K-Punk and the Catholics

Status
Not open for further replies.

stelfox

Beast of Burden
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.
 
Last edited:
Having just joined dissensus (it's a great site, isn't it?) and realising what one of the threads was about, I thought I might as well contribute to the discussion (or rather dissent...? dissentry....? I dunno).

Anyway, someone recently admonished me on my blog for having written something vitriolic (if not exactly amusing or erudite) about Blair, namely the following:
'And, really, I don't need this child. Please take him. Perhaps he could come in useful for those Catholic rituals you are so fond of, you motherfucking pederast prick.'

At the time I wrote that I was watching Blair's party conference admission that (I quote) 'there were no weapons [in Iraq]. I am so sorry', and was severely aggrieved by the pious hypocrisy of it all, the weeping Labour party supporters shedding a tear over Tony's 'brave admission'. So why did I bring Blair's much-debated Catholicism into it? Because, for one thing, it struck me that this was a 'confession' in a strictly theological sense. Rather than operating outside the logic of personal guilt and absolution, as politics ought to do, Blair (he is not alone of course) opts for a sentimentalising of politics, and an emotivising of issues that should be dealt with in a sober manner (i.e. deciding whether to invade another country). But of course there was no 'sober' argument for going to war with Iraq. All Blair had to go on was his 'personal faith' that this was the 'right thing to do' and the belief that his 'good works' would eventually convince everyone that he was a nice guy. And we are supposed to just trust him. That's hierarchy for you.

It strikes me that we have never had a more public view of a Prime Minister's struggle with his faith - see for example, this recent Times article and this from the Guardian. We are a long way, sadly, from Elizabeth I's profoundly Protestant 'I do not wish to make windows into men's souls'.

Blair's private audience with the Pope to discuss his own spiritual standing during a State visit struck me as grotesque at the time, especially when the Pope was also trying to convince him not to go to war with Iraq (if only Blair had been actually Catholic at that point and actually listened to 'God's representative'... if you have a messiah complex you probably don't like religious people saying you are wrong). I'm hoping they refuse to accept him if he converts at the end of his term.

So why blame the RCC, and not Protestantism, or Britishness, or politics itself, for Blair's repulsive rhetoric and confessional attitude? Because he turns the specific language of Catholic belief into debased political currency. Confessing and paying penance ('so sorry for Bernie Ecclestone's contribution'), adhering to a form of vitalism that really couldn't be any more hypocritical (the Labour Party slogan at the last conference: 'a better life for all'). I also wonder if Blair stays, how long it will be before the law on abortion gets rethought. If we were more formally Protestant in our relation to the Government and its policies, Blair would be in massive amounts of trouble....'excuse me Tony, I don't believe you have the divine right to invade another country against the wishes of the majority'....'stop trying to make me afraid of terrorism! you're just keeping us down. If you have any information, you should share it with all of us'. Luther didn't translate the Bible because he wanted people to continue believing what their masters told them.

But, you know, I also hate Protestantism because of its obsession with work, Judaism because of its autistic commitment to the Law, agnostics because of their incuriosity, atheists because of their smug positivism, about which they often know little (get an atheist to explain why Darwin might be a problem for religion and they often start stalling). So it's not just Catholicism, but really its peculiar compatibility with a culture of fear, the propagation of ignorance and its undying veneration of those closer to the pontiff.....
 
which is why, when I think about it, Private Eye's depiction of Blair as an over-eager Anglican vicar is slightly misplaced....it's much more sinister than that, sadly.
 

k-punk

Spectres of Mark
This just in:

'I was born a Nazi, but of course I utterly reject Nazism. Utterly. Honestly. I reject it in the sense that I don't agree with any of the doctrines, naturally, but come on, I think it's fine to belong to the cultural group, you can't expect me to reject the ethnicity, these are my people aren't they, so they can't all be bad.

Although I reject Nazism - honestly, really, I am in no way a Nazi - I think - and my judgement of Catholicism is purely objective, honest - that anyone who attacks Nazism is an unthinking bigot. No, it's not true that I am doing and saying exactly what I would have done and said if I were a Nazi. I am not a Nazi. The fact I belong to that ethnic group has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the fact that I am defending it; that's just human tolerance, isn't it? Everyone's entitled to belong to a genocidal death cult if they want to, that's only fair and decent.

I've read this thread, and I've honestly, carefully and objectively taken on board all of the arguments that have been made against mein volk. Tabloid sensationalism about pogroms and concentration camps isn't exactly raising the level of debate is it? Sure, Nazism made some mistakes and did some pretty bad things - like attempted popolucide - but, you know, most Nazis I know are good people who don't approve of this sort of thing. And not everything Nazism did was bad. The trains run on time and the uniforms are really rather sexy, y'know.

