Which Religion is Most Appalling to You?

[¿Que?]

I'm going to forgoe the poll on this one, just so that people don't feel boxed into a predefined set of answers.

Anywho, this works pretty much like the other thread, however, it is it's dialectical opposite.

Various religions of the world have their own practices, some of which we might find distasteful, for whatever reason. Here is your chance to sew the seeds of distrust amongst your credulous comrades and air out your beef with whatever religion you like.

I'm going to kick it off with...drumroll please...Catholicism. Well, anyone who knows anything about me might have realized that I am sympathetic to Catholicism in its liberation theology manifestation. But that isn't really officially condoned by the church, and with the sex scandals, and gratuitous gold and money hoarding, plus not to mention its historical role in Nazi Germany, The Spanish inquisition, the crusades etc etc. I think we can safely say Catholicism can go fuck itself.

Let the intolerance begin!

[OhYesIdid]

I second the Catholicism motion, and nominate its even more idiotically fanatical offshoot: Protestant Christianism.
When Catholicism has gotten much too rotten for the common man, he goes and seeks new gurus! And these gurus are assholes! And also kind of insane! They take refuge in America and, through a series of unfortunate events and retarded luck, end up ruling the world!
In a related note, televangelists' disgusting excess might be today's version of the traditional glutton bishop. If so, is pseudo-oriental mysticism the new protestantism? Or is it the crazier, southern, forms of christianity? (Westboro baptists, koran burners and whatnot)

[Comrade Crow]

Protestants, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhists, Aztec paganism, Wicca, Hindus.

[Metacomet]

Evangelical protestants. All of them.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Atheism.

[Leftsolidarity]

Roman Catholicism and Evangelicals

[MarxSchmarx]

I've always disliked Hinduism the most among the major religions for its caste system.

[Comrade Crow]

I've always disliked Hinduism the most among the major religions for its caste system.

^That and the practice of sati.

[OhYesIdid]

Atheism.

not a religion

[Optiow]

Christianity because it is the biggest religion, and has entrenched so much ignorance in the world.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Mormonism, like...what the fuck haha.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

not a religion

Religion, 2nd definition
"Details of belief as taught or discussed"
And thanks for the sig quote

[Agent Equality]

Religion, 2nd definition
"Details of belief as taught or discussed"
And thanks for the sig quote

Please don't be another one of those idiot christians that try to go around telling people that Atheism is a religion.

Don't try to think of the "belief" as a negative integer like -1 or something seeing as how the absolute value of that would be 1 (which therein lies your thought pattern that it is indeed a belief of nothing) Think of it as just a 0. There are no integers. The belief in deities is simply not there.

[Agent Equality]

Also I'd have to say Islam and christianity are the worst. Also Hinduism as well. Eliminate these 3 religions and you free the vast majority of the world's population from religion's ignorant yolk.

[OhYesIdid]

Also I'd have to say Islam and christianity are the worst. Also Hinduism as well. Eliminate these 3 religions and you free the vast majority of the world's population from religion's ignorant yolk.

'cause the Dalai Lama's such a nice guy

[JustMovement]

what a stupid thread. tell a philipino factory woman how "appalling" you find catholicism, or to the priest that was evicerated by a paramilitary group for trying to help peasents. What a bunch of condescending wankers. pricks.

[Agent Equality]

'cause the Dalai Lama's such a nice guy

I've met plenty of very nice and peaceful buddhists. Plus there are many sects of buddhism. The Dalai Lama represents only one of them. Overall I'd have to say its probably the most or at least one of the most peaceful and enlightened religions(if you can even call it that in some cases) there is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've always found the doctrine of Original Sin to be repugnantly anti-human.

Also, all creator gods are automatically dicks by virtue of there being evil in the world.

[Pretty Flaco]

I know a lot of mormons and their beliefs always make me say "wtf". I don't pester them though because they get really mad if you pick on mormonism. :tt2:

[scarletghoul]

marxism

[T-Paine]

Surprised no one has said this yet, so I'll be first: Scientology, followed by the LDS church.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Surprised no one has said this yet, so I'll be first: Scientology, followed by the LDS church.
im sorry Scientology is a joke

[Crux]

I am not appalled by religion. Well scientology is a given, but that does not count does it?

[Reznov]

All of them, and I really do mean that.

Each one has good moral/life lessons to pull out of, but it always ends up becoming exploitative and oppressive and forced upon by other people (Seriously, Americans on this board have at least once met one of those bible thumpers knock on your door saying your going to go to hell for not going to some building and joining the club and paying some cash. Don't know about Europe.)

I couldn't believe that NY had gay marriage passed, but thankfully we did. It still amazes we as a civilization still prevent people from being happy and doing what they want to do that makes them happy.

I have heard the main arguments for keeping religion on a "non-state/governmental level" and others, but I still despise any Institution that actively oppresses people.

[bcbm]

what a stupid thread. tell a philipino factory woman how "appalling" you find catholicism, or to the priest that was evicerated by a paramilitary group for trying to help peasents. What a bunch of condescending wankers. pricks.

please don't insult other members on this board

[Franz Fanonipants]

enlightenment reason/"humanism", capital, and progress

plus all those dudes who worship the space race are pretty terrible too

[tm315]

Religion, 2nd definition
"Details of belief as taught or discussed"
And thanks for the sig quote
Atheism is the lack of belief.

[a rebel]

I remember in 8th grade having a history teacher who was a free mason, every time we took notes he made us capitalize god, then went around the room to make sure everyone did it. Ever since then i would have to say christianity, because I've read the bible and apparently god created man to be perfect, but we're all fuck ups.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't primarily divide religions by their type, but by whether or not they are left-wing or right-wing. Left-wing Christianity IMO has much more in common with left-wing Buddhism than it can ever do with right-wing Christianity. I reject cultural essentialism.

I find all types of right-wing religions, whatever type they are, including queerphobic and sexist religions, deeply appalling and repulsive and I have no tolerance for those. I don't mind left-wing and progressive religions though.

I divide pretty much every ideology primarily by whether it is left-wing or right-wing, rather than by any other criteria. Left-wing religionism, technocracy, nationalism etc can all be partly progressive. Right-wing religionism, technocracy, nationalism etc are all reactionary. This is also partly why I haven't really been involved so much in the militant atheism vs. religion debates on RevLeft, even though I am very explicitly an atheist, because I think from a socialist perspective left-wing religions and left-wing technocracy have much more in common with each other than either of them does with right-wing religions or right-wing technocracy.

[The Man]

Scientology, and Christianity..

Oh and Moronism.. Sorry I meant Mormonism..

[scarletghoul]

Threads like these are silly, and essentially idealist. Fact is most religions have hugely varying interpretations based on the material situation.

If I was being burned as a witch in the middle ages i would think that christianity is the most appalling religion, though i would have the opposite opinion if i was in central america at the height of the liberation theology movement. on both occasions my opinion would be completely justified ..

[ComradeMan]

what a stupid thread. tell a philipino factory woman how "appalling" you find catholicism, or to the priest that was evicerated by a paramilitary group for trying to help peasents. What a bunch of condescending wankers. pricks.

I agree.

Threads like this are silly.

What aspects of what religions... etc would have been a different question. :rolleyes:

[RedRevolution1938]

I would have to say Catholicism is number one on the appalling chart. After basically conquering Europe and forcing everyone under the church's heal they went through centuries torturing and killing anyone who did not wish to be under the church's heel.

Then the protestant kings got tired of sharing their gold with the Vatican and thus why they converted their populations. Then began centuries of religious war that only ended up in countless innocent lives being maimed and ended.

The Catholic church is one of the biggest blights in the world.

[Ocean Seal]

Free Market Capitalism. There's no science behind the the state is the only evil and free the markets crap and yet it spreads like religion. Idk I think its probably done more damage than any of the above religion.

[Zealot]

Based on belief, Judaism probably tops it all. Anyone who has read the old testament would see how barbaric their laws were. Hinduism has an appalling caste system. Based on atrocities, Christianity.

[PhoenixAsh]

^That and the practice of sati.


Interestingly enough the arrival of Islam was instrumental in its decline and the practice being seen as barbaric. These days it does not occur anymore and is banned...welll...there are litterally a handfull of documented cases...and we can only speculate how many instances may have gone undocumented...in the last few decades.

There is a famous quote about this from a British officer from the colonial era:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Charles Napier

[Liberi]

Organized religion and anything taken as a religion.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Damnit, I thought the thread said appealing not appaling. I'm an atheist, I digress all types of religion. Could you use a more straight forward thread title? Disregard my last 2 messages

[Susurrus]

State religion.

[28350]

buddhism

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I'm not a Hindu or anything for sure, and there are many things in Hinduism that I don't like. But to be frank I have to say it is slightly Eurocentric to blame the feudal caste system on Hinduism intrinsically, rather than say the reactionary feudal socio-economic structures and material conditions in ancient India. In fact, after the British imperialists took over India, they deliberately promoted and exaggerated the Hindu caste system to justify their own racist views. (Then later on British capitalists labelled Hinduism as intrinsically racist and therefore intrinsically "inferior" to the great and progressive Western religion of Christianity, while completely ignoring their own role in exaggerating and racialising the caste system in recent centuries...it's a bit like how some racist Westerners today blame "African culture" for being intrinsically homophobic even though it was Western colonialists and missionaries who first brought homophobic Christianity to Africa...) It's like blaming the Inquisition and witch-burning etc intrinsically on Jesus instead of the reactionary clergy and the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

[Devrim]

Islam.

Devrim

[Revolution starts with U]

Cult of Bob

[RedRevolution1938]

Also, I think Judaism can be pretty bad as well. I think the practice of Kosher Slaughter is appalling... And the fact that most followers believe they are better than others for being "God's Chosen People".

[Comrade Crow]

Also, I think Judaism can be pretty bad as well. I think the practice of Kosher Slaughter is appalling... And the fact that most followers believe they are better than others for being "God's Chosen People".

I would say kosher/halal slaughter is indeed better than some of the methods used by modern day industrial butcheries or whatever.

Being God's chosen people has nothing to do with it (http://www.khilafatworld.com/2011/05/research-islamic-slaughtering-and.html).

[Rafiq]

I only say Islam because that's the background I come from and have most experience with, and it's pretty disturbing and cultish.

[Comrade Crow]

I only say Islam because that's the background I come from and have most experience with, and it's pretty disturbing and cultish.

spam pic removed -bcbm

[¿Que?]

Ok, well, as usual, I feel this thread might have been a bad idea. Posts #44 and #45 suggest to me a shitstorm a-brewin, and I really don't have the talent nor desire to stop it.

I think, fine, these types of threads are silly, and condescending to believers, but honestly, I don't see any need to be hyper-sensitive about something I don't agree with on a forum intended for this sort of discussion.

To be secular means to be neutral on religion, neither taking a side for it or against it. However, when someone makes a thread asking which religion is most appealing, that is a tacit approval of religion, or in other words, to find that aspect of religion which is least offensive to materialist thought. But then, by taking a position for religion, it is only natural that someone take a position against religion. To look, in an objective manner, whether we be religious or not, those aspects of religion that we find most offensive, most appalling.

Revleft's tolerant position on religion means if we are allowed to express approval for religion, then we should be able to express disapproval. If the result ends up being a shitstorm and drama, then so be it.

[Rafiq]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XxI1hBl8el0/TUcAYw22R5I/AAAAAAAAC4w/Tm8KclWdfig/s1600/Bluto+Haters+gonna+hate.jpg

I don't think you, a follower of Islam have an ethical right to say that Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism or Buddhism are the most appalling religions to you, without addressing criticism to Islam as well, considering most of the reasons you oppose those religions, have a home in Islam as well.... While without doing so, would at the least, in my opinion, be somewhat hypocritical and self contradictory.

[Comrade Crow]

I don't think you, a follower of Islam have an ethical right to say that Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism or Buddhism are the most appalling religions to you, without addressing criticism to Islam as well, considering most of the reasons you oppose those religions, have a home in Islam as well.... While without doing so, would at the least, in my opinion, be somewhat hypocritical and self contradictory.

No, I totally except criticism of Islaam, no one is infallible and we all 'sin', criticism and critical thinking is important. I have nothing in particular against any of the mentioned religious groups or see them are necessarily bad, I just don't agree with them and or they have practices I disagree with, which may or may not have anything to do with my own Islamic world view, either way, if it's generally not harmful or something in a secular manner, then I say to them theres and to me mine, like it says in al-Qur'an in the that surah who's number escapes me at the moment but it's in the back. I accept and am content with my own bias and self-criticism.

Oh and I'm mainly just here for the lawlz, I see this as half discussion, half inter-faith rivalry jabs, I'm just reppin, see.

[Rafiq]

Are you really an Anarchist?

[Comrade Crow]

Are you really an Anarchist?

YEah?

[bcbm]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XxI1hBl8el0/TUcAYw22R5I/AAAAAAAAC4w/Tm8KclWdfig/s1600/Bluto+Haters+gonna+hate.jpg

please don't post images like that in here, that's considered spam, this is a verbal warning thanks

[Comrade Crow]

please don't post images like that in here, that's considered spam, this is a verbal warning thanks

My bad, more of a chit-chat thing?

[bcbm]

yeah images are acceptable in chit chat but not typically allowed on the main discussion forums

[Comrade Crow]

yeah images are acceptable in chit chat but not typically allowed on the main discussion forums

Cool.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I divide pretty much every ideology primarily by whether it is left-wing or right-wing, rather than by any other criteria. Left-wing religionism, technocracy, nationalism etc can all be partly progressive. Right-wing religionism, technocracy, nationalism etc are all reactionary. This is also partly why I haven't really been involved so much in the militant atheism vs. religion debates on RevLeft, even though I am very explicitly an atheist, because I think from a socialist perspective left-wing religions and left-wing technocracy have much more in common with each other than either of them does with right-wing religions or right-wing technocracy.

The problem as I see it is that with religious/spiritual ideologies, one is claiming that one's political ideas have cosmic sanction. Quite aside from the weird "coincidence" that God seems to share the same opinions as all of His followers (even if it is contradictory), why the fuck should we take seriously anyone, left or right, who claims that their actions are influenced by an invisible man for which there is no evidence?

If people want to plead with non-existent entities in their own time, then I will neither know nor care. But if people who want a say in running society are taking advice from fragments of their own personality or ancient books written centuries before any of us were born, that's a big fucking problem.

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont know about most appalling, but the Jehovah's witnesses are probably as crazy as the scientologists.

They believe that only 144 000 of their followers will go to heaven. I mean, how pissed off would you be if you were the 144 001st least evil Jehovah's witness?

[Hit The North]

The only good religion, is a dead religion.

[Queercommie Girl]

The problem as I see it is that with religious/spiritual ideologies, one is claiming that one's political ideas have cosmic sanction. Quite aside from the weird "coincidence" that God seems to share the same opinions as all of His followers (even if it is contradictory), why the fuck should we take seriously anyone, left or right, who claims that their actions are influenced by an invisible man for which there is no evidence?

If people want to plead with non-existent entities in their own time, then I will neither know nor care. But if people who want a say in running society are taking advice from fragments of their own personality or ancient books written centuries before any of us were born, that's a big fucking problem.

Well you have a point in the abstract sense, and I didn't say left-wing religions are completely progressive either, only partly progressive.

But then I'm a pragmatist who cares more about concrete strategy than whether or not something is right or wrong in the abstract sense. Something that is fundamentally incorrect may still have a positive effect in reality, and I judge things primarily by their function and effects, not by their "essence". There may indeed by no objective justification for religions at all, but if left-wing religious people do things which are conducive to the socialist movement to some extent in a practical sense, then on strategic grounds I think I can ally with them. It doesn't mean I personally identify with religious socialists or really consider them as comrades.

[Die Rote Fahne]

All religions are batshit. Whether it's mormons and their underpants, Scientologists and their Xenus, Christians and their 500 year old elderly men who built gigantic boats and saved 2 of EVERY species, or whatever.

They are all appalling. Death for apostacy, death for homosexuality, etc.

[Queercommie Girl]

They are all appalling. Death for apostacy, death for homosexuality, etc.

Not all schools of religious thought believe in that.

To be anti-religion in a simplistic and absolutist sense is not strategically conducive to the serious socialist movement, given that many workers, peasants, youths etc are influenced by various religious ideas to different extents.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well you have a point in the abstract sense, and I didn't say left-wing religions are completely progressive either, only partly progressive.

But then I'm a pragmatist who cares more about concrete strategy than whether or not something is right or wrong in the abstract sense. Something that is fundamentally incorrect may still have a positive effect in reality, and I judge things primarily by their function and effects, not by their "essence".

I'm not concerned about essence. I'm concerned about how people form their goals (which is subject to material influences). People can do the right thing for the wrong reasons just as much as they can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.


There may indeed by no objective justification for religions at all, but if left-wing religious people do things which are conducive to the socialist movement to some extent in a practical sense, then on strategic grounds I think I can ally with them. It doesn't mean I personally identify with religious socialists or really consider them as comrades.

It depends on what you mean by "ally". I certainly wouldn't try to stop them, but I would definately not endorse them.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not concerned about essence. I'm concerned about how people form their goals (which is subject to material influences). People can do the right thing for the wrong reasons just as much as they can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.


Being a pragmatist, generally speaking I prefer people who "do the right thing for the wrong reasons" than people who "do the wrong thing for the right reasons". Function is more important than essence.



It depends on what you mean by "ally". I certainly wouldn't try to stop them, but I would definately not endorse them.
Ever heard of the concept "united front"? Socialists need to engage with the broad left, such as religious socialists, left-wing nationalists, environmentalists, left social democrats, left-wing feminists and LGBT activists etc. Locking oneself up in an ultra-leftist ivory tower will never bring about socialism to the real world.

Of course, this doesn't mean one can just abandon ideological principles and consider the various strands of the broad left in an uncritical manner either. Which is why like I said, I can form an united front with religious socialists when we share common strategic goals, but I never personally identify with them.

[W1N5T0N]

Consumerism. It's a new one, but definately up and coming in the last 3 centuries. Trend: Growing.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ok, excessive consumerism is a problem, but one cannot just label anything one considers "bad" to be a religion, when technically it isn't one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Being a pragmatist, generally speaking I prefer people who "do the right thing for the wrong reasons" than people who "do the wrong thing for the right reasons". Function is more important than essence.

I'm not saying either is a good thing. I think we should be doing the right thing for the right reasons in the first place.

Going on about "essence" ignores the fact that ideas and reality aren't seperate Platonic realms that never truly interact - ideas exist within reality, intertwined with the thoughts and aspirations and goals and dreams of the brains they inhabit. An author's writing can tell you much about their material circumstances as well what kind of memes they had hitching a ride in their head at the time.


Ever heard of the concept "united front"? Socialists need to engage with the broad left, such as religious socialists, left-wing nationalists, environmentalists, left social democrats, left-wing feminists and LGBT activists etc. Locking oneself up in an ultra-leftist ivory tower will never bring about socialism to the real world.

Since when did non-endorsement translate into "no dialogue"? We may act seperately, but we both act.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not saying either is a good thing. I think we should be doing the right thing for the right reasons in the first place.


Ideally yes, but many things in the real world don't follow what is ideal.



Going on about "essence" ignores the fact that ideas and reality aren't seperate Platonic realms that never truly interact - ideas exist within reality, intertwined with the thoughts and aspirations and goals and dreams of the brains they inhabit. An author's writing can tell you much about their material circumstances as well what kind of memes they had hitching a ride in their head at the time.


That is true to some extent, but at least in the short-term, it is perfectly possible for "good things to be done for the wrong reasons", especially when the reasons are "wrong" in a purely abstract intellectual sense, e.g. the non-existence of God etc. This implies short-term strategic alliances in a limited sense is certainly possible.



Since when did non-endorsement translate into "no dialogue"? We may act seperately, but we both act.


I'm just saying it is completely possible to form an united front with religious leftists in many situations. Doesn't mean I literally consider them as comrades. But then frankly there are many socialists here on RevLeft who are considered to be legitimate revolutionary socialists by the forum but personally I wouldn't really consider as comrades either.

[Rafiq]

Religion is a problem and should be heavily opposed. However, if we think about it, religion is just an outcome of the conditions set forth by class society. So perhaps, it may be impossible to destroy religion in this time (Sorry, Dawkins, Hitchens, your wasting your time) but if we focus on abolishing class society, religion will whither away, along with many other reactionary beliefs and problems.

[Game Girl]

Protestants, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhists, Aztec paganism, Wicca, Hindus.

Why Buddhism and Wicca? They are peaceful religions who promote equality.

[RedRevolution1938]

I would say kosher/halal slaughter is indeed better than some of the methods used by modern day industrial butcheries or whatever.


Have you actually ever seen a video of kosher slaughter?

[Ingraham Effingham]

Christianity - because the abject, seemingly inherent hypocrisy of its practice outstrips all other religous denominations put together.

To quote Gandhi:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[Queercommie Girl]

Christianity - because the abject, seemingly inherent hypocrisy of its practice outstrips all other religous denominations put together.

To quote Gandhi:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Jesus did say that hypocrites will go to the lowest levels of hell...

[Queercommie Girl]

Why Buddhism and Wicca? They are peaceful religions who promote equality.

Well I wouldn't really call Tibetan Lamaism a "peaceful religion that promotes equality"...

http://de.chineseembassy.org/det/zt/sjwj/fvt/W020090307011090669311.jpg

But having said that, it is a bit suspect that Crow basically mentioned every religion in the world (in a loose sense) except Islam.

[Comrade Crow]

Why Buddhism and Wicca? They are peaceful religions who promote equality.

Islaam promotes peace too, it's the religion of peace. I don't know, I'm not particularly fond of them, wicca seems kind of insane. Buddhism, I don't really find it appalling aside from the living conditions of the Tibetan citizenry.

[Queercommie Girl]

Islaam promotes peace too, it's the religion of peace. I don't know, I'm not particularly fond of them, wicca seems kind of insane. Buddhism, I don't really find it appalling aside from the living conditions of the Tibetan citizenry.

Wicca is certainly far less "insane" than theocratic Christians who burned witches on a stake during the Middle Ages...:rolleyes:

I'm explicitly an atheist, but generally speaking I actually find neo-pagan style religions to make more sense than the traditional "big religions" of class society. And Marxist writers tend to quote more from ancient Greek mythology than from the Bible.

However, basically pretty much every religion likes to call itself "the religion of peace", but the historical reality is often very different. Islam is no exception.

With Buddhism though, I'd say it's narrow-minded to judge Buddhism as a whole solely based on the conditions in feudal Tibet. It's like judging Christianity solely on the basis of medieval theocracy. Zen Buddhism for instance is completely different from Tibetan Buddhism.

[ComradeMan]

Christianity - because the abject, seemingly inherent hypocrisy of its practice outstrips all other religous denominations put together.

To quote Gandhi:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."


Nice long words to use in an inane comment.

Gandhi was a little bit of hypocrite and a racist in my opinion- but they didn't put those bits in the film.:rolleyes:

[Revolution starts with U]

When I was in Salem I seen a bumper sticker that said "No war has been fought in the name of Wicca." I thought to myself "ya, when your religion has had at most 25000 followers in the history of the world, it's easy to claim you've never been involved in a war for your religion." :rolleyes: Silly Wiccans

[Queercommie Girl]

When I was in Salem I seen a bumper sticker that said "No war has been fought in the name of Wicca." I thought to myself "ya, when your religion has had at most 25000 followers in the history of the world, it's easy to claim you've never been involved in a war for your religion." :rolleyes: Silly Wiccans

It is however possible to say that no war (at least "war" in the systematic sense) has ever been fought in the name of pre-class tribal pagan religions, and tribal religions existed for tens of thousands of years compared with only a few thousand years for the major traditional religions of class society. This is more due to the material conditions of pre-class society rather than anything intrinsic in tribal religions though.

