"Ground Zero mosque leader says gay people were abused as children"
-
Spin - I don't think I ever said I was unbiased towards Christianity - being raised that way, and more or less still practicing (as in the love your neighbor stuff ; not the: I've committed mortal sin if I miss Mass here and there - or Gay sex!) - I don't know if that is even possible. I try to be objective about other religions. I've already said and demonstrated in the previous exchanges that Christianity isn't without its flaws. If I argued that as a practical matter, it is more forgiving and more compatible with democracy than often unyielding theocracies - for that I will not apologize.
Your religion is just as unyielding as any other. However, you admit you reject the parts of your religion you don't like, while defending your religion as being more yielding. You made your religion more yielding by the very fact that you cherry picked the bits you like, rather than staying faithful to your faith.
I can prove that any religion is the best on earth, once I reject the bits I don't like.
Face it, your holy text say that you must be executed and your church says you are going to burn in hell for eternity. You have made a mockery of the whole confession thing that as a catholic is part of the core of your religion by not being honest about your sins and still being actively gay.
-
Spin - it asks how you feel about this or that. Then demographics then the words. Which is why I made the comment I did about interpretation first then ask demographic questions!
-
Right on.
So was the score you got surprising? or was it just what you expected…
I took the weight IAT the other day and it told me I was moderately biased against large people....and i thought i had a good tolerance for the weight-challenged... heheh oh well ??? -
Spin - it locked up (is my DSL connection too slow maybe?) In my previous (long) post, I only asked you two questions - which each only require a one word response - any particular reason for no answer?
-
I apologize for overlooking your questions. Allow me to answer each one now:
Spin Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
I would like to live in Varennes, a city outside of Paris.
I would like to know, if there is a general way to answer this without prejudicing my taking the test: What does it prove to ask if I'm warm or cold about a specific religion?
First, the difference between two types of attitudes: explicit and implicit.
Explicit attitudes and beliefs are ones that are directly expressed or publicly stated. For example, the question asking for your liking for particular religious groups before you take the IAT is an example of your explicit or consciously accessible attitude. The standard procedure for obtaining such direct expressions is to ask you to report or describe them.
An implicit attitude is not so straightforward. One example is a stereotype, which is a belief that members of a group generally possess some characteristic (for example, the belief that women are typically nurturing). An implicit stereotype is a stereotype that is powerful enough to operate without conscious control.Implicit and Explicit attitudes dont necessarily have to agree, in fact it is more often the case that they dont. There are two reasons why direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit) attitudes may not be the same. The simpler explanation is that a person may be unwilling to accurately report some attitude. For example, if a professor asks a student "Do you like soap operas?" a student who is fully aware of spending two hours each day watching soap operas may nevertheless say "no" because of being embarrassed (unwilling) to reveal this fondness.
The second explanation for explicit-implicit disagreement is that a person may be unable to accurately report an attitude. For example, if asked "Do you like Arabs?" many Americans will respond "yes" because they regard themselves as unprejudiced. However, an IAT may reveal that these same Americans have automatic negative associations toward Arabs. Americans who show such a response are unaware of their implicit negativity and are therefore unable to report it explicitly. The unwilling-unable distinction is like the difference between hiding something from others versus something being hidden from you. In order to see if the two "agree" You must compare the two.
The IAT does this by asking you to pair two concepts (e.g., christian and good, or islam and good). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them as a single unit. So, if christian and good are strongly associated, it should be easier to respond faster when you are asked to give the same response (i.e. the 'E' or 'I' key) to these two. If Islam and good are not so strongly associated, it should be harder to respond fast when they are paired. This gives a measure of how strongly associated the two types of concepts are. The more associated, the more rapidly you should be able to respond.
Am I expressing myself clearly?
