Most parliamentarians probably chose to hear the Pope speak at the event in Westminster Hall on Friday 17th. I thought this gathering would be too large and went instead to an interreligious meeting to hear him speak at St Mary’s College Twickenham. There were politicians and business people in the audience too, of not more than about 100. His speech is reported here http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/Replay-the-Visit/Speeches/Speeches-17-September/Pope-Benedict-s-Speech-to-Representatives-of-other-Religions/(language)/eng-GB. He referred to the need to defend human life at every stage, and I am sure he would not approve of the regulatory work carried out in relation to IVF and embryo research by the body of which I was once the chair, the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority. Another very controversial issue he referred to was the competition, as it were, between science and religion in answering the most fundamental questions about existence. Two other matters in his speech must command more universal agreement – that is the call for freedom from religious persecution, and for ongoing dialogue between the various religions.
One of the most stimulating aspects of the Twickenham visit for me was the opportunity to meet representatives of other religions, Sikhs, Hindus, Zoroastrians inter alia. I know that any reference to the Pope will bring out some angry comments, and yet it was noteworthy that he was received with relative warmth by other faith leaders, who displayed far less anxiety than (judging by the protesters) Anglican and humanist commentators. All credit to Lord Patten of Barnes for his organisation of the entire Papal visit.
Baroness Deech,
First as a Roman Catholic with a name and some other roots largely set in England’s past who comments on LOTB — I thank you for attending. Secondly, I believe there are doubtless many things about which to use God as an expression of the perfect scoreboard(somewhat blasphemously) you and your colleagues may be more right than many or most Roman Catholics.Thirdly while I really doubt it is mutual I have nothing — literally — against you personally. But your comment shows a great deal of confusion I have found in other Peers this week. To a Roman Catholic there is no doubt whatsoever, that the British establishment is one of the most anti Roman Catholic forces in the world even after the ARCIC.
1. There is nothing like Guy Fawkes in almost any place despite countless sacked capitals and his RomanCatholicism is the obvious reason.
2.The Support of the Orange Day and other symbols in Ulster which are not in accord with the Cromwellian history of the invasion.
3. The way the war with Spain is remebered in popular culture.
4. The facts of the Acadian Expulsion.
5. Popular animosity towards Catholics when I lived in England as a child was evident.
6. Pressures by the British to surpress the Poem Evangeline and study of Acadian history in Canada in the Twentieth Century.
7. The utterly humiliating way in which John Henry Cardinal Newman lived his rank as a Prince of the Roman Catholic Church.
8. The ubiquitous reminders of confiscated and ruined abbeys.
9.The way Pope John Paul II’s protocol was handled in the Pastoral visit.
10. I am sticking to symbols that show attitudes and avoiding the blood baths.
These are only a few items from alist that would run into the tens of thousands of offensive behaviors. Only Islamic countries relations to the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Churches really approach and surpass this. I am not discussing the necessity of this but it is simply incomprehensible that your House should believe Roman Catholics get along as badly with everyone else as we often do with you. Your institutions have been among our worst enemies in all history — is that clear?
On the other hand this was a beautiful few days. Let’s not spoil it by being shocked the Pope gets on with some people, what an offensive presumption that he should not.
Baroness Deech,
I do not think my typos make the comment unreadable but I regret them. I also thank you for the link. You clearly have made an effort here. Nonetheless, it is absurd to pretend that we are starting off on lovely lane in any discussion. In corresponding with you I correspond with a country that fought with my family members in WWI, WWII and Afghanistan where I lost a cousin. However, between us there is a history of enmity which is collosal and in my case on varied bases. That can be seen as good credit to us if we dialog despite it. But it is absurd to think either side is as easily disliked by strangersas by one another. The same is true of the UK and the RCC per se. Due respect to the HM QE(IIEng.) and HH BXVI for their fine efforts and to others like you for example.
Humanists are something of a bizarre creature. They are a followers of a Religion which insists it s not a Religion, and demand that we see all Non-Religion as exactly like what they believe, and who chiefly protest Religion as holding Humanity back from progress, by which they mean embracing Humanism. I find them the most intolerant group of all.