By the way, don't take this as a form of anti-anarchism or anything, but I just thought of something funny: Your argument here reminds me of the arguments Stalinists use on anarchists: "The anarchists may claim they have never committed any atrocities in the name of communism, but then anarchists never pulled off a successful revolution to establish a worker's state either. It's always easy to complain when you are not actually doing the job..." LOL

Now, I'm not really defending Wicca or anything intrinsically, but as someone who is explicitly anti-cultural essentialist, I don't really like it when any particular religion is dismissed in an intrinsic sense, whether this religion is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Paganism. (Though it's possible to argue that so-called "Wicca" is just a modern pseudo-recreation of ancient paganism and a small branch of Paganism in general) I really don't believe any particular religion is intrinsically better or worse than any other. It's an important belief of mine.

[Valdemar]

All religions are batshit. Whether it's mormons and their underpants, Scientologists and their Xenus, Christians and their 500 year old elderly men who built gigantic boats and saved 2 of EVERY species, or whatever.

They are all appalling. Death for apostacy, death for homosexuality, etc.

I consider myself as Christian.
&
That your statement is foolish statement, bible must not be considered literary, especially Old Testament. Everyone who reads it literary, must think about it, and read it once again.
Anyways, almost every Religion teach something beautiful and good...Problem are people who use-abuse it for its own gain and power (Church, Cults,)
Our problem is that we hate such establishments (Church, because of its Corruption and historical and present unmoral doings), but somehow we transfer those feeling toward whole Religion...And that is sad.

btw: I'm not Religious zealot, I go to Church once per year...And I was not raised in Religious family, in fact I was never in Church with my mother or father, in fact my mother or father never visited church during my life.

So If you did not read bible (old and new testament) please do so, you might be surprised. Start with new one, old one might sound weird time to time, because you live in 2011 and stories are from about 1300BC or more. oh and don't them them literary, try to find some deeper meaning...And not: "Death for apostacy, death for homosexuality,"

Christianity is ideal which was never achieved, money and banks and many other things would be not allowed if we would live in Christian society. But sadly we live in world of Capitalism, where God himself serves rich folks to calm down poor people, God himself is being used and abused for evil doings (killings, getting cash, robbing of middle east etc.)

btw: I'm not Religious zealot, in go to Church once per year, I was not raised in religous family, in fact my mother or father do not go to church at all, in fact they never went during my life.

[Rafiq]

Islaam promotes peace too, it's the religion of peace. I don't know, I'm not particularly fond of them, wicca seems kind of insane. Buddhism, I don't really find it appalling aside from the living conditions of the Tibetan citizenry.

Islam is not the religion of peace.

[Queercommie Girl]

I consider myself as Christian.
&
That your statement is foolish statement, bible must not be considered literary, especially Old Testament. Everyone who reads it literary, must think about it, and read it once again.
Anyways, almost every Religion teach something beautiful and good...Problem are people who use-abuse it for its own gain and power (Church, Cults,)
Our problem is that we hate such establishments (Church, because of its Corruption and historical and present unmoral doings), but somehow we transfer those feeling toward whole Religion...And that is sad.

btw: I'm not Religious zealot, I go to Church once per year...And I was not raised in Religious family, in fact I was never in Church with my mother or father, in fact my mother or father never visited church during my life.

So If you did not read bible (old and new testament) please do so, you might be surprised. Start with new one, old one might sound weird time to time, because you live in 2011 and stories are from about 1300BC or more. oh and don't them them literary, try to find some deeper meaning...And not: "Death for apostacy, death for homosexuality,"

Christianity is ideal which was never achieved, money and banks and many other things would be not allowed if we would live in Christian society. But sadly we live in world of Capitalism, where God himself serves rich folks to calm down poor people, God himself is being used and abused for evil doings (killings, getting cash, robbing of middle east etc.)

btw: I'm not Religious zealot, in go to Church once per year, I was not raised in religous family, in fact my mother or father do not go to church at all, in fact they never went during my life.

Christianity certainly isn't intrinsically special. It's not intrinsically "better" (or "worse" for that matter) than any other religion: Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Paganism (in general).

It's true though that from a historical materialist/Marxist perspective that much of the evil of Christianity was the direct product of class society (feudal and capitalist) rather than something intrinsic to the religion. I don't mind co-operating with genuinely progressive Christians even though I certainly don't personally identify with any religious leftists.

[ComradeMan]

Witch hunts and trials are another one of those things used against "Christianity" that are actually totally misrepresented and twisted.

1- Persecution and "criminal" punishment of "witches" existed long before Christianity- for example witchcraft was against the Roman Law, in 184 BCE under the consulships of Licinus and Pulcher 2000 people were executed for witchcraft under the crime of veneficium- followed by a futher 3000 executions in 182-181 BCE under Tamphilus and Macedonicus, Tamphilus and Cethegus.

2- The accepted number of executions over 400 years for the whole of Europe is somewhere between 40-60,000- nowhere near the "10 million" figure I have heard some New Agers throw around.

Although it's not a numbers game, over that 400 years how many other people were hanged/burnt at the stake for being the wrong denomination, or for petty crimes and so on. This also fails to mention that amongst those executed there may well have been a fair number of poisoners and charlatans who used fear to oppress and exploit the uneducated masses.

3- It's commonly claimed that this was an anti-woman agenda, ignoring the fact that in some Northern/Scandinavian countries the majority of those executed were in actual fact men.

[ColonelCossack]

evangelical protestants, scientologists, mormons and catholics. I also have an evil english teacher who's some crazy obscure oriental religion but I don't know anything about it.

edit: oh, I remember, sh'es a zoastrian.

[Game Girl]

Islam is not the religion of peace.

It's supposed to be. But radical Muslims have bastardized it.

[ComradeMan]

evangelical protestants, scientologists, mormons and catholics. I also have an evil english teacher who's some crazy obscure oriental religion but I don't know anything about it.

edit: oh, I remember, sh'es a zoastrian.

Just happens to be one of the oldest religions and cultural traditions in the world.....:crying:

[Queercommie Girl]

Witch hunts and trials are another one of those things used against "Christianity" that are actually totally misrepresented and twisted.


It may be exaggerated, and it would be wrong to write-off Christianity as a whole intrinsically just due to this, but I don't see anything wrong with pointing this out as one of the points (among many others) that is reactionary and wrong with feudal Christianity.



Persecution and "criminal" punishment of "witches" existed long before Christianity- for example witchcraft was against the Roman Law, in 184 BCE 2000 people were executed for witchcraft under the crime of veneficium- followed by a futher 3000 executions in 182-181 BCE.
So it's a problem that is intrinsic to class society, not Christianity intrinsically.



The accepted number of executions over 400 years for the whole of Europe is somewhere between 40-60,000- nowhere near the "10 million" figure I have heard some New Agers throw around.
This might indeed be true. I doubt there were many "witches" in those days anyway. However, it's still tens of thousands of innocent lives lost.



Although it's not a numbers game, over that 400 years how many other people were hanged/burnt at the stake for being the wrong denomination, or for petty crimes and so on.
Which is why I think one shouldn't just focus on one particular facet of medieval religion when making criticisms of it.



This also fails to mention that amongst those executed there may well have been a fair number of poisoners and charlatans who used fear to oppress and exploit the uneducated masses.
There were probably some, but I wouldn't over-exaggerate on this point without concrete empirical evidence. It seems a bit prejudiced to assume that "witches" must be charlatans when some of the biggest charlatans at the time who brainwashed the masses were members of the established clergy.



3- It's commonly claimed that this was an anti-woman agenda, ignoring the fact that in some Northern/Scandinavian countries the majority of those executed were in actual fact men.I certainly don't think it's somehow less wrong to execute innocent men than to execute innocent women though.

A tangential side note: in ancient China "witches" occasionally played a partly progressive role due to the part they played in ancient peasant rebellions against the feudal landlord ruling class. For instance, at the end of the Han Dynasty in the late 2nd century CE, the Yellow Turbans peasant rebels were partly inspired by "witchcraft" and occultist spirituality. Their central slogan was "The Azure Heaven would die, and the Yellow Heaven would rise up." (The Azure Heaven is a reference to the Heaven-God of orthodox Confucianism and the established Chinese feudal order)

However, culturally speaking "witchcraft" in the ancient Chinese context was very different from "witchcraft" in the ancient European context, just like the Chinese "dragon" is completely different from the European dragon.

[Queercommie Girl]

evangelical protestants, scientologists, mormons and catholics. I also have an evil english teacher who's some crazy obscure oriental religion but I don't know anything about it.

edit: oh, I remember, sh'es a zoastrian.

That sounds quite Orientalist actually.

Zoroastrianism actually played an important historical role in the formation of "Western" monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Nice long words to use in an inane comment.

Gandhi was a little bit of hypocrite and a racist in my opinion- but they didn't put those bits in the film.:rolleyes:

Yeah I agree with that. But, I'm not sure if he was just primitive (150 years behind the times, civilization-wise) or if he was just a self-interested hypocrite. Still, he sums up X-ianity the way it's practiced really well, here.

[Aspiring Humanist]

The Church of Euthanasia :cool:

EDIT: Jesus christ I thought the title was APPEALING not appalling. In that case every sect of protestantism where they speak in tongues and act like they know what they're saying

[ComradeMan]

It may be exaggerated, and it would be wrong to write-off Christianity as a whole intrinsically just due to this, but I don't see anything wrong with pointing this out as one of the points (among many others) that is reactionary and wrong with feudal Christianity.

The trouble is that is a point often made by many, especially New Agers as some means to condemn Christianity outright and somehow extoll the viritues of their (sanitised) re-invented paganism.


So it's a problem that is intrinsic to class society, not Christianity intrinsically.

And therefore it should not even be used in argument against Christianity?


There were probably some, but I wouldn't over-exaggerate on this point without concrete empirical evidence. It seems a bit prejudiced to assume that "witches" must be charlatans when some of the biggest charlatans at the time who brainwashed the masses were members of the established clergy.

Well, if you look at some places where a strong belief in witchcraft persists you'll see that there is a lot of harmful exploitation of people, and some quite evil stuff too.


I certainly don't think it's somehow less wrong to execute innocent men than to execute innocent women though.

Again, not necessarily your argument- nor was I saying that, however it is one of the arguments that often comes into the subject.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah I agree with that. But, I'm not sure if he was just primitive (150 years behind the times, civilization-wise) or if he was just a self-interested hypocrite. Still, he sums up X-ianity the way it's practiced really well, here.

Yeah, I don't suppose he met some of the Liberation theology priests, or people like Martin Luther King, Bishop Tutu, Mother Teresa or many other Christians who have sacrificed their whole lives struggling for the oppressed.

As for Gandhi himself- check out his position on the Zulu Wars of 1906, and then think about ahimsa. I used to have a lot higher opinion of the man- being fed the Gandhi myth so to speak, but the more I learn of him- especially his earlier days, the less I admire him to be honest. I've heard a lot of Indian leftists be quite critical of him too.

[Queercommie Girl]

The trouble is that is a point often made by many, especially New Agers as some means to condemn Christianity outright and somehow extoll the viritues of their (sanitised) re-invented paganism.


I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with "re-inventing" or restoring Paganism (which frankly is far from a singular category, for paganism of different cultures were probably more different from each other than each of them is different from Christianity) if that's what some people want to do, but I think they should do it more seriously and base it more accurately on actual history.



And therefore it should not even be used in argument against Christianity?


I didn't say it's right to use it as an argument against Christianity intrinsically, no more than the "caste system" argument should be used against Hinduism intrinsically, or the "sexism and bound feet" argument should be used against Confucianism intrinsically. However, there is nothing wrong with highlighting this point as an argument against feudal Christianity, the emphasis being on "feudal" rather than "Christian".



Well, if you look at some places where a strong belief in witchcraft persists you'll see that there is a lot of harmful exploitation of people, and some quite evil stuff too.


"Evil" is often in the eyes of the beholder. Often I find it more objectionable for the ruling class to act like hypocrites and conduct real concrete evil in the name of "goodness" than for people to literally engage in "evil".

Orthodox Confucians in ancient China usually considered the occult radical Daoist sects of the peasant rebels to be "evil", but frankly the latter is only "evil" from the perspective of the feudal landlord class.

The context in ancient Europe may be somewhat different, and I know more about ancient Chinese history than ancient European history, but often radical non-mainstream Christian sects were considered to be "evil" by the Roman Catholic Church too, including Nestorian Christianity (which was popular for a time in Tang Dynasty China) and even Martin Luther's Protestantism.



Again, not necessarily your argument- nor was I saying that, however it is one of the arguments that often comes into the subject.


In ancient China most "witches" were either women or "third sex" people, and very rarely heterosexual men. Doesn't mean this is applicable to other cultures though.

[Ingraham Effingham]

Ok, excessive consumerism is a problem, but one cannot just label anything one considers "bad" to be a religion, when technically it isn't one.

Techinically it isn't, true. But it does bear a lot of the same trends and downfalls:

Worship (of money),
used as a criteria to judge social standing,
holidays (black friday, sale weekends),
a huge part of day-to-day culture,
breeds a herd mentality,
atrocities committed in its name,
prosyletizing (advertisement),
priests (salesmen),
large number of brainwashed followers and zealots,
congregations (companies)

Fact is, more people religiously follow spending trends than established religions. Although the labels aren't there, it would be remiss not to consider 'consumerism' in the same terms as a religion.

Sorry, it's kind of a peeve of mine: the -ism game. When you start pigeonholing concepts through excessive labeling and division, it tends to obscure similiarities, and creates vacuums between related ideas. Leads to the whole "not seeing the forest for the trees" type of scenario. Which is what the establishment wants: obscure, divide, conquer.

[Queercommie Girl]

Techinically it isn't, true. But it does bear a lot of the same trends and downfalls:


Technically you could say that about almost anything.

Also, I would like to point out that although excessive consumerism is wrong, so is the opposite extreme. Communism is actually a society that has material abundance for everyone, not some kind of medieval-style ultra-frugal peasant egalitarianism.

[Queercommie Girl]

So ComradeMan, to sum up my points:

I would say I'm against "Christianity-phobia", just like I'm against Islamophobia, Hindophobia or Sinophobia, and I'm not saying your point about using burning witches to write-off Christianity in general is wrong hasn't got a point. But I would say it is equally wrong to intrinsically write-off paganism, including paganism that includes some "witchcraft" elements. While some forms of "witchcraft" may be literally bad, this really shouldn't be applied to "witchcraft" as a whole. To intrinsically write-off any form of religion or spirituality in particular as a whole is a mistake, IMO.

"Witchcraft" historically seems to have roots in the ancient tribal religions of pre-class and pre-literate societies around the world and their shamanic rituals. If certain really "evil" manifestations of witchcraft emerged in historical times, they would be, in the last analysis, a product of an oppressive class society, rather than anything intrinsic in witchcraft, just like the evils of medieval Christianity are the direct result of feudalism instead of Christianity intrinsically.

[Euronymous]

Christianity is most appauling to me. Grew up with people saying I'll go to hell and most of the girls I'm into turned from Christian but not so Christian, to Evangelical "BIBLE IS MY LIFE!" Christians.

As well as the thought of a God who creates humans and gives them free will, and expects them to follow rules on how not to use it.

[mastershake16]

Pretty sad that this is even allowed. People just sit here and bash religions that they hardly understand. I've just read so many misconceptions about different religions that my head is about to explode. Bah, the ignorance.

Would it be a different situation if it was which sect of Marxism do you hate the most?

[Queercommie Girl]

Would it be a different situation if it was which sect of Marxism do you hate the most?


If you want to see that kind of thread, I suggest you go to a religious forum.

I'm not saying I completely agree with the theme of this thread either, but obviously in a Marxist forum Marxism will take centre-stage. I don't really see anything wrong with Marxist-centrism in this sense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So ComradeMan, to sum up my points:

ComradeMan's modus operandi is to nitpick, name-drop, and introduce irrelevancies in order to act as a religious apologist.

[Euronymous]

Pretty sad that this is even allowed. People just sit here and bash religions that they hardly understand. I've just read so many misconceptions about different religions that my head is about to explode. Bah, the ignorance.

Would it be a different situation if it was which sect of Marxism do you hate the most?

What is there to understand in a belief in which keeps humanity in a ditch of perpetual rivalry while claiming followers will be redeemed in an after-life? The thought of any God/s who gives free will and then gives rules on what not to do with it, while punishing those whom commits sin or who denies the belief.

Sadly the only thing that must be understood about religion is how it's wrong that most of how religions survive is sheer indoctrination of children, whom passes it along generation out of generation through fear and greed.

[Rafiq]

It's supposed to be. But radical Muslims have bastardized it.

Actually that's also horseshit.

[Queercommie Girl]

ComradeMan's modus operandi is to nitpick, name-drop, and introduce irrelevancies in order to act as a religious apologist.

Well, I just think that for someone who always explicitly claims to be a "noble knight" who defends religious freedom, it would be hypocritical for him to intrinsically reject forms of spirituality he doesn't like personally. (If this is really what he thinks) If one claims to be a defender of religious freedom against militant atheism or whatever, then one should defend all religions. In every religion there are reactionary manifestations, but no religion should be intrinsically or completely rejected.

[mastershake16]

If you want to see that kind of thread, I suggest you go to a religious forum.

I'm not saying I completely agree with the theme of this thread either, but obviously in a Marxist forum Marxism will take centre-stage. I don't really see anything wrong with Marxist-centrism in this sense.

I wasn't suggesting that I want to see that type of thread. This thread doesn't even have legit discussions on the religions. It seems this thread is dangerous due to double standards.

"I hate all Christians because 500 years ago all Christians went around and burned everyone at the stake"

doesn't seem like it would be controversial...

But

"I hate all muslims because they blow themselves up and they're all terrorists."

certainly would be.


We should be concerned with the level of ignorance that would allow someone to say something like that.

[mastershake16]

What is there to understand in a belief in which keeps humanity in a ditch of perpetual rivalry while claiming followers will be redeemed in an after-life? The thought of any God/s who gives free will and then gives rules on what not to do with it, while punishing those whom commits sin or who denies the belief.

Sadly the only thing that must be understood about religion is how it's wrong that most of how religions survive is sheer indoctrination of children, whom passes it along generation out of generation through fear and greed.

Broad statements like this that clump every single religion together ^^^^

Its also false AND ironic because you've been indoctrinated with anti-religious crap that you've been trained to spit out at any mention of religion.

[Queercommie Girl]

"I hate all Christians because 500 years ago all Christians went around and burned everyone at the stake"

doesn't seem like it would be controversial...

But

"I hate all muslims because they blow themselves up and they're all terrorists."

certainly would be.


Well, to be frank, from a Marxist perspective these two aren't actually equal, because there is a class difference.

It isn't just about "killing people". Marxism isn't just against "killing people" in a simplistic moralistic sense. It also depends on who is killing whom. Of course, anti-civilian terrorism is also wrong generally speaking but there is still a significant difference between ultra-oppressed minorities killing imperialists and capitalists on the one hand and crusaders of the ruling class going around the world lynching indigenous and pagan peoples on the other.

On the other hand, if you are talking about the Islamic conquest of India, then that's a very different matter. Socialism is always on the side of the oppressed.

Not saying I support violence intrinsically, but for Marxists morality is not class-independent or context-independent.

Not that I fundamentally oppose Christianity intrinsically, but one reason why more socialists tend to oppose Christianity more explicitly compared with other religions is because Christianity is arguably the most dominant religion in the world today (though this has not always been so), so it's more associated with the "ruling class ideology" generally.

[Black Sheep]

Islam , aka christianity stuck in the middle ages.

[mastershake16]

Well, to be frank, from a Marxist perspective these two aren't actually equal, because there is a class difference.

It isn't just about "killing people". Marxism isn't just against "killing people" in a simplistic moralistic sense. It also depends on who is killing whom. Of course, anti-civilian terrorism is also wrong generally speaking but there is still a significant difference between ultra-oppressed minorities killing imperialists and capitalists on the one hand and crusaders of the ruling class going around the world lynching indigenous and pagan peoples on the other.

On the other hand, if you are talking about the Islamic conquest of India, then that's a very different matter. Socialism is always on the side of the oppressed.

Not saying I support violence intrinsically, but for Marxists morality is not class-independent or context-independent.

Ah okay thank you for the clarification on the Marxist line of thought.

So if its mostly based on class, why does the religion matter at all? Just because people PERCEIVE it to be a "ruling class" religion doesn't mean that it is. Even if it is a "ruling class" religion, does that automatically mean that its inherently bad? If most "ruling class" people were to eat apples, would apples be bad? Ridiculous.


If a Christian kills a man, is it automatically assumed all Christians are murderers? What if the mans religion had nothing to do with his decision to kill somebody?

I think its also necessary to separate the actions of Christians/Muslims from the teachings of Christianity/Islam.

[Queercommie Girl]

So if its mostly based on class, why does the religion matter at all?


I didn't say that I personally agree with a very explicit anti-religion approach in socialism, even though I am an atheist.



If a Christian kills a man, is it automatically assumed all Christians are murderers? What if the mans religion had nothing to do with his decision to kill somebody?


Well, in many cases the killing really was done in the name of the Christian religion to a significant extent. Conquistadores in Latin America comes to mind.

However, as I said, personally I'm not intrinsically "Christian-phobic".



I think its also necessary to separate the actions of Christians/Muslims from the teachings of Christianity/Islam.


I don't necessarily disagree, but then there has never really been a religion that has really practiced what it preaches generally speaking.

[mastershake16]

I didn't say that I personally agree with a very explicit anti-religion approach in socialism, even though I am an atheist.

Okay.




Well, in many cases the killing really was done in the name of the Christian religion to a significant extent. Conquistadores in Latin America comes to mind.

Anything can be done in the name of something. The crusades were in the name of God as well, but that doesn't mean Christianity teaches people to kill. If I say "I'm going to eat a banana in the name of Christianity", that's great, but how does it affect Christianity itself?






I don't necessarily disagree, but then there has never really been a religion that has really practiced what it preaches generally speaking.

How do you judge whether or not a religion is practicing what it preaches? Do you look at the leaders, the faithful followers, or the few extremists who make it on the news? The millions of faithful people around the world are practicing what they preach, but news sensationalism would make it seem that this is not the case.

[Queercommie Girl]

Just because people PERCEIVE it to be a "ruling class" religion doesn't mean that it is.


On this point, I would say that no I don't think Christianity is intrinsically a "ruling class" religion. Keep in mind that the global dominance of Christianity is a relatively recent phenomenon, spearheaded by the gunboats of Western imperialism. Ancient Christianity was a very different thing. 1400 years ago Christianity was technically an "Eastern" religion, there were more Christians to the east of the Holy Land than to the west of it. Christianity was also a "rebellious" religion against the Jewish status quo during its formative stages. Early Christianity may have also been influenced by early Buddhism.



Even if it is a "ruling class" religion, does that automatically mean that its inherently bad? If most "ruling class" people were to eat apples, would apples be bad? Ridiculous.
But on this point I don't really agree. Ideology isn't like apples. Generally speaking if a particular form of ideology is mostly associated with the ruling class, then it has a tendency to be much more reactionary than progressive. Of course, this isn't a black-and-white thing and is actually relative. Applied to Christianity at most it means certain modern forms of Christianity, like right-wing aggressive evangelism, are almost completely bad, but not Christianity as a whole or intrinsically.