Your skills as an interlocutor could use some polishing. It is very possible that you, as I suspect, possess an automatic preference for Christian based mythology as opposed to Islam based mythology. I also suspect that you have absolutely no clue that you have that preference. Everyone has ways of being that are in some way not as "correct or fair" as we would like to think they are.That test is one practical way to remain alert to the existence of that preference, recognizing that it may intrude in conversations here in this forum. Identifying them is the key!! In that way you could decide to embark on consciously planned conversations here in the forums that would compensate for known unconscious preferences and beliefs. This would involve posting in ways that you would not naturally post– for example, pointing out morally repugnant items in the bible and condemning them first, instead of pointing out possible excuses first. Identifying effective mechanisms for managing and changing unwanted automatic preferences is a goal that I believe everyone either has, or should have, shouldn't they? The good news is that automatic preferences, automatic as they are, are also malleable.
:cool2:
-
Where would you like to live- the USA (or most of Europe?) or Iraq? Esp. as a Gay male?
Let's be fair about this and ask the question in a proper way.
As a gay man where would you rather live, Uganda (majority catholic) or Iraq (majority muslim)?
OR
As a gay man where would you rather live, Jamaica (mainly christian) or Turkey (mainly muslim)?
If you look, Turkey is very similar to the US in it's treatment of gays in virtually all aspects of life.
-
took the test, but i'm not quite sure about its accuracy because it becomes kind of a memory game. just my thoughts. no offense intended
-
Spin - I will have to re-read your entire answer- but just for now "am I expressing myself clearly" referred to Pew Research - (whether or not the link on Huffington Post to the Investors Business Daily was legit")since your very first reply was approximately "they are a reputable group and do some fascinating stuff" Email and live conversation for that matter can always be interpreted more than one way, unfortunately.
Modified after this:
I visited France, Italy and Switzerland many years ago and the people of France, the food, culture, history - it was wonderful. I can see why you would want to live there. Many of the people I went with were very obnoxious about making it known they were from the USA and got some probably deserved poor treatment, I was much quieter and most of the natives thought I was from England.
Okay, I pretty much understood implicit vs. explicit although I readily admit that I wouldn't have expressed it nearly as well as you - so I have no problem agreeing with "…skills as interlocutor could use some polishing." I'm kind of amused though when you say "... I suspect you have an automatic preference for Christian based mythology vs. Islam based mythology." First I don't see why it was necessary to add the word "mythology" so tell me why you did? Second I already said very explicitly I think Christianity allows for much greater freedoms for its citizens, generally. And most Christian countries are much more tolerant of non Christian religions than vice versa.
If this is not true, then we have to figure out what the truth is. Do we base that on our own experiences or what we read? Or both? Which sources are valid? Is what I read or experience invalid and what you read and experience valid? Or are research and opinion polls often invalid or don't tell the whole story? There are many complaints against the USA - I don't doubt for a minute that a great many are true. So why are people continuing to flock here instead of leave?
Which brings me to the test - I readily admit I know little of my Muslim neighbors. I know more about my ESL students but not enough to have "hot or cold" feelings about Islam. I do know I have treated both with the utmost respect and have been well liked enough to have been invited to student homes and functions, which no other teacher has been. My personal positions do not interfere with objective decisions. We voted on the call to prayer being broadcast - many people were against it - I voted to allow it. If the Church bells can ring, so can the Mosque broadcast the call to prayer. I will again take the test, but I don't think it is going to give me any major surprises!
-
I think i was relatively blessed to have gone to an international school here in the Philippines, where I encountered people of various religions. I would say that a lot of my classmates (probably due to their attendance to a foreign school) were a bit more open-minded about the whole religion thing. We even got invited to their celebrations
I was also exposed to various religions, and I haven't found any particular objection to worship/prayers, but i DO have objections to harming a fellow person. I don't think this is particularly true of any religion (except Buddhism) so I think I'm a bit more rational about things.
But wait… I've seen evidence of religion interfacing all other activities in Muslim life in the real world. The Muslim jewellers here will NEVER make a crucifix for anyone. Now I doubt we attach too much importance to not making crescent-shaped jewelry.
