A Mosque at Ground Zero?

Sir GH wrote: "Amazon wrote:"In your ideal world, in which religion is banned"

"Where did I state that I'd like religion to be banned?"

You don't have to state it. You implied it. When you stated 'No, never' to my comment about religious groups having an equal footing. There have been numerous other comments as well.

It's pretty obvious what you think.

"Did I state somewhere that all evil is exclusively religious"

No, of course not. But you stated plenty of select/debatable examples about religious evil.

I can only go by what you write. Instead of playing with words, as you do all the time (you should be a lawyer), why don't you play it straight for once? If I misinterpret you, then explain why, but don't play these word games.

"and that the world would be better in every way if it were banned?"

Another word game. Sigh. You never said that the world would be better in every way, but you did say it would be better!

Are you so unsure of your views that you can only play these silly word games? You have done it on numerous threads.

"And where did I state that I'm an atheist? The fact that I'm not a theist doesn't automatically make me an atheist"

I wasn't aware that athiest was a dirty word. If you absolutely don't believe in God, that would probably make you an athiest. You certainly haven't given any indication that you're a believer. If you are a believer, or are unsure of God's existence, then the best I can say about you is that you've been intellectually dishonest. If you don't believe in God, then this is just pedantic and another example of your playing word games.

"(now who's seeing things black and white?)."

Oh, please. You are the last person to tell anyone that they are seeing things in a black and white way!

"Fair point. I didn't state that all advancement was exclusively secular, but the overwhelming majority of it was, especially when it mattered most, in the 17th century."

Perhaps you're right.

"Please don't patronize me."

Reminding you that not all believers are the same is patronizing? Well, then don't make nonsencical black + white statements; and don't tell me 'It is people like you...' which is incredibly offensive. It can hardly shock you if such statements are met with responses you don't like!

BTW, I find it amusing how you constantly make incredibly offensive statements, yet you don't want to be patronised! Develop a thicker skin or stop being hypocritical.

"My point is that it's people who vociferously demand the right for their religious views to exist alongside secular advancement are blockading the advancement of the world in the interest of keeping outdated views alive."

In a liberal democracratic world, there will always be people who vociferously demand things. They will not all be religious, but regardless, they do have the right.

"The viewpoints of the people who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time are the same as those who condemn Sam Harris, Nicholas Sarkozy, and stem cell researchers today."

Let me get this straight? You are putting Sarkozy and Harris in the same category as stem cell researchers and Galileo, Darwin and witches? That is absurd. It is ridiculous. It is a joke. It is also a joke to say that you 'realize the plurality and complexity of beliefs and lifestyles in the world of theism.' You don't. You are even more of an athiest (or non-theorist) extremists fundamentalist than I had thought!

I do condemn Sarkozy, and I do so unashamedly. He is a hypocritical, illiberal and repulsive bigot. Those who criticise him (such as myself) are not 'blockading the advancement of the world in the interest of keeping outdated views alive' and those who defend him are not defenders of rationality. While I have no desire to discuss the burqa and Islamic clothing with you again (we have different views and are unlikely to change our minds), I will simply say that I think that Sarkozy is disgusting and I will condemn any politician who tries to ban the burqa in a liberal democracy. Comparing him to stem cell researchers, Galileo, Darwin and witches is so nonsencical that it's not funny. For someone who claims to be so rational, you come up with some irrational statements and this is one of the biggest.

It's also incredibly offensive to say that if one condemns this irrelevent and bigoted French president, they are against stem cell research and are the same as those who condemned Galileo, Darwin and witches. Witches weren't satanic; Galileo and Darwin were among the greatest scientists of all time; stem cell research can cure disease. Sarkozy? He's banned the burqa! It is statements such as this that convince me that you have an absolutist view of religion. If you did not, you wouldn't make such offensive and absurd assertions that anybody who attacks your hero Sarkozy are fundamentalists and extremists!!!

Just so you know, plenty of non-believers dislike Sarkozy as well. They do so because of his illiberal, anti-Islamic policies. It is allowed to criticise or attack Sarkozy, you know. Believers also have freedom of speech, and criticising or attacking Sarkozy does not mean that one is the witch burning, anti-science/rationality religious monster under your bed.

You also mentioned Sam Harris. The absurdity continues. Harris (whom I'm no expert on but I do know enough about him to comment) is a philosopher who has made some incredibly offensive and nonsensical statements about Islam. So if someone criticises him, that's like going after stem cell researchers etc....! Not only is this hypocritical (Harris has criticised religion, but believers can't criticise him?), but he is insignificant. Whether one loves or hates him, he isn't exactly all that important and is unlikely to be remembered decades after his death. By comparing him to Galileo and Darwin etc..., you are doing four things.