[mastershake16]

On this point, I would say that no I don't think Christianity is intrinsically a "ruling class" religion. Keep in mind that the global dominance of Christianity is a relatively recent phenomenon, spearheaded by the gunboats of Western imperialism. Ancient Christianity was a very different thing. 1400 years ago Christianity was technically an "Eastern" religion, there were more Christians to the east of the Holy Land than to the west of it. Christianity was also a "rebellious" religion against the Jewish status quo during its formative stages. Early Christianity may have also been influenced by early Buddhism.

But on this point I don't really agree. Ideology isn't like apples. Generally speaking if a particular form of ideology is mostly associated with the ruling class, then it has a tendency to be much more reactionary than progressive. Of course, this isn't a black-and-white thing and is actually relative. Applied to Christianity at most it means certain modern forms of Christianity, like right-wing aggressive evangelism, are almost completely bad, but not Christianity as a whole or intrinsically.

If one wants to attack A PARTICULAR SECT of Christianity and EXPLAIN WHY they feel the way they do, then that is perfectly fine.

What is both irresponsible and lazy is saying "Oh well this one Christian guy I met was a dick, Christianity and Christians suck!"

OR

"Yeah I met this group of radical Muslims who want to kill every Christian and American they see. All Muslims are a bunch of idiots who hate America."



People, please educate yourselves on a religion before you speak about it with such fervor.

[Queercommie Girl]

but that doesn't mean Christianity teaches people to kill.


I didn't say that, but then I primarily evaluate something by its effects, not what it claims on paper.

And I'd rather have those who do the right things for the wrong reasons than those who do the wrong things for the right reasons, e.g. I'd rather have Satanists who in the concrete sense actually do good than God-worshippers who in the concrete sense actually conduct evil.



How do you judge whether or not a religion is practicing what it preaches? Do you look at the leaders, the faithful followers, or the few extremists who make it on the news? The millions of faithful people around the world are practicing what they preach, but news sensationalism would make it seem that this is not the case.


The majority of religious people certainly aren't extremist terrorists. But frankly when I look at the "moral majority" among relatively right-wing Christians in the US, with their generally sexist, anti-abortion, homophobic, transphobic, pro-Republican and anti-immigrant views, I certainly don't see a pretty picture.

But then as I said I only reject certain forms of Christianity (like say modern-day Western right-wing evangelism), not Christianity as a whole or intrinsically.

[Queercommie Girl]

If one wants to attack A PARTICULAR SECT of Christianity and EXPLAIN WHY they feel the way they do, then that is perfectly fine.

What is both irresponsible and lazy is saying "Oh well this one Christian guy I met was a dick, Christianity and Christians suck!"

OR

"Yeah I met this group of radical Muslims who want to kill every Christian and American they see. All Muslims are a bunch of idiots who hate America."



People, please educate yourselves on a religion before you speak about it with such fervor.

I wouldn't say you don't have a point, and what's more strategically speaking this approach also isn't a very good one because one would end up alienating a large number of people unnecessarily, which isn't good for the socialist cause.

[mastershake16]

I wouldn't say you don't have a point, and what's more strategically speaking this approach also isn't a very good one because one would end up alienating a large number of people unnecessarily, which isn't good for the socialist cause.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit lost. What "approach" isn't a very good one?


The majority of religious people certainly aren't extremist terrorists. But frankly when I look at the "moral majority" among relatively right-wing Christians in the US, with their generally sexist, anti-abortion, homophobic, transphobic, pro-Republican and anti-immigrant views, I certainly don't see a pretty picture.


For the most part, (There are individual exceptions like with anything) your description describes the Protestant half of Christianity. Catholicism is much more liberal. You'll notice that you are describing Dixie.

http://noellehorelik.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/religion-jpg1.png

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm sorry, I'm a bit lost. What "approach" isn't a very good one?


The "approach" you criticised.



For the most part, (There are individual exceptions like with anything) your description describes the Protestant half of Christianity. Catholicism is much more liberal.
I don't want to get into intra-Christianity sectarianism right now, but at the risk of over-generalising, I'd say that at the present time Catholicism is actually generally more progressive and inclusive than Protestantism (liberation theology which is arguably the most progressive branch of Christianity today is a variant of Catholicism, though not one which is endorsed by the Vatican). You find less Catholics, among the ordinary masses, who are anti-science, (even the relatively reactionary Vatican core has established a study centre for theoretical physics and cosmology) anti-other religions or even explicitly sexist and queerphobic. Catholics today also generally tend to be more pro-poor and actively participate in real social projects rather than just "believe in Christ" but don't give a damn about the poor like many fundamentalists do.

The interesting thing is that several centuries ago, during the time of Martin Luther, it was actually the other way around. Protestantism back then was actually the relatively more progressive form of Christianity. It's like with Christianity and Islam, back in the Middle Ages it was Islam that was more enlightened and civilised, but today it's more like the other way around. This shows that Marxist Historical Materialism is generally a correct analysis of human society: nothing is intrinsically "better" or "worse", things always tend to fluctuate constantly depending on the concrete material conditions at the time. Or as the ancient Greek philosophers put it: All things are in eternal motion. ;)

[mastershake16]

The "approach" you criticised.

I don't want to get into intra-Christianity sectarianism right now, but at the risk of over-generalising, I'd say that at the present time Catholicism is actually generally more progressive and inclusive than Protestantism (liberation theology which is arguably the most progressive branch of Christianity today is a variant of Catholicism, though not one which is endorsed by the Vatican). You find less Catholics, among the ordinary masses, who are anti-science, (even the relatively reactionary Vatican core has established a study centre for theoretical physics and cosmology) anti-other religions or even explicitly sexist and queerphobic. Catholics today also generally tend to be more pro-poor and actively participate in real social projects rather than just "believe in Christ" but don't give a damn about the poor like many fundamentalists do.

The interesting thing is that several centuries ago, during the time of Martin Luther, it was actually the other way around. Protestantism back then was actually the relatively more progressive form of Christianity. It's like with Christianity and Islam, back in the Middle Ages it was Islam that was more enlightened and civilised, but today it's more the other way around. This shows that Marxist Historical Materialism is generally a correct analysis of human society: nothing is intrinsically "better" or "worse", things always tend to fluctuate depending on the concrete material conditions at the time.

I assume the class based approach of judging everything is the "approach".

The Vatican is more conservative than the people who actually practice the religion. From my experiences with Catholics, they are pretty liberal and certainly more liberal than their Church leaders. Once the older generation dies out, the more progressive Church leaders will come to the forefront. The Vatican is always lagging behind though.

Catholics are involved with community projects as well. When I helped build a house for Habitat for Humanity, I was with a Catholic school program that was completely voluntary. Also when I served food at one of the soup kitchens in Massachusetts, I went with the same group of Catholic students. In addition to community service, my school (A private Catholic school) raised over $100,000 a year to aid missions projects all over the world. We also raised money to help provide drinkable water and mosquito nets to people in Africa. My school also delivered Thanksgiving meals to local families who couldn't afford it on their own. I cannot say enough how much my Catholic school has done for the surrounding area, and the world.

Don't be all skeptical now that I've told you that I went to a Catholic school. I had to take one religion course a year, and there were no nuns or priests. No religious indoctrination. No one tried to convert me. They just genuinely wanted to help people, and they used their faith as the basis to do that.

Thank you for the conversation. It was pleasant.

[Queercommie Girl]

I assume the class based approach of judging everything is the "approach".


Not at all. I meant the idea that just because certain manifestations of a particular religion are mostly explicitly reactionary then the religion as a whole must be explicitly reactionary is incorrect. It would also unnecessarily alienate a large number of people.

This has nothing to do with the class-based approach. In fact, if one really followed the class-based approach, one wouldn't take such an absolutist stance against religion in general.



Catholics are involved with community projects as well. When I helped build a house for Habitat for Humanity, I was with a Catholic school program that was completely voluntary. Also when I served food at one of the soup kitchens in Massachusetts, I went with the same group of Catholic students. In addition to community service, my school (A private Catholic school) raised over $100,000 a year to aid missions projects all over the world. We also raised money to help provide drinkable water and mosquito nets to people in Africa. My school also delivered Thanksgiving meals to local families who couldn't afford it on their own. I cannot say enough how much my Catholic school has done for the surrounding area, and the world.


Yeah, well I remember one Evangelical I knew actually thought one shouldn't give donations at Church to help the poor because it would detract one from the "real" message of Christ. :rolleyes:



Thank you for the conversation. It was pleasant.


Same to you.

[mastershake16]

Yeah, well I remember one Evangelical I knew actually thought one shouldn't give donations at Church to help the poor because it would detract one from the "real" message of Christ. :rolleyes:



LOL. Republicans.

But I hope someone reading this has learned not to judge religions.

[28350]

I think the practice of Kosher Slaughter is appalling

Really? Kosher slaughter involves the minimization of pain, and is relatively humane.


Have you actually ever seen a video of kosher slaughter?

I assume you're talking about the undercover PETA video of the agriprocesseror slaughterhouse. That's pretty clearly not kosher. Here are two articles I suggest you read:

http://oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/setting_the_record_straight_on_kosher_slaughter/

http://www.khilafatworld.com/2011/05/research-islamic-slaughtering-and.html

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah, I don't suppose he met some of the Liberation theology priests, or people like Martin Luther King, Bishop Tutu, Mother Teresa or many other Christians who have sacrificed their whole lives struggling for the oppressed.

As for Gandhi himself- check out his position on the Zulu Wars of 1906, and then think about ahimsa. I used to have a lot higher opinion of the man- being fed the Gandhi myth so to speak, but the more I learn of him- especially his earlier days, the less I admire him to be honest. I've heard a lot of Indian leftists be quite critical of him too.

Indian Maoists generally are very anti-Gandhi, which frankly I think is definitely too excessive. To be sure, he had a lot of flaws, but then none of the other religious figures you mentioned are "perfect" either. I think putting too much personal faith in particular religious authority figures generally tend to lead to some degree of disillusionment.

[Johnny Kerosene]

I'm going to say Mormonism, I've never met a mormon in person that I liked. And for the most part they're pretty anti-gay rights. And in my opinion their entire holy book is kind of ridiculous, even in comparison to other religions' holy books.


I've met plenty of very nice and peaceful buddhists. Plus there are many sects of buddhism. The Dalai Lama represents only one of them. Overall I'd have to say its probably the most or at least one of the most peaceful and enlightened religions(if you can even call it that in some cases) there is.

I'd say Sikhism is even better. Equality, Tolerance, peace. And you don't have to become homeless for religious posterity if you're a Sikh.

[Rafiq]

I'm sorry, I'm a bit lost. What "approach" isn't a very good one?



For the most part, (There are individual exceptions like with anything) your description describes the Protestant half of Christianity. Catholicism is much more liberal. You'll notice that you are describing Dixie.


Catholicism has nothing to do with Liberalism. People in the south tend to be more conservative regardless of their religious background

[Distruzio]

The Social Gospel, Prosperity Gospel, and some variations of Protestantism are most appalling to me. Depending on my mood, I sometimes find myself considering Protestantism the anti-Christ we were warned about.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'd say Sikhism is even better. Equality, Tolerance, peace. And you don't have to become homeless for religious posterity if you're a Sikh.


Sorry, but you don't necessarily have to do that in Buddhism either, at least not in Great Vehicle or Mahayana Buddhism. Especially in countries like China where Buddhism is mixed with Confucianism, there are many "worldly Buddhists".

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah I agree with that. But, I'm not sure if he was just primitive (150 years behind the times, civilization-wise) or if he was just a self-interested hypocrite. Still, he sums up X-ianity the way it's practiced really well, here.

I think his views generally became more mature as he got older.

I would be wrong to be uncritical of Gandhi, but it would also be wrong to write-off the partly progressive role he played in the Indian national independence movement against British imperialism.

[sattvika]

Pretty sad that this is even allowed. People just sit here and bash religions that they hardly understand. I've just read so many misconceptions about different religions that my head is about to explode. Bah, the ignorance.



There's really nothing to misunderstand, all religions are bullshit and are equally affronting to human potential, from the Abrahamic religions to Zoroastrianism. If you think that being a Bahai, Buddhist, Wiccan or whatever makes you morally, intellectually, socially or "spiritually" superior to Mormons and Catholics, you have bought into the painfully obvious hipster version of socialism/communism and would benefit from a psychological re-evaluation of your beliefs.

As soon as you mistakenly believe that religions may differ from each other in terms of "merit," "goodness," "truth," "compatibility with political ideology," etc., you start buying into the delusion that empirically unprovable arguments which rely wholly on supernatural "perceptions" are not only an acceptable way to explain the world around you or adhere to in developing yourself as a human being, but also constitute a valid basis for constructing laws and social hierarchies which inherently grant varying levels of power to different people and may potentially deprive them of enjoying various aspects of life for reasons rooted in complete bullshit (see: Muslim women wearing Burqas/Hijabs. And don't even try to tell me they like it that way, watch some Turkish/Iranian pop videos and get back to me on that).

In theory, Christianity is a very socialist philosophy. How does it work out in practice? We are told that Islam is the religion of peace (a statement with which, having read the entire Koran, I vehemently disagree with; that was some of the most senselessly violent, sociopathic, reeking ejaculate that I have ever read). What do you see in the Muslim world? Buddhism teaches to eliminate your desires...so why did I just read a news article about a high-ranking Buddhist priest in Thailand who (in addition to owning expensive cars and property) was found dead in his room after overdosing on hard drugs, having recently used the services of half a dozen prostitutes simultaneously? These are not unique, isolated incidents. It happens a lot.

Think about it...for every moment you spent reading religious literature in hopes of finding explanation for why you just felt "at peace" or "completely calm" or "in harmony with nature," you could have read a neuroscience textbook, psychology article in a scientific journal, or any other scientific piece of literature that attempts to explain why something happened as it did. All of your EMOTIONS and FEELINGS are simply release and circulation of various levels and blends of chemicals in response to some external stimuli; that much has been proven. Why not do science instead of believing in baseless speculation?

My personal experiences with peers and acquaintances of non-mainstream religions have all been lacking; the vanity emanating from these people was almost palpable. When I was 15, I had a wanna-be hipster ex-girlfriend (14) who was into all this new-age Buddhism and Wicca shit, also self-identified as communist/socialist, watched anime/manga and basically fell directly into the "everything counter-culture" bin. She wasn't doing it because she whole-heartedly believed in any of it (confiding once that she didn't even really like video games/anime); she was doing it more to give her a sense of purpose and social identity (I figured this out after she started explaining how she was better than everyone for believing what she believed in, despite really not knowing much about her "chosen" religions at all, waving around her little athame and banging on her little Tibetan singing bowls was fucking pathetic to watch). Anyways, long story short, I immediately steer clear of any girls who start talking about their religion within first few days of conversations and appear "interested" in me, or tell them flat-out that I'm a wealthy, capitalist, hardcore corporate executive wanna-be type and observe the looks on their faces.

If you think Buddhism is so great, why not research Tibetan slavery? Why not look up what the Tibetans did to each other? Not confined to Tibet either; numerous adamantly Buddhist Chinese/Korean/Japanese (Unit 731 of the Japanese Kwantung army, anyone? Most Japanese detachments had at least 1 Buddhist priest present)/Thai/etc. people committed horrible atrocities. Religion is a plague, an inhibitor of social progress, and a destroyer of human potential.

[Viet Minh]

The "approach" you criticised.

I don't want to get into intra-Christianity sectarianism right now, but at the risk of over-generalising, I'd say that at the present time Catholicism is actually generally more progressive and inclusive than Protestantism (liberation theology which is arguably the most progressive branch of Christianity today is a variant of Catholicism, though not one which is endorsed by the Vatican). You find less Catholics, among the ordinary masses, who are anti-science, (even the relatively reactionary Vatican core has established a study centre for theoretical physics and cosmology) anti-other religions or even explicitly sexist and queerphobic. Catholics today also generally tend to be more pro-poor and actively participate in real social projects rather than just "believe in Christ" but don't give a damn about the poor like many fundamentalists do.

The interesting thing is that several centuries ago, during the time of Martin Luther, it was actually the other way around. Protestantism back then was actually the relatively more progressive form of Christianity. It's like with Christianity and Islam, back in the Middle Ages it was Islam that was more enlightened and civilised, but today it's more like the other way around. This shows that Marxist Historical Materialism is generally a correct analysis of human society: nothing is intrinsically "better" or "worse", things always tend to fluctuate constantly depending on the concrete material conditions at the time. Or as the ancient Greek philosophers put it: All things are in eternal motion. ;)

Whilst I really couldn't care less about any particular religious sect or cult, this does not seem entirely accurate to me. The first problem I see is talking in general terms about protestants, who range from essentially ex-communicated Catholics (such as the Church of England) through to puritans or whatever. There are homophobic and racist protestant groupings of course, but it is unfair to generalise all protestants as such. On the other hand the Catholic church universally expressly condemns abortion and gay marriage among other things, compared to many protestant groups who do not. I'm not saying that is the attitude of every Catholic, far from it, but it is the official line taken by the Catholic Church. Just remember a great many of the Fascist states have been mutually supported by the Catholic church. And as for the idea of heloing the poor, well that seems to extend only to Catholics, and its also interesting to note that some of the poorest nations in the World are Catholic countries, while on the other hand the Vatican is one of the richest states in the World. I don't wish to offend any Catholics, but its a mistake to view the catholic church as any more progressive than any other religion imo.

[Queercommie Girl]

Whilst I really couldn't care less about any particular religious sect or cult, this does not seem entirely accurate to me. The first problem I see is talking in general terms about protestants, who range from essentially ex-communicated Catholics (such as the Church of England) through to puritans or whatever. There are homophobic and racist protestant groupings of course, but it is unfair to generalise all protestants as such. On the other hand the Catholic church universally expressly condemns abortion and gay marriage among other things, compared to many protestant groups who do not. I'm not saying that is the attitude of every Catholic, far from it, but it is the official line taken by the Catholic Church. Just remember a great many of the Fascist states have been mutually supported by the Catholic church. And as for the idea of heloing the poor, well that seems to extend only to Catholics, and its also interesting to note that some of the poorest nations in the World are Catholic countries, while on the other hand the Vatican is one of the richest states in the World. I don't wish to offend any Catholics, but its a mistake to view the catholic church as any more progressive than any other religion imo.

I'd say the Anglican Church is generally very different from Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestants (mainly US-based), which are mostly what I was referring to. The "High Anglicans" are actually closer to Catholicism in some ways in their religious practice.

And I was referring to the ordinary lay believers in Catholicism, and I do know from personal experience that they tend to be more liberal than the Catholic clergy. Of course the Vatican core is very reactionary, but frankly it's still less reactionary than Christian Fundamentalism. At least the Vatican is much more rational, it's not explicitly anti-science. The Vatican has even officially "apologised" for the scientists burned to death by the Church historically. Apparently there is even a study centre for cosmology and theoretical physics at the Vatican.

But of course, things like Liberation Theology are still considered to be somewhat "heretical" by the Vatican core.

I never said Catholicism is "more progressive" than other religions or other branches of Christianity in any intrinsic sense at all. Frankly all religions are problematic, and no religion is really intrinsically "better" or "worse" than any other in any cultural essentialist way.

[ComradeMan]

The Vatican has even officially "apologised" for the scientists burned to death by the Church historically.

Which scientists were burnt at the stake by the Church because of their scientific theory? You won't find many. Even Giordano Bruno, who is often cited, was condemned for heretical positions in terms of theology and not in terms of scientific discovery.

The Catholic Church has never been anti-science. In fact, in some senses the Catholic Church founded modern science in allowing the break with Aristotle's science. This idea of burning scientists at the stake gets put around all the time and it's very distorted and/or often false. Copernicus, for example, died aged 70 of a stroke.

“The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy” from the 12th to the 18th centuries “than any other and, probably, all other institutions”: in The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories, p. 3). J.J.L Heilbron: Harvard University Press: 1999

[bcbm]

Mother Teresa . . . who have sacrificed their whole lives struggling for the oppressed.

eh she was a pretty sketchy character. opposed abortion in all cases (begging women gangraped in the 1971 war between india and pakistan not to have them), supported forced sterilization of the poor under indira ghandi, supported the duvaliers in haiti, accepting money embezzled from employee pensions, to say nothing of the sketchiness of her organizations own bookkeeping...

[Il Medico]

I don't find religion appalling. Some aspects are of course, but at the same time some aspects are appealing. Religion is not a black and white thing, nor is there one way that each religion is interpreted, some interpretations are worst than others. Saying that you find x religion appalling is way over simplifying the issue. Its more complicated than that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Which scientists were burnt at the stake by the Church because of their scientific theory? You won't find many. Even Giordano Bruno, who is often cited, was condemned for heretical positions in terms of theology and not in terms of scientific discovery.


To be burned for "theological heresy" is just as bad as being burned for scientific theories, particularly when the scientific theories influenced the "theological heresy" to some extent.

Are you a Catholic? I'm pretty sure some of your own religious ideas would be considered as "heretical" back in day. Liberation Theologists would probably have been burned according to the standards of the medieval Catholic Church.



in some senses the Catholic Church founded modern science


That is taking religious apologism too far and is a very non-Marxist position. It's like saying the US capitalist state created modern science through funding institutions like NASA with their money. It's workers that create all of the wealth and innovations in society, not the Church or the state.



“The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy” from the 12th to the 18th centuries “than any other and, probably, all other institutions”: in The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories, p. 3). J.J.L Heilbron: Harvard University Press: 1999


A rather Eurocentric perspective. Europe wasn't always the centre of scientific progress in human history. Ancient Chinese and Islamic astronomy, for instance, were also very advanced and during certain periods more advanced than that of Europe.

[ComradeMan]

To be burned for "theological heresy" is just as bad as being burned for scientific theories, particularly when the scientific theories influenced the "theological heresy" to some extent.

Yeah... not defending burning anyone, but they weren't burnt for their scientific enquiry as is often portrayed. They were different times with different people, so in the case of Bruno- he knew he was playing with fire with his magic books and denial of the Virgin Mary etc.

Whatever- you can't use theological heresy as evidence of the Catholic church being anti-scientific.


Are you a Catholic? I'm pretty sure some of your own religious ideas would be considered as "heretical" back in day. Liberation Theologists would probably have been burned according to the standards of the medieval Catholic Church.

Argument to hypothesis- now, can you tell me which scientists were burnt at the stake for science by the Catholic church? As you claimed....


That is taking religious apologism too far and is a very non-Marxist position. It's like saying the US capitalist state created modern science through funding institutions like NASA with their money. It's workers that create all of the wealth and innovations in society, not the Church or the state.

It's not taking religious apologism too far- it's historical fact. Sorry, but you're on a losing horse with this one.

According to Jonathan Wright, the Jesuits contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents. Wright, Jonathan (2004). The Jesuits. p. 189.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Jesuits


A rather Eurocentric perspective. Europe wasn't always the centre of scientific progress in human history. Ancient Chinese and Islamic astronomy, for instance, were also very advanced and during certain periods more advanced than that of Europe.

Well- disprove the assertion with counter-evidence and sources. Modern astronomy is derived ultimately from the work of Copernicus. Chinese astronomy was in decline until the (OMG WESTERNERS!!!) Jesuits introduced the technology of the telescope in the 17th century.

I really wish you'd stop with all your anti-western bullshit all the time- especially when you seem to have "common knowledge" type arguments that are fundamentally based on half-truths, falsehoods and spite.

The Catholic church has never been "anti-science".

[Zealot]

The Catholic church has never been "anti-science".

That's a pretty big claim, considering just before that you said


Modern astronomy is derived ultimately from the work of Copernicus.

I guess that's why Galileo spent his life under house arrest on charges of heresy for supporting Copernicus? Actually he spent a great deal of time trying to convince the church not to ban the ideas.