That said, I really think we should put to rest this nonsense about Science and Religion being at odds or there being Competition between the Two on answering Fundamental Question s about life. I hear all the time that one has to choose, either Embrace Religion or else Embrace Science, as if one cannot accept both Science and Religion. But if Religion and Science exist to explain the same questions about the nature of our existence, and if the Common Atheist Argument is right that Religion emerged precisely because we have an innate need to know about our world, then wouldn’t they really be the same thing?
I’ve said before, and with much Hostility given to me personally, that no one really has no Religion, and I can’t respect people of no Faith because they simply do not exist. I meant it, because the Technical Definition of Religion is not belief in some sort of god, but rather beliefs pertaining to the Fundamental Nature of our Existence and the Meaning thereof, and if Science provides us those Answers, it does not destroy Religion but becomes Religion in and of itself. Not that it matters, as most really use this as a Euphemism for Atheism and Understand Atheism as basically Humanism, it always extends beyond the much vaunted definition of Atheism as simply a Lack of belief in a god.
But in the end, Science and Religion, when looked at in Pure forms and for what they really are, and free form our Cultural Biases, are not truly in Competition. Science is a Method of inquiry based upon a systematic Observation of Phenomenon, and Religion is simply a Philosophy concerning the nature of our existence and its causes and purpose, as well as its meaning. One is a means of Gathering Data and the other is Interpretation of Data. The Truth is, one cannot exist without the other, and the idea that they are at odds is just folly.
Its more of a 19th Century Fable than a Reality.
In regards to God, which is what most people seem to want to boil Religion down to, Science has not truly contradicted most Theologies anyway, though, so the claim of Atheist that Science disproves God, or else makes him unnecessary or unlikely, is just Hogwash. They generally are disproving the Sky Wizard of Richard Dawkins, not the actual God believe din by most people who don’t really think God is a magical man who lives in the Sky. In fact, often Theological Ideas about God are Vindicated by modern Scientific Discoveries, and Truth be Told, often predict them. All one needs to do to confirm this is to pick up one of the 20th Centuries leading Liberal Theologians, Paul Tillich, a name I’ve mentioned before on this Blog. His view of God was that God did not exist in the normal sense of the word, as an object in the Universe, but was “Being itself”, a term he meant to convey the meaning of as God is the Matrix of our existence, or Existence itself, rather than something that can be seen.
While I do not subscribe to Tillichs conclusions in full, it is interesting to note that Tillich’s Theories about the Universe being thus self emergent because God would be Self Emergent are not in contradiction to Stephen Hawkins latest claim of a Self Emergent Universe. I attempted to discuss this on the Hawking thread but it was regrettably sidebarred when another poster decided to use this as his Launchboard.
I feel that perhaps people need to learn more Theology, and begin to let go o the Notion of Religion as some sort of Mystical Other. I also think they need to come to realise that there is no actual Competition between Science and Religion. Most of this comes form a Misunderstanding of what the two things really are, and what people actually believe in them, and why they are believed. Religion is not, for instance, simply abut following whatever some Authority told you without Question, and is not believed in without evidence. Faith is not itself belief without Evidence, nor is Faith easy to gain and hard to loose.
But we tend to think of Religion as an Other, and, we think of Religion as opposed to Reason as much as Science. Today we live in a world that has embraced Secularism. We have been repeatedly told we must for the sake of Peace, and that it would secure our Freedom. I think this a Sham, as peace never reigned as a Result, nor did Freedom Grow.
Secularism is just Humanism, which is, as I said, a Religion in and of itself. The Tenets of Humanism have been presented as the only viable Philosophical basis of Laws, the only thing a Rational Society can be based upon, and the only thing sensible schools teach. This means that Humanism is increasing as no one wants to be Irrational, and besides, its not Socially acceptable to be Religious.
In that way we are conned into buying into it without quietening it. W Question Religion, but Humanism is not a Religion. It largely goes unquestioned and assumed to be True.
