THE VEXED QUESTION OF RELIGION

Scrat, Good point! However, if it does evolve, the original form will "disappear" and any resemblance with be coincidental. c.i.

Perhaps. My key point is that I think that any culture that remains static is more likely to cease to exist than is one that evolves with the passage of time. (This is a new thought and as such may be flawed. Perhaps someone can show me that I'm wrong in this.)

Further, some elements of aboriginal culture stem from hardships that are no longer a necessary part of life such as high death rates among newborns and short life spans. As these change the cultures change with them, but I doubt anyone would argue that this is a bad thing.

Wait until you come down. It may not sound as cogent when you're straight -- and you won't need anyone's help.

AA is an example of an organization which works and has some religious ties in the necessity to put faith in a higher power. Although many churches, the Methodists in particular, provide space for meetings (including gay oriented), they honor the organizations wishes for anonymity and their unfailing doctrines of acceptance. As they want no outside influences, so the churches would be wise to follow suit. Whatever rules and regulations are finally set up for this flawed concept, the churches do have a choice if they want to receive money. The motivation to do so eludes me.

What you say about AA working as an organization is true, but its true only because of the peculiarities that make AA unlike any other organization.

"Our common welfare should come first - personal recovery depends on AA unity."

"Our leaders are but trusted servants - they do not govern."

What other organization can say stuff like that truthfully?

e
None except other Twelve Step Programs -- the original idea was a noble and pragmatic inspiration and it makes some of the church organizations (!) look like some Rube Goldberg machine. There is a political machinery in every church just like every corporation (or small business). If one doesn't believe that, there's an bird in Australia who does a good imitation...

As far as "more bang for the buck," does that mean the churches will begin passing out condoms?

LW, Never in catholic churches. c.i.

The Catholic church is barely one step beyond the Spanish Inquisition. They're so backward (and hypocritical to boot) they still believe a bordello is an Italian dessert.

um interesting comments regarding the Catholic church, out here in the old west the catholic churches are seen as the more tolerant, but then we are inundated by the far right "focus on the family" fundies so i suppose anything more liberal than Falwell seems moderate to us.

dys, Catholic churches may seem the more tolerant, but when it comes to 'birth control' devices, that'll always be a no-no. c.i.

Someone should figure out that the Baptist like water and perhaps they will drown themselves in it.

I got into a confrontation with an old friend about the Catholic church. He and is wife are Catholic and I didn't really realize it because he reads Gore Vidal and believes it as political gospel. A non-sequiter if there ever was one. He's a retired school teacher who owns a small bookstore at the marina village where my business used to be. I loaded onto him about the Catholic church being roughly 50% gay -- that they loved the regalia as religious drag. He exploded, accusing me of pontificating. He didn't believe the chaste priests who don't discuss their sexuality could possibly be gay. I told him to ask them.

c.i. : you make an interesting point about the catholic church re. birthcontrol, and i suppose divorce might fall into that category also. watched an interesting program simply calle RELIGIONS AROUND THE WORLD - or similar - on tv last winter. i found it rather interesting when italian couples (and i am sure they were good catholics !) were asked about birthcontrol and how it disagrees with the churches teachings; they seemed to think that it was not even a serious question. they stated that what they did in bed was none of the business of the church or the priest - and they also stated that OF COURSE, THEY CONSIDERED THEMSELVES GOOD CATHOLICS. also, knowing some good catholics personally, i know that practicing birthcontrol and being a good catholic does not present a problem to them. i believe as with some other things in life we are - at least sometimes - allowed to disregard rules and establish our own. i don't want to be flippant about it, but i suppose it's not much different from exceeding the speedlimit(have i made an unintentional joke here?)> hbg.

hbg, There are so many dogmatic declaration by churches, it's any wonder that most people try to follow them. It may make alot of sense to the churh followers, but looking at the big picture from the outside, it seems rather silly. I remember when catholics could not eat meat on Fridays, and one day the Pope said it was okay to eat meat. Look at all the millions that followed that rule for their whole life, then the head priest says it's no longer the rule. Why did all those people make the 'sacrifice?' Makes you wonder. c.i.