I really wish you'd stop with all your anti-western bullshit all the time- especially when you seem to have "common knowledge" type arguments that are fundamentally based on half-truths, falsehoods and spite.

No, you claimed the catholic church founded modern science :laugh:

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah... not defending burning anyone, but they weren't burnt for their scientific enquiry as is often portrayed. They were different times with different people, so in the case of Bruno- he knew he was playing with fire with his magic books and denial of the Virgin Mary etc.


I didn't say the Catholic Church was reactionary primarily because it burned scientists for their scientific ideas or that it burned witches, so frankly I don't even know why you are arguing with me. You just seem to like ranting about things whenever you see me mention something related to religion or Christianity.

The Catholic Church was reactionary mainly for its exclusive position regarding other religions and other branches of Christianity (which it considered to be heretical), and for its role in defending the feudal order and status quo during the Middle Ages. Today it may have become more inclusive with respect to other religions, but it (or at least the Vatican Core) still promotes many sexist, homophobic and transphobic viewpoints, and despite its often populist and pro-poor rhetoric, still essentially defends the existing order of capitalist class society.

These are the reasons for why the Catholic Church was and is reactionary, the fact that it burned witches and scientists aren't the primary factors.



Whatever- you can't use theological heresy as evidence of the Catholic church being anti-scientific.

Argument to hypthesis- now, can you tell me which scientists were burnt at the stake for science by the Catholic church? As you claimed....


I simply made a remark that the contemporary Catholic Church has "apologised" for burning scientists in the past, I didn't say they were necessarily burned purely for their scientific theories. Even if scientists were burned for other reasons, the fact of the matter is that scientists were still burned. That's my point.



It's not taking religious apologism too far- it's historical fact. Sorry, but you're on a losing horse with this one.

According to Jonathan Wright, the Jesuits contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents. Wright, Jonathan (2004). The Jesuits. p. 189.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Jesuits


I didn't say people who are Catholics never made a positive contribution to scientific progress. But I wouldn't credit the Catholic Church intrinsically for these advances. Just like suppose the Apple Corporation made a new technological breakthrough, I would credit the workers who work for Apple, not the Corporation intrinsically.

None of the scientific discoveries made by Catholics has got anything to do with any intrinsic aspects or elements of the Catholic religion, other than that it was the institution of the Church that funded them.



Well- disprove the assertion with counter-evidence and sources. Modern astronomy is derived ultimately from the work of Copernicus. Chinese astronomy was in decline until the (OMG WESTERNERS!!!) Jesuits introduced the technology of the telescope in the 17th century.


Did I ever say that China always led the world in astronomy? Nope. I only said during certain periods. Your source claimed that Europe led the world in astronomy since the 12th century CE, which is nonsense, since Chinese science and technology were generally speaking more advanced than that of Europe prior to the 16th century. Maybe you should read Joseph Needham's works on ancient Chinese science.

As for the Jesuits, their exchanges with Chinese Confucian scholars were fruitful in some ways, in both directions. Chinese thought was introduced to Europe as a result, and had some influence on the European Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire for instance had a very high opinion of Chinese philosophy.

In terms of science and technology though, what the Jesuits introduced to China during the late Ming Dynasty was actually already somewhat behind the times by Europe's own standards at the time.



I really wish you'd stop with all your anti-western bullshit all the time- especially when you seem to have "common knowledge" type arguments that are fundamentally based on half-truths, falsehoods and spite.


Do tell me, how am I being "anti-Western" and how are my arguments based on half-truths, falsehoods and spite?

Is it being "anti-Western" to simply state that Europe wasn't the only cradle of modern human civilisation?

Is it being "anti-Western" to simply state that Europe wasn't always the most advanced civilisation in human history?

Maybe simply pointing these out hurts your implicit chauvinistic Eurocentric pride? :rolleyes: Should we non-Europeans simply bow down in great appreciation to the glorious European civilisation and be grateful how you civilised semi-barbarians like the Chinese?

And exactly what are the half-truths/falsehoods I've stated? The fact that though the figures might indeed have been exaggerated, and that some of the witches might have harmed innocent people in a concrete sense, the act of burning witches is still essentially a wrong and reactionary one? (Even with real criminals one really shouldn't use such a method of punishment)



The Catholic church has never been "anti-science".


Quote where exactly I made the explicit statement that the Catholic Church has been intrinsically anti-science. I do think the institution of the Catholic Church is a very reactionary one for various reasons, but being intrinsically anti-science isn't actually one of them. (Other than that being an atheist I think science is intrinsically materialistic and therefore not fundamentally compatible with any religion, but then Catholicism doesn't stand out in this respect)

[Klaatu]

"Which Religion is Most Appalling to You?"

Oops... at first glance I thought it said "Which Religion is Most "Appealing" to You?"

IMHO:
Appalling: ALL
Appealing: The Forces of Nature (this is more science than it is religion)

religion = opinion
science = fact

[ComradeMan]

I guess that's why Galileo spent his life under house arrest on charges of heresy for supporting Copernicus? Actually he spent a great deal of time trying to convince the church not to ban the ideas.


Point 1. He spent quite a comfortable life, and was NOT burnt at the stake.

Point 2. The problem with Galileo was that he did indeed support Copernicus' ideas and expanded on them yet failed to provide the "empirical" evidence and proofs the Church demanded to convince them that his theory was valid. Unfortunately that's what happens in science- a lot of currently accepted theories were once ridiculed by "scientists" until enough evidence came to show they were correct- plate techtonics was not accepted, Darwin was scorned and so on.

Point 3. A lot of the problem was actually a personal grudge between Galileo and the Pope due to a perceived insult on the part of Galileo.

You also forget that Copernicus himself was a churchman and corresponded greatly with the Popes of his time, Pope Leo actually wrote to him for advice on the calendar reform. "De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium" was published at the request of Cardinal Schömberg and the Bishop of Culm along with a dedication to Pope Paul III.

When Galileo arrived in Rome in 1611 he was given a hero's welcome and they set up a telescope on the Quirinal Hill.


No, you claimed the catholic church founded modern science :laugh:

You obviously know very little about the history of science.... or the Catholic Church's role in science. :rolleyes:

[Property Is Robbery]

Protestants, Christianity, Mormonism, Buddhists, Aztec paganism, Wicca, Hindus.
Why?

For me its any fundamental Christianity

[ComradeMan]

Iseul & Expropism

Please explain:-

1) Which scientists were burnt at the stake for their scientific beliefs?

Who were they?
Please do tell...

2) Explain the significance of the fact that heliocentrism, the telescope and Euclidean geometry were introduced to China by the Jesuits.

3) Joseph Needham's (1951) comment about science NOT progressing in China due to the absence of the religious concept of a celestial law giver.

4) How the Popes and Catholic Church had originally embraced Copernicus's ideas- so much so that De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium was dedicated to Pope Paolo III?

:rolleyes:

I am not a big fan of established/organised religion but I am not a fan of ahistorical nonsense and propaganda. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has not been anti-science and the whole Galileo debacle, so often cited as evidence, was little to do with being anti-science at the end of the day. Ironically the "free-thinking" Protestants were more anti-science and Luther hated Copernicus' ideas (which were not liked by many "scientists" at the time. Contemporary to Galileo was Kepler--- he taught heliocentrism too and wasn't persecuted. Galileo's problem was not so much his science but his rather spiteful and arrogant personality. Although Galileo's theory was right, his proofs were actually very suspect- especially tides, and because he could not prove his case but insisted on his theory all the same it landed him in troubled waters.

If so-called marxists insist on a materialist history and therefore rational and objective honesty in their assessments of history then they should not rely on chauvanistic and downright false claims about said history. Whether you like the Catholic Church or not- to deny it's enormous role in Western civilisation and therefore modern scientific development is just petty and ahistorical.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul & Expropism

Please explain:-

1) Which scientists were burnt at the stake for their scientific beliefs?

Who were they?
Please do tell...


I need to explain nothing since I never made the explicit claim that scientists were burnt as a result of their scientific beliefs intrinsically by the Catholic Church at any rate. I simply think it is equally reactionary to burn people whether for their scientific beliefs or for their theological beliefs.

At least with the witches and sorcerers you could argue that some of them did harm innocent civilians. I don't necessarily dispute this intrinsically but I think you exaggerated on this point, and frankly even real criminals don't deserve to be burned at the stake. But the fact of the matter is that "theological heresy" has absolutely no negative impact in the real world at all, so it is absolutely disgusting and reactionary to murder people simply for their harmless religious/theological beliefs.



2) Explain the significance of the fact that heliocentrism, the telescope and Euclidean geometry were introduced to China by the Jesuits.
None of these things have anything to do with Christian theology in any intrinsic sense. Euclid was a great product of (pagan) ancient Greek civilisation, the Arabs knew about him too, and in fact it was from Arabic that Euclid was re-translated back into Europe, and I've always admired ancient Hellenistic civilisation. So again save your inane accusations of being "anti-Western" for your own stupid imaginations. I just believe it was Classical philosophy rather than any kind of Christian theology that is at the fundamental basis of "Western Civilisation". Contrast this with your own egoistical viewpoint - you have no respect at all, and in fact nothing but contempt, for the great contributions that the Chinese civilisation made to the world.

And while the Catholic Church didn't intrinsically oppose heliocentrism on purely scientific grounds, it would also be wrong to think of the science of heliocentrism to be something that is derived from the Catholic religion. The only contribution the Catholic Church made is that it funded some of the research and theoretical projects.

You sound like Evangelicals who attempt to argue for the intrinsic superiority of Christian civilisation. As an anti-cultural essentialist, I find such a viewpoint (the idea that some religions/cultures are intrinsically superior to others) completely detestable.



3) Joseph Needham's (1951) comment about science NOT progressing in China due to the absence of the religious concept of a celestial law giver.
Well, a few things:

1) Joseph Needham had an Anglican background, he isn't necessarily correct on everything;

2) On this particular point, I wouldn't say he is completely wrong. He might have a point to some extent, but this is not an argument that is intrinsically in favour of Christianity or Catholicism in any way. The "celestial law giver" isn't necessarily the Christian God at all. Other Abrahamic religions like Judaism and Islam also had such a concept, Deism also had such a concept, religions like Ba'ha'i and Universal Unitarianism also had such a concept, non-Abrahamic religions like Zoroastrianism and Confucianism also had such a concept. One might argue whether or not Confucianism constitutes an actual religion, but that doesn't matter, because in Confucianism there is indeed the idea of a willful Heaven as a creator of Principle - natural and moral laws in the universe and human world. However, in China this was greatly diluted by other religious schools of thought such as Daoism and Buddhism. (Like I said before, Traditional Chinese Religion is a mixture of three main strands of thought - Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism)

So frankly intrinsically speaking what Needham said here could equally be utilised by 1) an Evangelical Christian trying to prove the intrinsic superiority of Christian philosophy; 2) a Muslim missionary trying to show the Chinese the intrinsic superiority of monotheistic thought; 3) a Chinese Confucian Nationalist trying to argue for the "return" to the "orthodox Confucian tradition" which has been "debased" by Daoism and Buddhism. (In Chinese history there have been quite a few instances of people like 2) and 3) - the Jesuit Matteo Ricci tried to link the Catholic God with the Chinese Confucian Heaven, but he wasn't the first one to do such a thing, Chinese Muslims have tried to theologically link together the Islamic Allah and the Confucian Heaven centuries before Ricci was even born)

So please, learn a bit more about ancient Chinese history before commenting on any ancient China-related topic. You said you don't like it when people distort Catholic history, well I don't like it when people distort Chinese history, so you know how I feel.

3) I've never claimed that Chinese philosophy or culture is intrinsically superior in any way anywhere, unlike you I acknowledge there are indeed certain flaws in Chinese philosophy, rather than think that "the Church cannot ever make a mistake" like you do. :rolleyes:

4) Joseph Needham also greatly praised many aspects of Chinese civilisation. Needham is a socialist, and he has a great interest in Daoism. Needham had a Chinese name - Li Yuese, he chose the name Li because that is also the surname of the founder of Daoism Laozi, whose actual name is Li Er.

In fact, even the Jesuit Matteo Ricci praised Chinese culture in many ways. The exchanges between Chinese Confucian scholars and the Jesuits weren't like the unequal exchanges between Chinese and Europeans later on in the 19th century, when Western gunboats sailed up Chinese rivers, like during the Opium War. China and Europe still had an equal geopolitical relationship back in the 16th and 17th centuries, so most Chinese scholars don't consider the Jesuit-Confucian exchanges to be a manifestation of Western colonialism.

Tell me, if Chinese science and technology in ancient times never progressed at all, how did the Chinese invent things like gunpowder, paper, printing, and the magnetic compass, 3 of which Marx explicitly mentioned as the key technological breakthroughs that allowed for the bourgeois to overthrow the reactionary feudal order?



I am not a big fan of established/organised religion but I am not a fan of ahistorical nonsense and propaganda. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has not been anti-science and the whole Galileo debacle, so often cited as evidence, was little to do with being anti-science at the end of the day. Ironically the "free-thinking" Protestants were more anti-science and Luther hated Copernicus' ideas. A tradition that may well have been passed down to their modern-day evangelical successors.
I am not a big fan of people who try to belittle Chinese culture.

I never explicitly said the Catholic Church was directly anti-science, but you don't have to be anti-science to be immensely reactionary. The Protestants may not have been as pro-science as the Catholics were, but in terms of class analysis they also represented a more progressive social force. Marxists don't just determine what is "progressive" by how pro-science or anti-science a particular ideology is. You could say the ancient Chinese Daoist and Buddhist peasant rebels were generally speaking more irrational than the Confucians that represented the rule of the feudal landlord class, who established institutions like the Chinese Imperial Astronomy Institute which greatly advanced the sciences. (When Chinese astronomers observed a supernova in 1054 CE, no-one in Europe even noticed it) This is why for instance after the Yellow Turbans devastated the Han Dynasty, scientific and technological progress in China effectively grinded to a halt for quite a long time afterwards. But most Marxists would still consider the peasant rebels to be partly progressive due to their class basis. Marxists would rather have a society that is more equal and more based on the lower classes but with slower technological progress than a technocratic society that is a dictatorship and served the interests of an elite ruling class. Class comes before science.



If so-called marxists insist on a materialist history and therefore rational and objective honesty in their assessments of history then they should not rely on chauvanistic and downright false claims about said history. Whether you like the Catholic Church or not- to deny it's enormous role in Western civilisation and therefore modern scientific development is just petty and ahistorical.
You have been ranting about this for a while. Now show me where I have personally distorted Catholic history.

[Queercommie Girl]

Even wikipedia acknowledges the influence of Chinese Confucian philosophy on European Enlightenment, particularly Deist, thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#Influence_in_17th-century_Europe

the works of Confucius were translated into European languages through the agency of Jesuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit) scholars stationed in China.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#cite_note-7) Matteo Ricci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Ricci) started to report on the thoughts of Confucius, and father Prospero Intorcetta published the life and works of Confucius into Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) in 1687.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#cite_note-Windows_into_China-8) It is thought that such works had considerable importance[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] on European thinkers[who? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] of the period, particularly among the Deists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deists) and other philosophical groups of the Enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) who were interested by the integration of the system of morality of Confucius into Western civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#cite_note-Windows_into_China-8)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism#cite_note-9)

Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you. - Confucius, the golden rule of Ethics, Chinese interpretation

I don't think I've disrespected or distorted Christianity intrinsically at all. As I said, I am an anti-cultural essentialist. I don't believe Christianity is fundamentally worse than other religions. Burning people to death on a stake is completely barbaric and reactionary, but then the ancient Aztec priests carved out slaves' hearts alive with a stone knife on the sacrificial alter, Tibetan Lamas sometimes skinned disobedient serfs alive, Islamists stone women and homosexuals to death in public. All major established religions in class society are fundamentally reactionary for Marxists, and are filled with disgusting and barbaric practices. ONE REASON WHY CLASS SOCIETY NEEDS TO COMPLETELY DESTROYED. I have no interest to single out Catholicism, while trying to make other religions look good. I simply make valid criticisms of certain aspects of Christianity or Catholicism, and I wouldn't mind it if people criticise Confucianism on certain points, such as its sexist and Sinocentric ideas. So perhaps you should show some respect for Chinese culture and philosophy too.

It takes 2 hands to clap, but only 1 hand to slap. - old Western folk proverb

Co-operation is based on mutualism. If you like the Jesuits, you should know that if there is anything good in the exchanges between the Jesuits and the Confucians, is that it was largely based on an equal and mutually respectful relationship, unlike the exchanges between Evangelical Christians and the Chinese post-1840, which was based on an unequal colonialist relationship.

One more phrase to sum up my entire viewpoint:

I don't hate Christianity or Catholicism, I hate class society. You should have a grasp of this by now.

[ComradeMan]

I need to explain nothing since I never made the explicit claim that scientists were burnt as a result of their scientific beliefs intrinsically by the Catholic Church at any rate. I simply think it is equally reactionary to burn people whether for their scientific beliefs or for their theological beliefs.

Sorry---- but you asserted that the Catholic church burnt scientists at the stake- a commonly held notion used to show that the Catholic Church is/has been inherently anti-science, and I simply asked you to state which scientists were burnt at the stake for their "science". :laugh:


At least with the witches and sorcerers you could argue that some of them did harm innocent civilians.....

And I clearly stated that I was not in favour of burning anyone at the stake- I was merely pointing out that to accuse the Catholic Church of burning scientists at the stake and being anti-scientific is ahistorical. Of course we could mention the Jesuits who were arrested and tortured in Peking for spreading "false religion"- but that's another story....:rolleyes:


None of these things have anything to do with Christian theology in any intrinsic sense. Euclid was a great product of (pagan) ancient Greek civilisation, the Arabs knew about him too, and in fact it was from Arabic that Euclid was re-translated back into Europe, and I've always admired ancient Hellenistic civilisation. So again save your inane accusations of being "anti-Western" for your own stupid imaginations. I just believe it was Classical philosophy rather than any kind of Christian theology that is at the fundamental basis of "Western Civilisation". Contrast this with your own egoistical viewpoint - you have no respect at all, and in fact nothing but contempt, for the great contributions that the Chinese civilisation made to the world.

Wrong again. It is the second of the "Sacred Works of Mercy" of a Catholic to seek out knowledge and instruct against "ignorance". It was also these "ignorant" Christian theologians that threw out the erroneous doctrines of Aristotle that in turn paved the way for modern scientific enquire to develop....

As for the rest of your strawman argument. Do you think I have not been brought up on Marco Polo and do not appreciate the contribution of Chinese civilisation to humanity? But at the same time I am not going to deny that modern science, especially astronomy, does not owe itself to Chinese astronomy but rather the discoveries and developments of Western science. You are the one who is bigotted because you cannot really seem to accept that any Christian Westerner ever did anything of worth- such as the telescope. This does not mean I think Westerners are "better" or "superior"- it's just the course that history took.


And while the Catholic Church didn't intrinsically oppose heliocentrism on purely scientific grounds, it would also be wrong to think of the science of heliocentrism to be something that is derived from the Catholic religion. The only contribution the Catholic Church made is that it funded some of the research and theoretical projects.

Yet another claim I did not make. Your problem is that you don't seem to want to accept the fact that for better or worse the Catholic Church in Europe was the major driving force behind scientific enquiry in Europe throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods. The Jesuit contribution to science was significant given the times. The Catholic Church's centres were places where literacy and learning were encouraged, along with scientific and mathematical enquiry.


You sound like Evangelicals who attempt to argue for the intrinsic superiority of Christian civilisation. As an anti-cultural essentialist, I find such a viewpoint (the idea that some religions/cultures are intrinsically superior to others) completely detestable.

Yet another strawman. Evangelicals usually hate the Catholic Church and are anti-science. Given that the majority of Western European civilisation derives from Catholic civilisation this means that they often end up ranting about things like Intelligent Design or Creationism whereas the Catholic Church embraces evolution.... oh the heretics!


1) Joseph Needham had an Anglican background, he isn't necessarily correct on everything.....;

Convenient- seeing as you cited him as such an authority and now there is quote that doesn't fit with your view- all of a sudden he isn't necessarily correct on everything. :rolleyes:

Look, I don't see what your problem is unless YOU are in actual fact the one being nationalistic about scientific discovery. The Italians didn't invent printing or gunpowder and the Chinese didn't discover the heliocentric astronomical system or the telescope.... get over it.


So frankly intrinsically speaking what Needham said here could equally be...

Yet more strawmen- because you are being "nationalistically" Chinese. Sorry that your own cited author had a quote that came and bited you in the ass.


So please, learn a bit more about ancient Chinese history before commenting on any ancient China-related topic. You said you don't like it when people distort Catholic history, well I don't like it when people distort Chinese history, so you know how I feel.

That's rich from someone who makes pronouncements on Western and Catholic civilisation without having a fucking clue what she is talking about. :rolleyes: Err.... you still haven't told us who all these scientists burnt at the stake for their scientific enquiry were? Your assertion... you back it up!

As fot the rest of your strawmen- I have not once said that one particular culture was superior to another, but at the same time you have to give credit where credit is due. The foundations of modern science are not based on Chinese scientific thought, despite being very advanced for centuries China somehow "froze" in the Medieval period (European). This has been said by some to be due to the emphasis on the inner self in Chinese philosophies rather than the "outer" world.

If I were to build strawmen in your manner, I would also note that you completely negate the role of Indian/Vedic science in mathematics- something you conveniently choose to ignore. Does that mean you are, OMG OMG, anti-Indian? :rolleyes:

FFS- grow up.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sorry---- but you asserted that the Catholic church burnt scientists at the stake- a commonly held notion used to show that the Catholic Church is/has been inherently anti-science, and I simply asked you to state which scientists were burnt at the stake for their "science". :laugh:


You are making an immense logical error. To say that "scientists were burned" is not equivalent to saying that "scientists were burned for their scientific ideas". I didn't make the latter statement. So everything you say here is basically moot.

I mean, the modern Vatican did actually "apologise" for some of its actions of burning scientists in the past, so it looks like even the Vatican itself doesn't agree with you on this one. :laugh: (Though it's true the Vatican never stated that the Church was anti-science during any historical periods)

Burning people and being anti-science are 2 different things.



And I clearly stated that I was not in favour of burning anyone at the stake- I was merely pointing out that to accuse the Catholic Church of burning scientists at the stake and being anti-scientific is ahistorical.
Well you did apologise for witch-burning to some extent earlier in this thread by claiming that those witches harmed innocent people and did "evil" things.

The Catholic Church burned scientists to death, that's an empirical historical fact. Whether or not they were murdered for their scientific ideas, or their theological "heresy", is another matter.



Of course we could mention the Jesuits who were arrested and tortured in Peking for spreading "false religion"- but that's another story....:rolleyes:
Actually initially the Jesuits were well-received. The expulsion of Jesuits was a response to the Vatican decreeing that Chinese Confucian rites are fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism.

But intrinsically obviously I'm against torture in Confucianism too. All religious/semi-religious torture in every culture is fundamentally based on feudal class society.



Wrong again. It is the second of the "Sacred Works of Mercy" of a Catholic to seek out knowledge and instruct against "ignorance".
Every religion has slogans that say similar things.



It was also these "ignorant" Christian theologians that threw out the erroneous doctrines of Aristotle that in turn paved the way for modern scientific enquire to develop....
And they were in turn surpassed by the Enlightenment thinkers and Deists, who had even more logical philosophical views. Eventually materialists like Marxists surpassed all of them.

"Ignorance" is relative. Aristotle was very enlightened for his time.



