The Pope and his Flock

[The Rap]

I feel bad for my Catholic friends as they are in a no win situation. The present Pope is an embarassment, putting it mildly, because criminal might be a more appropriate description. His personal preacher gave a sermon and said that the attacks on the Pope today remind him of the colllective anti-Semitism that was against the Jews. That preacher obviously harbors fierce loyalty to his supoerior and they both might hold the enmity towards Jews. But to compare people asking questions about what happened regarding the molestation of young boys by priests to the systematic annihilation of 6 million people simply because of their religion reveals much about the person making that comparison.

I hope what follows isn't misunderstood. Here is my thinking when it comes to the abuse of the kids.

When I was younger, in my twenties, no one came out. In fact, I rememebr driving on a sunny day with my girfriend past the RAMROD bar near the West Side docks and seeing thousands of gay people assemobling for a rally there. My girlfriend was asleep and suddenly awoke and looked out the window and aid, "Man that must have been a big fckng closet!" One of the funniest lines I ever heard.

So my theory is this. When I was younger no one came out. So a gay young man knew that if he did then his father would go nuts and he would break his mother's heart. On the other hand he could join the priesthood, serve God, and bring his parents more joy than one could imagine.

So the Catholic Church filled up with a multitude of gay priests. When it comes to these scandals have you ever noticed that the guilty priests are older men like me? You never see a young priest accused because he came into the priesthood with the noblest intentions, as it was intended.

Now back in the day when the Church had taken in a huge influx of gay men to be priests one must recognize that gays are like anyone else. There are good people and bad people among them. The bad people are the ones who became priests salivating at the opportunity to "play" with the young boiys put under their care.

There are some that say that celibacy is the reason for the behavior. I ask you if you are straight but haven't had any for awhile do you start to look for those of the same sex? Celibacy should be done away with anyway. The main reason it was instituted was because the Papal hierarchy realized it had a problem. Their priests were getting married and having kids. So when they died the riches of the priest went to his family and the church got nothing. But if you institute celibacy then when the priest dies all his riches goes right to the church. So celibacy was made as a good financial deal for the church. Nice going.

I am not religious but that has nothing to do with anything I wrote above. I have always look at Catholicism as filled with much hypocrisy. Lenny Bruce had apiece where Jesus and Moses come back and meet at St Patrick's Cathedral on 5th Avenue in NYC. Cardinal Spellman was conducting mass. It is hysterical and meaningful. Jesus was stunned and told Moses as He waved His hand at the expanse of that magnificent church, "I never said anythinbg about creating all this."

The problem is my friends that a Pope cannot be removed. So, unless he quits they are stuck with this guy. Chances of him quitting are about the same as hair growing out of the palm of my hand.

[I Come in Peace]

The Pope like many politicans ( i know the Pope isn't a politician) are in such a position of power they no can longer relate to the rest of the world. When you are seen as being so high above the rest of citizens when a problem is brought up the Pope looks at it as an issue for the Church and not a moral issue b/c the Pope doesn't see who it truly hurts b/c can no longer relate to them.

[The Rap]

True but ask yourself if that is a valid or acceptable reason to be that way? Especially when you think about what the Pope's responsibility is truly supposed to be. Think about what Jesus said about children.

[The Rap]

Written by a pastor;

Jesus and the Children
John Piper

Desiring God
One thing to watch for when assessing a person's spiritual fitness for ministry is how he or she relates to children. Put a child in the room and watch. This is what Jesus did to make his point. Children are the litmus paper to expose the presence of pride.

You might think that the main thing Jesus would do is to say, “Don’t be proud, become like children.” He did say essentially that in Matthew 18:3, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” But he said something else even more striking. When Jesus saw that his disciples were arguing over which of them was the greatest, “He sat down and called the twelve. . . .And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.’” (Mark 9:34-37).

Receiving a child into your arms in the name of Jesus is a way to receive Jesus. And receiving Jesus is a way to receive God. Therefore how we deal with children is a signal of our fellowship with God. Something is deeply amiss in the soul that does not descend (or is it really ascend?) to love and hold a child.

Please keep in mind that I am not religious and am Jewish and don't view Jesus as a deity. However, at the very least He was a truly great man who influenced this world forever and had a huge following who have twisted His teachings to take advantage of those less fortunate.

[Chris_Moderato]

However, at the very least He was a truly great man who influenced this world forever and had a huge following who have twisted His teachings to take advantage of those less fortunate.


This could be construed as an extremely inflammatory and offensive comment. You aren't claiming that everyone who has ever preached the teachings of Jesus has somehow cynically used their position to take advantage of their followers, right? That's just downright ridiculous.

I think the cover up is the thing here. How the Church chooses to operate, who joins the priesthood and why...these are not the business of those who do not belong to the Church. However, the cover up, and the legal implications of these cover ups, are the issue here.

EDIT: Which is not to say these issues can't be discussed. I'm just saying that in my opinion, the way the Church operates (outside of issues of illegality) is really the business of it's members alone.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

EDIT: Which is not to say these issues can't be discussed. I'm just saying that in my opinion, the way the Church operates (outside of issues of illegality) is really the business of it's members alone.

I would wholeheartedly agree with this if not for the fact that churches (Catholic and non-Catholic) enjoy wildly generous tax benefits, like exemption from income tax and property tax. An argument can be made that all citizens are forced to pay more in income tax and property tax to make up for this benefit.

Religion, in my opinion, is a concept that has outlived its usefulness. We now (mostly) have the answers to what religion was designed to explain. Now it only clouds the judgment of otherwise reasonable people.

