Apparently another thing holding back the Catholic church holding itself back (besides the ass hats at the top of the hierarchy) from joining the rest of the secular world in the 21st century is a bunch of people afraid of losing their social status and not being part of the club. A couple of days ago, an article in the Louisville Courier-Journal raised awareness of the plight of the status of women in the Roman Catholic church. And showed me why it's not just the cardinals and bishops holding them back.
The article in full by Charlie White is here:
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20131208/NEWS01/312080047/Louisville-woman-ordained-priest-ceremony-meant-send-message-Catholics
Recently, the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests (which has been disavowed by the Vatican) held a ceremony in the city where they ordained three local women as Roman Catholic Priests and two others from outside of the state. The ceremony itself had over 200 attendees. It has been the second ordination ceremony held by the group here in Louisville in the past year. One of the goals of the organization is to show the Vatican that women can be represented equally amongst the sausage-fest Catholic priesthood and that women have a voice. They started ordaining members over a decade ago and their membership of women priests has been slowly climbing since. While I commend these women and others in the organization, most of whom grew up in the traditional Catholic church, challenging a very misogynistic and sexist practice in their own way. I am upset at another group discussed only briefly in the article quoted here:
“Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville officials have said Catholics should not support or participate in events held by the association, maintaining it has no connection to the Roman Catholic Church.
Some association supporters who attended Sunday’s ceremony sat on the upper level to avoid having their photos taken because they said they would be excommunicated if they were seen at the ceremony.”
We all know that the official Catholic top level hierarchy has a level of sexism that cannot be matched anywhere else, and will vocally confirm it when asked at every opportunity. That’s been done enough. Who I am taking to task right now are the spineless “association supporters” who support the ordination of Catholic women priests, but are afraid to be seen publicly supporting them because that would mean they get kicked out of the special club whose authority figures disagree with them. That sort of hypocrisy just makes me seethe with frustration.
I would love to ask some simple questions to these nameless, faceless Catholic church members who don’t want to be seen for fear of excommunication:
If excommunication is what I would get if I were a traditional Catholic seen supporting ordination of women priests, then give me excommunication. It’s the same thing as being a Catholic who supports contraception, abortion, or gay marriage in private but afraid to show it in public because they don't want to be kicked out. It makes no sense. If you are so afraid of being kicked out for showing that you disagree with the church, then why would you even risk being exposed?
I understand that getting kicked out of any religious organization such as the Catholic Church could cause issues like being socially ostracized, losing friends, family members and a support network. And the only case I could possibly understand where a Catholic person would not want to be exposed is if they are employed by the Catholic church directly. Getting removed from your job (for doing the right thing) without a fallback is a very risky choice especially if you are raising a family, and why I support movements like The Clergy Project.
There’s a movie that reminds me of this whole situation. It’s a kids’ film, but I guarantee eight year olds would get the parallel easier than these adult scaredy-cat, not willing to take a stand Catholics would. The 1994 film Little Rascals. In that film, the little boys have a “He-Man Woman Haters Club”, where women are not allowed in. Alfalfa, (best friend of Spanky, founder of the club) falls for a girl named Darla and tries to play both sides. While his friends try to sabotage his lunch date rendezvous with Darla at the clubhouse, Alfalfa unwittingly burns the clubhouse down (which is what the club deserved for not letting women join in the first place). While Alfalfa is trying to convince Darla he isn’t part of the club anymore and also trying to convince his friends that girls aren’t all that bad, Spanky decides to make Alfalfa test loyalty to the club by guarding the club’s go-kart before the big race. (Personally, this is the point where I would’ve said ‘Screw you, asshole.’) When Alfalfa leaves his guard post to try to make up with Darla, the go-kart gets stolen. The friends eventually make up when Alfalfa finds out the other boys sabotaged his date. So, Alfalfa and Spanky build a new go-kart to win the race where the prize is given to them by a famous race-car driver that Spanky adores, with the name A.J. Ferguson, who turns out to be a female which blows Spanky away. Alfalfa gets the girl and the trophy, Spanky and the He-Man Woman Haters have a change of heart and allow women into their club. And the entire thing would’ve never happened if the club had just accepted women in the first place. And then it only got resolved because a club member stood up for what he knew was wrong and was willing to give up his club and friends for it. Now if a group of kindergartners can watch this movie and learn that lesson and stand up for what’s right, then why can’t these spineless Catholics who avoided being publicly photographed at a Catholic women’s ordination ceremony they obviously supported tell their Catholic elders to go screw themselves.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
How did life begin?
A big misconception amongst the religious community at large (essentially a majority without a proper education in basic biology) always throw on believers the concept that evolution is incorrect (which without the explanation of evolution by natural selection we wouldn’t have modern biology today) and ask how living things came to be if not through a deity.
I cannot stress this next sentence enough to the religious layperson.
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABIOGENESIS
They are two separate topics in biology that essentially are filling in different parts of the timeline of how living things are the way they are now by looking at our history (evolution) and how they formed. And in more detail how non-living materials became the first living creature (which is abiogenesis and a very hard question to answer).