On the other hand, I've also seen an American get furious at a nepalese classmate because his bag had the reverse-swastika stitched on his bag (which was in no way the red and black one of the Nazi regime) because of what he felt was an affront to him. I told him that in Nepal, the symbol (which is the reverse of the german one) is actually the symbol of their god, or the sun. I'm not sure this is a good example to talk about, though.
-
I already said very explicitly I think Christianity allows for much greater freedoms for its citizens, generally. And most Christian countries are much more tolerant of non Christian religions than vice versa.
Religious moderation springs from the fact that even the least educated person among us simply knows more about certain matters than anyone did two thousand years ago—and much of this knowledge is incompatible with scripture. Having heard something about the medical discoveries of the last hundred years, most of us no longer equate disease with sin or demonic possession… while having learned about the known distances between objects in our universe, most of us find the idea that it was created six thousand years ago impossible to take seriously.
Such concessions to modernity do not suggest for even a moment that faith is compatible with reason, or that our religious institutions are open to new learning: rather, it is that the utility of ignoring (or "reinterpreting") certain articles of faith is now overwhelming. This modern view of Western religion is nothing of the sort.... the Western religions are "modern" through no choice of their own, because they know that anyone who looks up in the sky and sees that humans can fly inside of large metal machines called airplanes will have conceded that we have learned a few things about physics, geography, engineering, and medicine since the time of Moses.
You have to remember that Western religions are more modern and liberal not by choice; The barbaric and blood-soaked period of time when the Catholic Church held real and actual power over much of Europe 500 years ago, has today been sidelined by the neglect of a more well-informed and educated society. If anything it's our institutions of learning that deserve that credit, not the Vatican.
If this is not true, then we have to figure out what the truth is. Do we base that on our own experiences or what we read? Or both? Which sources are valid? Is what I read or experience invalid and what you read and experience valid? Or are research and opinion polls often invalid or don't tell the whole story? There are many complaints against the USA - I don't doubt for a minute that a great many are true. So why are people continuing to flock here instead of leave?
That is an excellent question… We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us so. Reliance upon the authority of experts, and upon the testimony of ordinary people, is the stuff of which worldviews are made. In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us at second hand.
How do you know that falling from a great height is hazardous to your health? Unless you have witnessed someone die in this way, you have adopted this belief on the authority of others. This is not a problem. Life is too short, and the world too complex, for any of us to go it alone. We are ever reliant on the intelligence and accuracy, if not he kindness, of strangers.
This does not suggest, however, that all forms of authority are valid; nor does it suggest that even the best authorities will always prove reliable. There are good arguments and bad ones, precise observations and imprecise ones; and each of us has to be the final judge of whether or not it is reasonable to adopt a given belief about the world.
:cool2:
-
Spin - I noticed you again didn't answer a question - you pick up the quote immediately after.
However, my first quote is speaking of now and is contrasting Christianity with other religions, some in particular are seeking to go backwards and not forwards. Speaking in generalities you advance the notion all religions are equally primitive which I say is demonstrably not true. There are of course, exceptions - name anything human besides death and taxes that is true all times and everywhere - that doesn't exist!
Very true disease is not equated with demonic posession and sin so much as previously due to medical science - strangely though western medicine is more and more acknowledging the link between mind and body - prayer and religion aid people in changing their consciousness! Do not think that I am dismissing your point. The Bible itself says nothing of how old the earth is, that is fundamentalists counting back the generations listed in the Bible and extrapolating the age of the earth. The Catholic Church for sure never made such a ridiculous claim. Which while we're at it, you advocate that I must condemn certain aspects of the Bible in order to post here, without offending? I've been respectful; that is all that should be required. Judging by the various posters, and society at large of which the people participating here have shown themselves to be well aware of alternate points of view, I see no reason why it is necessary for me to make both sides of an argument, only to acknowledge what is true and to ask questions. Which I've noticed by the way you ask no questions of me, you only dispense knowledge and most of the time ignore questions I ask you!