1)You are devaluing the contributions made by Darwin and Galileo, as well as stem cell researchers. In fact, I think that witches would be insulted to be compared to him, but that's beside the point.

2)You are implying that you think that while it is okay for people to criticise religion, it is not okay for religious critics to be criticised. I had suspected as much following your other statements, such as that you don't believe that religious groups should be equal members of society, that you believe this. This confirms my suspicion regarding your hypocritical and intolerant views on freedom of speech.

3)You are perpetruating your black+white view of the world, where any person who criticises or attacks someone you admire (whether it be Harris or Sarkozy, and probably Dawkins and Hitchens, both of whom I loath), are basically anti-rational fundamentalist extremists who condone burning of witches and are enemies of science.

4)You are showing that irrationality is not limited to believers.

"The base mentality - acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications - remains the same."

Oh please. This is simply not true. Believers don't have 'acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications.' We believe in something which can neither be proven nor disproven, and which is beyond evidence, and as for the ramifications; we believe that God exists. Simple as that.

"Canada has moved far backwards in many ways over the last four years because of our conservative party's views - some religiously-based and others not. For example, earlier this year they cut off funds for abortions in third world countries - something we had paid into for decades. As a result, thousands upon thousands of women are going to go to an alley and get a botched abortion job. This is one of countless reasons why having religious people in power can be incredibly dangerous."


Do you realise that you can vote them out? Do you also realise that they have a right to run for office. I'm pro-choice and I believe in providing abortions in third world countries, where abortion is legal of course, but that does not change the fact that pro-lifers (or as I like to call them anti-choicers) have a right to run for office. Unless you are suggesting that religious people should be prevented from running for office? Now that would be dangerous, and considering your views, unsurprising.

BTW, you do realise that not all religious people have the same views?

"So, according to your definition of extremism, I guess I'm an extremist because I believe that mentality derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings should have no place in modern society. If it wasn't for secular advancement we'd still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe and that illnesses are caused by demons."

So as well as playing word games, you don't read my posts? I will simply quote you an answer from one of my previous posts:

'No, you are an extremist because you want to ban all religion. I asked '"Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups?' which is quite reasonable. You responded with 'No, never' and then went on to attack religion.

Well, guess what, you may not like religion (I don't really care), but in a liberal democracy, believers (or whatever you want to call them) have as much right as you to exist, to contribute, to lobby, to run for office, to pray in religious buildings and to go to religious schools. You may not like it, but so what? You can't expect everyone to have the same opinion as you. If you don't like it, well, then don't live in a liberal democracy.

It is clear as day that you want to deny me a voice, simply because I believe in God. That makes you an extremist, in the same way that Christian fundamentalists who only accept Christians are extremists. I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, and I wouldn't want to live in your version of paradise.'

One final comment. You ask if you are an extremist because you "believe that mentality derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings should have no place in modern society"? Yes, you are. In a modern society, people of numerous different mentalities have the right to exist, including those 'derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings'. Unless someone is breaking the law, they can believe whatever they want.

Similarly to religious fundamentalists, you are convinced that your way is the right way, and you refuse to acknowledge that your way is not the right way for everyone. You are not morally or intellectually superior, and simply because you disagree with religious people or believers does not make them objectively wrong or you objectively right. I wonder, if you got your way, would you ban religion and religious people from exercising democratic rights? I strongly suspect you would and that is why you are an extremist.

As I said before; I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy and I wouldn't want to live in your version of paradise either.

I think this discussion has taken a turn to the weird :-) Of course  everybody can exercise their religion as they please. Of course  the overwhelming majority of religious people are decent, normal people who derive their ethics from their religion.

It's the organized churches who cause the trouble. If you look at the Catholic church, for example: the members do not have a say in the church, it's all about centralized power from Rome. Why are there so many cases of abuse within the church? It's because of the inhuman sexual morality, the celibacy and the denial of healthy normal sexual relationships. Since the organisation of the church is so undemocratic, hundreds of thousand of people have been leaving in the last years. Unfortunately, the people who leave are the ones who fought for modernization and renewal of the church structures. The church gets more undemocratic and more outdated. This is not about belief, it's not about "did God create the world in 7 days" etc - it's about a multi-million organisation led by an 80 year old man who does not feel the love for the victims of his sexually frustrated and power-maniac priests! Does that say anything about Jesus? No! Does it mean we have to address the issue? certainly yes. This church has power and money and a say in society and we as a society must end this abuse.

