Catholic Bishops Support Net Neutrality 304
An anonymous reader writes "This week, in their annual 'State of the Union' address, the President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference spoke on a number of issues, in particular a surprisingly strong statement in favor on Net Neutrality. 'As the Internet continues to grow in its influence and prominence in Americans' lives, we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies, as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas. True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society,' said Archbishop Timothy Dolan. It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!"
Crusade? (Score:4, Funny)
It's always interesting to see the Catholic Church joining in a crusade that means so much to so many Slashdotters!
Crusade? Slashdotters were expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it all got started like this:
Mr Devious: Well, Father Morrison, in your terms of use (finds dogeared piece of paper in a coat pocket) you'll see quite clearly that none of your outbound packets will ever reach their destination.
Father Morrison: Oh dear.
Devious: You see, you unfortunately plumped for our 'Noconnect' network service, which, you know, if you never connect is very worthwhile...but you had to connect, and, well, there it is.
Morrison: Oh dear, oh dear.
Devious: Look... Father... I hate t
Re: (Score:2)
NOBODY expects...
(That's what you wanted, right? Right?)
Re: (Score:3)
No one expects the Spanish InquiPLEASE UPGRADE your plan to MEDIUM TIER in order to RECEIVE MONTY PYTHON YOUTUBE CLIPS.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean the comfy chair?
Re: (Score:2)
have you ever been to church? there ARE no comfy chairs.
Re:Crusade? (Score:5, Informative)
Sad, very sad and ironic. In this day and age, having to defend Technology with the help of Religion.
Even sadder that this story suggests the Church is actually FOR net neutrality as we understand it today.
They are pontificating (sorry) about net ACCESS.
They totally miss the main points of net neutrality such as traffic shaping, throttling, or prioritizing your own traffic over competitive traffic.
I don't see this as a strong statement at all, simply lip service leaving me wondering if they truly understand the issue.
Re:Crusade? (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect that those bishops who understand the issue are in favour of network neutrality.
The USCCB's 2006 expression of support [nccbuscc.org] for net neutrality rules being incorporated into federal law would certainly provide a fairly strong basis for the conclusion that the conference does, indeed, support net neutrality as well as expanded consumer access, rather than conflating the two issues as some Slashdotters have suggested is the reason for the two sentences (one on access and on one neutrality) in the current statement.
Re: (Score:3)
But don't expect them to be in your corner when Comcast wants to stream NBC at a faster rate than ABC shows.
Really, then why did the Conference -- when commenting on specific legislative proposals in the area rather than just listing general priorities for the coming year -- specifically call [nccbuscc.org] for "legislation to prevent companies which control the infrastructure connecting people to the Internet from interfering with the content which is distributed" and refer to the threat that without net neutrality rules in place "companies will use their control over internet access to speed up or down connections to Web site
Religion defending technology...catholics built it (Score:2, Informative)
So why is it strange the catholic church is pro-technology ? Yes, they do find that technology must be moral, and even research must err on the side of morality (therefore - e.g. no killing embryos for research). The large majority of our technology was developed by catholic clergy. From the laws of physics to things like glasses (even now the catholic church is sponsoring Stephen Hawking - read his book once - and doubtless many others), and generally any and all technology we knew about before 1900. Espec
Re: (Score:3)
The catholic church has been an institution of learning and knowledge during all^H^H^H most of it's existence.
Fixedeth that for you,
yrs
Messrs. Martin Luther & Galileo Galilei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The large majority of our technology was developed by catholic clergy.
Wow, that's a big fat [citation needed] right there...
Re: (Score:2)
Glasses? 9th and 10th century China and Cordoba were not Catholic.
Furthermore, much of our technology pre-dates the Catholic Church and Christianity, looking down a timeline of historic inventions its hard to find anything before 1608 that could be contributed to anyone Catholic.
The Greeks formulated many of the early theories of Physics, and while much of that was lost to Western Europe, it made its way into Islamic schools and eventually made its way back to Western Europe.