[Lauren T.]

Religion, in my opinion, is a concept that has outlived its usefulness. We now (mostly) have the answers to what religion was designed to explain. Now it only clouds the judgment of otherwise reasonable people.
I'm reasonable, spiritual, and religious and religion isn't about "reason", for me. But I'm not Catholic and have nothing positive to say about the actual subject of this thread, so I am going to leave now.

[KB 34]

I would wholeheartedly agree with this if not for the fact that churches (Catholic and non-Catholic) enjoy wildly generous tax benefits, like exemption from income tax and property tax. An argument can be made that all citizens are forced to pay more in income tax and property tax to make up for this benefit.

Religion, in my opinion, is a concept that has outlived its usefulness. We now (mostly) have the answers to what religion was designed to explain. Now it only clouds the judgment of otherwise reasonable people.
Explain to me how life can arise from carbon derivatives and some inorganic gases. In nature chemical reactions follow quite orderly behavior based on chemical and physical laws. For example, more entropically favored reactions occur. I'd also like to know what the magical chemical reaction was that allowed mankind to gain the incredible gift of thought. Plants don't have it, animals don't have it to a large extent. If science has the answers why don't I see these?

To me the argument against religion is interesting since it really assumes 84% of the world's population has gone off the deep end. After taking classes dealing with religion in college I've come to see religion as a means of guiding people towards values, which happen whether one is religious or not. Most atheists and Christians would believe some Catholic Priests shouldn't have been acted the way they did towards children. Why do we think that way? Christianity would say that's wrong, but the atheist draws the same conclusion utilizing a completely different means. Values tend to define a religion and people have values whether they're religious or not. Some religions do try and brainwash people and influence their values negatively. However, people do the same for non-religious reasons as well, inflicting great harm. Wars often arise because of leaders enforcing their screwed up beliefs on people.

More specifically with the Catholic Church coverup: I hope the investigators into these issues find those responsible for the acts and punish them accordingly. Those who covered up these acts also need to be held responsible. These are innocent kids that were harmed. When this information is uncovered I hope the government keeps its paws off the church and lets them do what they want, as long as they don't endorse or hide such behavior of any sort. Religious freedom is quite important and must not be compromised because people behave like idiots.

[The Rap]

This could be construed as an extremely inflammatory and offensive comment. You aren't claiming that everyone who has ever preached the teachings of Jesus has somehow cynically used their position to take advantage of their followers, right? That's just downright ridiculous.

I think the cover up is the thing here. How the Church chooses to operate, who joins the priesthood and why...these are not the business of those who do not belong to the Church. However, the cover up, and the legal implications of these cover ups, are the issue here.

EDIT: Which is not to say these issues can't be discussed. I'm just saying that in my opinion, the way the Church operates (outside of issues of illegality) is really the business of it's members alone.

Inflammatory? Offensive? I never claimed that those who believe are are cynically using their position but my point is that history is littered with episodes of this happening dating back to even Jesus' time.

The thinking that it is their business and everyone should butt out totally ignores the fact that what these priests did was criminal offenses prosecutable as felonies by law. So what are we supposed to do? Say its ok because it is within the jurisdiction of the Church? And then just sit back and watch the Church ignore the real victims and shove it all under the rug?

And sometimes I have to wonder if you really read my stuff Chris. You want to separate the policies of the church including their methods of who to hire as priests and only focus on the coverup when what I wrote up how they are connected and might be the reason for what happened.

And I never even touched the fact that this Pope was a member of Hitler's Youth.

[The Rap]

KB very well written but you do know therte are tons of good scien**** who could argue with your methodology and conclusion of there having to be an existing God.

Personally I am more of a deist which most of our founding fathers were. God created the world and left us to ourselves.

Also your solution to the Church problems begs the question; How do you punish a Pope? The Catholics believe he is an extension of God on earth so it better be some punishment. :>)

[The Rap]

scientists

[The Rap]

Want get angry? If you care about all this then I have to tell you that today the church hierarchy said people shouldn't fall for all the "gossip" blaming the Pope or even inferring that he had responsibilty due to his positions. Gossip huh? It is infuriating to me that priests who are guilty of one of the most perverted acts are a higher priority than innocent young boys whose parents entrusted them to the church, i.e., those priests.

[Chris_Moderato]

Inflammatory? Offensive? I never claimed that those who believe are are cynically using their position but my point is that history is littered with episodes of this happening dating back to even Jesus' time.

The thinking that it is their business and everyone should butt out totally ignores the fact that what these priests did was criminal offenses prosecutable as felonies by law. So what are we supposed to do? Say its ok because it is within the jurisdiction of the Church? And then just sit back and watch the Church ignore the real victims and shove it all under the rug?

And sometimes I have to wonder if you really read my stuff Chris. You want to separate the policies of the church including their methods of who to hire as priests and only focus on the coverup when what I wrote up how they are connected and might be the reason for what happened.

And I never even touched the fact that this Pope was a member of Hitler's Youth.

I read what you posted. Most of it was just generalizing and assumptions.

I never said "everyone should butt out totally". I said the cover up should be addressed as a legal matter. I said the way they run their church isn't the business of anyone who isn't a part of it, except in cases where their actions violate the law, as these molestation cases clearly do.

Perhaps you should read my post more closely. You clearly have a strong negative opinion about this Pope, since you didn't "touch the fact that this Pope was a member of Hitler's Youth". Yes, thank you for that. Mentioning that might be considered...oh, what's the word I'm looking for..? Oh yes...Inflammatory.