Besides, Nazism isn't the worst thing that has ever happened on earth. There is also the Catholic Church, whose ENTIRE two millennia long history (Crusades, the Conquests, withburnings, the inquisition, imperialism, the destruction of Mayan culture) is thick with the blood of its many victims. And it is STILL involved in systematic cover-ups of child abuse the world over, STILL encourages mass death in Africa through its opposition to condoms, STILL keeps people alive in misery because of its superstitious veneration of organic Life, STILL oppresses women (whom it considers second-class citizens, good enough to be worshipped as Mothers and fucked as Whores, but not good enough to dole out the communion wine and spool out the mystagogic doctrine), STILL forces women in its jurisdiction into health-threatening backstreet abortions. Come on, Nazism is pretty small potatoes compared to that, isn't it?

What I would ask is: why are 'Nazism' and 'fascism' considered the very synonyms for evil, when Catholicism is still respectable? Why are my people worse than the Catholics? Everyone's entitled to a little genocide in their cultural history, surely. Doesn't mean you should be ashamed of it. And anyone who says you should be is nothing more than a foaming-at-the-mouth tabloid bigot. Learn some tolerance for other groups, honestly.

Yours disgustedly,

Zak Boorman'
 

johneffay

Well-known member
stelfox said:
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.

What I don't understand is that given the institutionalized hierarchy headed up by an infallible pontiff which constitutes the backbone of the RCC, how can you possibly divorce that from the Roman Catholic faith? Papal infallibility and all that it entails is itself an act of faith. Yes there are Roman Catholics who question and/or defy their church's stand on, for example, contraception, but in the eyes of that church they are bad Catholics. For this reason I am perfectly happy to make sweeping statements about Catholicism, although I would be less likely to do so about Christianity as a whole. I actually have a lot more respect for hardline Catholics who follow the policies of their church because at least they have a consistent position which one can take issue with. As far as I can see, if you sign up for something this rigid, you have to sign up for the whole deal.
 
k-punk said:
the destruction of Mayan culture

Zak, the decline of Mayan culture is not clearly linked with the European conquests
of Latin American. The Spanish never really managed to colonise Yucatan apart from
costal regions, because their weapons and technology wasn't much use in the jungle.
Conversely, the Mayas were too weak to get rid of the Spanish on the coast. The decline
of Mayan civilisation had begun before the Europeans made contact. The causes for
this decline are not really established.
 
johneffay said:
I actually have a lot more respect for hardline Catholics who follow the policies of their church because at least they have a consistent position which one can take issue with.

Translation: you prefer the world to be simple so it does not interfer with your dearly held beliefs.

johneffay said:
As far as I can see, if you sign up for something this rigid, you have to sign up for the whole deal.

But what if those who do sign up don't think it's rigid? Damn! Your whole argument falls apart!
 

johneffay

Well-known member
echo-friendly said:
But what if those who do sign up don't think it's rigid? Damn! Your whole argument falls apart!

Nope, it shows they haven't been paying attention to the primary tenets they signed up for.
 
johneffay said:
Nope, it shows they haven't been paying attention to the primary tenets they signed up for.

You see, that is a complete misunderstanding of religion. There are no "primary tenets". You make them up as they suit you. A typical rhetorical strategy is to distinguish between the "true core" of a religion and it's corruption (for example -- and very popular --by the clergy). One could then consider oneself as a true believer whose faith is demonstrated precisely through opposition to the corruption of the religious bureacracy, e.g. the pope and his lot. It's hardly uncommon.

Religon is like good pop music: it's so vague that you can project all your ideosyncratic feelings into it and feel good (if you are a fan of that brand). Of course you can also do the reverse and project all evil (if, like K-Punk you have a need to pick on somebody else). Unless you understand that the core of being a member of a given religion X consists of nothing more than a willingness to say "I am a member of X" you really don't understand religion.
 

johneffay

Well-known member
echo-friendly said:
One could then consider oneself as a true believer whose faith is demonstrated precisely through opposition to the corruption of the religious bureacracy, e.g. the pope and his lot. It's hardly uncommon.

And 'the pope and his lot' call you a bad Catholic, which was my original point.

Unless you understand that the core of being a member of a given religion X consists of nothing more than a willingness to say "I am a member of X" you really don't understand religion.