Let us take a look at the Islam. Of course there are millions of Muslims who are decent people not wishing anything bad to their neighbours. Nobody has a problem with a pious Muslim. It's the mullahs in the mosques who preach hatred and murder and that women have no rights and can be stoned to death when they are accused of
 adultery. It's the mullahs who preach the jihad and want the sharia introduced in any country where Muslims live (not all mullahs, I know that!). As a society we have to counter such teachings, we have to insist on our democratic and liberal rights. No woman in a democracy should fear for her life because she refuses to marry her cousin from Anatolia. No woman should be forced to hide her face in public, to stay at home being denied a decent education and to exercise her rights as an equal person. It's not tolerant to allow a hateful organisation to act as they please. No religion can be the excuse for murder and suppression. No religious organisation who has no democratic legitimacy can rule into a modern society.

Amazon wrote:

"Let me get this straight? You are putting Sarkozy and Harris in the same category as stem cell researchers and Galileo, Darwin and witches? That is absurd."

I'm not comparing the people per se, but rather the mentality being used to attack progressive minds then and now.  Sarkozy is one of the first people in political power to speak up against the burqa, which is far more than just a piece of clothing.  Most people in his country see it as a medieval chastity belt imposed on women.  Pleasing the majority is democracy at work.  Immigrating does not grant one the right to impose their ways on people who have been there for generations or longer.  The arrogance and sense of entitlement these people have is bewildering, especially since they left their country for a reason.  Sarkozy is far from perfect, but he is right on the money with this one.

As for Sam Harris, he is simply one of the greatest minds of this generation.  It will take decades, if not centuries, until the average person understands how relevant and vital his thoughts are for the human race.  Historically, those with the greatest minds weren't fully understood during their time, and Sam Harris is no different.  The faithful vilify him now, the same way they vilified Darwin.  It's easier to attack the alternative than to listen to it.

>Believers don't have 'acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications.' We believe in something which can neither be proven nor disproven, and which is beyond evidence

You are obviously not a historian or a scientist.  A proposition has two possible states - true or untrue.  It is untrue by default until it is proven to be true.  At best,  "possibly true" equates to potential, but tangibly it is as good as false.  Possibilities that cannot be supported with evidence are eliminated to narrow down to the truth, should it exist.  The boogie man, the loch ness monster, and humpty dumpty all might exist too, but until we find them, they don't exist.  The same goes for any metaphysical being that may reside above, among, or below us.

>and as for the ramifications; we believe that God exists. Simple as that.

Belief comes first, and ramifications come second.  You don't see a problem with this.. ? I do not play word games.  I am simply selective with my choice of words out of respect for possibilities, never using the words "all" or "always" to describe things that are "most", "many", "usually", or "often".  Please stop putting words in my mouth.  I have not outlined my vision of paradise, or even stated that I may have one.  You dislike my point of view and have assembled a label for my beliefs, which you actually don't even know of.  I am not an atheist.  I am simply not a theist.  There is vast middle ground between the two positions.  Your inability to see this distinction is what is hampering this discussion.

the elite are smart, they divide stupid retarded people by religion, race, class, the people are too fucking stupid to realize that 9/11 was an inside job and that the government gained A LOT from it. Building a mosque is just to keep up the separation and conflict between people so they can further their agenda, people are so damn stupid they dont get this.

Sir GH wrote: "I'm not comparing the people per se, but rather the mentality being used to attack progressive minds then and now."


Except you are comparing them. You are saying that if anyone attacks Harris and Sarkozy, they are the same as those who attack Galieo, Darwin and stem cell researchers. It is absurd, offensive and completely ignorant.

"Sarkozy is one of the first people in political power to speak up against the burqa, which is far more than just a piece of clothing."

Yes, but whether it's negative or positive is subjective. He is trying to protect women's rights, by taking women's rights

"Most people in his country see as a medieval chastity belt imposed on women."

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them. It also doesn't mean that I have to regard France as a liberal democracy or as tolerant.

"Pleasing the majority is democracy at work."

Perhaps, but that does not mean he should be admired. You seem to believe that simply because a politician makes a decision which is popular with most of the population, it is always the right decision. It is good to admire democracy, but you take it to absurd lengths.

BTW, is is also democracy at work if a conservative/relgious party gets into power and they do things you don't like?

