Religious bigotry in seventh grade class room

@Cycloptichorn,

You continue to evade the issues I raised, either by retrospectively revising the meaning of the words used or introducing new, unrelated distinctions. It may well be that you don't regard the behavior of Lash's student as either intolerant or bidoted or otherwise offensiuve at all. Indeed you came very close to affirming just that in an earlier post. Either way, I note that most posters here accepted them as examples of such bigoted intolerance (as these words are customarily used) and explicitly discussed them as such.

Several of your statements were the equivalent of those of the unnamed student, or worse.

The distinctions you are making about groups of people are niggling and evasive with respect to the central issue. You would not likely make similar expressions about homosexuals or African Americans, even in areas in which there are indeed observable differences in their group behavior compared to others.

You are being hypocritical, and I take your energetic defense as evidence suggesting that you are, at some level, aware of it and rationalizing a defense.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

It certainly isn't my fault if you casually use words incorrectly. I think you'll find more success leveling accusations at others if you bother to look the definitions before attempting to use them, though.

In the meantime, I will rest comfortably on the fact that you are unable to show any comment of mine in this thread which is either bigoted or intolerant. It's pretty clear that your objection to my comments is based on your disagreement with the opinions stated, not an inherent deficiency in the words themselves. If you feel differently, I would challenge you to point out what I said and explain how it is either intolerant or bigoted, keeping in mind that those words don't just mean whatever you want them to.

I'll bid you a nice day as well; I'm off to go be intolerant with my bigot friends Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I came here in search of reasonable debate. Often I get more that I expected. Many threads end up with two or more posters in an all out brawl. Am I exaggerating? Maybe. We jerk each others chains until we start the insults. Kind of like a lovers quarrel gone bad. Interspersed with all of this are some very intelligent points and insights. I often get a perspective I would not have found on my own. I realize I am being a bit judgmental myself here. Just an observation. Maybe it's all part of the debate and I haven't realized that yet.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

this is to debate about the equivalent of what demolition derby is to auto racing...

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I was giving a nod to Cyclo's point that - to me, frankly - no group has met the standard that the religion's namesake set.

I have no problem saying that here - but of course, I'd say nothing like that in class. A bunch of adults whaling on religion - and my responsibilities as a teacher of children - are, to me, in different universes.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Wow. That's Johnny's argument.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

You crack me up . . . "God" is alleged to have created the entire cosmos, and everything in it. Does that mean that everything in the cosmos is divine? Does that mean that you are divine? You often act as though you were the repository of divine, revealed truth, so maybe you do believe that.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You've already clarified that by "dead human" you meant not Christ, but
Mary. Thank you.

As for our squaring our predilection for praying to dead humans with
Jesus' actual teachings, I think it comes down to three things. First,
Jesus taught the efficacy of prayer. Second he spoke of a a life after
death. Third, he urged us to help each other. If prayer is efficacious,
and if we wish to help each other, then it stands to reason we would
pray for each other. If dead humans survive in a life after death, then
they could pray for others as well. So we ask them to do so.

Now of course all these "if" clause make some pretty big assumptions.
I'm not trying to defend any of them. I'm simply trying to explain why
we do some of the things we do.

Having said that, intercessory prayer is prone to abuse. That is why I
made the distinction between praying to God and praying to dead
humans to ask them to pray to God. (Bear in mind that we are only
speaking of prayers of supplication here.) The danger is of praying to
a saint as if he or she were God. Sadly, this happens among some
Catholics and was one of the things Luther condemned and sought
reformation of.

2 Replies

One aspect of this debate is interesting to me. Someone posted the dictionary definitions of intolerance and bigotry. To me, it is ok to have a different opinion that someone else. That's religious freedom, right? We have a lot of discourse here about whether this religious view is correct or not, and that seems perfectly fine to me. That's open discussion and everyone is certainly not going to agree. But where does that disagreement move from just that to intolerance? If someone else holds a faith that something is true that can't be proved and you think it is poppycock, is that intolerance? I would say not just by holding that view, but if you stand in front of their church or temple and tell them they are ignorant or fools, then yes probably. I would say that if you barge in on a funeral for someone you have no connection with and proclaim that they deserved to die and they will go to hell, that is intolerance.

Now this forum is a different story. When we agree by participating in these threads we open ourselves to such derisive comments. I don't see that the person that makes those comments is being intolerant if they are trying to make a point. One of the good aspects of this forum is that we can have these discussions.

This whole religious tolerance is a very difficult proposition. In most religions you make a 'vow' early on that you will practice the faith and absolve all others. How can you do that and tolerate others that disagree? Obviously, this has proven very difficult for the human race, with all the religious wars, etc.

I've decided that if you practice your religion and apply the learning to yourself and avoid applying it to a judgment of others, that is a reasonable path. As soon as you believe you have the ultimate truth and consider all other views as plain wrong, that just creates conflict. I think the point was made earlier that as soon as a person or group claims that they have the absolute truth, that demonstrates arrogance, not wisdom.

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

Having said that, intercessory prayer is prone to abuse. That is why I
made the distinction between praying to God and praying to dead
humans to ask them to pray to God. (Bear in mind that we are only
speaking of prayers of supplication here.) The danger is of praying to
a saint as if he or she were God. Sadly, this happens among some
Catholics and was one of the things Luther condemned and sought
reformation of.