It was not the Catholic Church t
Without beer there wouldn't be any universities (Score:3)
"Without the catholic church, there would not be any universities, nor would we even have knowledge of the classical age in the first place."
That's quite a grand claim. Perhaps it is also possible to claim that without beer, or the spade, there wouldn't be any universities either.
- A lot of knowledge and texts from the classical age were held in African and Asian countries by non-Christians while the there was little regard for 'heathen learning' after the fall of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. What is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pfff ... the catholic church was perfectly happy to have Galileo be a scientist telling people how the sun was the center of the universe. They even paid for this, and in fact Galileo was hardly the first or only scientist taking this position ... it's just that Galileo wanted to be a politician and screwed up badly.
So imho, neither are innocent in this. Science and politics should not mix, and that means politicians stay out of science AND scientists stay out of politics (and by that I mean the people, obv
Re:Crusade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion and science shouldn't mix. And science should not meddle with politics. Religion is politics, unfortunately. It never had any other purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Religion and science shouldn't mix. And science should not meddle with politics. Religion is politics, unfortunately. It never had any other purpose.
I think you'll find it's don't mix religion with politics, i.e don't mix clay with iron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, the argument should be accpeted or rejected based on its contents, not by who made the argument. Would it matter if this argument was put forth by the Fire Brigade Union?
Secondly, if we are dealing with 100% private property I would agree with you. However when common property is used the people have a right/duty to ensure that it is used fairly.
Catholic doctrine and public regulation (Score:4, Interesting)
I am Catholic. When the Church speaks on scripture, it has authority. When it speaks of that which has nothing to do with the bible, as in net "neutrality" (really nothing more than Government control over private networks, there is nothing neutral about it) or "man made global warming" the Church has no authority whatsoever.
This is hopelessly confused as a statement of Catholic doctrine. The magisterium of the Church heirarchy is not certainly not limited to scripture (sola scriptura is common Protestant doctrine, opposed to the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church), instead, it extends to matters of faith and morals whether grounded in Scripture or Tradition or both.
Advocacy of "net neutrality" and "man made global warming" both lead to similar ends: the confiscation of private property directly (by taking it over) or indirectly (by telling you what you can't do with it via regulation), which I can argue violates one of the foudnations of Judeo Christian morality, the 10 Commandments, specifically "thou shalt not steal".
One can, of course, argue for anything, but to argue that any taking of private property for public use or restriction by public authority on the use of private property categorically contradicts Christian morals you must dissent from the teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and morals in the domain in which you are making the argument; particularly, you must dissent from the teachings on the moral aspects of private and public property articulated in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World [vatican.va] (Gaudium et Spes) which, recognizes the importance of private property rights but also states that they are constrained by the rights and obligations of public authority, and that "The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. [...] Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good."
With friends like that... (Score:2, Insightful)
All in good/bad humour.... (Score:3, Funny)
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
It should read:
With friends like that, who needs enemas?
Re: (Score:2)
With friends like that, who needs enemies?
What did the Catholic church ever do to you to deserve that attitude? If you got molested by a priest, the church didn't hurt you, a man did. The coverups were done by men. Meanwhile there are millions of good people that actually make up the church.
And no, I'm not Catholic.
Re: (Score:2)
You are in the year 1500. Men flying? Absurd. Travelling to the moon? Incredibly absurd. A device that allows one to speak with someone on the other side of the globe? Again, absurd.
Re:With friends like that... (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. They're the ones who originally promoted the whole idea of copyright. They wanted to keep control of the Bible, stop people from making unauthorized copies.
[citation needed]
I always understood the Statute of Anne to be about protecting the vested interests of publishers sympathetic to the crown. And anyway, Queen Anne was a protestant, not a Catholic, so Catholic lobbying is unlikely to have been effective.
Re: (Score:3)
The Statute of Anne didn't arise from a vacuum. Before that, governments and the Catholic Church (which were so intertwined as to be indistinct) routinely sought to control and monopolize printing.