"If people new to a country don't like the established ways, then they can go back home if the old country's values are what are dear to them. The arrogance and sense of entitlement these people have is bewildering, especially since they left their country for a reason."

Oh please. This is rubbish. People who come to a country have EVERY RIGHT to attempt to change or challenge the established ways as long as they do so in a legal and peaceful manner, regardless of how long they've been there. There is no sense of entitlement. They are simply exercising their rights.

I also love it how you call these people arrogant. That's like a lion attacking another animal for eating meat.


"Sarkozy is far from perfect, but he is right on the money with this one."

I disagree. I think he is as wrong as one can get. Oh, but that's right. You said he is right, so he must be. I forgot that only your opinion counts.

"As for Sam Harris, he is simply one of the greatest minds of this generation."

Are you serious? In what possible world, in what possible universe, can he be regarded as a great mind?!!!

"It will take decades, if not centuries, until the average person understands how important his thoughts and propositions are for the human race."

Do you realise how incredibly arrogant you sound like? Those who criticise or attack him are the 'average person' as they don't understand 'how important his thoughts and propositions are for the human race.' This is a joke.

Contrary to what you might imagine, you are not a great mind, and you are not in a special position to judge whether Harris is a great mind or not. Personally, I think it's absurd to call Harris a great mind (or even a good mind). You disagree, fine, but do not mistakenly believe that those who criticise him have average minds or do not understand how (un)important he is. We understand just fine.

Congratulations though. You would make an excellent lawyer. You made the topic of discussion about whether Sarkozy and Harris are admirable, instead of what it actually is.
You are a black/white hat extremist who believes that not only should religious people and believers be denied democratic rights, but they should also be denied the right to criticise/attack your heroes; who themselves criticise/attack religious people and belivers. I am so delighted that you have no power.


"Most great philosophers aren't fully understood during their time"

Perhaps, but your post did not mention a great philosopher, or even a good one.

"and Sam Harris is one of them."

No, he certainly is not. If you believe that, you are clearly not a philosopher.

"The faithful vilify him now, the same way they vilified Darwin."

You are so hypocritical, extremist, arroganrt and ignorant, it's not funny.

People who vilified Darwin did so because they didn't recognise his significance. Those who vilify Harris do so because we simply do not believe that he is great. At all!

Just because Harris is one of your heroes, does not mean that those who criticise or attack him are unenlightened anti-science/rationality religious fundamentalists.

Here's a tip. You are nowhere near as enlightened as you imagine yourself to be, and you are not the moral or intellectual giant your imagine yourself to be either!

"It's easier to attack the alternative rather than listen to it.."

So let me get this straight. If someone has attacked Harris, it must be because they did not listen to him? It can't be because they listened to him and weren't impressed. You need to learn about logic and consistency.


">Believers don't have 'acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications.' We believe in something which can neither be proven nor disproven, and which is beyond evidence"

"You are obviously not a historian or a scientist."

Actually I have a degree in history. What's your point? Religious belief can not be treated the same way as a scientist and a historian would treat their work.

"A proposition is untrue by default until it is proven to be true."

Not in the case of belief in God, which is beyond evidence.

"Possibilities that cannot be supported with evidence are eliminated to narrow down to truth."

Again, you can not treat religious belief scientifically.

"The boogie man, the loch ness monster, and humpty dumpty all might exist too."

Well, since Humpty Dumpty came from a nursery rhyme, I doubt it. The Bogeyman is more about fear, so really if something/someone has caused great fear, they may be referred to as the Bogeyman. As for the Loch Ness Monster, I don't know and I don't care.

"Until we find them, they don't exist."

Are you serious? Are you really a scientist? We recently discovered new planets. I guess they only existed once we found them.

"The same goes for any metaphysical being that may reside above, among, or below us."

As I have said numerous times, you can not treat God scientifically. You either believe in God. Or not (or you are not sure).

"Belief comes first, and ramifications come second. You don't see a problem with this.. ?"

No. I don't think to myself; 'what are the ramifications of believing in God or not?'

"I do not play word games. I am simply selective with my choice of words, never using the words "all" or "always" to describe things that are "most", "many", "usually", or "often"."


You do play word games. I could provide you with numerous examples, but I will give you just one. You listed all the atrocities that religion was (alledgedly) responsible for, but then demanded to know whether you had said religion was responsible for all evil?!

In most of your posts to me, you play word games and you don't play it straight.

"Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have not outlined my vision of paradise, or even stated that I may have one."

