again, the Old Testament isn't a great example of that. It was perfectly fine to take on more than one wife (so, really, why is everyone opposed to polygamy, if it clearly exists in the Bible and there's no explicit prohibition against it?), and if your wife was infertile, then it was perfectly fine to take on additional, unmarried "concubines" just to have children.

And I almost don't want to bring up their "conflict resolution." People may bring up supposed homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah, but why does no one bring up that Lot's version of "conflict resolution" was offering up his two "virgin daughters" to be raped? Such an exemplary father Lot is!

Then we fast forward to the New Testament. Sure, Paul is smart enough to codify that "love is the fulfillment of the law" in Romans 13, but then he goes on these misogynist tirades about how "women should not have authority over men." Funny. For the last century, the vast majority of teachers have been female, and they clearly do teach over male students on a regular basis.

On top of it, the New Testament was used up to World War II to justify anti-Semitism. Nazi Germany's anti-Semitism did not emerge out of a vacuum; on the contrary, it was an extension of 2000 years of open hatred for Jews in "Christian Europe." Prior to the Soviet Union in "Christian Russia," the tsars had pogroms of relative frequency to terrorize the Jews. Jews, thus, would take refuge in Islamic territories, such as Spain (up until 1492, when the Moors were driven out) and the Ottoman Empire (up until the end of World War I).

It is really only in recent history that Christianity developed any form of tolerance for anyone different...or has it? Europe only became "tolerant" after it embraced secular democracy; "Imperial Christian Europe" was grossly intolerant. America? We have a sketchy history in regards to tolerance, but what we do know is that Christianity has often been on the wrong side of it, out of "fear of change." And here we are in 2005. Which side is Christianity on again? Does it preach compassion and tolerance? No. It's busy spreading hate and intolerance, as usual, out of "fear of change."

There's my problem with upholding the Bible and Christianity as the pinnacle of morality: I find it to be very inconsistent and riddled with prejudices.

And despite all this, I do believe in God, but I'm very much ashamed of what has become of His church. It has, quite bluntly, become a mouthpiece for conservative ideology, and its various idiosyncrasies. Hasn't anyone ever seen the hypocrisy of being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? You can argue all you want that criminals may deserve to die, but it's another instance of humanity is making a judgment call on someone's fitness for life.

For what it's worth, I'm anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I do not think, though, that criminalizing abortion does a damn thing. Marijuana is illegal, but it doesn't stop people from doing it. The same thing will happen with abortion. It happened prior to Roe v. Wade, and it will continue to happen even if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Period.

I want a truly tolerant and "pro-life" culture. I want universal health care. I want all of our public schools to be equally well-funded, even if the school happens to sit in a poor inner city neighborhood and not in a wealthy suburb. I want full and unequivocal equal rights and equal marriage for the LBGT community. If the Catholic Church can refuse to recognize any non-Catholic heterosexual marriage, then there's currently nothing stopping Christian religions from refusing to recognize gay marriages.

These are not values we find in contemporary Christianity, and, as such, I see it as a backwards and bankrupt institution that's blinded by conservative political ideology, rather than a genuine pursuit of the truth. If it were about trying to discover the truth, then Christianity wouldn't be so resistant to every and any form of change at every turn, and should welcome in-depth scholarship of the original texts of the Bible. As it stands, some of the traditional interpretations are nothing more than biases and prejudices from previous generations. We wouldn't dare try and use the Bible today to support anti-Semitism or slavery; but, in fact, it has been used to do so.

And I guess that gets back to the original question. "Can we be good without God?" Maybe. Maybe not. But we can clearly be good without Christianity, because we've already proven that to be the case historically.

Melon

 

[indra]

Of course we can be good without god (or gods). I do it every day.

But if you need a god to be good, then create one so you can be good.

 

[u2bonogirl]

Forget abortion and euthanasia. Are you willing to pay more taxes to promote a truly "pro-life" society? That means universal health care. That means universal and affordable access to education--not burdening people with mortgage-sized student loans. And what about adoption? We're worried about saving millions of aborted fetuses, when we have millions of unadopted children.

lets kill the babies so I can go to the doctor for free!

sorry, I just find this whole subject unapproachable and daunting.
Can I just say this though?
I believe that people could be good without God.
I also believe that people can be bad when they think they're doing something good for God.
And I also believe that I would not be good if I hadnt surrendered to a higher power.
God gave people free will and we use it for good and bad.
Doing something terrible in the name of God doesnt mean that God did it. Why are people so afraid of the thought of God anyway? Thats a question........

 

[melon]

lets kill the babies so I can go to the doctor for free!

You know perfectly well that's not what I'm saying. My point is that I don't see any of these issues even on the "Christian radar." They're too busy being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.

Why are people so afraid of the thought of God anyway? Thats a question........

Because people are afraid of what people will do in the name of God. I'm genuinely afraid of it, because we already have a lot of wackos out there who would kill in the name of God.