From the Wikipedia entry on the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers (founded 1403): During the Tudor and Stuart periods (1485 - 1714), the Stationers were legally empowered to seize "offending books" that violated the standards of content set by the Church and State; its officers could bring "
You may be surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You may be surprised (Score:5, Informative)
No, Intelligent design is a radical Protestant scam. It is an attempt to save the Genesis account of creation at any cost, because if they don't, there's no original sin for Jesus to be sacrificed for rendering the whole of Christianity meaningless.
Re:You may be surprised (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, the progressive Catholic church has moved on from the myth of original sin and has accepted that he died for Net Neutrality.
Re:You may be surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Catholicisms objection to I.D is a matter of doctrine, that it actually limits the possibilities of the universe (which is described as the glory of God in the bible). Anything that limits the glory of God is blasphemous, therefore Intelligent Design is blasphemous.
Re:You may be surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Big Bang and evolution are the best models currently available to describe the universe that God created, and the process of how we came into being. There is no conflict between evolution and Catholic teaching, and the Big Bang was originally put forward by a priest, but dismissed by much of the rest of the scientific community as being too much like a "God did it" theory.
ID isn't blasphemous to Catholics because it's limiting God. ID is just wrong because A) it isn't science. B) it assumes taking the BIble literally. Catholics theologians are fully aware of how the Bible has changed, is sometimes self-contradictory, and has been reinterpreted over the centuries, and so taking a specific translation and treating it as word-for-word literal truth is a simplistic and juvenile approach.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"How the Bible has changed" (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah. I think the Vulgate was the main source for the KJV translators.
It's problematic to use the term "original version" when discussing the Bible. At best we tend to have what would be described as the oldest sources available, and in some cases these oldest sources appear themselves descended from earlier unknown sources. I'm not sure what you're defining as insignificant here, and whether you're talking about the canonical Bible or its individual books?
The Bible, as in a canon of collected works, has been pretty stable for a long time now, but it's not as if 2000 years ago the Bible fell from the sky in its current form. There have been a number of canons and apocrypha. It took hundreds of years to arrive at what would be almost universally accepted as the canon we know today. That canon itself has been pretty consistent for at least 1500 years, and the KJV dates from the 16th or 17th century century (can't recall which), so it is wrong to claim that the *Bible* itself has changed a great deal. It is however perfectly correct to highlight the incredible quantity of apocryphal works and what appear to be later additions to individual books. I think the more important thing to look at is how interpretations of the Bible have changed.
I like to use KJV and NIV side-by-side. NIV is a bit dry and at times over-simplified, but far easier to comprehend. KJV alone can be a bit misleading, such as in Exodus (I forget the verse) where the word "gift" in the KJV is more correctly translated as "bribe". That wouldn't make sense to a KJV reader unless they were very careful to read the verse in its correct context.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to take into account how Hebrew oral tradition was passed down. It wasn't the telephone game - there was some precise memorization that had to take place.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, today the catholic church is quite clear on which gospels of the new testament belong to canon. That wasn't the case in the first 300 years of Christianity - there weren't any in the beginning, and then there was a period where you had quite a lot of them. Which of those should be believed was a matter of considerable debate. After those 300 years of changes, you could say the text became stable, that's true - that's a fa
Re: (Score:3)
They're using the New International Version at my church, but I personally rely on my King James. Why? Because some time in the seventies I was given a copy of a new translation, supposedly from the original texts, called "The Way". In its list of the ten commandments it said "do not lie". But that's not what the bible I've been reading all my life says. Mine says "do not slander" (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor). If your grandchild gives you a horrid looking thing she's proud of, no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the official position of the Catholic Church...
Yeah I've made the same point many times before originally made by Pope John Paul II [umkc.edu]. So if I.D is not evolution how is what you are saying different? I said That's if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do.. Sure I can accept that no one knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Are you agreeing with me that I.D is not evolution and that the catholic church are not too keen on I.D, or are you trying to make a different point?
