"The more I study religion the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself."
Sir Richard Burton
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Church of de Botton
Atheist temple my ass. This brief piece in Huffington Post does give a little more insight into why Alain de Botton seems determined to muddy the basic definition of atheism. It will not be a temple of atheism in any way but rather a temple to de Botton or at least his odd ideas about religion and art. It seems to be an extension of his moronic TED talk and the book he recently published. I do not believe it is coincidental that his background is in architecture.
It all makes a little more sense when you string together a few other facts. The church used to be one of the biggest sponsors of art and architecture but has essentially moved away from such patronage. What is one of the faster growing demographics in the US and globally? The non-religious (not necessarily atheist). It seems as though de Botton wants the more secular groups to take up where the religions left off regarding the arts. His insistence on adopting the baggage of religion to achieve this goal is just a manifestation of his own ignorance. Religion was a patron of the arts for two main reasons; propaganda and prestige. The church had the resources and recognized the potential benefits. That does not in any way mean religion was necessary for either the creation or the appreciation of art.
I may be wrong but it seems that he is trying to reinvigorate his field of interest by attempting to inspire the nonreligious to step back into old unnecessary patterns of behavior. What's wrong with promoting art for arts sake. Why build a "temple"? How about a series of monumental structures designed to celebrate different forms and/or aspects of art. Such a project might inspire art lovers whether they are religious or not. That would at least be honest and far less self-centered.
It all makes a little more sense when you string together a few other facts. The church used to be one of the biggest sponsors of art and architecture but has essentially moved away from such patronage. What is one of the faster growing demographics in the US and globally? The non-religious (not necessarily atheist). It seems as though de Botton wants the more secular groups to take up where the religions left off regarding the arts. His insistence on adopting the baggage of religion to achieve this goal is just a manifestation of his own ignorance. Religion was a patron of the arts for two main reasons; propaganda and prestige. The church had the resources and recognized the potential benefits. That does not in any way mean religion was necessary for either the creation or the appreciation of art.
I may be wrong but it seems that he is trying to reinvigorate his field of interest by attempting to inspire the nonreligious to step back into old unnecessary patterns of behavior. What's wrong with promoting art for arts sake. Why build a "temple"? How about a series of monumental structures designed to celebrate different forms and/or aspects of art. Such a project might inspire art lovers whether they are religious or not. That would at least be honest and far less self-centered.
The Vatican: Epitome of Power and Corruption
"Corruption Scandal Rocks Vatican, Whistle Blower Archbishop Vigano Was Transferred Against His Will"
Ratzinger, as the Pope, has averaged at least one major speech a year in which he blames cruelty, corruption, immorality, or a combination of those three on secularism or atheism. Yet, it is the Church that has been promoting by example all three for over a millenia. It would be laughable if the consequences weren't so despicable.
When will be people stop listening to such selfish power hungry bastards like the Pope. He does not deserve respect he deserves our contempt as do all within the hierarchy that refuse to live up to the ideals they claim to stand for.
Ratzinger, as the Pope, has averaged at least one major speech a year in which he blames cruelty, corruption, immorality, or a combination of those three on secularism or atheism. Yet, it is the Church that has been promoting by example all three for over a millenia. It would be laughable if the consequences weren't so despicable.
When will be people stop listening to such selfish power hungry bastards like the Pope. He does not deserve respect he deserves our contempt as do all within the hierarchy that refuse to live up to the ideals they claim to stand for.
Doublespeak or Just a Lie?
I thought religious people believed that to lie is to sin. Doesn't seem to keep clergy from constantly telling fibs. Father Peter-Michael Preble certainly has no problem with it. In "Religious Freedom Under Attack", he states "...it was announced by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that the religious exemption on certain parts of the health care plan would not continue and now religious organizations, like the church, would have to supply health insurance that provides coverage for contraception and abortion." There are a couple problems with this interpretation of the announcement. No religion is required to provide health insurance at all. Only those taking funds from or supplying services to the government would lose their exemption. While we're on it lets take a look at that word, "exemption." Basically, so long as religions stay out of government coffers they are basically free to be the biggest assholes around but that's not enough. The hierarchy of various religions think they should have the "right" to tell all of us not only what we can or can not say and do but also what we can or can not think. The moment anyone disputes this bogus "right" they insist we're attacking "religious freedom."
This is no different from the lies clergy have told regarding marriage equality. It has nothing to do with them. It is none of their business. Government can not and will not force them to perform, participate, or witness homosexual marriages. The only thing that has ever been proposed is that government endorse civil marriage and recognize religious marriages performed by willing clergy and sects/denominations. Yet, they have always falsely claimed that it would make them act against their conscience by participating. Bullshit! AS for their consciences I don't see any evidence they have any such thing. For their lies and distortions the scumbags deserve nothing but contempt.
