Woe be to those whom Stephen Fry does not support

[trinityvixen]

"The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese. And that, in erotic terms, is the Catholic Church in a nutshell."

This absolutely piercing gem of insight comes from this debate (in five parts on YouTube). The question is whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. I think you can tell from that quote who "won" that debate.

Despite my professed agnosticism and atheism, I am not as sure of the answer as either party in this debate. Certainly, I don't think the Catholic Church smells of roses and creates rainbows that shelter the poor from the elements or anything. I think it's a deeply flawed organization that spends far too much money on itself and its members of rank when it's not using the funds it strips from parishioners to defend pedophiles. On the other hand, most Catholics I know are way more enlightened than just about any of the Protestant religions (save for the very, very liberal sects that practically aren't churches at all), in that they do emphasize stewardship of the Earth (i.e. support the goal to preserve, protect, and improve the environment); will actually concede things to science on occasion (John Paul II, I believe, said evolution wasn't incompatible with faith); and their work with the poor truly is stellar. When I find myself criticizing the religious zealots that hate on everything, I frequently remind myself that although Catholicism teaches profoundly backwards and dangerous and damaging beliefs about sex, they do do stuff besides teabagging about health care or whatever the Protestant morons are doing these days.

I should mention here that I was raised Protestant. And I always had a semi-hostile view of Catholicism growing up due to the fact that I, being Lutheran, was following the doctrines of a man that the Catholics forcibly ejected for daring to suggest that they were full of shit on some things. (That, and it was really annoying trying to schedule things with my Catholic friends--or maybe it just seemed that way since they would, of their own volition, go to church at least once a week, whereas I had to be dragged.) Growing up taught me a lot of things about both sects of Christianity, which led me to more forcibly reject the Protestants whose religion makes them awful (in this country at least) whereas Catholics I've known--even the nuns and friars I've met--are 100% genuine and 100% okay with you not wanting to be drawn into their stuff. Yes, it's still creepy how the nuns were trying to get me to come and be involved with them, but they didn't push too hard, and nothing came of it. I was free to walk. It's different if you're already on the inside, I get that. The difference for me is that no Catholic ever made the public demand that I come inside their way of thinking. Before and since we elected a moderate centrist but Democratic president, it's been nothing but shrieking noise about non-Protestants being damned, damned, damned. (No, not always literally, just by inference--i.e. if you don't support us hounding women back into positions of subservience and dependence, than you're an evil feminazi abortionist baby-eating librul who is damned, damned, damned.)

As ever, I make the caveat that I acknowledge not all religious people are like that. I have to make that concession because religious people feel attacked whenever someone points out, as I did under that cut, that their shit stinks just like everybody else's. Personally, I get quite annoyed at having to explain that when I cast generalizations, CLEARLY I'm not targeting people who aren't on TV making asses of themselves and their cults. (Because, let's be honest, there is only a difference in numbers between religion and cult, and with the way Scientology has filled its ranks, I'm beginning to think that even that definition no longer holds.) When I paint with this broad a brush, it's not about you, okay? It's that other guy who's making your look bad. It's that organization that controls how you believe whatever you believe in.

That? That to me is the problem: in order for people to have religion, it has to be controlled by an external source. And that external source, imbued with the power to dictate to people without fear of being questioned or forced to defend their work, is just a system ripe for abuse. That's why you get, as Stephen Fry points out, St. Peter's Basilica from the organization built on the back of a man who preached about the necessity of aiding the poor.

Comments

[avram]

And it's not really the Protestants who're the problem. The old mainline Protestant denominations are pretty liberal in the US. The Episcopal church near where I lived in Jersey City was outright leftist -- female minister, actively gay-friendly, involved in the community, hosted art shows, etc.

The troublemakers are the evangelicals. And even among them, there's a more liberal sub-group that takes charity and stewardship of the Earth more seriously than gay-bashing and tax-cutting.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

What's most telling to me is that the religious who are the problem a) protest the loudest about their holiness, in direct opposition to a literal parable in the New Testament, and b) meet in giant megachurches--the better to surrender their individuality and increase the chances of mob mentality taking hold.

I actually had a female pastor for roughly 1/3 of my religious upbringing, which is incredibly liberal, all things considered. My church was on the liberal side, especially since Lutherans are not known for being especially liberal if "you're doing it right" (so says German Lutheran friend-of-friend). I remember being shocked when, in Confirmation Class, I read a pamphlet of the official church positions on things. I was, as a good little liberal, completely appalled. Not that any of that stuff came up all that often, but still. It felt like a real betrayal. I sympathize, greatly, with the Catholics who circumvent church doctrine because it's bullshit. Because that's ultimately what you have to do--if you want the good, you have to just work around the bad.

Unfortunately, the goddamned evangelicals are making it increasingly hard to do those polite back-turns. Which is why I resent them more, I think.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I make the caveat that I acknowledge not all religious people are like that.

I think the response to every good Christian who says, "We're not like the loudmouths on TV, they don't represent us" is, "Then stop letting them represent you." The rank-and-file of American Christianity keep voting for screw-the-poor Republicans, keep Rush at the top of the ratings, and keep quietly standing by while the likes of Falwell et al claim they support him.

Where are the Catholic politicians saying, "You know what? Birth control isn't actually so bad, we're all using it anyway, could we please vote for someone who isn't pro-billionaires just because he says he hates birth control?"