ID isn't blasphemous to Catholics because it's limiting God.
Well actually ID is quite offensive to some catholics. It's one thing
Re: (Score:2)
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
Or, as my mother puts it, "Of all the things I have lost, I miss my mind the most".
Re: (Score:2)
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)
WITH GREAT PLEASURE I address cordial greeting to you, Mr. President, and to all of you who constitute the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, on the occasion of your plenary assembly. I offer my best wishes in particular to the new academicians, who have come to take part in your
Re: (Score:2)
ID is just wrong because A) it isn't science.
Pedant mode: you shouldn't conflate "wrong" with "not science". The US constitution, today's newspaper, "I think therefore I am", my son coming in to tell me he's had a bad dream -- none of these are science (I'm yet to peer review my son's claim to have had a bad dream!) but that alone does not make them wrong. Whether or not ID is "wrong", and whether or not ID is "not science", "not science" is not the same as "wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
That's if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do. Not all people think that way. Only people who want to ram their spirituality down someone else's throat.
That argument doesn't work. Either you believe it or you don't. If you don't take the Genesis literally, you don't take the sin he died for literally either. You can't choose! Either you believe in I.D. or you're a poor christian, and Jesus died in vain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In fact roman church has no sympathy for intelligent design, young earth mith, creation myths and so on.
They accept evolution theory too. Since evolution theory has no provision to say that there is any objective and gives no characterization to evolution church takes it's freedom to just say that it could be God to be driving it. The genesis could just be interpreted to be an allegoric account.
Roman catholic church is not stupid. They just want to stop scientists from studying human genetics(no problem wit
Re: (Score:2)
For the most hypocritical church on earth they're surprisingly progressive with some matters. I don't think they're that keen on Intelligent design either.
I'll bet they're not as hypocritical as Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
They're using a different definition of Neutrality (Score:3)
No, it is the same (Score:4, Interesting)
First they came for Google, and I did not protest that Google was treated differently on the web, because I was not Google.
Then they came for the farmers, and I did not protest that farmers could not get the internet, because I was not a farmer.
Then they came for protest sites, and I did not protest because... welll I don't protest and who cares those trouble makers can no longer afford an online presence.
Then they came for me and even if there was anyone left to protest, there was no place left to do it. Like the newspapers, the radio and TV before, the internet had become corporate run, purely for profit and removed any usage of the voiceless to be heard.
The Internet is not just a gimmick anymore, it has become as essential for democracy, freedom and equality as education, food and medicine. We have strict regulation to ensure equal access to lifes essentials. I think it might be time to put access to free information on an equal basis as a basic human right. Better that then let the American ISP who are without principle ruin yet another media.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely even France is on the list who if countries who have legal precedent for this right, especially given the recent three strikes and you're off the net move...
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, ppl read the words 'net neutrality', but disregard what is said.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The idea is just fine. It's actually the only thing that makes sense, because otherwise there would be nothing but paid spam and DRM'ed cable TV on the Internet.
Politicians who are trying to play on crap about "government regulation" are welcome to build their Libertarian paradise in Somalia.
Re: (Score:2)
WHO supports net neutrality...
World Health Organisation support Net Neutrality as well?
Gotta be a religion-hater (Score:2)
I wonder if the bishops would speak out against regulation that would give priority to traffic to and from "religious and non-profit agencies".
I also wonder whether they regard atheïst websites as "religious and non-profit agencies".
This is NOT a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Religious groups have long been in favor of Net Neutrality; they need to get their message out to the masses just like individuals. Many of them fear not being heard if censorship is allowed. In addition, many would not like paying exorbitant fees like the access fees that network providers want to to charge to carry their traffic.
It is the mass media and the corporate executives that want to drown out any voice but their own. They want to drive up the price of access to for their own greed and to avoid having to compete on a level playing field. How can anyone afford Netflix if Comcast forces their bandwidth costs to skyrocket. The same goes for VOIP services or any future idea that may compete with their monopoly (or duopoly as is the case.)