I, personally, don't really care about the religious views of any member of this site. I'd just as soon say, "Carry on about your business, worship whomever you wish as you are free to do in this country, and leave me out of it."

Unless, of course, your actions or the actions of those in your church violate the law. Then, our secular government, intentionally and rightly established as such, should be free to react to enforce the law.

-End Rant-

[The Rap]

Sorry but that is unacceptable to me. Kids were violated and treated abusively causing many of them to be damaged for the rest of their lives. All this was done under the cover/protection of the very people/institution they are expected to trust above all others. So we are supposed to sit by the sideline and just say we can't mix in? Or it isnlt our biusiness to try to help them? I marched in Civil Rights marches way back when. What would you be doing at that time? Looking away and saying it is not your responsibility because it is a legal issue?

Oh and if what I was saying was just generalizations and assumptions then why did the church pay millions upon millions to victims in the USA?
You need to watch the film "Our Fathers" starring Ted Danson and Christopher Plummer to learn more about what was done and the after effects of it.

And I never said a word about any religious beliefs of anyone at this site. Go ahead and ask them and make sure you ask if I have treated any person's religious beliefs with the utmost respect.

[Chris_Moderato]

Sorry but that is unacceptable to me. Kids were violated and treated abusively causing many of them to be damaged for the rest of their lives. All this was done under the cover/protection of the very people/institution they are expected to trust above all others. So we are supposed to sit by the sideline and just say we can't mix in? Or it isnlt our biusiness to try to help them? I marched in Civil Rights marches way back when. What would you be doing at that time? Looking away and saying it is not your responsibility because it is a legal issue?

Oh and if what I was saying was just generalizations and assumptions then why did the church pay millions upon millions to victims in the USA?
You need to watch the film "Our Fathers" starring Ted Danson and Christopher Plummer to learn more about what was done and the after effects of it.

And I never said a word about any religious beliefs of anyone at this site. Go ahead and ask them and make sure you ask if I have treated any person's religious beliefs with the utmost respect.

Oh, noes...you aren't even listening anymore.

[Chris_Moderato]

That's right...noes. Look it up.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

I used to be Catholic, and was actually an altar boy until I was a senior in high school. One Saturday night, another altar boy and I were invited by our parish priest to go to a concert. Our evening's entertainment? None other than the fabulous Patti LaBelle! I was so naive as a kid, and never put two and two together. The priest later left the priesthood, and he now works as a travel guide in Europe somewhere.

It is religion's job to not be influenced by every passing fad, but I think sometimes it is too rigid, and does not allow for large shifts in social mores.

I ask myself this question all the time, and I haven't really come up with a good answer. Is it acceptable to believe in something that isn't true, even if you feel you are a better person because of it?

[wordslayer©]

Is it acceptable to believe in something that isn't true, even if you feel you are a better person because of it?

People believe things because they want to believe things, and in some sense, they need to believe these things. For example, a person that might believe in astrology may do so not because the predictions are ever right, but because the belief provides them something they need to get through life. It gives them some sense of something bigger than themselves.

Personally, and this is just with people that I have been around and have talked to, but it is very rare that you will *rationally* argue with any one who has put an irrational belief in their head. It's almost impossible. If a man believes that, when he dies, there will be 70 plus virgins waiting on him, then why in the world would he be receptive to hear anything that would take away that fantasy? It's in his head and there is just not going to be anything that would remove it.

What I find interesting is this.......most people are indoctrinated into whatever it is they believe. It just seems curious to me why most people never examine that faith outside of their belief system. If I were born amish, I would want to study what others think and why they think what they think. But I think many people just aren't comfortable looking outside of their faith because, well, then it doesn't become faith.

From my perspective, if one religion actually had it right, then there would only be one religion, because everyone would gravitate to the one that worked.

[KB 34]

KB very well written but you do know therte are tons of good scien**** who could argue with your methodology and conclusion of there having to be an existing God.

Personally I am more of a deist which most of our founding fathers were. God created the world and left us to ourselves.

Also your solution to the Church problems begs the question; How do you punish a Pope? The Catholics believe he is an extension of God on earth so it better be some punishment. :>)
I don't think the questions I presented go close to proving there's a God. What they do is present tough questions for those who argue against the idea of a power that's above us all. A bunch of stuff that makes no sense happened and we don't have an answer for it. We've tried to create life out of the conditions that existed mankind and have failed. We've tried to prove that potential energy equals kinetic energy in the universe and haven't cracked it. One could argue these problems will be solved, and there are some really interesting ideas. For example, we have yet to run into another intelligent life form (not that we don't have a shortage on Earth at times it seems). One argument is this comes down to probability. Anyone who looks at these types of questions sees questions science won't be able to answer hence God, problems science can answer and will uncover given enough time, or indifference. Everyone gets to make their choice.

I don't know how you punish a Pope through the court of law or if it will come to that. Obviously the guilty priests themselves should be locked up with the usual treatment. I'd say monetary payments to the victims would be in order. That would be painful punishment for those involved to watch. Not letting the story slide will make people ask questions if nothing else, which will hopefully make people think about the behavior of those around them and the importance of avoiding dangerous situations.

[The Rap]

Slayer, Well written and I read it twice but don't have a clue as to what your point was.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

I don't think the questions I presented go close to proving there's a God. What they do is present tough questions for those who argue against the idea of a power that's above us all. A bunch of stuff that makes no sense happened and we don't have an answer for it. We've tried to create life out of the conditions that existed mankind and have failed. We've tried to prove that potential energy equals kinetic energy in the universe and haven't cracked it. One could argue these problems will be solved, and there are some really interesting ideas. For example, we have yet to run into another intelligent life form (not that we don't have a shortage on Earth at times it seems). One argument is this comes down to probability. Anyone who looks at these types of questions sees questions science won't be able to answer hence God, problems science can answer and will uncover given enough time, or indifference. Everyone gets to make their choice.