Which brings me to the end. I find that many of today’s Moral Standards, such as the Embryonic Research you mentioned, is accepted by us only because we have been told that it is Moral base don Humanism. We are told that accepting a Religious Moral Code is Irrational and should not be forced upon society, and instead we live under a humanist Moral and Ethical Code, because we are told we must. We aren’t allowed to Question it, and we must see someone like Benedict’s as behind the times and somewhat Authoritarian and inaccurate.
But I agree with him. I don’t think that Research on Embryos is morally right. I find it Repugnant. This is especially True given the Failure o produce any real benefits. Am I irrational? Is this because I simply accept whatever I am told by the Authority? I am not Catholic, though I am Christian. Am I brainwashed and incapable of Independent Thought? I must be, as I think this Is Immoral.
But what make some think its Independent Thinking to want to go ahead with Embryonic Testing? What makes me think this can’t be Questioned or that it must be seen as Morally Right? And why is it seen as Rational?
I think that, in the end, we use the term “Rational” as simply a Smokescreen, and label Modernist thinking as “Rational” and Religion by Default as “Irrational” so that it can be set aside and we needn’t concern ourselves with it, and by such a mean our Society is controlled and conditioned by that Control to arrive at a specified Destination.
It isn’t really Freethought at all, its just repeating the slogans, enduing into the generally accepted way things are, and not Questioning the underlying Philosophical principles we are told. We think we are Daring and Freethinkers because that’s the label given to those who accent to this. Anyone who disagrees, no matter how Hostility they are opposed yet refuse to Yield, are seen as Simply weak and as Following Authority.
I’m amazed at the vigor this Poe displays. His travel schedule is one that not even I would entertain thoughts of doing.
And of course…meeting with different faiths is not just good PR, but will hopefully bring each faith a bit closer and further away from the radical elements.
I contacted MACSAS recently with a view to them putting the case that those abused sexually by members of the Church, particuarly the Roman Catholic faith, go on to perpetuate the abuse. Four of my family as children were abused by another family member who was abused in a Roman Catholic Childrens home in Eire.
http://www.macsas.org.uk/news.htm
Interestingly MACSAS didn`t want to publicly announce such things, understandably as it tars those abused with suspicion of being abusers.
This Pope and the others before can never undo the lifetimes anguish caused to untold numbers, nor does it appear he wishes to punish. Calling evil doing an illness is misguided to be polite, this from a man with such authority is obscene. The Roman Catholic Church has protected what some would see as worse than murderers, it has done little to help victims.
Watching him on TV, one could hardly miss it, hearing him speak with his thick German accent, it was easy to assimilate him with more notorious Germans. My wife actually felt the Queen betrayed the Country by greeting him.
You talk of freedom from religious persecution yet religions ARE the biggest persecutors and always have been. Anti-abortion, Anti-gay, Anti-each other, I`ve never known such hypocrisy. Religions gain authority by fear, it is bullying and it is intimidation.
According to the Catholic faith we have all committed “mortal sins”, most of us will have committed “grave sins” and I don`t know many who haven`t committed “capital sins”.
So I`ll be seeing you in all hell including ……….
By the way for those who will attack me, I was born Catholic, christened Catholic and was schooled as such for a while.
Carl H.
Indeed if I should choose to attack you I will be violating my primary life’s principle. It is as Pope St. Noboby-Ever- Heard-Of-Me-Till-Now XXVIII said “Be lovely to anyone who was ever a Catholic and you can be a complete jackass to everyone else”. I would never dream of leaving his sage words aside.
I beg leave to pursue here, in stages, my recently-committed new Intention on the Lords of the Blog e-site, to apply the three principles of good communication, reasoning and argumentation.
—————————-
Principle #1 Clarity:
1. word-counts: BD 272; FWSIII 550; Zarove 1,280; Central Pennsylvania 52;
2. visual separation of main points, and of internal- versus external contextualities.
—————
Baroness Deech:
2. Passably clear; would have been much easier on both eye and mind somesuch as:
(“) Most parliamentarians probably chose to hear the Pope speak at the event in Westminster Hall on Friday 17th.
I thought this gathering would be too large and went instead to an interreligious meeting to hear him speak at St Mary’s College Twickenham. There were politicians and business people in the audience too, of not more than about 100.