Re: (Score:2)
And apparently on the 8th day... (Score:2)
On the 8th day God created teh Internet.
And He saw that it was good and fair, and neutral. And his minions supported it. Then twisted the original idea. Then wrote many books about it. Which were translated. And edited. And then it was not so good anymore. But nobody dared to admit that.
-- Call me an offtopic flaming troll - I just had to get this out of my system :-)
IT IS NOT ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY. (Score:3, Informative)
This has NOTHING to do with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst providers. It has everything with ensuring that there is no discrimination amongst consumers in ability to get to it. THat is all.
This is a BIG difference.
The odd thing is that the church could simply pay for the access for their poor parishioners. But, they do not want to do that. They want the GOV. to do that.
In other news... (Score:2)
Given the (Score:2)
Why did you throw in that bit about regulation? (Score:3)
we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all
Man, I hope that's a quote from his speech, because the grand sum total of the article on the Internet is:
As the Internet continues to grow in its influence and prominence in Americans’ lives, we support legislation and federal regulations that ensure equal access to the Internet for all, including religious and non-profit agencies, as well as those in more sparsely populated or economically distressed areas. True net neutrality is necessary for people to flourish in a democratic society.
Notice that legislation and federal regulations are nowhere in there. And there's an important distinction between whats written and what was said. We have a (mostly) neutral network. That's how it was built and how everyone assumes it works. That's part of what makes the Internet a Good Thing. Network neutrality regulation is the enforcement thereof. Because we can all see the horizon here, and with the consolidation of the big ISPs, and especially now with telcom companies buying media companies, we can all see that they'd want to break down NN just to make a buck.
But no-one wants regulation for regulation's sake. What we want is the networks to remain neutral.
Youtube (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually you don't, because what the "youtube atheist movement" doesn't understand is that religion is and always was mostly a social interaction thing than the interpretation of holy books, dogmas and so on. You may know more about the later, but the churchgoer knows way more about the practical and social aspects of religion, e.g.: how it feels to sing or pray with a whole church.
Also the history knowledge of the "youtube atheist movement" shows distinctive selective knowledge. E.g.: non-religious reasons for the crusades or about the killing of believers by atheists in the name of the reason during the french revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they forget that until 1964 mass was given in Latin!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The tu quoque logical fallacy. Which is pretty much what the "which is most ethical, religion or atheism" debate usually degenerates into. You can't generalise.
(Since atheism as a label can have many different connotations, for the duration of this post "Atheism" = a disbelief in all religions)
Religions mandate a variety of things, some of them murderous, repressive or genocidal. Some religions have no agressive mandates. Some variants of some religions have moved away from the murderous parts of their h
Re: (Score:2)
(Since atheism as a label can have many different connotations, for the duration of this post "Atheism" = a disbelief in all religions)
Disbelief in all except one religion, on the other hand, is called faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's been noticed for quite a while now.
Hence the recent atheist campaigns aimed at people who stopped believing but don't admit it in public, and the interest in building some sort of community around atheism. There's quite a large amount of people in churches that aren't there for the religion, but for the social aspects.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, isn't it a very anti-Christian thing to want to pray with a congregation? I mean, doesn't the Bible say something to the effect of "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:6, NIV translation quoted). In addition, aside from blessing the children, didn't Jesus Christ always go away separate from his followers to pray?
It would seem like someone who follows the B
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It's also about following a teacher who had a better way -- love and forgiveness. It's a hard thing to do smetimes, especially when someone fucks you over real bad. Forgiving someone who's robbed and beaten you is hard, loving them is even harder.
All the evil done in the name of religion was done by men for their own greedy gain.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because it is exposed on net, does not mean that people are goign to watch or even just look for it. And why should they if they are happy with their faith? And people unhappy with faith/who lost it/who never believed ... they never needed help of net.