I agree with all of this. My choice is to acknowledge the fact there are some things I don't, and may never, understand.

I take my cue from religious history here. Throughout antiquity, people created religions to explain things they felt they had no control over. The Greeks and Romans had gods of war and love and health and the sea. All things that were important in their lives and felt that they had no direct control over. By praying to these gods, the Greeks and Romans believed their gods would intervene on their behalf, thus making their worlds less chaotic and a little more "predictable". The ancient Egyptians had gods that controlled celestial bodies like the sun and the moon, a god of death, and a god of the Nile river.

Today we see these gods as laughable, because we have a scientific understanding of each of these things. However, the ancients also had gods of the afterlife, gods of creation, and gods of truth and evil. These are things that we still don't have a firm grasp on, and as such, we have incorporated these concepts into our modern day version of god.

We pray to a god because we think it gives us more control over otherwise uncontrollable situations. And God has a pretty good gig. If our prayers are "answered", it is because he is great and merciful. If they aren't, we chalk it up to being part of "his plan for us".

I view the bible much like I view the collection of fables by the Brothers Grimm. Many interesting stories, most with a positive moral that can be applied to daily life. However, I don't actually believe that a talking wolf dressed up in human clothing in order to eat a girl. Much like I don't believe Jonah lived in the stomach of a whale for three days and three nights.

I find it fascinating that the world of science would be unrecognizable to people born 2000 years ago, yet we base our entire system of religion on those same people.

[Hobbes]

I agree with all of this. My choice is to acknowledge the fact there are some things I don't, and may never, understand.

I take my cue from religious history here. Throughout antiquity, people created religions to explain things they felt they had no control over. The Greeks and Romans had gods of war and love and health and the sea. All things that were important in their lives and felt that they had no direct control over. By praying to these gods, the Greeks and Romans believed their gods would intervene on their behalf, thus making their worlds less chaotic and a little more "predictable". The ancient Egyptians had gods that controlled celestial bodies like the sun and the moon, a god of death, and a god of the Nile river.

Today we see these gods as laughable, because we have a scientific understanding of each of these things. However, the ancients also had gods of the afterlife, gods of creation, and gods of truth and evil. These are things that we still don't have a firm grasp on, and as such, we have incorporated these concepts into our modern day version of god.

We pray to a god because we think it gives us more control over otherwise uncontrollable situations. And God has a pretty good gig. If our prayers are "answered", it is because he is great and merciful. If they aren't, we chalk it up to being part of "his plan for us".

I view the bible much like I view the collection of fables by the Brothers Grimm. Many interesting stories, most with a positive moral that can be applied to daily life. However, I don't actually believe that a talking wolf dressed up in human clothing in order to eat a girl. Much like I don't believe Jonah lived in the stomach of a whale for three days and three nights.

I find it fascinating that the world of science would be unrecognizable to people born 2000 years ago, yet we base our entire system of religion on those same people.
This is a top-notch post, and aligns with my opinions entirely. I see you are a fellow agnostic (and reformed Catholic).

[The Rap]

One of the best posts I have ever seen. Very clear and to the ppoint. I used to argue with religous leaders and asked them, "If I grant you that God is so all everything and so beyond our understanding then how come he cares about us when we are like insects in comparison? Why would he care what I eat and if I observed the Sabbath? To me the best explanation was given by the late great George Carlin which begins with "There is an imaginary man up in the sky who watches every single thing you do not for a minute or hour but all the time day or night. And not only you but every single person in the whole wide world. . . . ."

[The Rap]

Here's an answer to the assertion of the accusations being "gossip;"

"CHICAGO (AFP) – The pedophile priest crisis has cost the Roman Catholic church nearly $3 billion in the United States, but only a fraction of the perpetrators have been jailed and little been done to punish those who covered up the crimes.

After years of painful revelations, massive payouts, soul searching and reforms, the child sex abuse scandal has spread across the globe and in recent weeks has struck the Church at its very core.

Pope Benedict XVI, long celebrated for speaking out against abuse, is facing allegations that he helped protect predator priests when he was archbishop of Munich and later as the Vatican's chief morals enforcer.

"We now face the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in church history," the US-based National Catholic Reporter wrote in an editorial demanding "direct answers" from the Holy Father.

The independent newspaper decried the "mismanagement" of the crisis and insisted that "the strategies employed so far -- taking the legal path, obscuring the truth, and doing everything possible to protect perpetrators as well as the church's reputation and treasury -- have failed miserably."

A CBS News poll released on Friday showed more than two thirds of Americans think the pope has done a bad job in handling the crisis. His favorability rating among US Catholics has fallen to 27 percent from 40 percent in 2006.

The allegations currently sweeping across Europe bear a stark similarity to those that first surfaced in the United States in the mid 1980s.

Victims were intimidated into silence. Abusive priests were left unpunished, or shuffled to unsuspecting parishes where they found new prey. Related article: Victim's long-running crusade to expose abuse

The solutions sought by US bishops are a good model for how the church at large should handle the crisis, said Nicholas Cafardi, a respected canonical law professor and author of "Before Dallas," a history of the clergy child sex abuse crisis.

