[net.religion] Views on Religions

pat@ih1ap.UUCP (06/02/83)

Not knowing what to call myself, I choose "observer".

What bothers me about all religions is they always exclude instead
of including people. Each separate religious order has either
Scripture based or Pope based laws which ultimately divide all people
into classes. Yet science seems to search for universal understanding
that provides a basis for all things. This exclusion makes
religions hipocritical of their own beliefs.

There is also a strong brainwashing effects of religion. Catholics,
of which I was raised, place their children in sunday school at
a young age and teach the Catholic view. This view is usually one
of why it is so neat to be Catholic. If you bear with me I will try
and give an example:

I recently married a divorced Catholic with an 11 year old daughter
which attends a Catholic grade school. First, statements such as
"I glad your Catholic or I wouldn't want to live with you!" came
from the 11 year old. When we went to a Methodist to be married he
explained that if we continue to participate in the Catholic
Sacrements, we are fooling ourselves. In the eyes of the Church, we
were not married and living in sin. I could go on but I think
I have made my point.

Patrick A. Fargo
Married Again - forever?
BTL -IH

mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/03/83)

I hope this sort of thing isn't happening too often:

	"I glad your Catholic or I wouldn't want to live with you!" came
	from the 11 year old. When we went to a Methodist to be married he
	explained that if we continue to participate in the Catholic
	Sacrements, we are fooling ourselves. In the eyes of the Church, we
	were not married and living in sin."

First of all, if your concern is legitimacy within the Roman church, all
you need is to have an appropriate minster of the church (us. a priest)
as a witness to the ceremony.  If you are willing to accept a Methodist
minister's statement on Catholic doctrine, Ok.  I would ask SEVERAL
Catholic priessts if it mattered to me.  As to ``living in sin'' and
the Cathoic sacraments -- while there may be one position espoused by
the Vatican, it certainly insn't a universal consensus.  Most folk these
days outside, perhaps, of the Rosary Altar Society will admit that there
is a certain amount of ``posturing'' going on in Vatican statements.

As far as the 11-year old, I hope that her attitude changes.  Of course
some education is in order.  Children, especially in primary school,
tend to view everything as black-and-white or us-and-them.  And older
folk in the rather closed religious communities often involved in
teaching  probably find it easier to teach that ``they are bad guys''
than ``they don't believe exactly the same things we do''.  The latter
can easily raise questions, and there usually isn't either the time or
the manpower to answer them all properly.

In any case, let's try to increase tolerance, not intolerance, huh?

				Mark Terribile
				Duke of deNet

tim@unc.UUCP (06/03/83)

          What bothers me about all religions is they always
          exclude instead of including people. Each separate
          religious order has either Scripture based or Pope
          based laws which ultimately divide all people into
          classes. Yet science seems to search for universal
          understanding   that  provides  a  basis  for  all
          things. This exclusion makes religions  hipocriti-
          cal of their own beliefs.

Please do not make unwarranted assumptions about all religions if
all that you have known are popular religions.  These thrive by
feeding the lowest impulses of people and telling them that they
are noble.  That is how they get popular, by telling their members
that the mere fact of membership is sufficient to make them superior
to non-members.  There are religions (mine, for instance) which do
not require this attitude, in which our motivations are simply to
appreciate beauty and bring it into our own lives VOLUNTARILY.
Members of these religions do not necessarily desire all people
to belong to their religion.

          There is also a strong brainwashing effects of re-
          ligion.  Catholics,  of  which I was raised, place
          their children in sunday school at a young age and
          teach  the Catholic view. This view is usually one
          of why it is so neat to be Catholic.

It is unreasonable to expect members of a religion not to bring
up their children within that religion.  However, this need not
involve brainwashing and jingoism.  Your sweeping generalities
are very insulting to people of all religions.  Do not speak
of "all religions" unless you know virtually all.

Tim Maroney

sjk@sri-unix.UUCP (06/04/83)

Someone recently defined religion and using that definition I think
that an "all religions" generalization is probably valid.  Intent,
rather than content, is the issue.  I desire a commonplace modality of
expression in which intent is clearly presented and is beheld by those
who wish to receive.  Words are so cumbersome at times!

scott kramer <sjk@ucbvax, ucbvax!sjk>

PS - What's the shortest mail route to Tim Maroney via ucbvax?  Thanx.

eric@whuxlb.UUCP (06/05/83)

#R:ih1ap:-15100:whuxlb:13300004:000:1536
whuxlb!eric    Jun  4 19:09:00 1983


	    Note: things in [[ ]] are from unc!tim, our	resident
       flamer.......