As for the rest of your strawman argument. Do you think I have not been brought up on Marco Polo and do not appreciate the contribution of Chinese civilisation to humanity?
Why would you assume that I know anything about your personal background?



But at the same time I am not going to deny that modern science, especially astronomy, does not owe itself to Chinese astronomy but rather the discoveries and developments of Western science.
That "Western" science itself owed much to "non-Western" sciences in ages past.



You are the one who is bigotted because you cannot really seem to accept that any Christian Westerner ever did anything of worth- such as the telescope.
You are making a completely unwarranted statement, since I said no such thing at all. In fact, precisely the opposite, I explicitly stated that Catholics did make positive contributions to science, and that the Jesuit-Confucian exchanges in the 16th and 17th centuries were indeed partly fruitful and positive. Rather it is you who cannot accept that to some extent the Jesuit-Confucian exchanges went in both directions, and Chinese philosophy also had some positive impact in the age of the European Enlightenment, albeit not in the natural sciences.

When can you stop throwing shit on me for no good reason at all?



Your problem is that you don't seem to want to accept the fact that for better or worse the Catholic Church in Europe was the major driving force behind scientific enquiry in Europe throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods. The Jesuit contribution to science was significant given the times. The Catholic Church's centres were places where literacy and learning were encouraged, along with scientific and mathematical enquiry.
Actually I didn't completely disagree with this point, I only think that you have exaggerated the positive aspects while downplayed the negative aspects.



Yet another strawman. Evangelicals usually hate the Catholic Church and are anti-science. Given that the majority of Western European civilisation derives from Catholic civilisation this means that they often end up ranting about things like Intelligent Design or Creationism whereas the Catholic Church embraces evolution.... oh the heretics!
I know. I didn't say you are literally an Evangelical. I said you sounded like one in your attempt to demonstrate the intrinsic superiority of Catholicism.



Convenient- seeing as you cited him as such an authority and now there is quote that doesn't fit with your view- all of a sudden he isn't necessarily correct on everything. :rolleyes:
Except firstly I never said he is "correct on everything" except when his points aren't pro-China. In fact, I think some of his pro-China points are partly wrong as well. If you really want to know what I think, then let me say that objectively speaking his praise for ancient Chinese science, technology and medicine is actually somewhat exaggerated too. In other words, he has made too many "made in China" claims. Some of the things he mentioned were not actually invented in China, but in other ancient civilisations like say India.

Secondly I didn't say I intrinsically disagree with his argument about the "celestial law giver" either. I just said that 1) it is a debatable point, and 2) the "celestial law giver" is not the Christian God.

Would you please actually read what I say, instead of making totally unwarranted assumptions against me?

Don't make reactionary assumptions about me.



Look, I don't see what your problem is unless YOU are in actual fact the one being nationalistic about scientific discovery. The Italians didn't invent printing or gunpowder and the Chinese didn't discover the heliocentric astronomical system or the telescope.... get over it.
Firstly, I'm not being nationalistic at all. If I were nationalistic I would deny that Western science was more advanced than China's in recent centuries, but I'm not doing that.

Secondly, I know you are Italian and actually if you were just proud of Italian scientific achievements instead of Catholic scientific achievements, I would have a better opinion of you. I consider national pride (a healthy amount of it) to be more progressive than religious pride. National consciousness is a product of capitalism, while religious consciousness is a product of slavery and feudalism, so from a Marxist point of view the former is relatively more progressive.

I'd rather that you are just a left-wing Italian nationalist than an apologist for the Catholic Church. One of my personal friends is actually Italian.



Yet more strawmen- because you are being "nationalistically" Chinese. Sorry that your own cited author had a quote that came and bited you in the ass.
I'm not being a nationalist at all. I'm pointing out that you do not in fact understand much about Joseph Needham. I actually studied at the Joseph Needham Research Institute at university. Arguing with me on him isn't going to get you anywhere. Make sure your own ass doesn't get bitten.

I mean why should I simply blindly believe everything he says, first of all? Being scientific is all about being skeptical and critical. If I were a nationalist, I would obviously selectively criticise his not-so-pro-China points and believe in all of his pro-China points, but I'm not doing that. As I said I actually think he has carried the "made in China" argument too far as well.

Secondly, Needham's point about a "celestial law giver" is not an apologism for Christianity, this is just such a basic point that you would get laughed at for thinking Needham implied the Christian God here. Needham may have had an Anglican background but he is certainly not a Christian apologist. I have already explained the actual implications of the "celestial law giver" idea in a previous post, if you could actually take the time and be bothered to read it.

Thirdly, on the whole Needham is much more pro-China than he is doubtful about China. Have you even read any of his original works? Yes, he did also point out that Chinese philosophy had a few flaws, from the point of view of scientific enquiry. He may or may not be right on this, it's debatable (trying to accuse me for being "nationalist" simply for suggesting that this point is debatable :rolleyes:), but it's clear what Needham thinks about Chinese culture and philosophy on the whole.



That's rich from someone who makes pronouncements on Western and Catholic civilisation without having a fucking clue what she is talking about.
1) "Catholic Civilisation" is not equivalent to "Western Civilisation". Many major representatives of "Western Civilisation" are very anti-Catholic; (Including our very own Marx and Engels, among others...:rolleyes:)

2) What negative explicit pronouncements about "Catholic Civilisation" did I ever make? I said the Catholic Church burned people to death on the stake in the past, and apart from a few cases where genuine criminals were really involved, such an act is generally speaking immensely reactionary. You just seem to be dodging this point, whereas I didn't actually say scientists were burned purely for their scientific ideas, I said scientists were burned, and that's reactionary, no matter what they were burned for.

So like I said, I don't know why you are arguing with me.



:rolleyes: Err.... you still haven't told us who all these scientists burnt at the stake for their scientific enquiry were? Your assertion... you back it up!
I've already mentioned this and I will mention it one more time: To burn scientists is not equivalent to burning scientists for their scientific enquiry. I didn't explicitly make the latter statement.



despite being very advanced for centuries China somehow "froze" in the Medieval period (European). This has been said by some to be due to the emphasis on the inner self in Chinese philosophies rather than the "outer" world.
Well technically it was actually mainly after the 15th and 16th centuries that Chinese science came to an stand still. European scientific progress before the Renaissance (and after the fall of Rome) was extremely slow as well.

But what's funny is that your point here about the "inner focus" of "Chinese philosophy" is similar in many ways to the arguments some Confucian Nationalists make, that Daoism and Buddhism (an ideology from "barbarian" India) debased and contaminated the rational and logical core of Confucian philosophy, which was partly responsible for the decline of science in China.



If I were to build strawmen in your manner, I would also note that you completely negate the role of Indian/Vedic science in mathematics- something you conveniently choose to ignore. Does that mean you are, OMG OMG, anti-Indian? :rolleyes:
But we are not talking about India here, are we? We are talking about China and Europe. I do think people like Needham have carried the "made in China" argument a bit too far, as I stated. Some of the inventions and discoveries Needham attributed to the Chinese were actually made by the Indians.



FFS- grow up.
I wish you could grow up actually, and stop seeing every disagreement between us as some kind of "personal battle".


To be frank with you, it is sad to see how someone who has תיקון עולם as his title would be so petty and egoistical when it comes to debates and arguments. I sincerely hope you can actually learn something ethical from all the religious and spiritual beliefs that you claim to believe in.

[ComradeMan]

You are making an immense logical error. To say that "scientists were burned" is not equivalent to saying that "scientists were burned for their scientific ideas". I didn't make the latter statement. So everything you say here is basically moot.

Crawling your way out...... :laugh: Okay, how many scientists were burnt at the stake then? Who? When? I've already cited Bruno and why it was not related to science, but anyway who are the others?


I mean, the modern Vatican did actually "apologise" for some of its actions of burning scientists in the past, so it looks like even the Vatican itself doesn't agree with you on this one. :laugh: (Though it's true the Vatican never stated that the Church was anti-science during any historical periods)

The Vatican apologised for how the Galileo affair was handled- Galileo was never burnt at the stake. So more false claims and lies on your behalf... wrong again.


Well you did apologise for witch-burning to some extent earlier in this thread by claiming that those witches harmed innocent people and did "evil" things.

I didn't apologise at all- I merely stated that may well have been what happened in many cases, and considering that we are dealing with a rather draconian period of time in which the "secular" authorities would hang people or flog them for stealing a loaf of bread it does slightly change the perspective.


The Catholic Church burned scientists to death, that's an empirical historical fact. Whether or not they were murdered for their scientific ideas, or their theological "heresy", is another matter.

One- who was tried for heresy- yet again, please do tell us who the others were? What ridiculous reasoning! There were plenty of Nazi scientists who were executed after the war- so now we denounce the Allies as anti-science do we? You're trying to worm your way out of a silly position you've put yourself in through adopting a "common knowledge" falsehood and asserting it as historical fact.


Actually initially the Jesuits were well-received. The expulsion of Jesuits was a response to the Vatican decreeing that Chinese Confucian rites are fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism.

Yeah, because the Emperor of China in the 16th-17th centuries was really worried about the "Tai Chi'in" Pope! :rolleyes: Sorry, it wasn't that- wrong again.

Around the time of the Flemish Jesuit Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688) the Jesuits were arrested by the Chinese Imperial authorities and put under house arrest for spreading "false religion"- they were imprisoned and tortured, sentenced to execution which was only averted by an earthquake. This was during the reign of the Emperor K'ang Hsi who went from a hostile position to a welcoming one, mostly due to the knowledge and expertise of Verbiest. Verbiest "defeated" the Chinese astronomers in a kind of contest held by the Emperor and was made "President" of the Board of Mathematics.

I also believe something similar to a persecution of Christians also happened under the Emperor Yung Chuen in the 18th century. In the 16th century the only reason the Jesuits were allowed into China (which had forbidden the entrance of religious teachers) was because they were also mathematicians and astronomers.


......

Blah blah blah.... as usual we go off meandering around side-issues.

Now, who were all these scientists burnt at the stake?
:laugh:

Seeing as it is such an empirical historical fact- why are you so reluctant to share these facts with the rest of us?
:laugh:

[Queercommie Girl]

Crawling your way out...... :laugh: Okay, how many scientists were burnt at the stake then? Who? When? I've already cited Bruno and why it was not related to science, but anyway who are the others?

The Vatican apologised for how the Galileo affair was handled- Galileo was never burnt at the stake. So more false claims and lies on your behalf... wrong again.


The fact remains that people, including scientists, were wrongly burned at the stake by the Catholic Church, that's all there is to it, at the basic level. This fact is not a lie, so all your accusations against me are moot. It's not a number game, I'm well aware that for instance New Agists have exaggerated the number of people burned. Fact is, back in the day, relatively few people were burned to death by the Church. But that doesn't make it any less reactionary and wrong. I never said anyone was explicitly burned for his scientific ideas and theories.



What ridiculous reasoning! There were plenty of Nazi scientists who were executed after the war- so now we denounce the Allies as anti-science do we?
What's fucking ridiculous is that you have the gall to compare scientists and other people who were burned for "theological heresy" or some such non-sense with reactionary Nazi scientists tried and executed by the Allies.



You're trying to worm your way out of a silly position you've put yourself in through adopting a "common knowledge" falsehood and asserting it as historical fact.
Frankly, "common knowledge" is something you severely lack.



Yeah, because the Emperor of China in the 16th-17th centuries was really worried about the "Tai Chi'in" Pope! :rolleyes: Sorry, it wasn't that- wrong again.
Actually the ancient Chinese knew a lot more about the world than you think. Ancient Roman envoys already arrived at the court of the Eastern Han Dynasty in the 2nd century, as recorded by the Chinese history annals. How much more knowledge do you think the Chinese would have gained by the time of the 16th and 17th centuries?

The Mongols actually entered into an alliance with the Frankish crusader knights against the Saracens during the time of the Crusades, called the Franco-Mongol Alliance. It was a Mongol-Christian alliance that sacked the destroyed Baghdad, the heart of the Islamic Empire, in 1258 CE.

Granted, Mongols are not Chinese, but ethnic Han Chinese generals and soldiers served in the Mongol armies that marched to the West. And of course there is also Marco Polo. And there were multiple correspondences between the Mongol Khans and the Catholic Pope in those days. (Although the Mongols were not ethnic Chinese, after conquering China Kublai Khan declared himself the Emperor of China in the Confucian tradition, claiming the Mandate of Heaven and the Yuan Dynasty he established was technically the leader of the entire Mongol empire, even though in reality it was already geopolitically fragmented. It was actually Kublai Khan that built what is now the city of Beijing, it was referred to as Khanbaliq in the Mongolian language, meaning "city of the Khans")

Ok, I'm just saying ancient peoples knew more about the world than you seem to think.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy

The Chinese Rites controversy was a dispute within the Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) from the 1630s to the early 18th century[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-0) about whether Chinese folk religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion) rites and offerings to the emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_China) constituted idolatry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry). Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope) Clement XI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_XI) decided in favor of the Dominicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Order) (who argued that Chinese folk religion and offerings to the emperor were incompatible with Catholicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism)), which greatly reduced Catholic missionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary) activity in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China).

It was related to larger controversies between the Dominicans and Jesuits over the adoption of local practices of other countries, such as the ascetic brahmin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin) practices of India.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

Pope Pius XII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII) modified his predecessor's decision in 1939.

In China, Matteo Ricci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Ricci) reused the Cérémonial and adapted it the Chinese context. At one point the Jesuits even started to wear the gown of Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist) monks, before adopting the more prestigious silk gown of Chinese literati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar-bureaucrats).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-Manteigne.2C_p.178-2)

In a decree signed on 23 March 1656, Pope Alexander VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VII) accepted practices "favorable to Chinese customs", reinforcing 1615 decrees which accepted the usage of the Chinese language in liturgy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy), a notable exception to the contemporary Latin Catholic discipline which had generally forbidden the use of local languages.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-3)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-3)
In the 1659 instructions given by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Congregation_for_the_Propagation_of_the_Fai th) (known as the Propaganda Fide) to new missionaries to Asia, provisions were clearly made to the effect that adapting to local customs and respecting the habits of the countries to be evangelised was paramount:[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-4)
"Do not act with zeal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeal), do not put forward any arguments to convince these peoples to change their rites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites), their customs or their usages, except if they are evidently contrary to the religion [i.e., Catholic Christianity] and morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality). What would be more absurd than to bring France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) or any other European country to the Chinese? Do not bring to them our countries, but instead bring to them the Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith), a Faith that does not reject or hurt the rites, nor the usages of any people, provided that these are not distasteful, but that instead keeps and protects them."


— Extract from the 1659 Instructions, given to Mgr François Pallu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Pallu) and Mgr Lambert de la Motte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_de_la_Motte) of the Paris Foreign Missions Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Foreign_Missions_Society) by the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Congregation_for_the_Propagation_of_the_Fai th).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-6)
The Kangxi Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi_Emperor) was at first friendly to the Jesuit Missionaries working in China. He was highly grateful for the services they brought to him, in the areas of astronomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy), diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy) and gun manufacture.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-Mantienne.2C_p.180-7) The contribution of the Jesuits to artillery had allowed the Chinese Emperor to reconquer Taiwan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan). Jesuit diplomacy, through the negotiations of Jean-François Gerbillon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Gerbillon) and Tomas Pereira (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomas_Pereira&action=edit&redlink=1), had allowed him to stop Russian expansionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsardom_of_Russia) in the East through the Treaty of Nerchinsk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nerchinsk) in 1689.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-Les_Missions_Etrangeres.2C_p.83-8) By the end of the seventeenth century, the Jesuits also had made many converts.

In 1692, Kangxi issued an edict of toleration of Christianity:
The Europeans are very quiet; they do not excite any disturbances in the provinces, they do no harm to anyone, they commit no crimes, and their doctrine has nothing in common with that of the false sects in the empire, nor has it any tendency to excite sedition… We decide therefore that all temples dedicated to the Lord of heaven [i.e., the Christian God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_God)] in whatever place they may be found, ought to be preserved, and that it may be permitted to all who wish to worship this God to enter these temples, offer him incense, and perform the ceremonies practised according to ancient custom by the Christians. Therefore let no one henceforth offer them any opposition.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-9)
It seems a Catholic like you knows less about the history of your own religion in some ways than a non-Catholic like me. How pathetic and laughable. :laugh::rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

The fact remains that people, including scientists, were wrongly burned at the stake by the Catholic Church, that's all there is to it, at the basic level. This fact is not a lie, so all your accusations against me are moot. It's not a number game, I'm well aware that for instance New Agists have exaggerated the number of people burned. Fact is, back in the day, relatively few people were burned to death by the Church. But that doesn't make it any less reactionary and wrong. I never said anyone was explicitly burned for his scientific ideas and theories.

Err.... you were presenting the same old case against the Catholic Church etc and now you've found a convenient way to worm out of it.

Okay, regardless of whether it was for scientific enquiry or belief or heresy- who were these scientists? So far we have the grand total of ONE. :laugh:


What's fucking ridiculous is that you have the gall to compare scientists and other people who were burned for "theological heresy" or some such non-sense with reactionary Nazi scientists tried and executed by the Allies.

They might have been assholes, but they were still scientists. Oh, but I suppose it doesn't count if other people were (perhaps) assholes in the past and got executed too?

I am not defending executing anybody- but you still aren't able to back up your claims.

So let's get this straight, when Catholic theologians and priests make scientific discoveries and pioneering work in science it is merely incidental that they are also Catholics- despite being educated in the Catholic tradition and being encouraged to do such work by the institution of the church and their actual religious faith? Okay, so why is not incidental that all these "scientists" you know of who were burnt at the stake by the Church- despite not being able to name any of them- were scientists? Seeing as they were not being persecuted for scientific belief why bother mentioning that they were "scientists"? :laugh:


Frankly, "common knowledge" is something you severely lack.

Well, I'll take that as a compliment because "common knowledge" is usually wrong- similar to urban legends. In my opinion, tt seems like your history of Catholicism is more similar to Dan Brown books! LOL!!!


Actually the ancient Chinese knew a lot more about the world than you think. Ancient Roman envoys already arrived at the court of the Eastern Han Dynasty in the 2nd century, as recorded by the Chinese history annals. How much more knowledge do you think the Chinese would have gained by the time of the 16th and 17th centuries?

Err... did I ever deny that the Chinese had a great civilisation? At the same time I am not blind to the historical fact of the stagnation in Chinese progress- due to a whole host of factors. It seems you can't or won't accept this.


.....It seems a Catholic like you knows less about the history of your own religion in some ways than a non-Catholic like me. How pathetic and laughable. :laugh::rolleyes:

Sorry, you're WRONG AGAIN. It is well-known that the Jesuits were not always liked by other "Catholics", they were frowned upon in China for being too tolerant of "Chinese" ways and traditions, but that was not the reason why they were persecuted by the Emperor of China when Verbiest first arrived and later on in the 18th century. Sorry, but your desperate cut and paste from Wikipedia is a non sequitur. As a side note they caused a whole load of shit in Latin-America trying to protect the indigenous people from slavery and as a result I believe they were expelled at some point in the 18th century.

I am not really Catholic either- so ooops, sorry- I was not brought up in any particular faith. I see you are now reverting to ad hominems because you've been shown up for knowing fuck all about what you were pronouncing on with such authority- including your own "Chinese" history-

"How pathetic and laughable. :laugh::rolleyes:"

[Queercommie Girl]

Err.... you were presenting the same old case against the Catholic Church etc and now you've found a convenient way to worm out of it.

Okay, regardless of whether it was for scientific enquiry or belief or heresy- who were these scientists? So far we have ONE.
:laugh:


It is still very reactionary even if it was just one person, not to mention all the non-natural scientists who were burned for similar reasons. The fact that a self-claimed "socialist" would continue to apologise for such an organ of power that represents the interests of an institution that essentially defends the structures of class society is indeed quite ideologically suspect.



They might have been assholes, but they were still scientists. Oh, but I suppose it doesn't count if other people were (perhaps) assholes in the past and got executed too?


Nazi scientists were not executed for being assholes, they were executed for being Nazis. Do you really think those people who were burned for "theological heresy" were comparably reactionary?



Well, I'll take that as a compliment because "common knowledge" is usually wrong- similar to urban legends. In my opinion, tt seems like your history of Catholicism is more similar to Dan Brown books! LOL!!!


Except regarding the Chinese Rites Controversy, I have actually quoted many primary sources, which you are simply incapable of responding to.

"Common knowledge" may be wrong, but having them is still better than a general lack of basic knowledge.



Err... did I ever deny that the Chinese had a great civilisation? At the same time I am not blind to the historical fact of the stagnation in Chinese progress- due to a whole host of factors. It seems you can't or won't accept this.


You are an idiot, because that's not what I was talking about at all. I mentioned Marco Polo and ancient Roman envoys who were not even Chinese. My point was simply that ancient peoples (of all cultures and ethnicities) knew more about the world than you seem to think.



Sorry, you're WRONG AGAIN. It is well-known that the Jesuits were not always liked by other "Catholics", they were frowned upon in China for being too tolerant of "Chinese" ways and traditions,


They were frowned upon in the West by some people for their accomodation policies towards Confucianism.



but that was not the reason why they were persecuted by the Emperor of China when Verbiest first arrived and later on in the 18th century.

Sorry, but your desperate cut and paste from Wikipedia is a non sequitur.


Except primary sources suggest that Emperor Kangxi was initially quite welcoming of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy

In 1692, Kangxi issued an edict of toleration of Christianity:

The Europeans are very quiet; they do not excite any disturbances in the provinces, they do no harm to anyone, they commit no crimes, and their doctrine has nothing in common with that of the false sects in the empire, nor has it any tendency to excite sedition… We decide therefore that all temples dedicated to the Lord of heaven [i.e., the Christian God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_God)] in whatever place they may be found, ought to be preserved, and that it may be permitted to all who wish to worship this God to enter these temples, offer him incense, and perform the ceremonies practised according to ancient custom by the Christians. Therefore let no one henceforth offer them any opposition.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-9)

Whether or not it's from Wikipedia is irrelevant. It's a primary source. Unless you think Wikipedia is simply lying. But then you seem to quote from Wiki when it suits your purposes too.


As a side note they caused a whole load of shit in Latin-America trying to protect the indigenous people from slavery and as a result I believe they were expelled at some point in the 18th century.


I fail to see the relevance of this at all. But I think the Jesuits were actually a relatively progressive branch inside the Catholic Church in those days, due to their greater knowledge of the natural sciences and their greater respect for other non-Western cultures. Actually I think in India around this time there was a similar "rites controversy" regarding accomodation to Hinduism by the Jesuits.

Calling them the "liberation theologists" of their day would be going too far, but they were relatively more progressive than many other Catholic branches.