I am not putting any words in your mouth. I am only going by what you say; and that is you want to ban the burqa, want to ban Muslim banks, want to stop religious people from exercising their democratic rights, want to take away freedom of speech from believers, want to remove relgious groups from society and you believe that if believers get discriminated against or vilifed, they have it coming. That is not the kind of society I want to live in (BTW, when I referred to paradise, I wasn't being literal.)

"You dislike my point of view and have assembled a label for my beliefs, which you actually don't even know of."

Yes, I dislike your view, because of the arrogance and extremism of it. But I don't call you an athiest for that reason. While I hate Hitchens and Dawkins, I have nothing against athiests per se. I simply called you an athiest because you are not a believer. It's not a big deal.

BTW, you say that I don't even know of your beliefs. So you don't believe any of the stuff you say?

"I am not an atheist. I am simply not a theist. There is vast middle ground between the two positions."

Good for you. Interesting that yiu say there is middle ground between the two positions, yet you have a white/black hat view regarding believers.

"Your inability to see this distinction is what is hampering this discussion."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, Sir GH; what is hampering this discussion is your extremism, arrogance, lack of humility, black/white hat views and your word games.

Amazon wrote:

"BTW, is is also democracy at work if a conservative/relgious party gets into power and they do things you don't like?"

Absolutely.  If the majority are on board, then it's fair game.

"Not in the case of belief in God, which is beyond evidence."

No, you choose to believe that, and label the concept as being beyond evidence out of convenience because that is the only way you can attach some kind of credibility to it.

"We recently discovered new planets.  I guess they only existed once we found them."

Ah, now we're getting into the philosophy of what exists.  If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it... etc.  But seriously, you cannot equate discovering tangible planets with an intangible concept which cannot be discovered.

"Interesting that yiu say there is middle ground between the two positions, yet you have a white/black hat view regarding believers."

So exactly how many monotheistic people don't accept propositions they can't prove to be true? Stop with the "religion is beyond evidence" game.  Anything and everything can be scrutinized by those who want to do it.  Nothing can stop them. Monotheism is the acceptance of a single higher being, full stop.  The core belief is the same in every monotheistic person.  How they apply it to their lives can vary.  This is not a black and white "view".  It is a statement of basic fact, not opinion.

"I simply called you an athiest because you are not a believer. It's not a big deal."

It absolutely is.  Just because I do not worship the deity that you choose to worship does not make me a non-believer.  First you chose to label me as an atheist, and now I'm an "unbeliever", stated with an obviously derogatory tone.  Your unwavering attachment to monotheism and inability to see other possibilities foreign to your choices has led you to label me yet again.  I'm done with this.

Sir GH wrote:


"Absolutely. If the majority are on board, then it's fair game."

Yet you don't want religious groups to be treated as equal members of society, and you think it's 'extremely dangerous' having religious people in power. Forgive me if I don't believe you.

"No, you choose to believe that, and label the concept as being beyond evidence out of convenience because that is the only way you can attach some kind of credibility to it."

No, because it is beyond evidence. I don't need to attach credibility to it, it has it. You just can't acknowledge or recognise that that one can't produce a scientific approach to God and religion.

"Ah, now we're getting into the philosophy of what exists. If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it... etc. But seriously, you cannot equate discovering tangible planets with an intangible concept which cannot be discovered."

You're the one who said 'Until we find them, they don't exist.' Just because you say something silly, don't blame me or try to deflect it.

"Interesting that you say there is middle ground between the two positions, yet you have a white/black hat view regarding believers."

"So exactly how many monotheistic people don't accept propositions they can't prove to be true?"

What's with this double negative? It does not matter how many monotheistic people do it; religious people and believers still come in all shapes and sizes. Which does not fit in with your view of believers/religous people.

"Stop with the "religion is beyond evidence" game. Anything and everything can be scrutinized by those who want to do it. Nothing can stop them."

It's not a game (you're accusing me of playing games?). It simply is the way it is. If you want to take a scientific approach to everything, religion is not for you.

" Monotheism is the acceptance of a single higher being, full stop. The core belief is the same in every monotheistic person."

Well, not quite. There are differing views on God godself, you know.

"How they apply it to their lives can vary."

Yes, that's right.

"You are not a believer."

"In a theistic God, no. But in other things, yes."

Good for you, but we are discussing a theistic God here.

"Your unwavering attachment to theism has led you to label me yet again."

My unwavering attachment to theism? Not quite, but in the context of this discussion, I'm fine if you believe that.

BTW, if you don't like being labelled, then don't generalise about all religious people and say crap like "it's people like you.."

"I'm done with this."

Great to hear.