—————————–
His speech is reported here http://www.thepapalvisit.org.uk/Replay-the-Visit/Speeches/Speeches-17-September/Pope-Benedict-s-Speech-to-Representatives-of-other-Religions/(language)/eng-GB.
—————————–
He referred to the need to defend human life at every stage, and I am sure he would not approve of the regulatory work carried out in relation to IVF and embryo research by the body of which I was once th chair, the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority.(“)
[Give us a link please].
——————————–
210 words JSDM2315M20Sep2010; continuable.
On the question of science and religion, I would like to add that the Catholic Church has long adopted (for over a century) the position that they are indeed compatible. It did require some rather elaborate explanations how the creation of the first human could happen in the context of evolution. But religion (unlike science) is not bound by Occam’s razor, so that is fine.
I think other religions and even some scientists still have to make this realisation. There are just too many attacks happening on the wrong territory, from both sides.
And as to the travel schedule: he is certainly following his predecessor. Of course Cardinal Ratzinger was always extremely hard working, but he does fell much more approachable as Pope Benedict.
“But religion (unlike science) is not bound by Occam’s razor…”
as Criminality is not bound by any Constructively-Responsible-Rules…
2147T21Sep
Carl, it seems to me you allow your own pains to cloud your judgement and have simply adopted the usual Anti-Religious rhetoric that has become popular out of your own sense of Outrage.
But, really, when you describe the whole Catholic Church as evil based on the abuse some members did, then you are painting with too broad a Brush. What about the Priests who did not abuse anyone? What about the Priest who did turn others in for abuse? They do exist, you know.
Worse, you want to blame the Church on the abuse you faced, by noting that while you weren’t Abused by anyone working for the Church, you were abused by Family who were. You note that there is a tendency of abused Children to grow into Abusers themselves, and then trace their abuse back to some Cleric in Eire. Well, what caused him to be abusive? Was it the mere fact that he was a Catholic Priest that somehow conferred upon him abusive Tendencies? Or, following your own Logic, could it be that he was Abused himself? And if it turns out the Catholic Priest who abused your Family members was Abused as a Child, and not by a Priest but by his own Family, all you have done is to destroy your Anti-Catholic and Anti-Religion argument. Abuse should be rooted out, not “Religion”. You can’t root religion out anyway, as even the Nonreligious are really Religious as I’ve said before. All you can do is change it into another Religion, but you won’t get rid of the underlying abuse by getting rid of the Catholic Church as this is not what causes it.
As to the rest, I’m “Anti-Abortion” and “Anti-Gay”. Don’t you think Framing these things as “Anti” is a bit Biased? I oppose forcing people to accept Homosexuality out of Libertarian Principles and think that people should be able to make up their own minds in regard to its morality, and don’t think the Government should force people to accept Homosexuality and individual Homosexuals. I also am not convinced that its an innate and unalterable Trait. Does that make me evil to you?
And why is being Anti-Abortion particularly evil? Keep in mind that you say its easy to Imagine Benedict as a NAZI but the NAZI’s made Abortion Legal. Abortion is, quite literally, the killing of a baby in the Womb of the mother.
Why should we be Pro-Abortion? Don’t had me nonsense about a Woman’s Right to Choose, as that same woman doesn’t have the right to kill her just born baby, but somehow has the right to kill her Child if he’s at a certain stage of Gestation? Don’t you think that a Reasonable case for opposing Abortion can be made, even if you disagree with it? Or is it somehow self evidently immoral to oppose Abortion? Is Abortion so much a self evident right of a woman that anyone who opposes it will be seen simply as evil?
I really wish you’d let go of the pain you feel, and reflect upon its true Causes in Humanity, and not blame whole institutions. I also sincerely wish you’d’ not see a perspective as Evil just because its Held, especially given that those you push can just as easily be seen as Evil.
Zarove, please think carefully and clearly about what you read and not misunderstand because of stereotypical images.