As for the Chinese Rites Controversy, Pope Pius XII made a statement about it in 1939, which so far is the "final word" from the Catholic Church on this matter:

The Rites controversy continued to hamper Church efforts to gain converts in China. In 1939, a few weeks after his election to the papacy, Pope Pius XII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII) ordered the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Evangelization_of_Peoples) to relax certain aspects of Clement XI's and Benedict XIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_XIV)'s decrees. After the Apostolic Vicars had received guarantees from the Manchukuo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo) Government that confirmed the mere "civil" characteristics of the so called "chinese rites", the Holy See released, on Dec. 8th 1939, a new decree, known as "Plane Compertum", stating that:


Catholics are permitted to be present at ceremonies in honor of Confucius in Confucian temples or in schools;
Erection of an image of Confucius or tablet with his name on is permitted in Catholic schools.
Catholic magistrates and students are permitted to passively attend public ceremonies which have the appearance of superstition.
It is licit and unobjectionable for head inclinations and other manifestations of civil observance before the deceased or their images.
The oath on the Chinese rites, which was prescribed by Benedict XIV, is not fully in accord with recent regulations and is superfluous.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-16)

This meant that Chinese customs were no longer considered superstitious, but were an honourable way of esteeming one's relatives and therefore permitted by Catholic Christians.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-17) Confucianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism) was also thusly recognized as a philosophy and an integral part of Chinese culture rather than as a heathen religion in conflict with Catholicism. The Government of China established diplomatic relations with the Vatican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See) in 1943, within a short interval. The Papal decree changed the ecclesiastical situation in China in an almost revolutionary way.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-Smit_188-18) As the Church began to flourish, Pius XII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_XII) established a local ecclesiastical hierarchy, and, in 1946, received Archbishop Thomas Tien Ken-sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tien_Ken-sin) (田耕莘) SVD, as the first Chinese national, in the Sacred College of Cardinals.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rites_controversy#cite_note-Smit_188-18) and later elevated him to the See of Peking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_see).



I am not really Catholic either- so ooops, sorry- I was not brought up in any particular faith. I see you are now reverting to ad hominems because you've been shown up for knowing fuck all about what you were pronouncing on with such authority- including your own "Chinese" history-

How pathetic and laughable. :laugh::rolleyes:


Go and fuck yourself. How is saying you are a Catholic an ad hominem? You have been unable to respond to any of my points, including responses to your ridiculous comments on Needham. The only thing you latch onto is a mis-interpretation of what I said about the Church burning scientists.

[Red And Black Sabot]

Monotheistic religions in general chap my ass worst of all but I have to say number one is Christianity because that is what has personally affected me negatively the most. Growing up evangelical has left me with some serious mental and emotional scar tissue.

[ComradeMan]

It is still very reactionary even if it was just one person, not to mention all the non-natural scientists who were burned for similar reasons. The fact that a self-claimed "socialist" would continue to apologise for such an organ of power that represents the interests of an institution that essentially defends the structures of class society is indeed quite ideologically suspect.

Unless it's the Tsar's children who were executed- strange how you have suddenly become such a humanitarian, when it suits you of course.

You know, the fact that a self-claimed socialist would continue to apologise for the murder of innocent children....

What about the Red Terror in Spain? What's your take on that then? ;)

We are talking about Medieval and Renaissance Europe, it's useless and anachronistic to apply post-Industrial Revolution class judgements on things.

I am not apologising for the established Church, I'm just pointing out that your assertions are inaccurate and/or incorrect.

Now, how many scientists were burnt at the stake by the Catholic Church? Seeing as you have claimed it to be such an empirical historical fact and such "common knowledge"- why can't you actually say how many, who or provide a source?


Nazi scientists were not executed for being assholes, they were executed for being Nazis. Do you really think those people who were burned for "theological heresy" were comparably reactionary?

Well being a NAZI does usually equate with being an asshole. :laugh:
You are missing the point...


Except regarding the Chinese Rites Controversy, I have actually quoted many primary sources, which you are simply incapable of responding to.

Well done Einstein, except we weren't talking about the Chinese Rites Controversy, were we? The Chinese Rites Controversy was an internal dispute with the Catholic Church that ended up pissing off the Emperor of China in general. What I am referring to is the controversy between Yang Guangxian and the Jesuits that occurred in 1664. China was under a corrupt regent Oboi until 1669.

See this
http://faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scientists/verbiest.htm


"Common knowledge" may be wrong, but having them is still better than a general lack of basic knowledge.

Like what exactly? Like you don't actually know what the fuck you are talking about? :laugh:

Good tactic building up strawman arguments here. Where did I say that overall the Jesuit experience in China was not positive, for all concerned? There were however a few dark moments too.

I must admit that I forgot about that guy Oboi- but I did mention how the Kangxi emperor and Verbiest ended up on very good terms.


"Go and fuck yourself. How is saying you are a Catholic an ad hominem? You have been unable to respond to any of my points, including responses to your ridiculous comments on Needham. The only thing you latch onto is a mis-interpretation of what I said about the Church burning scientists.

Err... you still haven't been able to provide any evidence, bar the ONE example I provided, of the Church burning scientists.

My ridiculous comments on Needham? They were Needham's comments.... ooops

But anyway, anyway, anyway--- we can nitpick at little details all day.

You still can't back up your assertion that the Catholic Church burnt scientists at the stake, bar the one example. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Your claim that the Catholic Church has apologised for burning scientists is also a complete lie too.

Given your overall anti-religious stance and that previously you have stated that all religion is anti-scientific then it is not unreasonable to read your "historically-unverifiable" polemic against the Catholic Church as a position of the church's being anti-scientific.... however you are good at being disingenuous. ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

There is also a catalogue of incidences of the burning of intellectuals, protestants, atheists and other theological 'heretics'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics

[ComradeMan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Yes, we discussed Bruno before. He was condemned as a heretic, but not for scientific beliefs as such.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics[/URL]

Regrettable, but that's a sum total of 96- and I can't find one who was a "scientist". The only scientist on the greater list is Servetus who was burnt at the stake by the Protestant Genoese.

I will re-iterate, I don't think burning anyone to death is acceptable and I am not forming apologetics, but at the same time there is no evidence to suggest the Catholic Church was deliberately anti-scientific or burnt "scientists" at the stake. The evidence is just not there despite this being a commonly held notion.

If we want to talk about Crusades, Witch hunts and the like- okay, but there was no Catholic "crusade" against science- quite the contrary.

[Queercommie Girl]

Unless it's the Tsar's children who were executed- strange how you have suddenly become such a humanitarian, when it suits you of course.

You know, the fact that a self-claimed socialist would continue to apologise for the murder of innocent children....

What about the Red Terror in Spain? What's your take on that then? ;)


Actually it's not so strange, if you are really a Marxist.

One serious problem with you is your consistent failure to understand class.

If you can show me how Bruno was a rich big landlord, then I might to some extent change my views on burning him.

Although I defend Confucianism sometimes, (especially from Western cultural imperialists) do you ever see me shed tears when radical Daoist and Buddhist peasant rebels burned down the villas of the super-rich elitist Confucian landlords in ancient China? No. I don't even shed tears when objective scientific and technological progress is negatively affected as a result, like when the peasant rebels burned down the ancient Chinese Imperial Astronomy Institute.

Again, like I said before, I didn't say Lenin's actions were not debatable, but it is a mistake to simply not put class into the equation at all.



We are talking about Medieval and Renaissance Europe, it's useless and anachronistic to apply post-Industrial Revolution class judgements on things.
That's not really true, since there were contemporary criticisers of the Catholic Church.

In order to avoid further inane accusations of "Sinocentrism" from you, let me use my own country as an example. What you are saying here effectively is that we can't really criticise the Orthodox Confucianism of the Han Dynasty, because we would be applying post-Industrial Revolution class judgements on things. Well, the Yellow Turbans would disagree.

Class conflict existed throughout human history, not just since the Industrial Revolution. Today socialists stand on the side of the workers, in the past we would have stood on the side of the slaves and peasants. Didn't you know that Marx greatly praised the great hero of ancient slave revolt - Spartacus, as one of the greatest and most splendid heroes of the ancient proletariat? It's Marxism 101.



I am not apologising for the established Church, I'm just pointing out that your assertions are inaccurate and/or incorrect.
I said it is wrong and reactionary, even by the more progressive standards of the time, such as Renaissance humanism, to burn people to death on a stake, for whatever reason, except maybe in the cases of a few witches/sorcerers when they were real criminals. (Even then it seems like overkill but qualitatively those cases are somewhat different) Even if only one scientist was actually burned doesn't change this fact at all. And furthermore, he certainly wasn't the only scientist who was actually persecuted by the Church.



Well being a NAZI does usually equate with being an asshole. :laugh:
Not really. To be "reactionary" in a Marxist sense is not just a "moral" thing. Class war is not a war of good vs. evil, or Jedi vs. the Sith. Secular law and ethics would suggest that people should not be punished legally simply for "moral failings" unless concrete damage (such as killing innocent people) was done to society, because the ultimate basis of human ethics is human society, not God.

If you can show me how the victims of the Catholic Inquisition, apart from a few witches/sorcerers (perhaps), really harmed innocent people in a significant way, then you might have a point. Otherwise abstract moralism means absolutely nothing.



Well done Einstein, except we weren't talking about the Chinese Rites Controversy, were we? The Chinese Rites Controversy was an internal dispute with the Catholic Church that ended up pissing off the Emperor of China in general. What I am referring to is the controversy between Yang Guangxian and the Jesuits that occurred in 1664. China was under a corrupt regent Oboi until 1669.

See this
http://faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scientists/verbiest.htm

Like what exactly? Like you don't actually know what the fuck you are talking about? :laugh:

Good tactic building up strawman arguments here. Where did I say that overall the Jesuit experience in China was not positive, for all concerned? There were however a few dark moments too.

I must admit that I forgot about that guy Oboi- but I did mention how the Kangxi emperor and Verbiest ended up on very good terms.
Very good opportunistic tactic of changing your point there. :rolleyes: You were initially saying that the fact that the Jesuits were persecuted and expelled from China had nothing to do with the Rites Controversy, now you are modifying your tone.



Err... you still haven't been able to provide any evidence, bar the ONE example I provided, of the Church burning scientists.
One example, logically speaking, is sufficient. When a court of law punishes a murderer, does it matter if he/she has murdered 1 person or 10 people, qualitatively speaking? Can you say that killing 1 person is not murder?



My ridiculous comments on Needham? They were Needham's comments.... ooops
I was referring to your pathetic attempt to try to portray Needham as a Christian apologist. Good example of feigning ignorance on your part here. You know what I was talking about, you can't respond to it, so you deliberately feign ignorance about what I'm referring to.

Confucianism also has a "celestial law giver", so what's your point?



Given your overall anti-religious stance and that previously you have stated that all religion is anti-scientific then it is not unreasonable to read
I'm not anti-religion in practice, otherwise I would have joined the explicit militant atheist crowd of people like NoXion and Dr. Mindbender etc.

But yes philosophically I am anti-religion in the sense that I am an atheist and a materialist. Philosophically my views aren't really different from NoXion's, I just don't agree with his approach.

However, I am allowed to be a philosophical atheist, to believe that intrinsically science and religion are not compatible, it's not discriminatory at all as long as I don't in practice discriminate against religious people.

Another problem I have is with religious people who are racist, sexist, queerphobic, classist etc. But this does not apply to religions in general.



your "historically-unverifiable" polemic against the Catholic Church as a position of the church's being anti-scientific.... however you are good at being disingenuous. ;)
It's amazing how fucking illiterate you can become - I didn't even explicitly state that the Catholic Church was intrinsically anti-scientific. I said Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-scientific.

Polemic? What polemic? What the fuck are you on about?

[Queercommie Girl]

but there was no Catholic "crusade" against science- quite the contrary


Yeah, but note, who actually said there was a Catholic "crusade" against science? You have essentially being ranting for nothing.

[Dr Mindbender]

The Catholic Church has been a thorn in the side of science for centuries. Galileo Galileo was harassed and eventually placed under house arrest for daring to suggest that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Indeed, there are plenty of other reasons for disliking the Church. The sheltering of child molestors, for example, is something that happened far more recently than any burnings at the stake.

Which makes me wonder even more why ComradeMan feels he has to defend such an odious institution.

[Dr Mindbender]

.

Which makes me wonder even more why ComradeMan feels he has to defend such an odious institution.

Cultural relativism. In countries of catholic influence such as Spain, Italy and Ireland there is an unfortunate tendency even among progressives to defend the papal empire.

(Hugo Chavez not shying from publicising his Catholicism for example).

[Vendetta]

The Westboro Baptist Church.

[Dr Mindbender]

The Westboro Baptist Church.

Its got to be up there i'll give you that.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hugo Chavez not shying from publicising his Catholicism for example


Putting Chavez into the same category as people like ComradeMan is a fundamental mistake, IMO.

Chavez is flawed in many ways, but I still respect him as a socialist in many ways too. Chavez has a solid anti-imperialist and class-based political position. The fact that he is also a Catholic is of secondary importance.

I'm not intrinsically anti-Catholic. Of course, I am as much an atheist as you are philosophically, but I'm not a militant atheist in practice like NoXion. For me, practically speaking, the most important thing is whether or not one is left-wing.

For instance, I wouldn't really be so concerned about burning people to death by Catholics if it were poor people burning the rich. I give critical support to ancient Chinese peasant rebels like the Yellow Turbans for example, even though they literally massacred thousands of people. (Chavez for me is a more "Yellow Turban" or "Red Turban" kind of Catholic)

The problem with ComradeMan is that he has no real class approach to any of his analysis. The fact that he can ridiculously compare the Catholic Inquisition with the "Red Terror" of Lenin or the anarchists demonstrates this very vividly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Cultural relativism. In countries of catholic influence such as Spain, Italy and Ireland there is an unfortunate tendency even among progressives to defend the papal empire.

I don't know about Italy, but I'm pretty sure that the Church's influence is on the wane in Spain and Ireland. Certainly if you compare the behaviour of your average Catholic, with what Church dogma says they should do, there is a serious disconnect - for example, most lay Catholics use contraception as much as everyone else.

Hopefully this means that one day the Catholic Church will be no more.

[Zealot]

Iseul & Expropism

Please explain:-

1) Which scientists were burnt at the stake for their scientific beliefs?

Who were they?
Please do tell...
Even if they were burned for heresy, you still don't seem to understand the affect that science played on theological beliefs in those times and certainly even our own period.



2) Explain the significance of the fact that heliocentrism, the telescope and Euclidean geometry were introduced to China by the Jesuits.

Great, Iseul was just pointing out that the Catholics don't have a monopoly on the founding of science.


3) Joseph Needham's (1951) comment about science NOT progressing in China due to the absence of the religious concept of a celestial law giver.

Not sure what you are trying to say here but it seems as though you equate lack of a God with lack of scientific growth? Modern day science goes along just fine with an "absence of the religious concept of a celestial law giver."


4) How the Popes and Catholic Church had originally embraced Copernicus's ideas- so much so that De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium was dedicated to Pope Paolo III?

Dedication of a book means absolutely nothing, and it seems that he done this as his way of asking the Pope for protection from the vilification that he knew was inevitable. In fact, he kept his ideas almost unknown until literally his dieing moment, which meant he was fortunately saved from the bigoted reaction that many others, including Galileo, had to suffer.


The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has not been anti-science and the whole Galileo debacle, so often cited as evidence, was little to do with being anti-science at the end of the day.

Why was Galileo's trial "little to do with being anti-science"? His books were banned for Christ's sake. They were definitely anti-science, which is ok because it's not new, but trying to defend them is outrageous.

[ComradeMan]

Actually it's not so strange, if you are really a Marxist.

Why? Marxists kill children? Is that what you are saying?


One serious problem with you is your consistent failure to understand class.

Nope- it has nothing to do with your false and ahistorical claims.


If you can show me how Bruno was a rich big landlord, then I might to some extent change my views on burning him.

So you do "techinically" agree with burning people at the stake then?

What a hypocrite.


No. I don't even shed tears when objective scientific and technological progress is negatively affected as a result, like when the peasant rebels burned down the ancient Chinese Imperial Astronomy Institute.

Well then you are an ignoramus.


Again, like I said before, I didn't say Lenin's actions were not debatable, but it is a mistake to simply not put class into the equation at all.

You can dress it up in whatever fancy language you like- it still amounts to a group of drunken soldiers bludgeoning and shooting to death a groupd of defenceless children. How brave. How courageous.


That's not really true, since there were contemporary criticisers of the Catholic Church.

Yeah, Protestants- they were well known for free-thinking and tolerance of science. :rolleyes:


In order to avoid further inane accusations of "Sinocentrism" from you, let me use my own country as an example. What you are saying here effectively is that we can't really criticise the Orthodox Confucianism of the Han Dynasty, because we would be applying post-Industrial Revolution class judgements on things. Well, the Yellow Turbans would disagree.

You may as well argue that the Gracchi were communists. Yeah, a peasant's revolt? So what? It was hardly a Marxist set up and they hardly had a class-consiousness as would be understood today. I'm surprised you would be so in to a rebellion that had such a religious, i.e. non-materialist, take on things. :laugh:


Class conflict existed throughout human history, not just since the Industrial Revolution. Today socialists stand on the side of the workers, in the past we would have stood on the side of the slaves and peasants. Didn't you know that Marx greatly praised the great hero of ancient slave revolt - Spartacus, as one of the greatest and most splendid heroes of the ancient proletariat? It's Marxism 101.

More arguments to hypotheses. "Would have" doesn't mean "did". You can't use counter-factual arguments to validate erroneous positions on concrete history.

As for Spartacus, sure- even the Illuminati admired him. But in terms of Marxist analysis you should know that the proletariat is the proletariat of capitalist society- not the Latin proletarius.


Even if only one scientist was actually burned doesn't change this fact at all. And furthermore, he certainly wasn't the only scientist who was actually persecuted by the Church.

Please tell us who these other ones were? You keep refusing to do so.


I was referring to your pathetic attempt to try to portray Needham as a Christian apologist. Good example of feigning ignorance on your part here. You know what I was talking about, you can't respond to it, so you deliberately feign ignorance about what I'm referring to.

Who did that? I posted a quote from your cited authority in reference to the Great Stagnation in China. Needham was well-known for his Christian socialism but was also a very respected sinologist. No one is feigning ignorance here....


Confucianism also has a "celestial law giver", so what's your point?

Take it up with Needham.


It's amazing how fucking illiterate you can become - I didn't even explicitly state that the Catholic Church was intrinsically anti-scientific. I said Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity is anti-scientific. Polemic? What polemic? What the fuck on you on about?

Oh shut the fuck up. You claimed that the Catholic Church had apologised for all the scientists it had burnt at the stake when in actual fact we can only find ONE who was burnt at the stake and the apology was actually for the harsh treatment of Galileo- who wasn't actually burnt at the stake at all. :laugh:

As for the other inane comments by other members here. This is not a general apolegetic for every last damn thing the established Catholic Church has done. There's a lot of stuff that isn't pretty at all- but at the same time there is also no basis in the claim that the Catholic Church is/has been anti-scientific or persecuted scientists for their science. I suggest you all read more than Dan Brown.

It seems strange that when Catholics do bad shit- then it's Catholicism is evil and in part the rest of Christianity- yet when they do good stuff, like their involvement in science over centuries then it's only incidental that they were Catholics.

Completely pathetic.

[ComradeMan]

Dedication of a book means absolutely nothing, and it seems that he done this as his way of asking the Pope for protection from the vilification that he knew was inevitable. In fact, he kept his ideas almost unknown until literally his dieing moment, which meant he was fortunately saved from the bigoted reaction that many others, including Galileo, had to suffer.

This just shows how little you understand of the world we are talking about. Dedication could only be done with Papal approval and Copernicus book was actually promoted by a Cardinal and a Bishop. :rolleyes:


Why was Galileo's trial "little to do with being anti-science"? His books were banned for Christ's sake. They were definitely anti-science, which is ok because it's not new, but trying to defend them is outrageous.

Galileo was in character a bit of an ass, and he could not prove his assertions empirically, even though much of his theory was in the end proven correct there were problems with his proofs. The Church was acting no more anti-scientifically than sceptical scientists would act today when presented with a new theory for which the proofs do not seem convincing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Galileo was in character a bit of an ass,

Blaming the victim. The Church was in no real danger from Galileo, so their treatment of him was completely unjustified no matter if he was an arsehole. Why even mention it?


and he could not prove his assertions empirically, even though much of his theory was in the end proven correct there were problems with his proofs. The Church was acting no more anti-scientifically than sceptical scientists would act today when presented with a new theory for which the proofs do not seem convincing.

Scientists will gleefully tear a work to shreds, while a known crank may find it difficult to get published, but they don't put each other or anyone else on trial for being apparently wrong.

[Zav]

I hate the evangenical Abrahamic religions the most, and New Age religions the least, but still I strongly dislike all of them.

[Zealot]

This just shows how little you understand of the world we are talking about. Dedication could only be done with Papal approval and Copernicus book was actually promoted by a Cardinal and a Bishop. :rolleyes:

So your proof for Catholicism establishing science and never being anti-scientific essentially falls down to the fact that Copernicus wrote a little dedication to the pope, because you didn't respond to anything else. That's cute but it doesn't explain why the Church vehemently opposed it after he died.




Galileo was in character a bit of an ass, and he could not prove his assertions empirically, even though much of his theory was in the end proven correct there were problems with his proofs.

So that means it's all OK to ban a persons books, force him to renounce his ideas and place him under house arrest for being a "bit of an ass". Furthermore, he wasn't on trial for being an ass but for his ideas which were controversial for orthodox church belief. He made great advances in science and you trying to downplay his achievements and personal character doesn't change anything. Except a humorous attempt to defend the great founder of science, the Catholic Church :rolleyes:


The Church was acting no more anti-scientifically than sceptical scientists would act today when presented with a new theory for which the proofs do not seem convincing.

Do you honestly believe that in the 21st century we would respond as the catholics did to Galileo? :laugh:

[The_Outernationalist]

Why aren't I allowed to choose the preacherhoods of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris? those proselytizing bastards also hold numerous reactionary views, yet their words are often still paraded around legitimately...The "New" Atheists, they're called.

Away with all new atheists I say.


Atheism is the lack of belief.

I would generally agree with you, but tell that to the new generation of swindling atheist preachers who seem to part many an atheist bonehead with his money very similar to their christian bonehead counterparts and their fellow flock of sheep.

[The_Outernationalist]

Ok, well, as usual, I feel this thread might have been a bad idea. Posts #44 and #45 suggest to me a shitstorm a-brewin, and I really don't have the talent nor desire to stop it.

Don't insult the intelligence of all of us by pretending you didn't want this to happen, or as if the effect didn't come out as desired. You knew exactly how this would turn out, especially considering the title.


I think, fine, these types of threads are silly, and condescending to believers, but honestly, I don't see any need to be hyper-sensitive about something I don't agree with on a forum intended for this sort of discussion.

This board? with people screaming "fascist" at the slightest hint of leaving the flock?



To be secular means to be neutral on religion, neither taking a side for it or against it.

That's not what that means. at all.


However, when someone makes a thread asking which religion is most appealing, that is a tacit approval of religion, or in other words, to find that aspect of religion which is least offensive to materialist thought. But then, by taking a position for religion, it is only natural that someone take a position against religion. To look, in an objective manner, whether we be religious or not, those aspects of religion that we find most offensive, most appalling.

So to to look at something objectively you...take away it's positive bias and add a negative one. oh the science! :lol:



Revleft's tolerant position on religion

tolerant?

[ComradeMan]

So your proof for Catholicism establishing science and never being anti-scientific essentially falls down to the fact that Copernicus wrote a little dedication to the pope, because you didn't respond to anything else. That's cute but it doesn't explain why the Church vehemently opposed it after he died.


Other than a Dominican by the name of Tolsani who had a go at Copernicus in 1546- it was until 1616 that the Church got the hell in with De Revolutionibus, mostly thanks to the Galileo Affair. Copernicus died in 1543. :rolleyes:


So that means it's all OK to ban a persons books, force him to renounce his ideas and place him under house arrest for being a "bit of an ass". Furthermore, he wasn't on trial for being an ass but for his ideas which were controversial for orthodox church belief.

Actually Galileo's ideas were problematic for the accepted scientific theories of the time, there was little problem with any Chrisitian doctrine as such.

I never said that I agreed with Medieval-Renaissance methods of silencing people.


He made great advances in science and you trying to downplay his achievements and personal character doesn't change anything. Except a humorous attempt to defend the great founder of science, the Catholic Church :rolleyes:

Ironically it was the Jesuits of the Collegium Romanum who defended Galileo.


Do you honestly believe that in the 21st century we would respond as the catholics did to Galileo? :laugh:

No, but Galileo didn't live in the 21st century and we aren't talking about these times.

The whole Galileo Affair was more about personality clashes and philosophical politics of Renaissance Italy.

However- the Galileo Affair and the problems with Copernicus are like, err.... two interlinked affairs in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church. Weigh them against the other things too.

But getting back to the point- I would still like Iseul to source this apology from the Catholic Church for all these scientists it burnt.... :lol:

[Zealot]

Other than a Dominican by the name of Tolsani who had a go at Copernicus in 1546- it was until 1616 that the Church got the hell in with De Revolutionibus, mostly thanks to the Galileo Affair. Copernicus died in 1543. :rolleyes:

Exactly, because Galileo was its biggest proponent up until that time.


Actually Galileo's ideas were problematic for the accepted scientific theories of the time, there was little problem with any Chrisitian doctrine as such.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world" - Papal Condemnation of June 22, 1633.

I'm just going to end it here as you have pretty much agreed with me only citing "personality clashes and philosophical politics" as some sort of evidence the Catholic church wasn't anti-science. +1 for the proletariat -1 for Catholicism and non-science.

[ComradeMan]

Exactly, because Galileo was its biggest proponent up until that time.

The trouble is Galileo could not convincingly prove that the Aristotelian view- held by authorities both spiritual and temporal- was wrong. We now know that Galileo was mostly right and we can now prove it, but at the time this could not be done empirically. Well-known and respected "scientists" of the time refused to accept heliocentrism, such as Tycho Brahe. Galileo also asserted the immobility of the Sun, which is not correct and he was wrong about tides. Galileo was also not the only and or biggest proponent of heliocentrism. Cardinal Nicolaus de Cusa (1401-1464) had come to speculate on ideas that inspired Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno and Kepler.

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world" - Papal Condemnation of June 22, 1633.

But the Jesuits still continued to teach heliocentrism in China and you may note that three out of the ten cardinals on the Galileo committee refused to sign the verdict.

Probably the real reason for Galileo getting into trouble was the insult against the Papal Authorities perceived in his work Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (1632) in which he ridiculed the Pope, who had been his friend and the papal authorities and presented a proof that was an absolute load of nonsense. In fact, this work has been presented as one great straw man argument in many senses.

"The fascinating arguments in the last conversation would hardly have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him." Einstein in the Foreword to a translation of the work.age xvii of Einstein's foreword in Galileo Galilei: 1632/1953: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems p. xvii



I'm just going to end it here as you have pretty much agreed with me only citing "personality clashes and philosophical politics" as some sort of evidence the Catholic church wasn't anti-science. +1 for the proletariat -1 for Catholicism and non-science.

No... because your cherrypicked arguments are full of holes and you obviously have little idea about state, church and politics in Renaissance Italy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The trouble is Galileo could not convincingly prove that the Aristotelian view- held by authorities both spiritual and temporal- was wrong. We now know that Galileo was mostly right and we can now prove it, but at the time this could not be done empirically. Well-known and respected "scientists" of the time refused to accept heliocentrism, such as Tycho Brahe. Galileo also asserted the immobility of the Sun, which is not correct and he was wrong about tides. Galileo was also not the only and or biggest proponent of heliocentrism. Cardinal Nicolaus de Cusa (1401-1464) had come to speculate on ideas that inspired Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno and Kepler.

Haven't you heard of parsimony? The heliocentric model does away with the need for complicated epicycles, yet predicts the motions of the planets just as well if not better, especially if you take into account the slight eccentricity of the planets' orbits, as Kepler was to realise when he was formulating his laws of planetary motion.

Heliocentric models go back as far as the ancient Greeks, but they never sat well with the hubristic and self-centred worldview associated with anthropomorphic monotheist religions, which is why the Church promoted, and protected with force, the geocentric model.


But the Jesuits still continued to teach heliocentrism in China and you may note that three out of the ten cardinals on the Galileo committee refused to sign the verdict.

So fucking what? The trial should never have happened in the first place. You don't get to claw back some brownie points simply because some individuals within the Church had a functioning heart and/or brain. The whole ancient rickety edifice is corrupt and rotten to the core and has been for a long time, yet you insist on offering up these pathetic, shitty little excuses that show you have more interest in somehow salvaging the Church than acknowledging that they did wrong.


Probably the real reason for Galileo getting into trouble was the insult against the Papal Authorities perceived in his work Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (1632) in which he ridiculed the Pope, who had been his friend and the papal authorities and presented a proof that was an absolute load of nonsense. In fact, this work has been presented as one great straw man argument in many senses.

"The fascinating arguments in the last conversation would hardly have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him." Einstein in the Foreword to a translation of the work.age xvii of Einstein's foreword in Galileo Galilei: 1632/1953: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems p. xvii

It is never OK to put someone on trial for writing a book, even if it makes shitty arguments in support of its thesis. The Church could have responded with a much better book, it's not like they couldn't find anyone with talent. But instead they went down the coercive and nasty route because that what the Church is like at heart.


No... because your cherrypicked arguments are full of holes and you obviously have little idea about state, church and politics in Renaissance Italy.

The Church should never regain the power and influence it once had, we've already seen the sort of shit they can get up to with that.

[ComradeMan]

Heliocentric models go back as far as the ancient Greeks, but they never sat well with the hubristic and self-centred worldview associated with anthropomorphic monotheist religions, which is why the Church promoted, and protected with force, the geocentric model.

Aristarchus of Samos, who was known to and cited by Copernicus, was the first we know of and was supported by Seleucus. The trouble is the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian systems were the ones that were generally accepted. Even before Christianity had an influence, Plutarch had ridiculed Aristarchus' ideas and there was also a reference to a now lost work, Against Aristarchus by Cleanthes.

Plutarch: Moralia 6:35 "....Thereupon Lucius laughed and said:"Oh sir, just don't bring suit against us for impiety as Cleanthes thought that the Greeks ought to lay an action for impiety against Aristarchus the Samian on the ground that he was disturbing the hearth of the universe because he sought to save the phenomena by assuming that the heaven is at rest while the earth is revolving along the ecliptic and at the same time is rotating about its own axis..."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/The_Face_in_the_Moon*/A.html#T923

So it seems that the idea of heliocentrism being impious or just being ridiculed was not all that new and not in any way exlusive to "monotheistic" religion. :rolleyes:

You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that with the "technology" that was available to the people of the times the heliocentric model did not seem either reasonable or provable. We are just dealing with conflicting theories at this point.



So fucking what? The trial should never have happened in the first place. You don't get to claw back some brownie points simply because some individuals within the Church had a functioning heart and/or brain. The whole ancient rickety edifice is corrupt and rotten to the core and has been for a long time, yet you insist on offering up these pathetic, shitty little excuses that show you have more interest in somehow salvaging the Church than acknowledging that they did wrong.

And indeed the Catholic Church has admitted its harsh treatment of Galileo and its wrongdoings. But he wasn't burnt at the stake either and this commonly put around notion of a rabid Inquisition burning scientists at the stake for going against the Church is ahistorical.

As for the rest of your childish rant- it's basically, "I hate the Church so I will refuse to see anything good or positive that they ever did ever"- Perhaps you should change your username to one of the philosophers' who refused to look through the telescope.


It is never OK to put someone on trial for writing a book, even if it makes shitty arguments in support of its thesis. The Church could have responded with a much better book, it's not like they couldn't find anyone with talent. But instead they went down the coercive and nasty route because that what the Church is like at heart.

Oh shut up, it was the 1630s FFS- it's not like the Catholic Church is the only entity that has had censorship issues. What would you prefer? Sent to a gulag as a dissident? I am not defending Galileo's treatment, not even the Catholic Church does anymore, but to use the Galileo Affair as evidence that the Catholic Church is anti-science is silly- especially in the light of all its pro-science.


The Church should never regain the power and influence it once had, we've already seen the sort of shit they can get up to with that.

Who was arguing that?

But at the end of the day, despite all the posturing and bold language- no one can actually tell me who these scientists were that were all burnt at the stake, bar one (nothing to do with science)- nor when the Catholic Church apologised (apparently) for this burning of scientists etc.

Keep reading the Dan Brown books.... LOLL

Here's a quote from Galileo too....

"Il motivo, dunque, che loro producono per condennar l'opinione della mobilità della Terra e stabilità del Sole, è, che leggendosi nelle Sacre lettere, in molti luoghi, che il Sole si muove e che la Terra sta ferma, né potendo la Scrittura mai mentire o errare, ne séguita per necessaria conseguenza che erronea e dannanda sia la sentenza di chi volesse asserire, il Sole esser per se stesso immobile, e mobile la Terra. "

"The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable. . . ."
Galileo 1615- in a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina Lorena
http://www.disf.org/Documentazione/81.asp
http://www.disf.org/en/documentation/03-Galileo_Cristina.asp

[¿Que?]

Don't insult the intelligence of all of us by pretending you didn't want this to happen, or as if the effect didn't come out as desired. You knew exactly how this would turn out, especially considering the title.
I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. Have a look at the threads I started in the past. Most of them are flops.


This board? with people screaming "fascist" at the slightest hint of leaving the flock?
Not sure what you're getting at. What I'm saying is that this is a place for debate, in which the semi-anonymous nature of the forum allows people to be, um, less restrained with their quips.


That's not what that means. at all.

Don't nit pick. How does a secular (board, government, etc) policy imply favoritism for or against religion?


So to to look at something objectively you...take away it's positive bias and add a negative one. oh the science! :lol:

Well, I can understand your confusion since I didn't include the word "at" in that last phrase (since it was, in fact a sentence fragment and not a complete sentence). I wrote that a while ago, and while I can't be entirely certain of what I was trying to say at the time, it seems to imply that what I was talking about was looking objectively "at" the negative bias. That is, ask ourselves, regardless of what we believe, what we find appalling about religion, and look at those things objectively.


tolerant?
You do realize here I'm talking about board policy and not the position of general revleft users on religion. Yes, revleft users tend to be highly critical of religion, but being religious will neither get you banned nor restricted. I'd say that's about as tolerant as you can get.

[¿Que?]

The_Outernaturalist:

On a side note, you should search this board for threads on Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. Particularly the last two are not very popular around here.

[PopoSmash!]

I seem to have come in a bit late, but:

Statism

[Nox]

Christianity
Hinduism
Islam

In that order

[Queercommie Girl]

So you do "techinically" agree with burning people at the stake then?

What a hypocrite.


I never said I believe in "universal human rights" that are independent of class. There is no hypocrisy on my part. Burning a king to death on a stake is fundamentally different from burning a peasant to death on a stake.

The French Revolution also killed entire clans of aristocrats. Do you ever see me cry over that?



Well then you are an ignoramus.
I happen to put class before science, unlike a pseudo-socialist such as you.



Yeah, Protestants- they were well known for free-thinking and tolerance of science. :rolleyes:
Protestants weren't the only ones who criticised the Catholic Church. Humanist thinkers like Voltaire did as well.



You may as well argue that the Gracchi were communists. Yeah, a peasant's revolt? So what? It was hardly a Marxist set up and they hardly had a class-consiousness as would be understood today. I'm surprised you would be so in to a rebellion that had such a religious, i.e. non-materialist, take on things. :laugh:

More arguments to hypotheses. "Would have" doesn't mean "did". You can't use counter-factual arguments to validate erroneous positions on concrete history.

As for Spartacus, sure- even the Illuminati admired him. But in terms of Marxist analysis you should know that the proletariat is the proletariat of capitalist society- not the Latin proletarius.
What is non-materialist is to take a Bonapartist (i.e. floating above the contesting classes) stance regarding pre-capitalist societies.

I didn't say the slaves and peasants of ancient times were the same as the working class of today, but every genuine Marxist would stand on the side of the slaves and peasants generally speaking against the slavelords and landlords, rather than taking an "independent position", which is what you seem to be advocating.



Who did that? I posted a quote from your cited authority in reference to the Great Stagnation in China. Needham was well-known for his Christian socialism but was also a very respected sinologist. No one is feigning ignorance here....

Take it up with Needham.
You are missing the point. Needham never said science stagnated in China because China was not Christian, that's a totally ridiculous point of view, and it shows you know nothing about Needham's views on China. Whatever religious backgrounds he may have come from personally is beside the point. As far as "religion" is concerned Needham was also a Daoist as well.



Oh shut the fuck up. You claimed that the Catholic Church had apologised for all the scientists it had burnt at the stake when in actual fact we can only find ONE who was burnt at the stake and the apology was actually for the harsh treatment of Galileo- who wasn't actually burnt at the stake at all. :laugh:

As for the other inane comments by other members here. This is not a general apolegetic for every last damn thing the established Catholic Church has done. There's a lot of stuff that isn't pretty at all- but at the same time there is also no basis in the claim that the Catholic Church is/has been anti-scientific or persecuted scientists for their science. I suggest you all read more than Dan Brown.
I find it strange that given you are not a Catholic, you would actually spend so much efforts to defend the Catholic Church. Even atheist Italian nationalists wouldn't do that at all. So frankly I don't completely believe your claim that you are not actually a Catholic, but I don't see why you'd want to hide about such a thing either.

The Catholic Church isn't just reactionary because it did a few bad things now and then, like burning people to death for heresy etc, it is reactionary in a much more systematic sense - as an institution that essentially defends the structures of class society.

Note I didn't even say that the Catholic Church is intrinsically anti-science or that it burned people to death directly for their scientific theories. I think I told you this many times already, it's amazing it never seems to sink into your head.



It seems strange that when Catholics do bad shit- then it's Catholicism is evil and in part the rest of Christianity- yet when they do good stuff, like their involvement in science over centuries then it's only incidental that they were Catholics.

Completely pathetic.
There is nothing hypocritical if you consider the fact that Marxists generally do not credit modern capitalist Corporations with technological breakthroughs even though they funded R&D into these projects, but would always blame the Corporation whenever the Corporation mistreats workers and customers. (When Apple Corporation invents something new, we don't credit Apple for it, but when Apple Corporation causes workers to commit suicide, the Apple Corporation is always blamed) If you think this is also hypocritical then well you are not a Marxist and you have no class consciousness. If not, then you should realise that people are not just picking on Catholicism or even religion in general. Established religious institutions are bashed in essentially the same way as established capitalist institutions or established state institutions.

On the other hand, you seem to only focus on the "good" stuff that Catholics did, like funding scientific research, but when it comes to the "bad" stuff like burning witches, you deny it had anything to do with Catholicism intrinsically. Who is being the hypocrite here?

[ComradeMan]

I never said I believe in "universal human rights" that are independent of class. There is no hypocrisy on my part. Burning a king to death on a stake is fundamentally different from burning a peasant to death on a stake.

Well they couldn't be universal if they depended on class could they?

Burning anyone at the stake is not really acceptable- I suppose in other threads you would be arguing against the death penalty.... :rolleyes:


I happen to put class before science, unlike a pseudo-socialist such as you.

That is an entirely meaningless sentence. Well done.


Protestants weren't the only ones who criticised the Catholic Church. Humanist thinkers like Voltaire did as well.

He was also an anti-semite, deist and freemason who was born more than half-a-century after the period we were basically discussing.


What is non-materialist is to take a Bonapartist (i.e. floating above the contesting classes) stance regarding pre-capitalist societies..

It's also non-materialist to be ahistorical and apply post-capitalist analysis to pre-capitalist societies.


I didn't say the slaves and peasants of ancient times were the same as the working class of today, but every genuine Marxist would stand on the side of the slaves and peasants generally speaking against the slavelords and landlords....

And then they would find that those slaves became freed slaves and in turn became slave owners themselves.... those peasants did well and became landowners.... :rolleyes:


You are missing the point. Needham never said science stagnated in China because China was not Christian, that's a totally ridiculous point of view, and it shows you know nothing about Needham's views on China. Whatever religious backgrounds he may have come from personally is beside the point. As far as "religion" is concerned Needham was also a Daoist as well.

I didn't say that Needham said that- I merely posted his quotes. Deal with it.


I find it strange that given you are not a Catholic, you would actually spend so much efforts to defend the Catholic Church. Even atheist Italian nationalists wouldn't do that at all. So frankly I don't completely believe your claim that you are not actually a Catholic, but I don't see why you'd want to hide about such a thing either.

Because I take an objective-as-possible approach and whether or not I belong to or am affiliated with any socio-cultural group does not mean I should have anything other than an historical and objective approach to the analysis thereof. You posted ahistorical and distorted facts- some of which would be better termed as factoids or downright untruths.

As for your believing whether I am a Catholic or not- that's up to you. You can believe I am from the planet Galakton and a practising Jedi for all I care. But you might wish to take into account that as someone who lives in one of the most "Catholic" countries in the world, the birthplace of the European Renaissance and with literally 2000 years of Catholic history outside my front door- I may be a little au fait with it. :rolleyes: You are quick to point out to others that they obviously "know nothing" about anything- especially Chinese matters..... touché.


The Catholic Church isn't just reactionary because it did a few bad things now and then, like burning people to death for heresy etc, it is reactionary in a much more systematic sense - as an institution that essentially defends the structures of class society.

But we weren't discussing the overall "reactionary" nature of the Catholic Church, were we? We were discussing the idea that the Church was anti-scientific.:rolleyes:


Note I didn't even say that the Catholic Church is intrinsically anti-science or that it burned people to death directly for their scientific theories. I think I told you this many times already, it's amazing it never seems to sink into your head.

You said that the Catholic Church had apologised for all the scientists it burnt at the stake- you still haven't sourced this non-existent apology nor been able to provide any references or sources to all these scientists it allegedly burnt. :rolleyes:


On the other hand, you seem to only focus on the "good" stuff that Catholics did, like funding scientific research, but when it comes to the "bad" stuff like burning witches, you deny it had anything to do with Catholicism intrinsically. Who is being the hypocrite here?

On the other hand you do not know how to analyse things historically, surprising for a self-proclaimed materialist. You allow your own personal feelings and bias, coupled with a general tone of anti-westernism, to cloud your judgement and colour your "opinions". We were talking about one issue- stick to the issue. ;)

I don't usually like to bring in my own opinions of members to the discussion, but seeing as you've opened the door- I am beginning to wonder whether or not you are a genuine "Marxist" Internationalist or just an anti-westerner with some kind of complex that perceives Marxism as convenient in that it is "anti-Western" in some kind of Gramscian sense.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well they couldn't be universal if they depended on class could they?

Burning anyone at the stake is not really acceptable- I suppose in other threads you would be arguing against the death penalty.... :rolleyes:


As I said, I don't believe in absolutely "universal" rights that are independent of class. So "burning a person to death" may always be wrong, but it's not always equal, depending on who is being burned.



That is an entirely meaningless sentence. Well done.
Only because you can't grasp my point, which is that just because a lower class rebellion destroyed some of the productive forces in society, doesn't necessarily make it reactionary.



He was also an anti-semite, deist and freemason who was born more than half-a-century after the period we were basically discussing.
You sound like there is something wrong with Deism.



It's also non-materialist to be ahistorical and apply post-capitalist analysis to pre-capitalist societies.
But I'm not doing that, I'm not applying a modern standard onto ancient history, I'm applying standards that were contemporary relative to the periods I'm talking about.



And then they would find that those slaves became freed slaves and in turn became slave owners themselves.... those peasants did well and became landowners.... :rolleyes:
In the 20th century proletarian revolutionaries also turned into revisionist capitalists, like in Russia, so what's your point?

Most ancient peasant and slave rebels did have an explicit egalitarian vision, only that the material conditions at the time were not sufficient to fulfill such utopian visions. Scientific socialism, as opposed to utopian socialism, only became possible with the Industrial Age.

Your basic stance is that socialists should take a Bonapartist view with respect to pre-capitalist societies - namely that in the capitalist era, socialists should always take the side of the working class, but in the pre-capitalist era, socialists should take an "independent position" and take neither the side of the slaves/peasants nor the side of the slavelords/landlords. I'm saying this kind of retro-Bonapartism is wrong.



I didn't say that Needham said that- I merely posted his quotes. Deal with it.
Well then in that case I fail to see how your quoting of him has any relevant point at all to the discussion/debate here.



But you might wish to take into account that as someone who lives in one of the most "Catholic" countries in the world, the birthplace of the European Renaissance and with literally 2000 years of Catholic history outside my front door- I may be a little au fait with it. :rolleyes:
I have an Italian friend who was actually born into a Catholic family but he doesn't really give a shit about the religion and he completely supports LGBT rights as well. So don't assume that all Italians are pro-Catholic at all.



On the other hand you do not know how to analyse things historically, surprising for a self-proclaimed materialist. You allow your own personal feelings and bias, coupled with a general tone of anti-westernism, to cloud your judgement and colour your "opinions". We were talking about one issue- stick to the issue. ;)
Seriously, how am I being "anti-Western"?

If I am "anti-Western" in the sense that I refuse to accept that the so-called "Western civilisation" is the central and primary civilisation in the world, and I refuse to simply bow down or kow-tow to the "greatness" of your "civilisation", then so be it, I am "anti-Western", otherwise I don't know what you are talking about at all.

Is it "anti-Western" to merely point out that the so-called "Western civilisation" isn't the only cradle of the modern human world? I hardly think so, and frankly only an Eurocentrist would think otherwise.



I don't usually like to bring in my own opinions of members to the discussion, but seeing as you've opened the door- I am beginning to wonder whether or not you are a genuine "Marxist" Internationalist or just an anti-westerner with some kind of complex that perceives Marxism as convenient in that it is "anti-Western" in some kind of Gramscian sense.I'm not anti-Western, I'm simply anti-Eurocentrism. And I couldn't care less what some pseudo-socialist like you who doesn't even understand class think about me.

If your "internationalism" implies "European internationalism", then frankly I don't really want to have anything to do with that. Genuine internationalism means respect for non-Western cultures, including cultures which are very different from European ones in many ways.

If I'm just an anti-Western pseudo-Marxist as you say, then I would certainly never admit that it is correct for Karl Marx to call China "semi-barbarian" in the 19th century. I would certainly have called Marx a "Western European racist" for saying that. But actually I think Karl Marx was largely correct in labelling the Chinese political and socio-economic system in the 19th century as "semi-barbarian" (not the race intrinsically, which Marx never considered to be inferior, unlike the reactionary right-wing social darwinists in Europe at the time), therefore I simply cannot be an "anti-Western pseudo-Marxist".

[ComradeMan]

As I said, I don't believe in absolutely "universal" rights that are independent of class.

This is failed communism at its worst.


But I'm not doing that, I'm not applying a modern standard onto ancient history, I'm applying standards that were contemporary relative to the periods I'm talking about.

Which is ahistorical and parachronistic.


Most ancient peasant and slave rebels did have an explicit egalitarian vision, only that the material conditions at the time were not sufficient to fulfill such utopian visions.

Source?


Your basic stance is that socialists should take a Bonapartist view with respect to pre-capitalist societies - namely that in the capitalist era, socialists should always take the side of the working class, but in the pre-capitalist era, socialists should take an "independent position" and take neither the side of the slaves/peasants nor the side of the slavelords/landlords.

What the fuck does "taking the side of" mean in terms of historical analysis and the fact that they're all dead anyway?

It's this "taking the side of" attitude that is your Achilles' heel.


Well then in that case I fail to see how your quoting of him has any relevant point at all to the discussion/debate here.