Either that or you have a very smug and dismissive attitude to people's religious experiences and the way in which the core tenets of their churches give them shape and meaning. Is it really possible to be a Christian (or whatever) simply by announcing the fact without any form of belief to back it up?
 
johneffay said:
And 'the pope and his lot' call you a bad Catholic, which was my original point.

Yes, but why should that matter to somebody who thinks the papal authority is bollox?

johneffay said:
Either that or you have a very smug and dismissive attitude to people's religious experiences and the way in which the core tenets of their churches give them shape and meaning. Is it really possible to be a Christian (or whatever) simply by announcing the fact without any form of belief to back it up?

I do in fact "have a very smug and dismissive attitude to people's religious experiences". It is clearly possible to be a Christian (or whatever) simply by announcing the fact without any form of belief to back it up. The other day I asked somebody whose public demeanor was signalling "conservtive muslim" about the meaning of ramadan. His answer: "I don't know. But my cousin does."

Here's a little experiment that you may want to do: Ask church-going christians to tell you all ten commandments. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that the majority can't, let alone know that there's not ten. Be honest: can you? If there's any candidate for a christian set of core doctrines, what would it be but the commandments? I don't think that's a coincidence. I do believe that the core mechanism of religion is essentially mindless copying of one's peers, i.e. religion is a fashion phenomenon. In order for religions to fulfil their social functions, believers should not know about or be interested in key doctrines.

Anybody who has in fact read the bible would presumably agree that it's a pretty horrific piece of work that essentially presents a god who asks for/institutes the persecution and murder of other ethnic and religious groups, rape, child murder and genozid. Now if there's such a gap between what the core book of doctrines contains and what followers of the associated religions say it is about, the best hypothesis is that they have not actually read it.
 

stelfox

Beast of Burden
<i>What I don't understand is that given the institutionalized hierarchy headed up by an infallible pontiff which constitutes the backbone of the RCC, how can you possibly divorce that from the Roman Catholic faith?</i>

as an atheist with a certain amount of respect for others' right to practise any faith they choose, i have no problem addressing aspects of any religious doctrine that i find objectionable without wholesale panning the entire belief system.
 

johneffay

Well-known member
echo-friendly said:
If there's any candidate for a christian set of core doctrines, what would it be but the commandments?

The core Christian doctrines are salvation via the Word of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins; some form of Baptism, and some form of Eucharist. Ask any self-professed Christian and they will know this. Biblical exegesis and the stress thereon varies wildly between Churches.

Various Christian churches also have other core doctrines. A core Roman Catholic doctrine is Papal Infallibility. Ask any self-professed Roman Catholic and they will know this (although, I admit that they might be a bit hazier on things such as transubstantiation). Should they disagree, then in the eyes of their Church leaders, the College of bishops, they are in the wrong.

As for your point about religion as mind control: This is all self-evident and not very interesting. You can say the same thing about most social groups. The things that I find interesting about religions are:

1. The religious experience itself.

2. The way specific church doctrines are deployed within the political arena.
 
Last edited:
I wrote:
[I dislike] atheists because of their smug positivism, about which they often know little

and echo-friendly wrote back: what do they not know much about? and why are they positivists, smug ones at that?

Well, it strikes me that the default position for many people these days is a kind of lazy atheism, in that they assume that science has somehow done all the work for them in disproving the existence of God (either evolutionary theory or work on the origins of the universe). So they feel justified in dismissing all religion and all religious people as superstitious or foolish or immature, but often without knowing much about the implicit reasons they rely on to back their 'scientific' argument up (we are talking about atheists here, not agnostics). Thus they are positivists (they reject theology and rely only on scientific observation), and they are smug (because they often resort to a kind of ambient and unthinking dismissal of religion without understanding anything about it or the science they depend upon to make strong claims against it).
This argument sometimes takes the form: 'well, I'm doing alright, and I never believed in God. Therefore God doesn't exist' (cf. the Jonathan Miller school of exceptionally smug atheism).

I think it's important to think that it's actually very hard to be 1. a fully consistent atheist and 2. a fully consistent believer. It strikes me that working out that both of these positions are extraordinarily difficult is the first step to taking them both seriously.....
 

mms

sometimes
ten commandments. they all differ slightly in translation between the hebrew and the king james post reformation version and slightly more from the catholic version.