EDIT: I see that you edited your post. Rather than edit my post, I will simply say:

1)I couldn't care less whether you're an athiest, non-believer, non-theorist or whatever you call yourself. Unlike you, I am tolerant and accepting of those with a different view on God's existence.

2)You do have a a 'black and white "view"'. The fact that you contast those who criticise your hero Harris with those who criticised Darwin proves it.

3)"inability to see other possibilities foreign to your choices."

You should look in the mirror before you say such laughably hypocritical nonsence. That sentence sums up you in a nutshell.


I'm done here.

All of us are still learning, no matter our age or educational background.  I've never heard of Sam Harris.  Ha.

I think it is best to keep an open, curious mind.  If a person thinks that the worst thing that can happen to them is losing a point in an argument, then they need to readjust their ego.  There is nothing wrong in admitting that we are wrong or may not be completely correct on every point.

I once had a nice conversation with a retired teacher.  He told me that what he thought set him apart from other teachers was that he wasn't afraid to admit when he didn't know something.  He said this sort of thing would have embarrassed other teachers.  But "I don't know" is such a decent thing to admit.  Even if you are an expert on your particular subject, there are always more and more questions to be asked; things that are still unknown.

I also had a memorable conversation with a young lawyer who told me that she never admitted ignorance on any point when meeting with clients.  Ha ha.  She thought they would lose confidence in her legal opinions if she did so.

>>> Donna13 wrote: All of us are still learning, no matter our age or educational background.  I've never heard of Sam Harris.  Ha.

I think it is best to keep an open, curious mind.  If a person thinks that the worst thing that can happen to them is losing a point in an argument, then they need to readjust their ego.  There is nothing wrong in admitting that we are wrong or may not be completely correct on every point.

I once had a nice conversation with a retired teacher.  He told me that what he thought set him apart from other teachers was that he wasn't afraid to admit when he didn't know something.  He said this sort of thing would have embarrassed other teachers.  But "I don't know" is such a decent thing to admit.  Even if you are an expert on your particular subject, there are always more and more questions to be asked; things that are still unknown.

I also had a memorable conversation with a young lawyer who told me that she never admitted ignorance on any point when meeting with clients.  Ha ha.  She thought they would lose confidence in her legal opinions if she did so. <<<

Excellent points, Donna.

There’s a line from a song in Yentl that I think sums this up – “The more I live, the more I learn, the more I learn, the more I realize the less I know.”

In all, I think this has been a great discussion because completely opposing views were expressed and debated. I doubt anyone’s opinion has shifted, in fact, I’m guessing a few have been reinforced. Ultimately, the building – or not – of this mosque will be determined by a small committee whose sole purpose is to determine the historical merit of the building in question. The emotional and political issues won’t (or shouldn’t) come into play, but they will most certainly linger.

Amazon wrote:

"you think it's 'extremely dangerous' having religious people in power."

Not if the majority are in favour of it.  Such a society wouldn't be dangerous to them, so they're entitled to it.

"I am tolerant and accepting of those with a different view on God's existence."

But obviously not those who don't believe in your chosen interpretation of God, with statements like this:

"I couldn't care less whether you're an athiest, non-believer, non-theorist or whatever you call yourself."

It's incredible, really, the irony that you call me arrogant, yet you make comments like this while thinking your beliefs are above scrutiny.  I'm not playing any games - I simply am able to defend what I believe and I have a fair understanding of what many others believe.

Deism, buddhism, bahai, jainism - a small list of possibilities of what I may believe in.  Or I may even be a combination of some or all of these things.  You've demonstrated that your view of the scope of spirituality is incredibly finite.  All you see is monotheism and absence of belief but nothing in between, thereby labeling all non-monotheism as non-belief.  The intolerance and resistance of dialogue therefore begins with you, not me.

Great post, Donna.

Sir GH wrote: "Not if the majority are in favour of it. Such a society wouldn't be dangerous to them, so they're entitled to it."


Right. So religious people simply can't exercise their democratic rights in a secular society, is that it?

"I am tolerant and accepting of those with a different view on God's existence."

"But obviously not those who don't believe in your chosen interpretation of God, with statements like this:

"I couldn't care less whether you're an athiest, non-believer, non-theorist or whatever you call yourself." "

What's wrong with that statement? All it means is that whether you believe in God or not does not concern me. If you want to read something into that statement, it's your choice, but considering everything you've said about those with a different view to you, you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.

Was I as polite as I could have been? No, but then, considering everything you've said, I don't owe you politeness. I'm through being diplomatic with you. Just because you have a thin (and hypocritcal) skin is not my problem.