I happen to know a nun personally who made an improvement to rocket fuel and she also happens have taught organic chemistry for years so I don't know if I can accept your premise that religious institutions are not open to learning. True enough the movement of western religions toward modernity is not often by choice, but sometimes it is. However, other countries have the same technologies, same access to information. Why are some of their religious leaders pushing to go backwards? Which raises another very legitimate question - why did Democracy come out of a Christian background? Perhaps that compatibility I mentioned was symbiotic? The only other thing I would say is that governments now start the wars instead of the churches and kill millions of people. Is this any better or have we just exchanged one problem for another?
-
Find ONE Catholic school that preaches hatred for everything non Catholic, or one western democracy where the official policy is the annihiliation of a country such as Israel and I'll eat my words…...Nothing in the west comes close to this, they are not acting on behalf of a larger religious organization. If I'm wrong, let me know.
The Catholic Church has spent two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo. Indeed, this organization still opposes the use of contraception: preferring, instead, that the poorest people on earth be blessed with the largest families and the shortest lives. As a consequence of this hallowed and incorrigible stupidity, the Church has condemned generations of decent people to shame and hypocrisy — or to Neolithic fecundity, poverty, and death by AIDS. Add to this inhumanity the artifice of cloistered celibacy, and you now have an institution — one of the wealthiest on earth — that preferentially attracts pederasts, pedophiles, and sexual sadists into its ranks, promotes them into positions of authority, and grants them priviliged access to children. Finally, consider that vast numbers of children will be born out of wedlock, and their unwed mothers vilified, wherever Church teaching holds way — leading boys and girls by the thousands to be abandoned to Church-run orphanages only to be raped and terrorized by the clergy. The evidence suggests that the misery of these children was facilitated and concealed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church at every level, up to and including Cardinal Ratzinger, who personally oversaw the Vaticans response to this abuse. What did this wise and compassionate man do? Complaints were set aside, witnesses pressured into silence, bishops praised for their defiance of secular authority, and offending priests were relocated only to destroy fresh lives in unsuspecting parishes. It is no exaggeration to say that for decades (if not centuries) the Vatican has met the formal definition of a criminal organization devoted—not to gambling, prostitution, drugs, or any other venial sin — but to the sexual enslavement of children.
Here, in this ghoulish machinery set to whirling through the ages by the opposing winds of shame and sadism, we mortals can finally glimpse how strangely perfect are the ways of the Lord.
-
If you want to point out all the failings of the Catholic Church through the millenia, I don't know what that has to do with this post. The quote that you posted was a direct response to Raphjd's comment that Britain is using taxpayer funds to support Islamic schools which indirectly vilify those paying for it by teaching hatred for anything non-muslim - most of what I just said are his words. So your ensuing response has little in relationship to the quote as far as I can see.
I could point out that billions have gone to Catholic schools, hospitals, universities, and orphanages and received no ill treatment albeit strict upbringing. I actually know some older adults that were raised in orphanages, do you? They have nothing but happy memories of the loving care they received from the Sisters. People forget that parents and public schoolsin days gone by used cruel punishments, were incredibly strict and used a lot of corporal punishment. There is a boy in history, his name escapes me now, who received a whipping in a Boston public school because he didn't recite the 10 commandments in order of the King James Bible (he was a Catholic child) . Nowadays, one would think from history books it was only the Catholic church who did such things. Still, to think of what happened at the Irish orphanages and what happened to boys in Australian orphanages and the Irish priest in Boston that molested 150 children - I don't understand it, can't explain it and don't excuse it. There are few institutions as large as the Catholic Church with as long a history to compare it to. (Please do, if you can think of any) Generally speaking, humanity has far more in common that we do differences. I strongly suspect this is as much of a case of "king of the mountain" mentality where the the person at the top is attempted to be knocked off by those of lesser status. And selective reporting. Further, to say the Catholic church has demonized human sexuality unmatched by any other institution - it might even be true - but the world is a big place and several millennia is long time - you must indeed be the font of all knowledge to make that claim!