"We're still in a trust rebuilding process," Cafardi told AFP. "But the only thing that turned that around was the very drastic action the bishops took in 2002."

After years of inaction, the United States Conference of Bishops developed a charter governing how the church would protect children that included a zero tolerance policy, background checks and prevention training.

It also established a National Review Board led by lay people to monitor progress and granted access to church files for researchers from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

They found that more than 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons sexually abused at least 10,677 American children between 1950 and 2002.

Just 615 of those incidents had been reported to law enforcement and only 384 clergy members were criminally charged, resulting in 252 convictions.

More than 700 priests and deacons were removed from or voluntarily left ministry between January 2002 and December 2003 due to allegations of sexual abuse.

A further 3,091 abusive clergy and 4,568 victims were identified from 2004 through 2009, according to a report published last month.

In a sign of progress, just 30 of the 398 allegations reported last year were perpetrated since 1990.

Six dioceses declared bankruptcy in the wake of massive court settlements and more could follow as more cases work their way through the courts, said John Allen, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter.

"There is considerable debate about whether the church has overcome it or not," Allen said.

"Predictions of a massive implosion (of attendance and donations to) the church didn't come true, so in that sense the church seems to have weathered the storm, but there is significant debate as to how adequate the church's response has been."

While predatory priests have been held accountable, only one American bishop, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, lost his job despite evidence of widespread, institutionalized cover-ups, Allen noted.

Church officials also continue to fight attempts to waive the statute of limitation on abuse claims and some bishops refuse to release key church documents or identify the priests who have been defrocked for sexual abuse.

"You still have predators in ministry and they're only being removed from ministry when there is external pressure to get them removed," insists Barbara Blaine, president of the Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

"If the pope were sincere, he would be opening up all the records about sex crimes that the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) is holding and he would turn it over to police."

[Hobbes]

Rap, please don't post such a lengthy excerpt from an article without posting a link to the source.

[The Rap]

Ok but I did it because I wanted to save others the bother of going to Yahoo where I got it. Also I didn't think it was too long anyway. The way I can tell is if you do write something exceedingly long then before it posts you are asked to log in again and I wasn't.

[Hobbes]

It wasn't a big deal that you posted it, but rather that you didn't also include a link to the source article. We just want to make sure that the original work is linked and credited properly.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

This is a top-notch post, and aligns with my opinions entirely. I see you are a fellow agnostic (and reformed Catholic).

I'd say I'm still a work in progress. I have no problem with assisted suicide, but I struggle mightily with the question of abortion. For most with a similar world view as mine, the issue is very clear. Not so much for me.

Plus, I still live and die by Notre Dame football. Which, at this moment, is more a problem than any of this other stuff.

[Dreamscape]

Plus, I still live and die by Notre Dame football. Which, at this moment, is more a problem than any of this other stuff.
I'm not even Catholic and I live and die with the Irish.

...more die than anything.

[Andy G.]

We pray to a god because we think it gives us more control over otherwise uncontrollable situations. And God has a pretty good gig. If our prayers are "answered", it is because he is great and merciful. If they aren't, we chalk it up to being part of "his plan for us".
I feel that this is close minded. I believe that you've made up your mind that God doesn't exist, and now you think you've figured out why so many people are naive enough to believe that he does.

Maybe we pray to God because we feel an undeniable spiritual connection to him. I believe that we have souls, and I believe that due to the complex makeup of our brains and the entire universe around us, some of us are able to feel the connection we have to the higher power more than others. I don't believe that it's something you can control, and thus I don't believe God expects everyone to believe.

People follow organized religion because it's too difficult to figure out these things on their own. As you said, we will never understand why most things are how they are. Even if we someday come to fully understand the universe, we'll never understand why the universe exists. There are questions that science will never gives us the answer to.

I don't believe that people are religious because it makes it easier to accept things they can't control. I believe that people are religious because we are created by an unfathomable power, and while some people need scientific evidence to show them that God exists, some of us know the undeniable truth that everything here was created by something, and we might as well be thankful for the things that make us happy.

[Chris_Moderato]

I believe that people are religious because we are created by an unfathomable power, and while some people need scientific evidence to show them that God exists, some of us know the undeniable truth that everything here was created by something, and we might as well be thankful for the things that make us happy.

See, I've always found this concept annoyingly arrogant and bordering on closed-minded. (And you know I'm not having a go at you, Gilley. This is a sincere attempt at an objective post in an otherwise inherently subjective topic.) Many religious folks, who believe very strongly in their spiritual connection to God, and who, it must be said, are probably reacting to their own feelings of being oppressed by what they perceive as secular and/or scientific arrogance, walk around with this apparent attitude of "I know the Truth, and I'm going to insist on this Truth, even if you aren't interested in this Truth, because I know it is the Truth."

This is why I tend to avoid conversations about religion in my day-to-day. Worship who or what you want to worship, and leave me the hell out of it.

Unless, of course, it violates the law of the land.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

Let me first say that it is a pleasure to have a conversation with someone who doesn't immediately put up a wall and get very defensive. Conversations like this are how I shape and sometimes change my opinions.

I feel that this is close minded. I believe that you've made up your mind that God doesn't exist, and now you think you've figured out why so many people are naive enough to believe that he does.

Maybe we pray to God because we feel an undeniable spiritual connection to him. I believe that we have souls, and I believe that due to the complex makeup of our brains and the entire universe around us, some of us are able to feel the connection we have to the higher power more than others. I don't believe that it's something you can control, and thus I don't believe God expects everyone to believe.