"It's incredible, really, the irony that you call me arrogant,"

There is nothing incredible or ironic about it. You are the epitome of arrogance. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word humility.

"yet you make comments like this"

Explain to me what is so arrogant about telling someone that I couldn't care less about their beliefs? It may be impolite, and brutally honest, but arrogant? You're clutching at straws.

"while thinking your beliefs are above scrutiny."

No, it's simply that like all religious beliefs, you can't take a scientific approach to them. How many times do I have to repeat that?

"I'm not playing any games - I simply am able to defend what I believe"

Right, and pigs can fly. You absolutely do play games. As for defending what you believe, well, I wonder if you are just being intellectually dishonest. Either that, or you are playing one of your games.

"and I have a fair understanding of what many others believe."

Right, whatever you say.

"Deism, buddhism, bahai, jainism - a small list of possibilities of what I may believe in. Or I may even be a combination of some or all of these things."

Good for you, except here's the thing. We were talking about a theistic God and religious people (presumably those of organised religion.) If you do not believe in a theistic God, then it does not matter what you believe (as opposed to what you don't believe) since we weren't discussing God in general. If you do believe in a theistic God, then you're intellectually dishonest and having a 'discussion' with you was a waste of time.

Keep in mind that it was you who originated the discussion, and you had plenty of opportunities to shift the focus of the discussion.

"You've demonstrated that your view of the scope of spirituality is incredibly finite."

LOL. No, on the contrary. Considering my background, my view of the scope of spirituality is almost certainly wider than yours, but that's not the point. I can only go by what we are discussing, and we are NOT discussing the 'scope of spirituality'!

BTW, I find it amusing that you, with your black/white hat view of religious people, would tell anyone that their 'view of the scope of spirituality is incredibly finite.' But then, why aren't I surprised? Consistency is not one of your strengths.

"All you see is monotheism and absence of belief but nothing in between, thereby labeling all non-monotheism as non-belief."

Again, I can only go by what you say. Considering how you've constantly ridiculed those who believe in God, and have essentially stated multiple times that you don't believe that God exists, it is not unreasonable to presume that you don't believe in God!

But this is not the point, and yet again you playing a game. You are retrospectively (because it suits your interests) attempting to change the nature of the discussion. It won't work.

"The intolerance and resistance of dialogue therefore begins with you, not me."

Yeh, and green pigs can fly.

Sorry, but that is crap. I've been perfectly happy to discuss, you've just been playing games and have retrospectively attempted to change the nature of what we were discussing. You don't play it straight, and you turn a discussion with you into an obstacle course. As for intolerance, you are the last person on earth to accuse anyone of intolerance.

Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote:

Anyone who chooses to support an institution that systematically covers up the sexual abuse of children is part of the problem.  If parents and their kids wouldn't go to that church, the religion would collapse and the abuse would be over instantly.  Right now that seems to be the only way, as the church officials have made it painfully clear that they're more interested in their reputation and power than the well-being of those affected (as well as those who will be affected in the future, as it's not going to stop any time soon).

Everyone in the civilized world is aware of this problem, and millions of parents still take their kids to church every week.  Therefore it's the parents' fault as much as the church's because they choose not to take an alternate path through life.  What is their silence achieving?  Do they not realize that their kids or nephews might be next?  And when it happens, some of these parents accuse their kids of making up stories because they're too closed-minded to see past their view that their religion is flawless.  Sadly that still happens, a lot.
=======================================

The scandal that led to the bulk of the current knowledge and public sentiment exploded in the United States in 2002 in the archdiocese of Boston through a series of articles in the Boston Globe.   That work, thankfully, led to a crisis in the Catholic Church that made denial that the problem exists impossible and forced changes in openess about the nature and extent of the victimization of young people that had taken place.  Sweeping changes followed, particularly in the US, along with the commissioning of an independent report to study the nature and prevalence of the abuse over the last 50 years and to attempt to determine the factors that allowed the abuse and secrecy to occur.  If you're interested in some of the highlights of that study you can look up 'John Jay Report'. 

When a young person is abused some of the greatest harm comes from shame, and shame is something that secrecy perpetuates. There are no excuses for the fact that secrecy about sexual abuse became institutionalized in the Catholic Church.  Not one.  It's horrific enough in secular society, and for it to come from a religious organization is beyond galling.  No excuses, but several mitigating factors exist that are not generally known, and thus rarely considered. 