I am not anti-religious nor am I an athiest, the fact the Catholic Church, and it is fact, is to blame for many, many ghastly crimes across centuries putting it in my mind in the same bracket as the Nazi`s, perhaps worse. The Protestant Church of England is only behind simply because it hasn`t existed as long. Most organised religions are used by it`s leaders for evil purposes. The Pope is a man, elected by men, the Bible written by men and all the elements that have been bad through the centuries are there.
The stance of anti-abortion is about it being against God, about it being unnatural. Abstinance is unnatural, not having a partner is unnatural and stating I have a partner that I have a partner that I cannot touch, hear or feel but is very real is bordering on mental illness.
The supression of sex and sexual urges by the Catholic Church is the cause of many a crime.
“I really wish you’d let go of the pain you feel”
You`ll never understand, I`m glad you can`t. I left the abuse over 40 years behind me, yet I wonder if every thing I ever did wrong, every twisted thought, every inability stems from it. It cannot be took back nor the thoughts that you knew at that time you derived sexual pleasure from the abuse. The Twisted thoughts that even knowing the person committed hideous acts upon you an innocent child you still have warm feelings toward them alongside wanting to rip them apart. That sex was never quite right in your life because of what occurred.
That each night you pray that you die before your sister who is so afraid that he will be waiting for her after death.
Angry ? Messed up ? Possibly but don`t ask me to be nice to people, institutions who protect the monsters that perpetuate what I feel and who I am. If I can bring down that Church, that institution to deny one innocent becoming me or worse I will. A child is the most innocent of creatures, they are devoid of any sin yet the Church, specifically the RC, go against all they teach in protecting that innocence. There are thousands upon thousands of children who were sacrificed and sent to hell this man, the Pope, helps protect the demons (biblical phrase not mine)who sent the innocents there.
The World was appalled at the release of the Lockerbie bomber who killed 273? people. How many walk amongst us protected by the Roman Catholic Church that have perpetrated worse crimes. Don`t ever think no one died because of it, they do, take time to count up the suicides and even then many will be unknown because many cannot, will not speak out.
So no, don`t ask me to be nice to a person an organisation who will protect and forgive a torture you will never understand. To take a childs innocence is to take their life.
As to Religions being Anti-Each other and gaining power through Authority and Fear, that’s just a Regurgitated Stereotype, and one that is most certainly more True of the “Nonreligious” than the Religious.
Do you honestly think Atheists are more tolerant than “Religious” people? I mean, the National Secular Society makes a pretty nice living off its endless attacks on anyone who disagrees with it, and numerous Atheist writers have turned out fortunes for their Criticisms f Religion generally and Christianity specifically,.
If Religion is a form of bullying because it opposes any other Religion and anyone who is not Religious, then secularism is also a form of Bullying. The Bus Campaign that said “There’s probably no God, so enjoy your life” was a form of attacking Theism. Richard Dawkins book “The God Delusion” attacked anyone who believes in God, calling them delusional, mentally ill, and all manner of other insulting things. Hitchens hasn’t been shy of blaming Religious people of causing terror and war, and also calling them fools who have been Brainwashed. So has Sam Harris. Secularists routinely mock and degrade those whose beliefs differ form their own, and there have even been Physical assaults. So when you say that Religion is a form of bullying, don’t you think your being Hypocritical yourself?
Or is this another example of the old point I made a while back? If two Religious people re arguing, the fact that they both have Religious beliefs is to lame and if they weren’t Religious there would be peace. If a Secularist and a Religious person argues, its because the Religious person started it and is to blame, if only he would give up Religion and see Reason there would be peace. The Secularist is never to blame, even when he attacks Religion, for he just wants to Raise peoples Consciousness and make them Free Thinkers.
So when the Secularist attack Religion they are right in what they do, and not being divisive at all, and the negative Reaction from Religion is because Religion is Divisive.
You surely see why I am not convinced at that, and you shouldn’t be either except for an A Priori Prejudice.
It should also be noted that Religious bodied do not, in fact, gain power through Authority and Fear. I’m not even sure how you think one gains power through Authority, as Authority is conferred on one by Power, and as to Fear, Most Religions do not teach that you must believe in them or else be Damned. Atheists teach this about Christianity, but the average Christian Missionary doesn’t rely on threats of Damnation in Hell to win converts, and has not Traditionally done so either.