		 [[ Please do not make unwarranted assumptions
		 about all religions if	all that you have known	are
		 popular religions.  These thrive by feeding the
		 lowest	impulses of people and telling them that
		 they are noble.  That is how they get popular,	by
		 telling their members that the	mere fact of
		 membership is sufficient to make them superior	to
		 non-members. ]]

	    Gee, Tim, that sounds like a fat generalization to me.
       I am Catholic, and I have NEVER felt that I was noble just
       because I was Catholic and Person X was not.  I resent the
       accusation that my religion feeds only my lowest	impulses to
       keep me interested. Maybe yours does and	that's why you're
       so into it......

		 [[ It is unreasonable to expect members of a
		 religion not to bring up their	children within
		 that religion.	 However, this need not	involve
		 brainwashing and jingoism.  Your sweeping
		 generalities are very insulting to people of all
		 religions.  Do	not speak of "all religions" unless
		 you know virtually all. ]]

	    Thanks, Tim. I think you just abolished all	need for
       this newsgroup.	No one on netnews has seen everything, so I
       guess no	one has	the right to submit an opinion,	huh?? Yeh,
       RIGHT!!	I don't	think YOU have experienced every religion
       around, so why are you saying anything about the	popular
       ones. Ease up.

			       Eric Holtman
			       harpo!whuxlb!eric

emma@uw-june.UUCP (06/05/83)

In regard to a Methodist wedding being accepted by the Roman Catholic
Church--  I wound up hearing a short lecture by the head of the
Tribunal for the Archdiocese of Seattle on Canon Law not long ago.  As
a large part of his job involves annullments, he wound up on the topic
of valid and invalid marriages.  Basically, a marriage is considered
valid (by the Church) if it meets a fairly short list of requirements--
desire and ability to form a community; that sort of thing (I don't
rmembr the whole list).

One thing that was consipicuously ABSENT was any requirement that the
Church be involved in any way, shape or form with the wedding.  While
there were additional requirements for a sacramental wedding, the
priest said that the Church would recognize a marriage between two
Hindus as "valid".
-Joe P.

bch@unc.UUCP (06/05/83)

I disagree.  Tim Maroney is not our only resident flamer.  He's just the
one (or one of the few) that doesn't use the Bible or Holy Writ to try
and justify his beliefs.  Flames can come from "Divine revelation" as well
as from anywhere else.

				Byron Howes

tim@unc.UUCP (06/06/83)

At first, I wasn't going to respond to this.  I get so many  per-
sonal  insults  on  net.religion that answering all of them would
keep me from doing anything else.  However, I hate to turn down a
clear challenge.

        Note: things in [[ ]] are from unc!tim, our resident fla-
        mer.......

                [[ Please do  not  make  unwarranted  assumptions
                about  all  religions  if all that you have known
                are popular religions.  These thrive  by  feeding
                the  lowest  impulses  of people and telling them
                that they are noble.  That is how they get  popu-
                lar,  by telling their members that the mere fact
                of membership is sufficient to make them superior
                to non-members. ]]

        Gee, Tim, that sounds like a fat generalization to me.  I
        am  Catholic, and I have NEVER felt that I was noble just
        because I was Catholic and Person X was  not.   I  resent
        the  accusation that my religion feeds only my lowest im-
        pulses to keep me interested. Maybe yours does and that's
        why you're so into it......

Gee, Eric, that sure doesn't sound like  the  Catholicism  I  was
raised  in.   The  Church had this thing called "exclusive salva-
tion".  In laymen's terms, if you aren't a Catholic, well,  sorry
about  that  but you have to go to Hell.  In Prolog, damned(X) :-
not_catholic(X).  This is a perfect example of the  sort  of  ex-
treme preferentialism fostered by popular religions.  How can you
treat the damned as equals when you are saved?  Perhaps  this  is
possible  for  a  few, but it would be silly to imagine that most
people can do this.  This sort of doctrine encourages a  lack  of
respect for unbelievers, and bolsters the ego of believers.

As for your accusation about my religion, it is irresponsible and
sophomoric,  and  has no place in a reasonable discussion.  A ra-
tional person does not talk about things he or she knows  nothing
about.