I can't positively eliminate this as a possibility. However, if this were the case, it would seem likely, as wordslayer eluded to earlier in this thread, that religions would be much more similar to each other now, as well as similar to religions throughout antiquity. If there is a singular higher power, why are some religions monotheistic and some polytheistic? Why to ancient religions focus more on terrestrial things like the sea and war and hunting and farming, while modern religions focus on more abstract issues like truth, the afterlife, the creation of life, and what makes us human? How do you account for the fact that geography and ancestry has a great deal to do with your particular religious beliefs?

I certainly don't profess to be an expert in Christianity. If I don't feel the connection as strongly as you, and as a result of this I don't believe, when it is time for my final judgment, will this be taken into account? (I was going to ask if God grades on a curve for those of us that don't feel that strong connection, but decided it was in bad taste and didn't. (Actually, I guess I just did.))

People follow organized religion because it's too difficult to figure out these things on their own. As you said, we will never understand why most things are how they are. Even if we someday come to fully understand the universe, we'll never understand why the universe exists. There are questions that science will never gives us the answer to.

You and I agree 100% here. However, where we part ways is what happens next. For me, it is nothing. Science may never be able to tell me why I exist. And I'm fine with that. I allow for the possibility that there is no knowable reason why the universe exists. I don't feel a need to fill in the gaps where current scientific knowledge is lacking. Which gets back to one of my original questions. Is it OK to believe in something that isn't true, even if that belief is of some benefit to us?

I don't believe that people are religious because it makes it easier to accept things they can't control. I believe that people are religious because we are created by an unfathomable power, and while some people need scientific evidence to show them that God exists, some of us know the undeniable truth that everything here was created by something, and we might as well be thankful for the things that make us happy.

Why would God create one person with such a strong tie to Him, yet create another person with such a weak tie to him? Because belief in God is so closely tied to ones ultimate destination after death, why would he make it so easy for some people and so difficult for others?

This may sound overly critical, but I don't know how else to put it. I would rather admit that I don't know the answer to a question than fool myself into believing an answer I am pretty sure isn't true.

You know, I always wanted to sit down with a member of the clergy and ask these kinds of questions, but never really had the guts.

[Andy G.]

See, I've always found this concept annoyingly arrogant and bordering on closed-minded. (And you know I'm not having a go at you, Gilley. This is a sincere attempt at an objective post in an otherwise inherently subjective topic.) Many religious folks, who believe very strongly in their spiritual connection to God, and who, it must be said, are probably reacting to their own feelings of being oppressed by what they perceive as secular and/or scientific arrogance, walk around with this apparent attitude of "I know the Truth, and I'm going to insist on this Truth, even if you aren't interested in this Truth, because I know it is the Truth."

This is why I tend to avoid conversations about religion in my day-to-day. Worship who or what you want to worship, and leave me the hell out of it.

Unless, of course, it violates the law of the land.
I completely understand what you mean. It's difficult, because I in no way want to act as if I understand any better than the next person what the real answers are. At the same time though, this isn't something I was taught. I've never gone to church. It's just what I believe. I don't know anything else except that I feel that connection. Maybe it's not really a connection to anything.

About the "undeniable truth" remark, I just meant that, in my heart, it is an undeniable truth. I don't have a choice in the matter. Like I said, I've never gone to church. I've taught myself about some prominent religions, but I'm not part of any of them. When I was 18 or so, I started to wonder. I did the same soul searching as everyone else. I'm still doing it. That has lead me to where I am now. I don't pretend to know why God does what God does, but I do ask myself those questions all the time.

I can't positively eliminate this as a possibility. However, if this were the case, it would seem likely, as wordslayer eluded to earlier in this thread, that religions would be much more similar to each other now, as well as similar to religions throughout antiquity. If there is a singular higher power, why are some religions monotheistic and some polytheistic? Why to ancient religions focus more on terrestrial things like the sea and war and hunting and farming, while modern religions focus on more abstract issues like truth, the afterlife, the creation of life, and what makes us human? How do you account for the fact that geography and ancestry has a great deal to do with your particular religious beliefs?

I certainly don't profess to be an expert in Christianity. If I don't feel the connection as strongly as you, and as a result of this I don't believe, when it is time for my final judgment, will this be taken into account? (I was going to ask if God grades on a curve for those of us that don't feel that strong connection, but decided it was in bad taste and didn't. (Actually, I guess I just did.))
I don't think those religions are all that different. Organized religion is a way for a lot of people to feel good about what they can't understand. Rather than accept that we are not supposed to know this stuff, they make up stories and rules and all of their members follow them. However, the reason people are drawn to those religions is because they have "faith". Faith is a connection. It can't really be defined. They don't have faith because it's more convenient, or because it makes life easier to deal with. They have faith because for them, there is no doubt that God exists. Some people have that, and some people don't.

I don't have the answers you're seeking, as I am not practicing member of any church. I don't believe God grades us at all. The way this world operates, it's inevitable that people are going to kill people. We're going to lie, steal, cheat, whatever. God created all of this. He knew it would happen. Why would he punish us for it? That's not what this world is about. I'm not 100% positive what we're doing here. I've got some ideas, but I'm certain that this is not a test.

Why would God create one person with such a strong tie to Him, yet create another person with such a weak tie to him? Because belief in God is so closely tied to ones ultimate destination after death, why would he make it so easy for some people and so difficult for others?

