I don’t belive in religion and here in Sweden, Scandinavia 99,99% of the population don’t visit churces or belive in “god” so my guess is… now, there is no decent religious leader. Maybe the biggest problem is that the bible not are written by god. Or as far as I know… NO religious books are written by god.
Btw, I’m borned by christian Swedish parants.
Of course there are decent religious leaders. Unfortunately, when your core product is, umm, intangible and not provable or demonstrable in any way then you’re going to have to do some quick shuffling if anybody asks questions. That kind of constant dodging and weaving to keep your job has to wear on a person after a while.
The Swedish Viking, you’re greatly exaggerating. There’s no very good statistics on religious belief in Sweden, but various surveys say that anywhere between 46% and 85% of Swedes will say that they don’t believe in God, and 17% of Swedes will call themselves atheists. 5% of Swedes are regular churchgoers.
Presumably including his parents, part of the 0.0001%.
So what you’re saying is that it’s unreasonable for me to think a religious leaders is not decent based on ‘do they accord the people close to me human rights’, but it’s perfectly reasonable to say they’re not decent if they visited a prostitute? Why is it reasonable for you to make ‘never visited a prostitute’ a condition of being a decent person, but it is so unreasonable for me to make ‘treats my friends as human beings’ a condition for the label?
I don’t get it. If you were just saying that your standard for ‘decent human being’ are different than mine then it wouldn’t be noteworthy, but you claim that mine is so obviously and unreasonably out of bounds that I shouldn’t be posting it.
In other words, the Catholic Church opposes civil rights for people who are close to me, such as marriage. Weasel wording it doesn’t change the simple fact that the church, and it’s leaders, want to deny basic civil rights to the people close to me. It boggles my mind that not only should this be considered ‘not scandalous’ and that someone visiting a prostitute should be considered ‘scandalous’, but that it’s entirely unreasonable for me to have a standard of ‘treats my friends as human’ but entirely reasonable for you to have a standard of ‘doesn’t visit a prostitute’ to call someone decent.
I didn’t remember saying you shouldn’t be posting it. I remember making a distinction between someone who has strayed from the morals of the religion they are representing, and someone who is faithful to that religion and it’s not one you agree with. This thread no longer makes that distinction and that’s the way it’s gone.
Marriage in the Catholic Church is not a human right or a civil right. There are many many people who cannot be married in the Catholic Church and it’s not a human rights issue.
Marriage rights in society most definitely are a human right and a civil right. Special pleading for a religious principle is not impressive.
“I’m going to discriminate against group X but you can’t think badly of me because it is mandated by religion Y”…see? not impressive at all.
and you are still dodging the meat of Pantastic’s questions.
Has the Catholic Church opposed civil marriages between same-sex couples, or just religious marriages within the Catholic Church? The former is a civil rights issue; the latter isn’t (which I think was gigi’s point).
Yes, the Catholic Church hierarchy* has been one of the major forces opposing equal *civil *marriage rights. Our local Archbishop even stole money from the parochial education fund to pay for political ads opposing equal marriage in a referendum (he still lost). (He’s gone now; he got caught fiddling some of those parochial boys.)
Nobody was saying that the Catholic Church would be required to perform sacramental marriage rites for other couples; but the Church was trying to prevent other churches or civil authorities from being able to perform such marriages.
both, but thankfully they can do sod all about the first with hell freezing over before they allow the latter.
just to give a flavour of it, here’s a snippet
So there we are, a piece of legislation that seeks to ensure equality for all and that affects the church not one jot, and yet they want to stop it…read it again… “the common good of society”? that is a heck of claim.
Forgot my footnote:
*Catholic hierarchy opposition, because polls of Catholics parishioners generally show two-thirds of them supporting gay marriage.
I’m not sure what else to say. No, generally speaking I don’t think someone faithful to their religion is indecent because someone else disagrees with that religion. I see a difference between being unfaithful to that religion and bringing scandal on it, which is indecent, and being faithful to it in the face of opposition by those who don’t agree.
However, if someone’s opinion is that part of the answer to “Are there any decent religious leaders?” is that anyone who is faithful to orthodox Catholic guidelines is automatically not a decent religious leader, they’re entitled to that opinion.
Evan Drake writes:
> Presumably including his parents, part of the 0.0001%.
To nitpick, The Swedish Viking said that 99.99% of Swedes are atheists, which means that 0.01% aren’t.
Bishop Jefferts Schori was recently featured in Time magazine, as it happens; here’s an essay by her and a short film: http://time.com/collection/firsts/4882908/katharine-jefferts-schori-firsts/
OK, well that sounds like a version of moral relativism to me and that leads you into terribly dark places.
What’s more I don’t think you truly mean it. I’m sure that you would have no problem condemning as indecent people of *certain * religions or certain cultural/ethnic groups and their culturally mandated beliefs and actions.
I’m sorry you’re doubting my word and making judgments about me. My only point in coming into the thread was:
There are people who represent a religion and violate that religion causing scandal (e.g., Jim Bakker in the OP’s example)
There are people who faithfully follow a religion to the best of their ability and others consider that religion wrong
Do you see the difference between these two ideas, or no?
Wouldn’t a clergyman be a religious leader pretty much by definition? I mean, he made TV shows because he thought that God wanted him to make educational TV shows for kids. He considered it his religious duty and divine mission. The Presbyterian Church assigned him as “an evangelist to work with children and families through the mass media.”
I’m not sorry that I said it and I hope you dig a little deeper into where that line of thinking takes you.
Is it possible that you really mean what you’ve said? of course, and I can’t know for sure, but I really, really hope that you don’t mean it and that it is merely a reflexive defence of a religion that is important to you.
There is a difference between those two statements as you’ve written them, yes but in those two statements don’t assume that the person causing the scandal is the one who is not decent.
A Roman Catholic priest having sex with a married woman would be a scandal but not necessarily cause any harm at all. The same priest preaching that condoms are bad and refusing to sanction their use in sub-saharan Africa causes no scandal and yet potentially has a tangible and very harmful outcome.
OK, thanks, that makes it clear.
I think the obvious answer here: no religious leader is truely decent, because they don’t fit all of the criteria of what most board members consider decent.
Does that work?