                [[ It is unreasonable to expect members of a  re-
                ligion not to bring up their children within that
                religion.   However,  this   need   not   involve
                brainwashing  and  jingoism.   Your sweeping gen-
                eralities are very insulting to people of all re-
                ligions.   Do not speak of "all religions" unless
                you know virtually all. ]]

        Thanks, Tim. I think you just abolished all need for this
        newsgroup.   No  one on netnews has seen everything, so I
        guess no one has the right to submit  an  opinion,  huh??
        Yeh,  RIGHT!!   I  don't think YOU have experienced every
        religion around, so why are you saying anything about the
        popular ones. Ease up.

More sophomoric nonsense.  My exhortation not  to  make  sweeping
generalizations  about  all religions has nothing to do with what
you claim I said.  This is obvious to any rational reader,  so  I
won't  belabor  it  here.  It is amazing to me that you could let
your temper control you like this in a  public  forum.   Ease  up
yourself.   Remember,  Christians have this thing about "Love thy
neighbor as thyself"?

Tim Maroney

emma@uw-june.UUCP (06/08/83)

Hold on, Tim.  I don't know what Catholicism you were raised in, but it
most assuredly does not sound like the one I was raised in and practice
now.

The church does not hold that it is necessary to be a Catholic to be
saved.  In fact, there was a priest unfrocked 26 years ago for making
precisely that claim, and refusing to recant.  Protestants are most
assuredly saved as well.  The Church does take the attitude that
Catholics have a fuller faith than Protestants, but then I tend to get
worried about any denomination that doesn't believe that about
themselves.

-Joe P.

laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/10/83)

The Roman Catholic Church, despite its centralised desent from the Pope
does not really have a "Standards Committee".  By the time you get to
Vatican Councils and the Curia, yes, you have found a central authority,
but the whole things is terribly decentralised in practice.

2 years ago I was in a R.C. church with my parents at the town closest
to their cottage. The Sunday was "a day for Christian Unity Sunday".
We were treated to a roaring sermon (oops. homily) on why all the
Jews were going to rot in Hell for not being Christians and incidentally
crucifying Jesus.  According to my mother, this went on for about
45 minutes.  I dont know about this, for as soon as I heard enough to
be sure that this guy was serious, I left.

My father and I wrote letters to the Archbishop of the dioscese complaining.
We were told that the priest was not in conflict with doctrine, and so
could not be chastised.

More importantly, only about 5 people left the Church in question during
the aforementioned lecture. The priest gave more "fire and brimstone"
shoutouts and at the end of his first year at the Church announced how
"all the community was pleased that he was getting back to REAL Catholicism".

No matter how unprejudiced you are, it behooves you to see whether the same
can be said for your Church as a whole.

Officially, Roman Catholics ought not to hate non-Catholics or non-Christians.
Officially, Berkeley 4.2 should have been out for months.

While ideal Catholics would be a pleasure to be with, on the grass roots
level there are a lot of people who are very difficult.  They are part
of the same group that complains that Vatican Council 2 was a bad idea
in part because it reformed the official Church attitude towards
non-Catholics. Concluding that they are wrong does not make them go
away.  Reeducating them might, but often they do not want to be
reeducated.  It is necessary to remember them when you consider why
the Roman Catholic Church is not an attractive proposition to outsiders.

Anybody got any suggestions on how to reform it or any Church? This
discussion about whether the Bible can be taken literally can go on
for ever...

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura
-

tim@unc.UUCP (06/10/83)

        The church does not hold that it is necessary to be a
        Catholic to be saved.  In fact, there was a priest un-
        frocked 26 years ago for making precisely that claim, and
        refusing to recant.  Protestants are most assuredly saved
        as well.  The Church does take the attitude that Cathol-
        ics have a fuller faith than Protestants, but then I tend
        to get worried about any denomination that doesn't be-
        lieve that about themselves.

You are probably right in that this is not currently a doctrine
of the Church, although I am not completely taking your word for
it.  This isn't because I don't trust you, it's because I've
found that asking different Catholics what Catholics believe fre-
quently gets different answers.  I once had a Ctaholic tell me
that the Church no longer believed in Hell.  Hey, guess he's read
the Gospels, huh?  One might also profitably contrast your atti-
tude with that of Catholics in Ireland (and Protestants too, for
that matter).

The fact reamins that up until very recent times, the Church did
hold this view.  The topic being discussed is how religions got
popular.  The present toleration that marks the Catholic Church
is a welcome break from many centuries of rabid intolerance and
absolutism, during which times the Church was more popular than
today.

In any case, your letter shows that you DO probably think that no
non-Christian (or non-Jew) will go to Heaven.  Your acceptance of
Protestantism is nice, but to someone on the outside of Chris-
tianity it is still more evidence of your system's claim of ex-
clusive salvation.

Tim Maroney