This may sound overly critical, but I don't know how else to put it. I would rather admit that I don't know the answer to a question than fool myself into believing an answer I am pretty sure isn't true.
I don't believe God creates us this way. He doesn't decide one of us will feel the connection and another won't, but then again he might do that. We are extremely complex creatures. Our brains work the way they do for a large variety of reasons. Some nature, some nurture. Whether we feel that connection is not up to us. Our souls are there, but they do not run our lives in this universe. They might do that in whatever is next for us, but they don't here.

This is why I avoid these conversations in my day-to-day. I realize that my beliefs are very convenient. I don't think we're being tested. I don't even think that God expects us to believe he exists. I know how that sounds. That's what I believe though. Religions like Christianity have ruined the way people view God. To have faith, you don't have to follow a set of rules. You don't even have to feel like you owe God anything. He's omniscient for crying out loud!! Like I said before, there's no way that there AREN'T going to be murderers on this planet. He created it, why would he punish them? It's foolish. I believe that I have a soul. I feel it. I DON'T believe that I'm being tested. You will not have to explain to God why you don't believe. He knows why you don't believe. Why would it offend him?

I think we have pretty similar views. The only difference is that I believe there is something greater than all of this and you don't. Whatever God is will not favor one of us over the other, in my opinion.

[Chris_Moderato]

What an interesting conversation this has become. Top notch.

I married a Catholic. I am not a Catholic, but I have a certain respect for the comfort some Catholics find in the ritual of it all. My wife isn't extremely pious, but her mother wants to be, and it sucks to see the affect all this crap is having on those who want so desperately to believe in the Church they've been raised in. It's a shame the way the common people are treated in the Catholic Church, and with any luck, this scandal will instigate some sort of change...not likely, but a man can dream.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

I'll be honest with you Andy, as I was writing my response and re-reading yours, I kept thinking to myself that we agree on just about everything except God. And I know that should seem like a big difference, but somehow it just doesn't...

[The Rap]

Best thread we have had. The problem with religion and faith is that it is affected and in fact exacerbated by so many other factors which are part of life. I am the heir to a rabbinical dynasty with one great preceding another in my history. This was not my parents but my grandfather who only had daughters making yours truly the first born male after him.

My problem was I was never into learning the Jewish learning. A basic core of that learning are the 70 volumes of the Talmud. This is a collection of discussions and teachings of great rabbis in the past. There is no doubt that this learning has the effect of sharpening a student's mind. But my problem was tring to separate the bullsht from reality. For example the very first volume of the Talmud is usually taught to 6th graders. I rememebr how it starts with the question about "if an egg is born on a Jeiwsh holiday."

I don't remember what follows precisely but it was the back and forth argument between rabbis regarding what happens with the egg. I remember rasing my hand in class and asking the teacher'/rabbi, "Who cares? It's only an egg!" And thus started my illustrious career spread among 5 schools till the end of high school while the entire time they were trying to shove the religion down my throat. Whever I asked why they don't pay attention to another kid or kids the response was automatic, "Because we think we can save you because of who your grandfather is."

My kid brother is over ten years younger than me and he did follow in my grandfather's footsteps. He and I are totally different in every way but I love him and he feels the same about me. His wife is wonderful but she was driving me crazy about returning to the fold and becoming religious. Fat chance at my age! But I shocked her when I told her that the community they lived in which was totally dominated by Orhtodox Hasidic Jews was comprised of about 50% of the men not believing in anything and faking it. She got angry so I explained; if any of them woke up one morning and decided he doesn't believe in this stuff at all and then informed his wife and kids of that the result would be a divorce, very probably the loss of his kids, the hatred of his in-laws and the disowning by his own father, mother and siblings. So he chooses to stay because it is more comfortable and peaceful and not because of belief. I pointed out to her the best proof I have; ME! I live nearby and no one has anything to do with me and the only problem is religion.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

The biggest problem I have with faith and religion is that in my mind, religion is strictly a man-made concept. While based on fundamental beliefs of a chosen faith or doctrine, it runs more towards a profit-loss interest instead of as a nourisher for the soul. I almost never attend church any more, largely because of my disdain for and distrust of those calling the shots. The last two churches I was a member of were shut down by the United Methodist racketeers for no reason other than they didn't produce enough revenue for the organization. Let's overlook the fact that the powers that be never tried to help us "grow" our churches after we lost elders or young folks moved away. Forget that any time we had a good minister, capable of making things happen, they moved him away. They closed our churches, took the buildings and properties and left scores of good Methodists looking for yet another church family to join. I kid my parents by asking them "Which church are you guys going to close down this year?" It's thinly veiled humor, expressly trying to lighten the pain.
I still believe in God and I'm faithful in my way. I still read The Bible and share beliefs with friends and even watch services on tv, as I did Easter Sunday. As for organized religion, I'm probably through with those greedy bastards. They are the same leeches and rats Jesus chased from the temple!

[Agent-X-]

The biggest problem I have with faith and religion is that in my mind, religion is strictly a man-made concept. While based on fundamental beliefs of a chosen faith or doctrine, it runs more towards a profit-loss interest instead of as a nourisher for the soul. I almost never attend church any more, largely because of my disdain for and distrust of those calling the shots. The last two churches I was a member of were shut down by the United Methodist racketeers for no reason other than they didn't produce enough revenue for the organization. Let's overlook the fact that the powers that be never tried to help us "grow" our churches after we lost elders or young folks moved away. Forget that any time we had a good minister, capable of making things happen, they moved him away. They closed our churches, took the buildings and properties and left scores of good Methodists looking for yet another church family to join. I kid my parents by asking them "Which church are you guys going to close down this year?" It's thinly veiled humor, expressly trying to lighten the pain.
I still believe in God and I'm faithful in my way. I still read The Bible and share beliefs with friends and even watch services on tv, as I did Easter Sunday. As for organized religion, I'm probably through with those greedy bastards. They are the same leeches and rats Jesus chased from the temple!