On the other hand, church incredibly profits from social networking amongst young people. Net allows them to stay connected and to connect. Priests can have blogs, couples can meet on special dating sites. People can "like" bible verses and share photos f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... The claim that Christians copied Christmas from a pagan holiday pops up a lot too, even though recent research suggests a strong possibility that it was the other way around.
[Citation needed] There simply exists so much useless studies that I can't take that for granted without reference. People really should disclose their faith in these arguments, someone might consider you as biased since you openly advertise being Christian in your webpage.
Atheism (or agnosticism) strictly does not have a problem being biased since it does not state anything, just that there is no proof. So please, again, where is your reference?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Philocalian Calendar provides the first mention of both Christmas and Sol Invictus. As they are first attested at the same time, it's hard to say which influenced which. The Roman Empire in the 4th century had a fascinating competition between religions, with Christianity becoming popular in urban centres, Mithraism a fad in the army, and a handful of people even trying to "return to the sources" in pagan worship. An unqualified claim that religion X took custom Y from religion Z is an oversimplification of a complex and murky period.
It's interesting to look at your claims. The celebrations of Christmas are claimed to take pieces of the pagan holiday of Yule not Sol Invictus. It is not an unqualified claim considering that the date of Christmas was changed to Dec 25 in order to coincide with the Pagan rituals (which is why some sects celebrate Christmas as being in the beginning of January, not December.) Then consider the traditions of Christmas. It is called "yuletide" and you have a "yule log" which are obvious references to the orig
Re: (Score:2)
The Christmas tree is another take away as what does a tree have to do with the birth of the savior?
The fir tree had nothing to do with Christmas until St. Boniface, who used it to replace Thor's sacred tree (which was not a fir tree).
Re: (Score:2)
Internet atheism is in many cases a circle-jerk that is at odds with serious scholarship.
That claim can also be levelled at just about anything on the Internet though, atheism is by no means unique in that. In almost every group there exist a greater or lesser number of people who just parrot whatever soundbites they happen to think sound the best without stopping to investigate their veracity.
that kind of careful argumentation is ignored by the New Atheists and their acolytes because it's too much work
Agai
Re:The Internet is where Religion comes to die. (Score:4, Interesting)
"The claim that Christians copied Christmas from a pagan holiday pops up a lot too, even though recent research suggests a strong possibility that it was the other way around."
The other way around? How could that be, seeing that Mithras worship/celebration was help on Dec. 25 long before christians moved his birthday there, as well as the Saturnalia being celebrated at the end of the year for centuries before Christ.
Re: (Score:2)
The Church did more than just about ANY other institution in training people for rational thought and scientific endeavors.
Re: (Score:3)
For example, so very often one encouters claims in internet atheist circles that Jesus never existed, that he's entirely fictional
What contemporary sources can you cite that refer to Jesus? Even the Gospels were all written after he is supposed to have died. Tacitus refers to Christus as having been executed under Pontias Pilatus, but he was writing decades after the event, in a different country, and citing claims of early Christians.
There are a few passing references that may or may not all refer to the same person. Claiming that Jesus never existed is a bit of a stretch, but there is very little evidence outside of the Gospels
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I was aware of all of those. However, when most people say the 'Spanish Inquisition' they are actually referring to the various Inquisitions in general, which predated it and later evolved into the Congregation of The Doctrine of the Faith (but Spanish Inquisition sounds better). This was the organisation that, for example, had Jean of Arc executed for hearing voices. As a papal organisation, it did not actually carry out executions, but it tried people (often under torture) and sentenced them. The
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever read the tenants of the "church"...
FYI: churches do not have "tenants", they have "tenets". "Tenants" are for apartment buildings.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition [wikipedia.org]
Second sentence confirms point made.
A more Catholic spin on it is given at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm [newadvent.org] (see the section titled The inquisition in Spain).