For that matter, how about the protestant pundit saying anything other than, "This person is evil! A sinner! The antichrist! rararara!" Maybe a little positivity? Show a little of that "Christian kindness"?

I think Christianity has some good ideas. I think Catholicism has some good ideas (I thought their pre-marriage counseling was excellent). I know lots of nice folks who identify as Christians. But I think they've lost their right to complain about bad press and hateful opinions being attributed to them, until they stop letting the loudmouth douchebags represent them.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think the response to every good Christian who says, "We're not like the loudmouths on TV, they don't represent us" is, "Then stop letting them represent you."

While I totally agree, it's often not so simple. Fact is, the churches have hierarchies, and the entrenched views reflect the entrenched thinking patterns that one must have in order to get into it in the first place. It's a catch-22: to get more progressive people elected to church hierachies, they have to be more conservative.

There's also the problem that Christian churches, in particular have, in that, if they're really devout followers of Jesus, they're not supposed to tout their good works. (That would be prideful. Which is why anyone going into that debate trying to prove how great the Catholic Church is is basically ceding the victory at the outset.)

Of course, people can also vote with their feet--and they are doing, but not enough. There's also the problem that an exodus from any particular sect only depopulates the pool of rational folk who might want to challenge the doctrine.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

an exodus from any particular sect only depopulates the pool of rational folk who might want to challenge the doctrine.

Which means you eventually end up with the shakers, whose views on celibacy were so strong that there are only two of them left. And the folks who leave form "Rational Christinity: Now with 50% fewer nutjobs" and can get their own news network that believes in science. Why wouldn't that be better for everyone?

I realize there's more to it than that, that there's a lot involved with leaving a community, etc; but seriously, the only folks who break off to form theihr own doctrines seem to be the biggest nutjobs, who are upset because they can't bring their 17 wives to protest funerals. (Which somehow doesn't decrease the nutjob percentage of the original church.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

(Which somehow doesn't decrease the nutjob percentage of the original church.)

That's when the not-quite-as-crazy folks decide it's their turn to shine!

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Meant to comment on more, hit enter too soon! Ahem.

I think Christianity has some good ideas. I think Catholicism has some good ideas (I thought their pre-marriage counseling was excellent).

Catholic marriage counseling being good does not surprise me. They have more at stake in authorizing and sustaining marriage than do just about any other religion on Earth. Because they hold it so sacrosanct, it's very important that they explore all facets of the relationship (and challenge engaged/married couples to do the same) because they don't want anyone going into marriage unprepared. Except for sex, though, again, lots of Catholics or folks who would go to Catholic marriage counseling will have broken the rules on premarital sex and in the more progressive countries, most priests won't judge them too harshly for it.

I know lots of nice folks who identify as Christians. But I think they've lost their right to complain about bad press and hateful opinions being attributed to them, until they stop letting the loudmouth douchebags represent them.

This touches on something that really annoys me about Christians who complain about how they're represented. Nine times out of ten, the blowhards who complain about representation will resort to the "you wouldn't treat us this way if we were..." and then it's an open guess as to how racist/offensive they end up being. Right now, most of the time they say "if we were Muslim," implying that people who criticize Christians are either unduly respectful or outright afraid of Muslims in a way that they aren't of Christians. This is irritating on two levels. One, I find most religions as interchangeably annoying, so presuming that I am less likely to dislike one of the major religions is, well, presumptive. Two, the fact that the person making this retort is openly jealous of the mere possibility that someone else's religion inspires fear (instead of theirs) says more to me about what that person really wants. It's not about "treat me fairly;" it's about "you don't fear my religion like I think you should." That's creeeepy.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

Except for sex, though, again, lots of Catholics or folks who would go to Catholic marriage counseling will have broken the rules on premarital sex and in the more progressive countries, most priests won't judge them too harshly for it.

Except for "Are you getting married because you're pregnant?" and "Are you open to having children?", none of the premarital counseling really talked about sex. (Granted, this was in Newark, not exactly a hotbed of conservatism.) On the whole, I've gotten the impression that mainstream American Catholicism kind of coughs and looks away whenever the Pope condemns birth control. (Except, of course, for the loudest, "most pious" folks, of course.)

"you wouldn't treat us this way if we were..."

Really? I always thought that was part of the "oppressed hedgemon" mentality (pretty much the same as the "conservative persecution complex" I've written about). The idea is that muslims are protected by the liberals because they're politically correct, or something, but the big bad liberals can't wait to be mean to the poor, persecuted Christians. (See also: Them viewing government/society not giving Christianity special priviledges any more as persecution.)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

On the whole, I've gotten the impression that mainstream American Catholicism kind of coughs and looks away whenever the Pope condemns birth control.

That's the impression I got.

As for the "oppressed hegemony," that's exactly what it is, with a slice of, "you dislike most that which bothers you most often." Due to population differences, we just don't have as many Muslims around who are obnoxiously parading their authority and making demands of the government for special privileges. If anything, whatever liberal "protection" Islam has is probably because they, like any group that isn't Christian, is told they ask for too much when they ask for equal treatment. In fact, there was a huge stink about a group looking to place Muslim interns into Congressional offices recently because a bunch of white, Christian god-freaks decided they were really terrorist infiltrators. ::rolls eyes:: It's hard not to take sides there.