I may be wrong, but I think you were the one who mentioned the eminent scholar so I merely looked to see what he had to say on the matter. :rolleyes:


I have an Italian friend who was actually born into a Catholic family but he doesn't really give a shit about the religion and he completely supports LGBT rights as well. So don't assume that all Italians are pro-Catholic at all.

You really are dense aren't you, or you have no idea of what you are talking about. The issue isn't about being pro- or anti-Catholic. The issue is about discussing historical facts historically and objectively or relying on distortions, half-truths, factoids and blatant lies.

Approximately 90% of Italians are Catholics and 33% are active members of the Church. This of course covers a vast array of ideosyncratic positions on the Church, doctrine and religion etc. Added to which, of course, lay Italian culture is permeated with Catholicism from top to bottom- which is not surprising given the history of the Church and Italy- you do remember where Rome is, don't you?


If I am "anti-Western" in the sense that I refuse to accept that the so-called "Western civilisation" is the central and primary civilisation in the world, and I refuse to simply bow down or kow-tow to the "greatness" of your "civilisation", then so be it, I am "anti-Western", otherwise I don't know what you are talking about at all.

You've said it all yourself. :laugh: Did anyone here, including myself, ever demand you to kowtow in front of Western Civilisation? Did anyone here ever say "we" are better than "you"?

The very fact that you say it's "your" civilisation- despite the fact that you also live in the UK as part of it- shows your inherent sense of nationalism and anti-westernism that seems to be a tone permeating a lot of your posts.


Is it "anti-Western" to merely point out that the so-called "Western civilisation" isn't the only cradle of the modern human world? I hardly think so, and frankly only an Eurocentrist would think otherwise.

More strawman arguments here.... also a circumstancial ad hominem. CM is a Westerner, he points out that Iseul's anti-western critique contains flaws ergo CM is eurocentric. Please..... :laugh:


And I couldn't care less what some pseudo-socialist like you who doesn't even understand class think about me.

Well you obviously do because you keep replying. Actions speak louder than words (and posturing).


If your "internationalism" implies "European internationalism", then frankly I don't really want to have anything to do with that. Genuine internationalism means respect for non-Western cultures, including cultures which are very different from European ones in many ways.

Wrong- genuine internationalism means respect for ALL cultures, regardlessly.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is failed communism at its worst.


And as I said, you have no real class consciousness.



Which is ahistorical and parachronistic.

Source?
There are many, no time to show them all. But since you are Italian, read this article on Spartacus from a Marxist perspective:

http://www.marxist.com/spartacus-representative-of-proletariat.htm



What the fuck does "taking the side of" mean in terms of historical analysis and the fact that they're all dead anyway?

It's this "taking the side of" attitude that is your Achilles' heel.
Historical analysis can never be purely objective, because human agents are involved. History isn't like biology or the natural sciences.

It is the duty of Marxists to always take the side of the lower classes and the oppressed peoples. I thoroughly and completely reject your Bonapartist "independent position" nonsense.

Why not take an "independent position" with respect to the capitalist and working classes today as well? :rolleyes:



I may be wrong, but I think you were the one who mentioned the eminent scholar so I merely looked to see what he had to say on the matter. :rolleyes:
Which is an interesting point by itself, but not really relevant to the topic.



You really are dense aren't you, or you have no idea of what you are talking about. The issue isn't about being pro- or anti-Catholic. The issue is about discussing historical facts historically and objectively or relying on distortions, half-truths, factoids and blatant lies.
Well you were the one who accused me for being "anti-Catholic", idiot, just because I don't agree with your point that the Catholic Church founded modern science. (Even though I didn't say the Church was intrinsically anti-scientific either)



Approximately 90% of Italians are Catholics and 33% are active members of the Church. This of course covers a vast array of ideosyncratic positions on the Church, doctrine and religion etc. Added to which, of course, lay Italian culture is permeated with Catholicism from top to bottom- which is not surprising given the history of the Church and Italy- you do remember where Rome is, don't you?
My Italian friend is technically a part of this 90%, he was even formally baptised by the Church. Still doesn't mean he really cares about Catholicism though...:laugh:

Lay Italian culture being permeated with Catholic elements isn't necessarily a positive thing either, if this "permeation" also includes queerphobia, sexism etc. Obviously from a socialist perspective, there are both positive and negative elements in "Catholic culture", as with any other culture.



The very fact that you say it's "your" civilisation- despite the fact that you also live in the UK as part of it- shows your inherent sense of nationalism and anti-westernism that seems to be a tone permeating a lot of your posts.
That's absolutely BS. I'm an ethnic minority in the UK. Just because I live in the UK right now doesn't mean I'm completely assimilated or absorbed into English culture. I still have my own cultural identity to some extent. I was born in China as well. To consider ethnic minority cultural identity to be "anti-Western nationalism" is basically a form of anti-immigrant stance. Immigrants to the West certainly do not have some kind of BS "moral obligation" to get completely absorbed into "Western culture". Socialists should always strive for a multi-cultural and cosmopolitan society anyway.

You sound like those anti-immigrant right-wingers who say: "If you don't like the West, then fuck off back to your own country".

Also, note there isn't a singular "English culture" or "Western culture" anyway. There are more differences between a radical leftist, LGBT-friendly atheist modern "English culture" and a conservative and traditionalist Christian right-wing LGBT-phobic "English culture" than there can ever be between "English culture" and "Chinese culture".



More strawman arguments here.... also a circumstancial ad hominem. CM is a Westerner, he points out that Iseul's anti-western critique contains flaws ergo CM is eurocentric. Please..... :laugh:
Actually the logic is simple: I've made no anti-Western comments. So the fact that you keep on accusing me for being "anti-Western" shows to some extent your implicit Eurocentric stance.



Well you obviously do because you keep replying. Actions speak louder than words (and posturing).
Just because I reply to a post doesn't mean I really care about it in a personal sense. This is a public discussion / debate forum after all.



Wrong- genuine internationalism means respect for ALL cultures, regardlessly.And where did I ever say anything to the contrary, you illiterate idiot? Respect for all cultures obviously imply respect for non-Western / non-European cultures.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wrong- genuine internationalism means respect for ALL cultures, regardlessly.

Bollocks. There are certain cultural practices I will never respect, such as FGM. If a culture encourages or condones FGM, then as far as I am concerned there is something deeply wrong with that culture.

[ComradeMan]

And as I said, you have no real class consciousness. There are many, no time to show them all. But since you are Italian, read this article on Spartacus from a Marxist perspective:
http://www.marxist.com/spartacus-representative-of-proletariat.htm

Except there is not much Marxist perspective in it whatsoever until right to the end where a load of spurious what if hypotheses are made. The account of Spartacus is pretty much the account you could read in any high school history book. :rolleyes:


Historical analysis can never be purely objective, because human agents are involved. History isn't like biology or the natural sciences.

No, but you must strive to that objectivity- something you don't even try to do.


It is the duty of Marxists to always take the side of the lower classes and the oppressed peoples. I thoroughly and completely reject your Bonapartist "independent position" nonsense.

"Take the side"- that's elementary school rhetoric. You're dealing with retrospective here and it's just stupid to be partisan in these arguments. It makes about as much sense as siding with early mammals stealing dinosaur eggs.


Well you were the one who accused me for being "anti-Catholic", idiot, just because I don't agree with your point that the Catholic Church founded modern science. (Even though I didn't say the Church was intrinsically anti-scientific either)

Because you blatantly are and stop being disingenuous all over the place, you didn't to say things directly and sometimes it's what isn't said that counts..... idiot.


My Italian friend is technically a part of this 90%, he was even formally baptised by the Church. Still doesn't mean he really cares about Catholicism though...:laugh:

Again more idiotic analysis here. What does "caring" about Catholicism mean? If your friend is Italian and is interested in Italian history and culture then he cannot avoid Catholicism anyway. You don't seem to get that in the Latin world it's not just about going to Church and confession etc.... it's even in the very language(s) we speak.


Lay Italian culture being permeated with Catholic elements isn't necessarily a positive thing either, if this "permeation" also includes queerphobia, sexism etc. Obviously from a socialist perspective, there are both positive and negative elements in "Catholic culture", as with any other culture.

Except that Italy in general is quite unqueerphobic and one of our leading politicians of the left at the moment is openly gay and also a declared Christian. Most places in the world have homophobia, but you might find that Catholic Europe (OMG) despite ructions with the established church and the older generation is a bit less queerphobic than other places... like... OMG OMG RUSSIA---- yeah the years of Marxism shoved down their throats and their non-catholicness certainly didn't do anything muchy for their reputation as one of the most homophobic places going,

http://news.change.org/stories/russia-maintains-brutal-reputation-for-homophobia



That's absolutely BS. I'm an ethnic minority in the UK. Just because I live in the UK right now doesn't mean I'm completely assimilated or absorbed into English culture. I still have my own cultural identity to some extent. I was born in China as well.....

Whatever..... :laugh:


You sound like those anti-immigrant right-wingers who say: "If you don't like the West, then fuck off back to your own country".

And you sound like those bitter people who go somewhere and do nothing but complain about it. Save your strawmen...


Also, note there isn't a singular "English culture" or "Western culture" anyway. There are more differences between a radical leftist, LGBT-friendly atheist modern "English culture" and a conservative and traditionalist Christian right-wing LGBT-phobic "English culture" than there can ever be between "English culture" and "Chinese culture".

Hang on.... then what is Chinese culture? You split up culture(s) in the West and yet you speak of "Chinese" culture in the singular? More hypocrisy.


I've made no anti-Western comments. So the fact that you keep on accusing me for being "anti-Western" shows to some extent your implicit Eurocentric stance.

You never come and say anything directly, you're only every "just pointing out"..... :laugh: and when you get called out you start whining. Well, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks"


And where did I ever say anything to the contrary, you illiterate idiot? Respect for all cultures obviously imply respect for non-Western / non-European cultures.

It's Freudian.... to use your argument.... you didn't say it though did you? :lol:

So stop getting hot under your collar...

BTW...

Have you found the Catholic apology yet for all the scientists it burnt at the stake? (< Your claim)?

:thumbup1:

[ComradeMan]

Bollocks. There are certain cultural practices I will never respect, such as FGM. If a culture encourages or condones FGM, then as far as I am concerned there is something deeply wrong with that culture.

I see what you mean. It's a difficult one here. I don't think you should condone things automatically and there are things which I think are pretty abhorrent too but at the same time I don't have contempt for an entire people or culture because of them. I think you can single out bad stuff in every culture. For example, if you eat meat, especially pork, you would be held in "disrespect" by many peoples in Asia for example. A Jain would consider your actions to be atrocious and barbaric. Yet would that be fair seeing as you innocently grew up in your culture in which it was not a taboo or proscripted?

There are still (perhaps) some peoples in Australasia who practise forms of cannibalism. To you or me that is pretty abhorrent but does that mean we have contempt for those people and their entire culture? Is that fair? It doesn't mean we have to go around condoning cannibalism either. ;)

[Queercommie Girl]

No, but you must strive to that objectivity- something you don't even try to do.

"Take the side"- that's elementary school rhetoric. You're dealing with retrospective here and it's just stupid to be partisan in these arguments. It makes about as much sense as siding with early mammals stealing dinosaur eggs.


Marxist history accounts never read like natural science books, there is always an element of ideological stance, that's what "taking side" implies. It means history is analysed from the perspective of the oppressed classes, rather than the oppressor classes. In history the point of view is quite important often.

The mammal analogy doesn't work since they are not human. Marxism is a humanist tradition.



Because you blatantly are and stop being disingenuous all over the place, you didn't to say things directly and sometimes it's what isn't said that counts..... idiot.
You read too much into what I say, or perhaps you deliberate misrepresent me in order to attack me.



Again more idiotic analysis here. What does "caring" about Catholicism mean? If your friend is Italian and is interested in Italian history and culture then he cannot avoid Catholicism anyway. You don't seem to get that in the Latin world it's not just about going to Church and confession etc.... it's even in the very language(s) we speak.
There is a difference between having some interest in ancient history and culture and actually being a Catholic in any religious sense.

It's like if you look at ancient Chinese history then you can't avoid Buddhism and Daoism, but it doesn't mean one has to agree with these religions at all.



Except that Italy in general is quite unqueerphobic and one of our leading politicians of the left at the moment is openly gay and also a declared Christian. Most places in the world have homophobia, but you might find that Catholic Europe (OMG) despite ructions with the established church and the older generation is a bit less queerphobic than other places... like... OMG OMG RUSSIA---- yeah the years of Marxism shoved down their throats and their non-catholicness certainly didn't do anything muchy for their reputation as one of the most homophobic places going,

http://news.change.org/stories/russia-maintains-brutal-reputation-for-homophobia
I didn't say Italy is more queerphobic than other places.

Italy might indeed be somewhat less queerphobic than other countries, but that's not really because it's Catholic, rather it's because it's relatively economically advanced (a member of G7) and relatively culturally advanced (Italy has a very long history of civilisation) at the same time.

I reject cultural essentialism when it comes to religion. I think you will find that other European Catholic countries such as Ireland are generally much more queerphobic than Italy is.



Whatever..... :laugh:

And you sound like those bitter people who go somewhere and do nothing but complain about it. Save your strawmen...
So you think immigrants must completely assimilate into the cultures of the countries they go to? :rolleyes:



Hang on.... then what is Chinese culture? You split up culture(s) in the West and yet you speak of "Chinese" culture in the singular? More hypocrisy.
I didn't say "Chinese culture" is singular either. Don't you think there will be huge differences between left-wing Chinese culture and right-wing Chinese culture?

You have a tendency to assume the worst in everything I say. If I didn't explicitly mention or clarify something, then you automatically assume I mean something in the negative sense.



You never come and say anything directly, you're only every "just pointing out"..... :laugh: and when you get called out you start whining. Well, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks"
I don't think I've "whined" at all. In fact it seems the majority of posters in this thread disagree with you and you are actually the one who is "whining". Not that I really care about it one way or another.

The point still stands that I didn't make any explicitly anti-Western comments, therefore your ad hominem attacks on me, calling me "anti-Western", are totally unwarranted.



It's Freudian.... to use your argument.... you didn't say it though did you? :lol:

So stop getting hot under your collar...

BTW...

Have you found the Catholic apology yet for all the scientists it burnt at the stake? (< Your claim)?

:thumbup1:Whatever. I don't know why is it you must constantly lock onto me whenever we have a disagreement over something. Initially it was only a relatively minor disagreement, but you always tend to exaggerate it into a major debate. Must either be a male thing or maybe you secretly like me or something. :rolleyes:

I no longer wish to talk about this topic with you. I've lost interest and this is getting extremely boring. Not to mention a complete and utter waste of time.

[Viet Minh]

http://files.sharenator.com/Whats_Going_On_In_This_Thread_Huge_Collection_of_R andoms_s400x541_66557_580_RE_PETITION_TO_HAVE_THEK ITKATKID_BANNED-s400x541-115714-580.jpg

I've just read an interesting article in fortean times (http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/5746/the_day_the_earth_stood_still.html) about this very thing. Worth a read, although its merely theory, and conspiracy theory at that.

[Ingraham Effingham]

The big philosophical question most major religions (or any group that an individual identifies with) struggle to come terms with is the question of 'moral relativism' vs 'moral universalism.'

It usually seems that groups who commit to a universal set of morals and rules are generally doomed to failure (in the long run)

Cool article about the the supressing of hermeticism above!

[The_Outernationalist]

Bollocks. There are certain cultural practices I will never respect, such as FGM. If a culture encourages or condones FGM, then as far as I am concerned there is something deeply wrong with that culture.

I agree on you about FGM (abhorrent practice)...but why didn't you single out Male circumcision either (an equally abhorrent practice)? is it because it's practiced in the west? :rolleyes:

Who decides who gets to be judge and jury on which cultural practices are abhorrent? because if certain people had their way, atheists, technocrats, etc. wouldn't even exist.

[ComradeMan]

I agree on you about FGM (abhorrent practice)...but why didn't you single out Male circumcision either (an equally abhorrent practice)? is it because it's practiced in the west? :rolleyes:

Male circumcision is not only practised in the west and I don't really think you can compare the two (male vs female) to be honest.... You'd need to find and ask a mohel about this, metzitzah b'peh is another matter.


Who decides who gets to be judge and jury on which cultural practices are abhorrent? because if certain people had their way, atheists, technocrats, etc. wouldn't even exist.

I agree- it's a difficult one.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I see what you mean. It's a difficult one here. I don't think you should condone things automatically and there are things which I think are pretty abhorrent too but at the same time I don't have contempt for an entire people or culture because of them.

Oh, people are fine. It's culture that can be problematic.


I think you can single out bad stuff in every culture. For example, if you eat meat, especially pork, you would be held in "disrespect" by many peoples in Asia for example. A Jain would consider your actions to be atrocious and barbaric. Yet would that be fair seeing as you innocently grew up in your culture in which it was not a taboo or proscripted?

I don't think eating meat can be compared to deliberately mutilating a fellow human being without their consent.


There are still (perhaps) some peoples in Australasia who practise forms of cannibalism. To you or me that is pretty abhorrent but does that mean we have contempt for those people and their entire culture? Is that fair? It doesn't mean we have to go around condoning cannibalism either. ;)

Again, it comes down to consent. I don't know the details of Australasian cannibalism, but I will say that it is wrong to kill someone without their consent, or to kill someone because one or both parties have been raised in beliefs that we now know to be false (or have an extremely low probability, or are unfalsifiable, etc). So if that is going on, that should be changed. Preferably from within, of course, but external criticism is also valid.


I agree on you about FGM (abhorrent practice)...but why didn't you single out Male circumcision either (an equally abhorrent practice)? is it because it's practiced in the west? :rolleyes:

My understanding is that FGM is considerably more drastic than male circumcision, and I'm against it as a routine procedure except on medical grounds, but thanks for playing the "whut about teh poor menz?!" card.


Who decides who gets to be judge and jury on which cultural practices are abhorrent? because if certain people had their way, atheists, technocrats, etc. wouldn't even exist.

And what do we do that is so terrible?

[The Underdog]

I personally think that Islam is the most appalling religion.

[ComradeMan]

I don't think eating meat can be compared to deliberately mutilating a fellow human being without their consent.

Again, it comes down to consent. I don't know the details of Australasian cannibalism, but I will say that it is wrong to kill someone without their consent, or to kill someone because one or both parties have been raised in beliefs that we now know to be false (or have an extremely low probability, or are unfalsifiable, etc). So if that is going on, that should be changed. Preferably from within, of course, but external criticism is also valid.

You see but that's your cultural relativism.

In many parts of the Indian subcontinent your eating meat would be abhorrent and barbaric. As far as the cannibalism is concerned, the cannibal might feel justified in the fact that someone in his village has got sick and a witch in the other village has caused this and the only way to remedy the problem is to hunt down kill and eat the witch. In terms of his world and culture he is acting rationally. Now, to you or me it would seem preposterous and grotesque as well as barbaric yet who are we to make cultural value judgements? We live in the West where stem-cells and embryos are used for research and to produce therapies etc- not exactly the same but not so different to the basic cannibal rationale.

Okay, I don't expect you to agree with me on the last point, even I don't agree with it fundamentally- but do you see the point at least?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You see but that's your cultural relativism.

In many parts of the Indian subcontinent your eating meat would be abhorrent and barbaric.

If I don't do it right in front of them, they won't know and furthermore, why should they care?


As far as the cannibalism is concerned, the cannibal might feel justified in the fact that someone in his village has got sick and a witch in the other village has caused this and the only way to remedy the problem is to hunt down kill and eat the witch.

The problems here are:

1) Witches don't have magical powers; curses and spells are not real, so no matter what one may personally believe, the witch cannot be guilty of hurting anyone with a curse or similar.

2) Killing and eating people does nothing to cure illness and can, in fact, encourage it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29).


In terms of his world and culture he is acting rationally.

Him and I happen to live in the same world, where witches are just ordinary humans and eating people does not give one magical powers.


Now, to you or me it would seem preposterous and grotesque as well as barbaric yet who are we to make cultural value judgements?

Fellow human beings.


We live in the West where stem-cells and embryos are used for research and to produce therapies etc- not exactly the same but not so different to the basic cannibal rationale.

Except for the fact that genetics actually, you know, fucking works.


Okay, I don't expect you to agree with me on the last point, even I don't agree with it fundamentally- but do you see the point at least?

I see it, but it is predicated on culture overriding reality, which it doesn't, so I reject it.

[Viet Minh]

Whilst I have respect for people of all religions, I find it hard to understand how a prophet of a religion of peace can hold a sword and own slaves. Then again I don't have the extensive knowlege of Islam to criticise. And the more I learn about Mormonism the more I dislike it. But I hesitate to single out a particular religion, to me it is the individual not the religion, you could equally be a mass murdering Buddhist or a charitable and kindly Satanist.

[ComradeMan]

...

I don't think you get the point here. You or I might not believe in witches etc and know that it is nonsense.... perhaps :lol:;).... but that guy in Papua New Guinea, because of his culture, is just as confident in his beliefs. Now, are we to judge him because of that?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think you get the point here. You or I might not believe in witches etc and know that it is nonsense.... perhaps :lol:;).... but that guy in Papua New Guinea, because of his culture, is just as confident in his beliefs. Now, are we to judge him because of that?

Well, yes. His culture doesn't map to reality, and that's a negative when concerning the consequences of eating people without their consent. I'd like to see such behaviour discouraged, but I have no suggestions as to how best to do it. If I took a few years to learn up on anthropology I might be closer to a useful answer.

If a sincere but wrong belief leads to unnecessary pain and suffering, then people must be disabused of that notion in the most effective manner. Torture, murder and oppression won't work without levels of bloodshed that would make Genghis Kahn hurl.

[Viet Minh]

The difference there, between cannibalism and stem cell research is sentience and free will. Perhaps a better example would be state execution. If you look at it as objectively as possible, in both cases the murder of another human being is the morally dubious action, eating the victims flesh is a tabboo based on religious principles and belief in afterlife or religious moral codes. However from a sheer animal perspective, we would judge an animal that kills to eat as merely an instinctive predator, wheras an animal that kills for the sake of killing is regarded as a soulless and cruel killer. Bear in mind though that cannibalistic ritual tends to involve the consent of the elders or chief, euqivalent of the government and judges in the US so it is not simply done 'for fun' but as a necessary protection against perceived evil.

I don't like the idea of moral relativism, we are all biased to a great degree. For instance if someone murders one of your friends or a family member, your reaction will be very different than if it is in fact your friend or family member who murders another. Each individual has their own 'preferences' and prejudices, of course often biased towards their own class or culture etc. I believe moral universalism is feasible, after all I'm fairly sure I have lived my entire life without needlessly imposing my will upon others, except in a few situations where confrontation forced me to defend myself. Much of this was down to property and possesions, which is THE primary catalyst for violence in the World.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Read the question wrong. lol. I just realized now it said "appalling" rather than "appealing".

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I always had a strong dislike for which ever pagan society use to burn people in some giant bronze bull, can't remember who they were exactly. Also, the Aztec pagan religion which would kidnap innocent peasants and the lower caste people in wars to sacrifice to their Gods, them too. Past those two examples I would also say any religious practice or religious interpretation of a particular religion in which exploits or kills the people. What I mean by this is Christianity isn't inherently bad but burning women because their sexy ways are just to much and they're obviously up to no good certainly is bad and appalling. Or burning/executing people to collect property and such like they did in Salem.

Things of that nature I find appalling.

[CHE with an AK]

I find the caste system within Hinduism the most revolting.

I would put the "Moonies", Scientologists, and Mormons in a close second based solely on the fact of how idiotic you would have to be, in order to believe their doctrines and not see them as an obvious scam. All religions require the suspension of rational thought, but the aforementioned require a full lobotomy.