In such cases, I always refer to the Litaniae Sanctorum (Litany of the Saints). There it is said for instance: Santa Maria, ora pro nobis .... Sancti Cosma et Damiane, orate pro nobis ... (Saint Mary, pray for us ... Saint Cosmas and Damian, pray for us)

wikipedia wrote:

The Litany of the Saints (Latin: Litaniae Sanctorum) is a formal prayer of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, some Anglican Churches, and Western Rite Orthodox communities. It is a prayer to the Triune God, which also includes invocations for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels and all the martyrs and saints upon whom Christianity was founded, and those recognised as saints through the subsequent history of the church. Following the invocation of the saints, the Litany concludes with a series of supplications to God to hear the prayers of the worshippers. It is most prominently sung during the Easter Vigil, and in the liturgy for conferring Holy Orders.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You crack me up . . .

And you, you light up my life.

Setanta wrote:

"God" is alleged to have created the entire cosmos, and everything in it. Does that mean that everything in the cosmos is divine? Does that mean that you are divine?

That's Spinozism. I offer no opinions on that.

Setanta wrote:

You often act as though you were the repository of divine, revealed truth, so maybe you do believe that.

I just calls 'em as I seez 'em.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Wow. That's Johnny's argument.

It's not a new argument by any means, but one that has been levied at the Catholic church for over a thousand years. And it is an argument not entirely without merit.

The point, however, is that there's no logical conclusion of or to the argument that justifies it's use in the vast majority of settings, as at the end of the day it comes down to a matter of opinion and there's no settling or proving anything at all. So why say it in mixed company? This is one of the biggest parts of learning maturity - knowing when it is or isn't appropriate to voice one's opinion.

I will readily and freely admit that I'm not predisposed to be kind to the Catholic church these days, given what we all now know about actions that have taken place in secret and covered up for decades by supposed religious authorities. And I'm sure that these actions are not unique in the slightest amongst religious groups, or any hierarchy of power and secrecy.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Now that I have kids, I can't help but compare the bickering over what constitutes the "right" way to worship to when my kids bicker over the "right" way to play some made-up game....

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Messiah means the prophesied deliverer of the Jews. Leaving aside that Jews aren't buying that line, it appears that one need only see the putative Jesus as having been the redeemer.

Sounds to me, in the lexicon of urban neighborhoods, that Gentiles took over what was a Jewish neighborhood? Or, as Jimmy Durante used to say, "Everyone wants to get into the act!"

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Translation, Joe is always right, except when Joe is wrong, in which case, see rule number one. There s nothing convincing about your argument, and i see no reason to distinguish between Cyclo, or Sofia's student, imposing a definition of Christian, and Joe imposing such a definition.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Joe is always right

Finally, a point upon which we can both agree.

0 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

You've already clarified that by "dead human" you meant not Christ, but
Mary. Thank you.

As for our squaring our predilection for praying to dead humans with
Jesus' actual teachings, I think it comes down to three things. First,
Jesus taught the efficacy of prayer. Second he spoke of a a life after
death. Third, he urged us to help each other. If prayer is efficacious,
and if we wish to help each other, then it stands to reason we would
pray for each other. If dead humans survive in a life after death, then
they could pray for others as well. So we ask them to do so.

Now of course all these "if" clause make some pretty big assumptions.
I'm not trying to defend any of them. I'm simply trying to explain why
we do some of the things we do.

Having said that, intercessory prayer is prone to abuse. That is why I
made the distinction between praying to God and praying to dead
humans to ask them to pray to God. (Bear in mind that we are only
speaking of prayers of supplication here.) The danger is of praying to
a saint as if he or she were God. Sadly, this happens among some
Catholics and was one of the things Luther condemned and sought
reformation of.

Thanks, that's a great explanation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@George,

George wrote:

Look at it this way.

I can ask my manager for a raise.
I can ask my coworkers to ask my manager to give me a raise.
There's a difference.

I'm making no claims for the efficacy of prayer.
I making no claims for any increasing efficacy for increasing volume of prayer.
I'm just distinguishing different kinds of prayer.

If the purpose of prayer is to elicit some beneficial effect, then what about the beneficial effect of laying on of hands? Aren't there faith healers that are obviously not an "instrument" of Saints, but claim to be an instrument of the Lord? Could this be a parallel road with the Saints' intercession?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...If the manager (God, I guess, in this example) is all-knowing and all-powerful, I don't understand the value added by asking others to tell him what you are already telling him, which he already knew before you told him. If there's no additional value, why do it?

Cycloptichorn

Au contraire. If a Saint (Mary) goes to her son (Jesus), and asks for a favor, what nice Jewish son will not do his beloved mother a favor? Perhaps, the premise that asking for intercession from Mary is not more effective, might not be correct. It might be most effective.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

If you're going to engage in a debate in which it is so easy to fact check, as you do yourself in political debate, i suggest you check your facts before making such an attempt. Between the so-called Arian heresy and the Albigensian crusade, i now of no major heresy condemned by the church which attacked church authority on the basis of paying to saints. So just when and who do you alleged made such a criticism a thousand years ago.

You're just making this sh*t up as you go along.

1 Reply

Religious bigotry in seventh grade class room

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know