Freddy. Maybe find a new church that isn't methodist? I've had my fair share of interesting experiences with churches that I don't attend anymore, but that's because I feel it's a vital part of my life to be woven into my church and sometimes that experience isn't attainable just anywhere.

I understand being part of the methodist church. Have you tried going to other types of churches that are non-denominational?

[IkeWagner]

Is it OK to believe in something that isn't true, even if that belief is of some benefit to us?

In some cases I think it is, because we can think of situations in which the false belief isn't pernicious, and the benefit of believing it is quite great, great enough that we would say that it is OK to believe that. But if the false belief is of such a character as to be a "delusion" (in the sense that there is deception going on), then, even if the benefits are there, it may not be OK to believe such a thing, as many of us would consider a delusion to be pernicious, or at least undesireable. Think of the matrix - there may be countless benefits to being deluded into believing a bunch of falsehoods, but I think most of us want to see reality as it really is.

The question of where religion and belief in God fit in here (Harmful? If so, how harmful? Beneficial? If so, how beneficial? Is it a delusion? etc.) is of course an interesting question.

[The Rap]

I happen to agree with Fred that religion is man made but I believe it was created for more nebulous reasons. I envision there having been an elite who got together to solve the problem of "how do you control the stupid masses?" Well think about what was done; First off the establishment of the concept of an "afterlife." This serves to allay all fears of dying and creates a goal which would entail rules that must be observed.

Much of creation was done in different areas of our planet. I remember asking my teachers/rabbis that if every single thing being taught to us took place in the Middle Eastern region then pray tell what was going on in this side of the world and other areas?

The key to everything is one word; faith. Either you believe in the face of contradicting evidence or you don't.

[bravos4evr]

I have always been of the opinion that man is inherently lazy and therefor prone to the exclamations of explanation by others for things they don't understand. Hence the popularity of religion(AND science shows!!!!).

I don't think it's much of a secret on here that I am rabidly atheistic. However, I believe in the fundamental ideals and charity work that most religions engage in as being a good thing( and I also believe in the traditions associated with holidays and such) I don't throw fits cuz of the word god shoing up on money or putting ones hand on a bible, or x-mas....etc I mean, if you have so much free time as to complain legally about such trivial things....well you are probably an a$$hole....

[The Rap]

Nick, I hear you but think for a second; who are the ones (and I don't mean here) who are always bringing up religion as either a reason or justification for what they are doing?

[bravos4evr]

The loud crazy neo-con jesus freaks. **** those people. But also, **** those people who dismiss the good and charitable work that religions do for their communities.

I do,however, think we should tax the church's real estate holdings....

[The Rap]

I agree about taxing them because it is ridicu;lous what they get way with. Have you ever watched the film The Shoes of the Fisherman?

[Agent-X-]

I agree about taxing them because it is ridiculous what they get way with. Have you ever watched the film The Shoes of the Fisherman?

I disagree completely with taxing churches. The money has already been taxed through the people who donated it. Why tax it again?

And, of course, I completely disagree with property taxes.

[GeneGarberForPrez]

I disagree completely with taxing churches. The money has already been taxed through the people who donated it. Why tax it again?

And, of course, I completely disagree with property taxes.

Would you by extension argue that corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes either? Goods and services are purchased with after-tax dollars.

[The Rap]

Well there is a major difference between churches and corporations. The former are supposed to run according to the teachings of Jesus, right? So where does the church get off amassing wealth? I remember going through Mexico over 30 years ago and seeing poverty like I never saw before. But one town I will never forget. The people all lived in shbby run down hutlike edifices in abject poverty. But at the center of the town was a beautiful old church where all the resources of the town had gone. Some tourists were marvelling at the church while sorry to say I looked at it as an abomination. Jesus never taught that this situation is what is supposed to be. It was one of the primary things that initially got me po'd against the Bush administration. They waved their religious views more than anyone before and committed one thing after another which caused me to ask a simple question at the end of many of my Rap columns, "What would Jesus say to all this if he came back?"

That was the key to the Lenny Bruce story I told earlier where Jesus and Moses come back and meet during mass at St Patrick's Cathedral, Jesus taking the route through Bedford-Stuvesant in Brooklyn and Moses coming there through a route that took him through Harlem. So by the time they reached their destination it caused them confusion when they first entered St Patricks and all its incredible riches.

[The Rap]

Oh and Donny, let's say I get paid and pay my taxes and then go shopping with my girfriend. We buy some great stuff and the stores charge me tax right? So is it right that they should do that since the money was taxed already? Yes because it isn't dependent on the money but rather on who is spending it.

[Chris_Moderato]

In some cases I think it is, because we can think of situations in which the false belief isn't pernicious, and the benefit of believing it is quite great, great enough that we would say that it is OK to believe that. But if the false belief is of such a character as to be a "delusion" (in the sense that there is deception going on), then, even if the benefits are there, it may not be OK to believe such a thing, as many of us would consider a delusion to be pernicious, or at least undesireable. Think of the matrix - there may be countless benefits to being deluded into believing a bunch of falsehoods, but I think most of us want to see reality as it really is.

The question of where religion and belief in God fit in here (Harmful? If so, how harmful? Beneficial? If so, how beneficial? Is it a delusion? etc.) is of course an interesting question.

Leave it to Ike to brainy-up the joint.

Nice post, btw.