Melon

 

[u2bonogirl]

You know perfectly well that's not what I'm saying. My point is that I don't see any of these issues even on the "Christian radar." They're too busy being a mouthpiece for the Republican Party.



Because people are afraid of what people will do in the name of God. I'm genuinely afraid of it, because we already have a lot of wackos out there who would kill in the name of God.

Melon

I knew thats not what you were saying.
To be honest, Im afraid of what people do in the name of God as well. Look at the crusades! Terrible bloody (literally) mess, and all for what? All that killing for a God of love?
The modern day equivelant of that could be people flying planes through buildings and the like.

 

[XHendrix24]

And despite all this, I do believe in God, but I'm very much ashamed of what has become of His church. It has, quite bluntly, become a mouthpiece for conservative ideology, and its various idiosyncrasies. Hasn't anyone ever seen the hypocrisy of being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty? You can argue all you want that criminals may deserve to die, but it's another instance of humanity is making a judgment call on someone's fitness for life.

Woah there. While I can see where you're coming from on a number of your points, this one befuddles me a little bit. What church are you talking about that's pro-death penalty? I'm not sure about the Protestant stance on the subject, but, being a practicing Catholic, I can tell you that the Catholic Church is strongly opposed to any kind of capital punishment. According to the Catechism of the Church, the death penalty should only ever be used in extreme circumstances, circumstances in which it is the only way to protect the common good. And these circumstances are extremely rare, as noted in this quote from the Catechism:

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

 

[melon]

The Catholic Church is, thankfully, against the death penalty, while also being pro-life. In the 2004 Presidential Election, however, I found that the Church was little more than a mouthpiece for the GOP. They were quick to condemn Democrats for being pro-choice, etc., but were silent on the fact that the GOP openly supports the death penalty. Why didn't they speak up? Where were they?

I grew up Catholic, but I lost my faith in such an autocratic and arbitrary institution. The overall rule in the church seems to be "Do what I say, not what I do." I doubt I'll reclaim my faith in Catholicism ever again.

Melon

 

[XHendrix24]

Ah, alright then. Just making sure you had your facts straight.

And, while I can see what you mean as to how the Church seems to serve the right much moreso than the left, I must point out the Pope's clearcut opposition to the war in Iraq ever since the idea was being tossed around by George Bush.

Also, I'd like to bring up another thing which may be more of an opinionated subject. But, anyway. The reason the Catholic Church is so much more critical of abortion and the pro-choice movement than capital punishment is because we don't give fetuses any chance at life. They're killed before they even get a shot at becoming good people. On the other hand, the victims of capital punishment have already been given this chance, and basically wasted it (assuming that they're guilty). Thus, the fetus has more of a right to life than the criminal does.

Though, just to make this clear, I must reiterate that I am strongly opposed to both of these offenses.

 

[melon]

I don't think the Catholic Church is all that altruistic. A lot of the major donors to the Catholic Church are conservatives, and, like any political organization, will be influenced by their donations. Why else does there seem to be a crackdown on liberal dissent, while conservative dissent is completely ignored?

Because, really, both Mel Gibson and Michael Moore should be equally considered to be "bad Catholics." Mel Gibson tends to be a pre-Vatican II traditionalist Catholic, while Moore is a post-Vatican II liberal/radical Catholic. So why was Mel elevated to near sainthood, while Moore was painted as Satanic?

Melon

 

[u2bonogirl]

Its seeming to me like organized religion is doomed

 

[XHendrix24]

Ah, but those are just private views of American Catholics. That has nothing to do with the Church directly.

I don't find either Mel Gibson or Michael Moore to be "satanic," personally. Though, I think there is a big difference between them. For example, Gibson made a movie documenting the last few hours of Christ's life, which is a major part of the Catholic religion. Also, Gibson has been known to give millions of dollars to different charities.

Moore, on the other hand, made a movie filled with bad and distorted "facts" (not saying that all of the things in the movie weren't true, but a large number, just as in Bowling For Columbine, were distorted at the least) that were meant to spread hate. Although, admittedly, as far as public opinion goes, I'm sure that the fact that it was about Bush had to do with a fair amount of the public outcry over the film.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Christianity is waning in the west, Islam will supplant it and religiousity will take two steps backwards ~ the sad march of humanity continues.

 

[melon]

Christianity is waning, because people equate Christianity with fundamentalism and conservatism now. Thus, if you don't identify with their narrow definition of Christianity, chances are you'll reject it completely.

Melon

 

[A_Wanderer]

I would disagree with that, Christianity is waning because the traditional churches have simply lost the plot and have failed to hold onto people. The morality that the stood for is lost and the big issues become petty things like abortion and gay's in the church.

I think that the evangelical zeal one finds in the US and to a slighter degree in other countries is fundamentalism but that does not in itself turn people away from the Catholic or Anglican church. It is a matter of society changing over the last 40 years, I think that the rise of Christian fundamentalists is an effect of this change rather than the cause.

I would love for a European perspective on the issue of Christianity, I suspect that there is less evangelical and more traditional conservatism on the continent.