One thing bears on me is the way christian dogmatists especially the US right always quote the old testament to back up all their most henious plans against other people, surely the way Christ behaved towards his fellows should have shown the way,Christianity in practice seems to me that it should be a more open discursive process, the new testament has it's scholars like Paul in the same way islam has its, but these guys systematically quote from the old testament to back up their violence. That's that, no room for discussion. It's irrelevant that they are religious in a way, god has to agree with them on a non-negotiable basis, they basically hi jack any semblance of democracy this way, this is where i see the fascism seeping in.
 
mms said:
surely the way Christ behaved towards his fellows should have shown the way,

Hehehe, you are proving my point exactly. it seems pretty clear that you have not read the bible, given that it's desciption of Jesus Christ is of a rather unpleasant, which is why they say, when in doubt ask yourself, what Jesus would do ... and then do the opposite. For your perusal, I'll add some choice quotes from the bible.

For example, when the villages Chorazin, Kapharnaum and Bethsaida don't take his ramblings seriously, he disses them:
"11:20Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."
He doesn't treat animals and plands any better:
21:18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 21:19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
21:20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.
21:21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
LK 8:32 Now there was there a herd of many pigs feeding on the mountain, and they begged him that he would allow them to enter into those. He allowed them.
LK 8:33 The demons came out from the man, and entered into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake, and were drowned.
LK 8:34 When those who fed them saw what had happened, they fled, and told it in the city and in the country.
LK 8:35 People went out to see what had happened. They came to Jesus, and found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting at Jesus' feet, clothed and in his right mind; and they were afraid.
LK 8:36 Those who saw it told them how he who had been possessed by demons was healed.
LK 8:37 All the people of the surrounding country of the Gadarenes asked him to depart from them, for they were very much afraid. He entered into the boat, and returned.
He's very agressive towards the rich (Lk 6.24), the poor (Mt 25:29), temple servants
(Mt 7:6), women from Kanaan (Mt 15:25), his mother (Jh 2:4), Petrus (Mt 16:23).
Or what about this:
(Lk 14:26)
If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Lk 12:51Do you think that I have come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.
LK 12:52 For from now on, there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
LK 12:53 They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
mms said:
Ch, hristianity in practice seems to me that it should be a more open discursive process, the new testament has it's scholars like Paul in the same way islam has its, but these guys systematically quote from the old testament to back up their violence. That's that, no room for discussion. It's irrelevant that they are religious in a way, god has to agree with them on a non-negotiable basis, they basically hi jack any semblance of democracy this way, this is where i see the fascism seeping in.

I'd say both, old and new testament are full of awful behaviour and the taliban christians currently running the US/World understand the bible very well.
 

mms

sometimes
infinite thought said:
I wrote:
Well, it strikes me that the default position for many people these days is a kind of lazy atheism, in that they assume that science has somehow done all the work for them in disproving the existence of God (either evolutionary theory or work on the origins of the universe). So they feel justified in dismissing all religion and all religious people as superstitious or foolish or immature, )


personally i find the idea of reducing belief down to scientific theory, or scientific theories hideous, the whole idea that religiousity can be reduced to a kind of by product of generation reproduction is grim.


also the widespread belief that because it's science, it's apolitical is just wrong.
research is often state funded .
It's no coincidence that in the US, there is a rise in creation science being taught in schools, a massive reduction in funding for things the current gov don't agree on etc.
 
johneffay said:
The core Christian doctrines are salvation via the Word of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins; some form of Baptism, and some form of Eucharist. Ask any self-professed Christian and they will know this. Biblical exegesis and the stress thereon varies wildly between Churches.

I contend that the majority of Christians, when asked, would give different replies.
In fact, I have never heard anyone but a church bureaucrat speak in those term.

A core Roman Catholic doctrine is Papal Infallibility.

All practising catholics of my acquaintance think Papal Infallibility is bollox,
including a HIGH ranking catholic official. Pope John Paul II has stated, in jest
to be sure, but nevertheless in front of 100000s: "Even a Pope is fallible, at least
when it comes to the weather".

Should they disagree, then in the eyes of their Church leaders, the College of bishops, they are in the wrong.

And exactly what makes you accept that "Church leaders, the College of bishops" are the
infallible arbiters of what counts as catholic?

As for your point about religion as mind control: This is all self-evident and not very interesting.

You must confuse me with somebody else as I did not make such a point.

You can say the same thing about most social groups.

Incidentally, all organisations have a version of infallibility, their highest point
authority of decision: if High Court judges decide in some legal matter, then that
matter is fixed. End of story. They might not self-describe as "infallible", but for all
intents and purposes, it's the same thing.

If you have organisations, you have hierarchy. If you have hierarchy, you have a point
were decisions are no longer challengable without abolishing the organisation.
That's how I understand infallibility. In that sense, Tony Blair's decision about going
to war in Irak was an infallible one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top