Well, ostensibly, we did not eat meat on Fridays.

A lot of these sorts of things have an historical origin. Meat was forbidden in Lent, which also happened to coincide with the time of year when the salted meat had run out, and the only livestock left were the breeding pairs. The authority of the Church helped to preserve that stock, which likely would have been done anyway, but this helped to assure that none of the faithful strayed. Eating no meat on Friday was another way of "regulating" behavior with an eye to society's resources. Quite incidental to all of that is the effect that this had on the Dutch. Life was never easy for them, living among so many rivers and at the mouth of the Rhine and the edge of the North Sea. They made their fortune as a people by going out into the North Sea to make the big haul of cod and herring which would sustain Europe during the late winter and the spring when meat was not available. This made them wealthy enough to challenge the Hanseatic league of North Germany for dominance in the carrying trade, and sailing in the North Sea made first class sailors of them. Poor sailors don't sail the North Sea, particularly in winter--they just die there.

HOW I LEARNED THAT A GOOD CATHOLIC SHOULD NOT EAT MEAT ON A FRIDAY, BUT IT'S OK TO . . . . in 1959( after being in canada for less than 3 three years) i started a new job. had to travel to montreal with my boss to test some of the first commercial computers. we arrived in montreal on a thursday evening and made it to the restaurant at about 11:30 pm for a late snack. my boss (who i knew was a GOOD catholic in the truest sense) ordered a chicken sandwich; he never liked eggs or fish - a bacon sandwich was his favourite. 11:45 pm and no chicken sandwich ! the fellow got rather nervous and finally explained to me that at the stroke of midnight he could not eat the sandwich: 11;50 pm the chicken sandwich arrived and was consumed by 11:59 pm. we got up and i said something like: "well, i guess it's time to turn in". he looked at me and said: "well, i think we should have a few beers now". i was a little perplexed and said something about it now being friday. would he not have to abstain from such pleasures? we did have a few beers (and many more over the years) and he explained to me why A GOOD CATHOLIC SHOULD NOT EAT MEAT ON A FRIDAY, BUT IT'S OK TO HAVE A FEW BEERS ! this fellow became a really good friend to our family .after he retired took holy orders and became a priest after his wife passed away(he had become a canon while his wife - an anglican - was still alive). so this is how i furthered my education! hbg

Meat eating on Fridays was okay, when you were on travel (at least here deep 'black' Catholic Westphalia - comparison of black: black, Münster, Paderborn :wink: [which is just ror German/Catholic insiders ]).

Having more experience with the Episcopalian clerics, they always seem to be one of the most progressive religions.

c.i. : yes, it does make one wonder, doesn't it? of course, as setanta pointed out in many cases there were reasons for some of the now somewhat unfathomable rules and edicts. just to add a little to my earlier entry (i think as one gets older a lot of these stories come back to mind - at least for me): the next morning i was the first one ready for breakfast and asked the other fellow what i should order for him so that we could get an early start on our computer testeing. he hemmed and hawed; he loved bacon but couldn't have it; he didn't like eggs. so he asked me to place an order for PANCAKES AND TOAST ! in those days we were always staying at the old laurentian hotel in downtown montreal. the restaurant was murray's, were motherly waittresses looked after you. (downstairs was the KILTIE LOUNGE were we consumed many pints after a hard day's work trying to get the computer to co-operate.) i placed my usual order of bacon and eggs with the waittress and added; " and an order of pancakes and toast for the other guy who'll be here shortly". the waittress had a good look at me and must have detected my accent for sure; "ok' she said "i'll get that order for you BUT IF HE WON"T EAT IT YOU"LL STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!". a footnote : when we travelled on company business in the 60's and 70's the company expected that two guys - and sometimes three - would have to share a room(i always reserved "a room with TWO single beds, please) and no one thought that there was anything unusual about it. hbg