First, at no time have priests at any point in the 50 years for which we have data ever been more likely than clergy from other faiths or other people in lay society to sexually abuse a young person. Never. The myth that Catholic churches are a vector of this activity is completely false. This has been affirmed and reaffirmed, as recently as this year by the BBC. The incidents of abuse saw un upsurge in the 60's, peaked in the 70's and dropped sharply through the 80's and 90's.   This corresponds with secular society that saw the 1970's become the decade in which child protection services were established and the social ethos on childhood sexual abuse and the rights of young persons advanced.  70% of the priests implicated in the scandal were ordained before 1970.  In the period studied, about 2% of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by Catholic priests.  At any given time a child was 50 times more likely to be sexually abused outside the church as in. Then, as now, a child is a greatest risk within their own family where upwards of 90% of abuse occurs.  Then, as now, the next greatest risk is in public shools. So when YourValentine talks about 'so many incidents of abuse'  I must ask so many incidents compared to what?  Not compared to the family setting, not compared to other religious organizations, and not compared to schools.  Compared only to the highest ideals of society, where we all, Catholics and non Catholics alike, would like to see no young person suffer abuse.

Never in the history of ever has there been more freedom or societal support for individuals to report  abuse by Catholic priests to civil authorities than there has been in the last decade or so.  Even in this environment, organizations like the National Centre for Exploited Children confirm Catholic priests are no special threat to children, and the actuarial tables of companies that insure religious organizations against losses through litigation confirm this as well.

The infrastructure that supported the secrecy is simply for the most part not there anymore. In the west, orphanages and similar institutions that put children under the direct control of priests were dismantled many years ago.  A church that feared scandal was forced to face it's secrets.  Catholic parents of children who are theoretically at risk today lead largely secular lives and grew to adulthood well past the time in history where childhood sexual abuse was not discussed. They would far more likely than not march straight to the police and then straight to a lawyer.  Children are taught in school and now through the church about how to recognize abuse and protect themselves, including feeling safe reporting to an adult.  Priests are better prepared in seminary for a lifetime of celibacy and now have clear rules about mandatory reporting that are also reflected in civil law.  (Married clergy of other faiths are no less likely to engage in child sexual abuse BTW, so the celibacy rules are unlikely to have a large impact on incidents of abuse unless you accept that Catholic clergy all things being equal would be *less* likely than other faiths to abuse). 

And, simply, we as a society know much more about predatory sexual behaviour than we did decades ago.  While desire to avoid scandal was a high priority, there were other things at work too in the decisions that were made.  In the earliest periods studied many of the acts were not even criminalized in civil law yet.  In the 1970's, prevailing medical and psychiatric advice was that sexual offenders could be couselled, and that was the general result when lay persons went to court- they were ordered to counselling.  Bishops followed suit. Other groups like the Boy Scouts and school districts shuffled their offenders around under similar pressure and with the same mostly well intentioned if self serving beliefs. (Note that about 60% of priest offenders were only accused of one incident). There was also the theme of forgiveness to grapple with given the nature of the organization.

In addition, two thirds of the allegations were not even known to Diocesean authorities at the time they occured because they were made well after the fact.  Fully one third of the accusations relating to incidents in the 60's and 70's were made in 2002.  There is no question that the church failed victims and future victims utterly by attempting to handle things internally through counselling and reassignment at the time, but there was a social and religous context that went beyond pure self interest.  It's worth noting too that governments and even a police agency in at least one large case in Canada have also been implicated in failing to adequately protect, act and disclose in Catholic sex abuse cases.  Large organizations in general seem to be vulnerable to poor decisions and avoidance while under pressure and scrutiny.

Continued in next post....

Continued...

In the end, the truth remains that the needs of victims and potential victims were, and some would argue still are, subordinated to interests defined, for whatever reason and with whatever intent, by people in positions of religious power. Lessons must be learned, and to a large extent they have been. The Catholic Church has to live with it's history, but's it's history must be fairly considered with all relevant facts and in context. Anti-Catholicism has become an acceptable prejudice that Catholics who have hung in there have simply learned to ignore. Outside the Church, Catholicism is defined by the scandal. Inside the church, Catholicism is defined by joy in the gathering of parishoners, family, the good works of parish communities, the achievements of Catholic schools where they operate, and by faith, gratitude and wonder. In the last decade I'd add humility and growth as well. So you'll pardon the average Catholic it he just rolls his eyes when you call for the immediate and thorough collapse of the church. A final solution, as it were.

So there you go. And I'm not even sure I believe in God. Plus, I haven't been to church in six months. But I'm still Catholic! :)