Also, most Religions actually get on with each other these days. Even the Pope Prays with, and for, leaders of Rival Churches, and even with leaders of other Religions. Here in America loads of people have developed a deep hatred of all Muslims due to the ever increasing Neoconservative Media exposure to thinking of all Muslims are somehow connected to Terror, but those who most ardently oppose this are Christians. You may have heard o the “Burn a Koran Day” pastor in Florida, but may be unaware tat the vast majority of Churches opposed his plan. And here in Tennessee they have had attacks on Muslims and a plan Mosque has suffered an Arson attack, so what did the local Churches do? They rallied behind the mosque.
Religions aren’t as Hostile to each other as you pretend them to be, and usually aren’t Anti-Each other. They aren’t a Breeding ground for Hatred, but of Love and tolerance. But the same isn’t true of the “NonReligius”. The National Secular Society, the Counsel for Secular Humanism, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and several others exist to promote hatred of all things Religious. (Excluding themselves of course, as they somehow aren’t a Religion.)
Why should I see organisations and movements that actively promote hatred towards anyone who doesn’t hold to their specific beliefs as more tolerant than those who have defended others of differing beliefs? Why should I see the Secularists as more tolerant and open-minded than the Religions they oppose when its clear that the sole purpose of those groups is to mock and degrade other people? They depict them as mentally inferior, delusional, mentally ill, and claim they don’t think of r themselves, whilst blaming them for social division. All the while they claim they represent social unity and peace, and an end to intolerance, but promote Intolerance.
I don’t see Religion as build on fear and breeding intolerance and hatred, I see the Secularist Movement as a Religious body tat denies its Religious that Breeds much more hatred and intolerance than Catholicism, though. After all, the Catholic Church did not as an Origination promote open attacks on Atheists as mindless fools who cant think for themselves, or claim they shouldn’t hold elected office because they were too mentally deranged, or claim being raised an Atheist is form of Child Abuse, or claim that Atheists should leave their beliefs at home and conform to their standards.
Religions aren’t as Hostile to each other as you pretend them to be, and usually aren’t Anti-Each other. They aren’t a Breeding ground for Hatred, but of Love and tolerance.
Zarove, meet history. History, meet Zarove. I hope the two of you will one day become better acquainted.
McDuff: Having tackled you before on the subject of blind faith independent of religion and a logic that dictates we are all possessed or capable of it I want to tackle you on the philosophy behind atheism.
In spoken and written language we deal with objects or nouns as concepts within our heads. We then go on to elaborate the concept by adding properties to it. When theists state a belief in God those that are inclined to be agnostic, atheist or antitheist cannot accept the attributes of God because God does not exist. They cannot go down to the fish and chip shop and ask for a portion of God and chips.
In mathematics there are two concepts that don’t exist either: zero and infinity. Both have attributes and the numerically enlightened willing accepts what cannot be physically demonstrated. Yet these agnostics, atheists and antitheists quite willingly believe in the existence of nothing purely on blind faith. This is very strange indeed.
If God has no value for you how is it that you are comfortable with the notion or concept of nothingness in a mathematical sense? I would put it to you that agnostics, atheists and antitheists must believe in God because they are able to give form to something that does not exist in a physical sense.
The journey to theism coupled with blind faith is therefore a short one for the non believer with an open mind. Don’t look for a physical God just look within yourself and embrace what you know is already there.
Mcduff, rather than tell me I know nothign of History it may be better if you read it yourself. In the past, most Religions did not set out to slaughter each other with any more vigour than did anythign else. Today we have entire wars over Democracy and attempt to impose Democracy onto whole nations, under the belief that everyone appreciates the Value of it and wants to live under it, even if they don’t know it yet.
Meanwhile, there have been very few wars over specifically Religious Causes.
Socially, the same is True as well.
So let snot walk in the lie that Religion is always divisive, especially since those like you and Carl and others belong to th most intolerant group of all, the Secularists are far from wiling to let others live their beliefs.
The Pope’s 8-9 enunciated principles when he came to office/throne, are mine exactly.
I appreciate good thinking like that.