the thing i'm finding problematic with all this is that now, more than ever in most of our lifetimes, we should all realise how dangerous such swingeing condemnations of any faith are.
sure, the RCC, a church i was brought up in and gladly left behind many years ago, has been responsible for some grotesque crimes against humanity and continues to be irrefutably wrong about many things that directly and detrimentally affect the lives of its followers (abortion, birth control, homosexuality, female priests etc).
but i *have* read all the posts leading to this thread and, i'm sorry, i just don't buy the idea that this "criticism", with all its emotive, tabloid language and imagery (child abuse, the "oirish" etc - jesus christ, if any of you want a job at the sun that badly all you have to do is ask. i can help you out, y'know), can be viewed solely as a salvo aimed at the vatican; distanced from the individual adherents.
whenever any faith is scapegoated its extreme tendencies become perceived as the majority view, when this in fact is not the case: cf the way "moslem" is now between-the-lines shorthand for "terrorist" and the prevalence of a pernicious new breed of anti-semitism among the guardian-reading classes for just two current examples of this ("they're all like that ariel sharon, innit").
the idea that being anti-catholic is akin to anti-nazism is plain lunacy because the fundamental principles behind this argument (mainly the idea of standing up against a corrupt, secretive cabal dedicated to ruining the lives of non-believers) can be applied to *any* organised religion and are, paradoxically, exactly those used by the nazis against the jews.
i'd say a far better and more effective approach would be to single out what you don't like about the RCC and its policies (there's enough to be getting on with) and attack them, not use them as a reason to attck the faith itself, because that kind or demonization rarely leads to anything positive.
funnily enough, hitler wasn't overwhelmngly fond of "my people", either.
sure, the RCC, a church i was brought up in and gladly left behind many years ago, has been responsible for some grotesque crimes against humanity and continues to be irrefutably wrong about many things that directly and detrimentally affect the lives of its followers (abortion, birth control, homosexuality, female priests etc).
but i *have* read all the posts leading to this thread and, i'm sorry, i just don't buy the idea that this "criticism", with all its emotive, tabloid language and imagery (child abuse, the "oirish" etc - jesus christ, if any of you want a job at the sun that badly all you have to do is ask. i can help you out, y'know), can be viewed solely as a salvo aimed at the vatican; distanced from the individual adherents.
whenever any faith is scapegoated its extreme tendencies become perceived as the majority view, when this in fact is not the case: cf the way "moslem" is now between-the-lines shorthand for "terrorist" and the prevalence of a pernicious new breed of anti-semitism among the guardian-reading classes for just two current examples of this ("they're all like that ariel sharon, innit").
the idea that being anti-catholic is akin to anti-nazism is plain lunacy because the fundamental principles behind this argument (mainly the idea of standing up against a corrupt, secretive cabal dedicated to ruining the lives of non-believers) can be applied to *any* organised religion and are, paradoxically, exactly those used by the nazis against the jews.
i'd say a far better and more effective approach would be to single out what you don't like about the RCC and its policies (there's enough to be getting on with) and attack them, not use them as a reason to attck the faith itself, because that kind or demonization rarely leads to anything positive.
funnily enough, hitler wasn't overwhelmngly fond of "my people", either.
Last edited: