Sim-O

Without mentioning any names (cos I’m a chicken shit and Mrs-O would kill me if I got a nasty-o-gram) why would an organisation, officially recognised as a religion or not in the UK behave in an aggresive way?

The whole point of such organisations, benign or otherwise is to increase membership. Whether that is to spread ‘the word’ and save all the unfortunate souls or to accumulate wealth for the people at the top, litigation is the wrong route to take and self-defeating.

Sueing people or organisations for the slightest er, slight is just going to make it look aggressive, a bully, insecure and have alterier motives that it wants to hide.

Which is probably why the ‘religion’ isn’t officially recognised as a religion.

Via Jesus & Mo I happen across this…

HAWKING POSITS FALSE CONFLICT
June 8, 2010

In an interview last night with ABC-News reporter Diane Sawyer, scientist Stephen Hawking opined that human life is “insignificant in the universe,” and then went on to say that “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” He concluded by saying, “Science will win because it works.”

Stephen Hawking does have a point. Bill Donohue, the President of the Catholic League disagrees (I’ve no idea who he is either, but he reckons the Catholic priest abuse scandal is about teh gays not peadophiles).

What Big Bill says is…

How any rational person could belittle the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe is a wonder, but it is just as silly to say that all religions are marked by the absence of reason. While there are some religions which are devoid of reason, there are others, such as Roman Catholicism, which have long assigned it a special place.

How can rational person overstate how little a role humans play in the universe? How can anybody think we have a ‘pivotal’ role in what happens outside of our planets atmosphere? We might be able to warm Earth up a degree or two or be really good at making various forms of life here extinct, but anything on a bigger scale is waaaaay beyond us.

Some religions may be more receptive to reasoned argument, but Catholicism is not one of them. Look at it’s stance on condoms, for Christs sake.

Religions may accept certain bits of science and reason, but as soon as a bit contradicts what is in it’s special writings then it doesn’t want to know. Unless of course it can come up with a bit of holy logical acrobatics to say it’s teachings were wrong without saying they were wrong.

It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution; these two historical contributions made possible Mr. Hawking’s career.

Just because somebody is teaching something doesn’t mean what they’re teaching is correct.

Reason, in pursuit of truth, has been reiterated by the Church fathers for nearly two millennia. That is why Hawking posits a false conflict: in the annals of the Catholic Church, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Quite the contrary: science and religion, in Catholic thought, are complementary properties. Ergo, nothing is gained by alleging a “victory” of science over religion.

No conflict between science and religion? Why did the Catholic church persecute Galileo for saying the earth orbited the Sun instead of saying ‘really? Could you look into it further?’

There is an inherent conflict twix science and religion: religion is based on what old teachings tell us what to believe, science tells us what we find out from evidence.

Religion without reason, Pope Benedict XVI instructed us in his Regensburg address in 2006, leads to fanaticism. That much Hawking seems to understand. What he doesn’t get is its contra: science without faith also leads to disaster—the genocidal regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia being Exhibits A, B, C and D.

Pope Beni got something right, but the examples given of science without faith are not cause and effect. Throughout history there are appalling examples of religious and non-religious people in power causing atrocities. Being ‘of faith’ or not does not mean one is A Good Guy or A Bad Guy.

Religion will never get to the truth. There are too many reasons not to. Science is about discovery. It doesn’t matter what that discovery is.

The more I hear Tim Minchin, the more I like him.

via PDF

This is exactly why law should not be made from religious beliefs.
Lord Justice Law (do you reckon he changed his name just to be that cool?)…

In the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

read the whole post from Heresy Corner.

debate
noun

1. a formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented.
2. an argument.

source

Nick Griffin…

Tonight I will debate the issue of Christianity in modern Britain with Revd. George Hargreaves, Leader of the Christian Party UK.

WTF? That’s gonna be some debate.

I intend to press home the increasing Islamification of the UK, the decline and censorship of Christian values, history, traditions and culture in politically correct Britain, and the absurd spectacle of the modern upper echelons of the clergy teaming up with leftist political radicals to dismantle traditional Christian Britain.

To have a debate their needs to be an opposing argument otherwise there’s just a lot of nodding in agreement to what ever anyone says. What do the Christian Party offer? Well, during the European election campaign their line was…

Britain is a Christian country, vote to keep it that way

The pope has written a letter in response to all this business about child abuse by Irish Catholic churchmen.

It starts off by waffling on about how Irish Catholics have had a hard time over the centuries but there have been some outstanding chaps in that period too.

He continuous with bits aimed at the people who were abused themselves, their parents, bishops, Catholics in general and the vicars, or whatever they’re called, who did the abusing. All pretty obvious stuff with suitable a apology/condemnation/words of support in the right places.

Then, Gods elected right hand man says…

I now wish to propose to you some concrete initiatives to address the situation.

So what does he suggest? Shopping his pervy colleagues? Changes in the procedures to be followed when a priest is accused of or found to be fucking with the kids in their care?

At the conclusion of my meeting with the Irish bishops, I asked that Lent this year be set aside as a time to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country. I now invite all of you to devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace.

Particular attention should also be given to Eucharistic adoration, and in every diocese there should be churches or chapels specifically devoted to this purpose. I ask parishes, seminaries, religious houses and monasteries to organize periods of Eucharistic adoration, so that all have an opportunity to take part. Through intense prayer before the real presence of the Lord, you can make reparation for the sins of abuse that have done so much harm, at the same time imploring the grace of renewed strength and a deeper sense of mission on the part of all bishops, priests, religious and lay faithful.

I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth, for it is the truth that sets us free (cf. Jn 8:32).

No. More fucking prayer. More places and opportunities for prayer and worship. Whoopie-fucking-do. More of the same.

Oh, and more talking…

I also propose that a nationwide Mission be held for all bishops, priests and religious. It is my hope that, by drawing on the expertise of experienced preachers and retreat-givers from Ireland and from elsewhere, and by exploring anew the conciliar documents, the liturgical rites of ordination and profession, and recent pontifical teaching, you will come to a more profound appreciation of your respective vocations, so as to rediscover the roots of your faith in Jesus Christ and to drink deeply from the springs of living water that he offers you through his Church.

That’ll do the fucking job, won’t it? Give your priests a “more profound appreciation of [their] respective vocations” because that is exactly what the cunts that abused, not only, their position in the Catholic church was missing. If only those priests truly knew what sort responsibility they held and where it came from then they wouldn’t have fucked up so many lives.

BBC…

The Church of England’s ruling body will close its meeting with a call for more recognition of the compatibility of religious belief with science.

The motion will urge it to fight back in what is the latest move in a public battle between atheists and believers.

The compatibility of science and religion only goes so far.
The scientist that is also a believer may, for instance, recognise evolution and all the current scientific thoeries as true and look deeper in to how the world works, but ultimately, will come to the conclusion that it all started with god.

An athiest scientist will keep looking.

The motion at the General Synod in London is proposed by Dr Peter Capon.

Many religious people feel they are being gradually pushed out of the public sphere by opponents who are using science as a weapon.

‘Science’ itself isn’t the weapon, rational arguement is. And seeing as religion is not a rational ‘thing’*, then religion is on a loser. Science will one day have all the answers. Although it may take a bit of time.

(*I can’t find the link to which religious person said it recently, so drop a link in the comments if you do)

Dr Capon, himself a former lecturer in computer science, says atheists are misleading the public when they claim science and religion are incompatible.

Athiests are misleading the public? Atheists are using evidence and rational thought. It is the religious folk that are misleading the public with stories and assertions and rules that have supposedly come form god but only come from someone or people with a knack for manipulating people and telling a good story.

Think of it this way. Two scientists, one an atheist and one a believer, after rigorous experimentation and testing and research, after following all the evidence they find about the beginning of life, the universe and everything, they end up ringing the doorbell on the Pearly Gates. God answers.
The religious scientist turns to the atheist and says ‘See. I said it was him that did it. Our quest for the ultimate answer has finished.’
The Atheist scientist looks at God and asks ‘So. How did you do it, then?’

After the pope has attacked the Equality Bill ahead of his coming visit there then comes this…

Harriet Harman has backed away from a confrontation with religious leaders over who they can employ, making clear that she will not force contentious amendments to the Equality Bill through Parliament.

Those contentious issues are the re-wording, an amendment, of the Equality Bill to make it clear that exemptions from the bill applied only to religious posts within an organisation. Which is fair enough. It would be like appointing an interpreter that couldn’t speak the lingo.

But this exemption is not enough for the God Squad.

What gives them the right to discriminate? What is the difference between discriminating on the grounds of religious belief and discriminating against someone on racial grounds?

Nothing at all. They’re both beliefs, both are grounded in fantasy. It’s just that one is more acceptable than the other… apparently.

h/t chrisplol

God. Where to start, eh?

God does judge the nations — all of them — and God will judge the nations.

Nations are made up of individuals. Even during the Nuremburg trials, individuals were prosecuted, not the German nation. What that statement above says is that God is into collective punishment. But we already knew that anyway.

Look at the original sin. Man is born a sinner now because of the decision of an individual, Adam, to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

What the Vatican says about the original sin is…

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

Original sin is not something someone’s done, it is inherited. Even a baby that is just born, that has no chance to develop a character, never mind any knowledge, opinion or attitude about anything, is doomed.

Unless of course it renounces a life without god in a ceremony usually taking place before it has any concept of consent never mind the deeper logical and theological concepts involved in a baptism.

Hmm. Isn’t it also usually considered bad form to do stuff to/make someone do stuff that they have no understanding of?