2. Again Wikipedia is a good starting point ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades [wikipedia.org] ), and has many references for further reading. "The Crusades were fought mainly by Roman Catholic forces (...) against Muslims who
Re: (Score:2)
Check Thunderf00t's subscriber base.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt religion will die as long as humans are alive. If you believe animals (except for humans and their more recent ancestors) don't have religion, then clearly religion emerged in humans, outcompeted the default of "no religion" and has even thrived in the past thousands of years.
Yes there are a small minority of atheists, but most atheists don't appear to have much of an indoctrination, education and conversion plan (and so far such plans from athe
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to remove it completely rather than create a new kind
Why? Past religions have died. Try to find some believers in Zeus. No reason why current ones can't die as wel
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe animals (except for humans and their more recent ancestors) don't have religion, then clearly religion emerged in humans
Religion is quite complex, but they do have superstition. For example, if you feed pigeons at random times, then a pigeon that is walking in an anticlockwise circle when the food appears will do the same thing again the next time it is hungry, to try to make the food appear.
The ability to draw connections between unrelated events is not a uniquely human attribute.
Re:not interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that official stances from an organization that has approximately 1/5th of the world's population as members certainly matters. Just because you are dismissive of the organization or disagree with their message them doesn't change that. Pretending otherwise is the exact same failed juvenile mentality that led America to ignore Communist China up until Nixon.
The difference in the Council of Bishops vs. some random person, is that Bishops are an established position of leadership and authority within the organization. You may not care of the random guy from the shopping mall has to say about an issue, but you might care more about what the general manager of the mall might say, and you certainly would care what the Board of Directors of Westfield Shopping Centers Inc. might say, because it reflects where the organization as a whole might be headed or might be directing their efforts.
Dismissively ignoring their statements simply because you don't like who they are and what you think they stand for is short-sided and naieve.
Re:not interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that official stances from an organization that has approximately 1/5th of the world's population as members certainly matters.
At least over here in Europe, most "members" of the church are members for two reasons and two reasons alone: Marriage and funeral. The number of people actually active in any sense is maybe 10% of that. The influence of the church is massive, but overblown. Most of its presence in organisations and political structures (Europe is a lot less segregated in this than the US, with the church having official presence in many government groups, like the local equivalents of the FCC and the likes) is historical.
The church certainly matters. But its opinion on anything modern does not, because everyone with half a brain, even those who are on paper members of it, realizes they know nothing about these things that is worth listening to. That is from what I gather a very, very widespread opinion. My own is in fact less neutral, I actually think they are corrosive and their opinions and actions are dangerous.
You may not care of the random guy from the shopping mall has to say about an issue, but you might care more about what the general manager of the mall might say, and you certainly would care what the Board of Directors of Westfield Shopping Centers Inc. might say,
Actually, no. Unless it is on matters of shopping malls, of course. But being director of a shopping mall does not confer any authority on unrelated matters. When it comes to, say, high-energy physics, I will take the opinion of any unknown actualy physicist active in that field over the shopping mall director, the pope or the president any day.
Re: (Score:2)
At least over here in Europe, most "members" of the church are members for two reasons and two reasons alone:
First of all, you cannot generalize about churches across Europe. The relationship between church and state in Europe is very diverse. France has strict separation of church and state, while Germany doesn't.
The church certainly matters. But its opinion on anything modern does not
As far as Germany is concerned, that is totally wrong. The churches are the biggest employers in the nation and they are
Re: (Score:3)
As far as Germany is concerned, that is totally wrong. The churches are the biggest employers in the nation and they are the main health care providers.
That's one of the lies we are being fed. If you dig just a tiny bit deeper, you find out that most of the "church-run" institutions like kindergardens, hospitals and the like are actually paid for by the government. The church is the on-paper provider of the facilities, but the taxpayers are actually paying for 99% of the bills. In many places throughout Germany, the church does not even pay the clergy in these places, even they are paid by taxes.
The German churches also have a massive presence in both government and the media. [...]
True, that is what I mean by "overblown". Almost all of this
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck the elite. Fuck the lords, Fuck the Kings, Fuck the dictators
Are they all cute?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Citation Needed.