Seems to me that it is those who attempt to dictate to others what they can say and think are the ones attacking "freedom", religious or otherwise. They are attacking the rest of us.
This is no different from the lies clergy have told regarding marriage equality. It has nothing to do with them. It is none of their business. Government can not and will not force them to perform, participate, or witness homosexual marriages. The only thing that has ever been proposed is that government endorse civil marriage and recognize religious marriages performed by willing clergy and sects/denominations. Yet, they have always falsely claimed that it would make them act against their conscience by participating. Bullshit! AS for their consciences I don't see any evidence they have any such thing. For their lies and distortions the scumbags deserve nothing but contempt.
Seems to me that it is those who attempt to dictate to others what they can say and think are the ones attacking "freedom", religious or otherwise. They are attacking the rest of us.
Pontificating Doublespeak
Orwell would be proud, or perhaps horrified at one of the Pope's more recent speeches. The Catholic Online piece on the event is nearly as bad as the speech itself in its feeble attempts at spinning the real intent behind it.
The "news" piece opens with this gem, "Grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres." This from the organization that not only has covered up the most widespread instances of sexual abuse but continues to refuse any responsibility. What "moral witness"? Who's threatening the church? It's utter nonsense.
In his speech the Pope rambles on about "radical secularism", "suppression", and "limits." I'm unaware of any rules, regulations, or laws that prevent individual Catholics or groups from worshiping as they see fit. Nor are there any preventing the Church from conducting its affairs. I think the last word is the key to what really bothers the Pope. The church, though still overly influential, is losing some of its sway. The Church is not happy that it can't simply bully people and get whatever it wants whenever it wants. What the Pope objects to is being held to some basic standards of conduct. Considering how lax even that it is, the arrogant prick aught to be grateful. If clergy were held to the standards the rest of us are far more of them, including the Pope, would be behind bars.
Recently there have been a number of instances where the church was not awarded publicly funded grants. Contrary to the false statements made by the Catholic Church, this is not due to any discrimination. The church has outright refused to meet the requirements of the grants in question. An excellent example is a Health and Human Services grant designed to aid the victims of human trafficking. Many of these victims have been sexually abused, especially those forced into prostitution. Guess what the Church refused to do? They would not even refer individuals to those willing to supply contraceptive or reproductive services and/or advice. Not even advice! Basically, they cried foul when they were not allowed to re-write and dictate the terms of the grant.
The Pope and the Catholic hierarchy don't really give a shit about freedom of religion, at least not beyond their own faith. When they talk about "suppression" and "limits" they are unconcerned about limiting anyone else's rights they are concerned with legitimate checks on their power. I see no difference between their whining and the tantrum of any spoiled brat who doesn't get their way. Grow up!
The December 28, 2011 edition of Jesus and Mo does a pretty good job summarizing not only The Catholic Church's idea of what religious freedom means but what most organized religions mean when they talk about religious freedom.
The "news" piece opens with this gem, "Grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres." This from the organization that not only has covered up the most widespread instances of sexual abuse but continues to refuse any responsibility. What "moral witness"? Who's threatening the church? It's utter nonsense.
In his speech the Pope rambles on about "radical secularism", "suppression", and "limits." I'm unaware of any rules, regulations, or laws that prevent individual Catholics or groups from worshiping as they see fit. Nor are there any preventing the Church from conducting its affairs. I think the last word is the key to what really bothers the Pope. The church, though still overly influential, is losing some of its sway. The Church is not happy that it can't simply bully people and get whatever it wants whenever it wants. What the Pope objects to is being held to some basic standards of conduct. Considering how lax even that it is, the arrogant prick aught to be grateful. If clergy were held to the standards the rest of us are far more of them, including the Pope, would be behind bars.
Recently there have been a number of instances where the church was not awarded publicly funded grants. Contrary to the false statements made by the Catholic Church, this is not due to any discrimination. The church has outright refused to meet the requirements of the grants in question. An excellent example is a Health and Human Services grant designed to aid the victims of human trafficking. Many of these victims have been sexually abused, especially those forced into prostitution. Guess what the Church refused to do? They would not even refer individuals to those willing to supply contraceptive or reproductive services and/or advice. Not even advice! Basically, they cried foul when they were not allowed to re-write and dictate the terms of the grant.
The Pope and the Catholic hierarchy don't really give a shit about freedom of religion, at least not beyond their own faith. When they talk about "suppression" and "limits" they are unconcerned about limiting anyone else's rights they are concerned with legitimate checks on their power. I see no difference between their whining and the tantrum of any spoiled brat who doesn't get their way. Grow up!
The December 28, 2011 edition of Jesus and Mo does a pretty good job summarizing not only The Catholic Church's idea of what religious freedom means but what most organized religions mean when they talk about religious freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)