Just for sake of argument though let's accept everything you say. I would tell you that being a single mother in the USA is a ticket to all kinds of free stuff, a lot of which the working poor don't even get. I work there, I know. What goes on at Protective Services is another joke. How these people live their lives, make a shambles of the inner cities moving from place to place, destroying rental properties with no recourse - the manipulation of the legal & prison systems - the unprecedented fraud that goes on in social services - as I alluded to earlier - everything you complain about the Catholic church is now done by the government and probably 10 times worse. Huge corporations get tons of welfare too. Defense spending - how absurd people are starving and one helicopter is 30 million? How can one item have such a huge price tag? And the government rules don't make insurance accessible to all - even some low middle class business owners right were I live say health insurance is a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege not a right. Try to get to work on the lousy bus system around here and tell me that again!
Well, I think we're just on opposite poles and aren't getting anywhere since you ignoring stuff is exponentially increasing just like your philosophical cohort Raphjd so I see no point in taking this further. I will just leave you with this final thought - I've amply demonstrated that despite what you probably consider medieval thought processes, I love my neighbor as myself and treat people I interact with decently. A lot of people (and policies which are not enforced) with lofty ideals and things you would probably wholeheartedly endorse don't do half of what I do to make where they live a better place, probably don't donate half of what I do, so ultimately what difference does all this make?
*** Modification : Probably what you're really saying is where is the Church's moral authority if they have failings. I would point out that everything with humans involved has failings. And that each person in the church that has done wrong things has to answer for themselves just as we all do. But my personal belief is that people try to do better when there is a standard to try to achieive.
-
@ fancydude
Well, I think we're just on opposite poles and aren't getting anywhere since you ignoring stuff is exponentially increasing just like your philosophical cohort Raphjd so I see no point in taking this further.
If we only said bad things about muslims,you'd be in the center of this thread and loving it. However, since we also included christianity, you aren't happy at all.
If you were able to switch into unbias mode, you'd see that you are slagging off everything to justify the abuses by your religion.
And before you bitch about the cost of a helicopter, bitch about how much wealth your church has accumulated over the last 2,000 years that could help a lot of people. And while you are at it, think how they got a lot of that wealth.
-
Can i make a last statement?
I think there were two basic questions here that were asked at the very beginning, and then the debate went wildly off tangent.
1) Why are we allowing ourselves (the self-proclaimed white man's burden) to be run over by other 3rd world nationalities and have our laws affected by them?
2) Is it right for a religion to view its members differently from others, to the point of terrorism?
It is a far more philosophical and entertaining discussion to rephrase the above questions to determine the answer to the following:
What morality can hold sway when we don't view the other side as being human? This is what will give you the answers to the entire debate that you've had going. It doesn't matter what religion you have, this is a fundamental question and it will answer any question you have about morality.
For example, if a muslim thinks you're a devil, then he won't bother to give you food if you're hungry, and it's even likelier that he will pick a fight with you because he can't see you as a person, only as a spawn of satan.
If they think the white women are not as sacred as the muslim women, then you can see what happens.
If the christians or the white people say that the other religions are terrorists, that gives them the right to "fight terror with terror" and thus absolves themselves of any guilt.
People's behavior are based on their perception of what the other person is. If he can't see humanity in the other party, then anything becomes forgivable. it is only when you acknowledge the other person as a person that any shred of compassion can come forth.
How does this sound? I think everyone would agree with this.
-
-
Further, to say the Catholic church has demonized human sexuality unmatched by any other institution - it might even be true - but the world is a big place and several millennia is long time - you must indeed be the font of all knowledge to make that claim!
I don't need to. You made that claim for me, just a few sentences prior:
There are few institutions as large as the Catholic Church with as long a history to compare it to.
And then there is this gem:
I don't understand it, can't explain it and don't excuse it.
Well you got 2 out of 3 right. But please do continue to post in other areas, as I truly appreciate the spirited debate!
As far as going on tangents as one poster said, I think that's the beauty of forums – and that we're all adults here who can handle the road, wherever it takes us.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login