Evolution (by biological definition: change over time) by natural selection explains how the simplest single-celled organism changed over time to form more complex single celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms of even deeper complexity. There is a key note here: Evolution starts off with the simplest single-celled organism as its base. Life is existing already. Note that it does not say how or why or very accurately when that first single celled organism formed. Evolution has shown that favorable genes get more represented in populations over time which helps the species survive its environment better.
Through science and especially the field of biochemistry, scientists have discovered what chemical elements and compounds make up the more complex structures in our cells and how they form the basic structures such as cell membranes, organelles, proteins, DNA, RNA, the nucleus, etc. What isn’t known is how the chemical soup that existed on early earth (and could have come from other celestial bodies like comets and other planets) over time formed these basic organelles and structures which then in turn became the first living and replicating cell. From the non-living pieces to living cell. That’s abiogenesis.
Think of it as the origins timeline. From the beginning of our universe, to the forming of galaxies, stars, and planets. To the formation of our solar system: the sun and the planets. To Earth itself and its changes in its ecosystem since it was around, to the first living cell, then on and on as described before all the way to now, highly intelligent humans that have a brain that can comprehend some of it. Note I said some of it, not all of it. And at each step along that timeline, there are humans asking how did this happen (and philosophers who ask the why). The timeline itself as we know it right now is for all intents and purposes is pretty well established. Now we are trying to figure out the how the major events played out: Human Life and Health (genetics, medicine) back to simpler organisms such as sea creatures and plants, back to the first single celled organism all living things derive from (evolutionary study), to how did the first living cell form and replicate from non-living materials (abiogenesis), to the complex chemicals that made up those first cells and how they formed (chemical reactions), then as to how all the elements came about to even have all of what we have currently (astronomy and physics).
I cannot stress this next sentence enough to the religious layperson.
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABIOGENESIS
They are two separate topics in biology that essentially are filling in different parts of the timeline of how living things are the way they are now by looking at our history (evolution) and how they formed. And in more detail how non-living materials became the first living creature (which is abiogenesis and a very hard question to answer).
Evolution (by biological definition: change over time) by natural selection explains how the simplest single-celled organism changed over time to form more complex single celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms of even deeper complexity. There is a key note here: Evolution starts off with the simplest single-celled organism as its base. Life is existing already. Note that it does not say how or why or very accurately when that first single celled organism formed. Evolution has shown that favorable genes get more represented in populations over time which helps the species survive its environment better.
Through science and especially the field of biochemistry, scientists have discovered what chemical elements and compounds make up the more complex structures in our cells and how they form the basic structures such as cell membranes, organelles, proteins, DNA, RNA, the nucleus, etc. What isn’t known is how the chemical soup that existed on early earth (and could have come from other celestial bodies like comets and other planets) over time formed these basic organelles and structures which then in turn became the first living and replicating cell. From the non-living pieces to living cell. That’s abiogenesis.
Think of it as the origins timeline. From the beginning of our universe, to the forming of galaxies, stars, and planets. To the formation of our solar system: the sun and the planets. To Earth itself and its changes in its ecosystem since it was around, to the first living cell, then on and on as described before all the way to now, highly intelligent humans that have a brain that can comprehend some of it. Note I said some of it, not all of it. And at each step along that timeline, there are humans asking how did this happen (and philosophers who ask the why). The timeline itself as we know it right now is for all intents and purposes is pretty well established. Now we are trying to figure out the how the major events played out: Human Life and Health (genetics, medicine) back to simpler organisms such as sea creatures and plants, back to the first single celled organism all living things derive from (evolutionary study), to how did the first living cell form and replicate from non-living materials (abiogenesis), to the complex chemicals that made up those first cells and how they formed (chemical reactions), then as to how all the elements came about to even have all of what we have currently (astronomy and physics).
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Conflicting thoughts...
A couple of weeks ago a very religious co-worker of mine had a step-son pass away. It was a motorcycle accident and of course the whole family was devastated (understandably so) and somehow my co-worker was able to come to work the two days before the funeral. He was definitely visibly shaken and he did his job very admirably. He is normally a quiet, reserved fellow to begin with and he does get animated and can be a lively conversationalist at times but this particular week was different (obviously). So, I tried to keep my distance and the next week after the funeral I asked him during our shift how the funeral was. This was his response:
"The funeral was really nice and a lot of friends and family were there. It was quiet and nice, lots of memories and good times were shared, but there was a feeling of sadness the whole time because we all knew he wasn't saved when he died."
Which my reaction being a non-believer is one of consoling but it definitely wasn't a time to bring up my thoughts.
Every Christian I have ever encountered who has had someone close to them pass away always puts posts on Facebook, the newspaper, and tells others that they believe said person is in heaven with God and they are with the Father even if that person wasn't saved. It's like a cognitive dissonance to prevent yourself from thinking your loved one is in hell. Yet, my co-worker didn't. He pretty much admitted to me that he believes his step-son is now burning in hell for eternity. He is in a lake of fire skin roasting, being tortured in immense agonizing pain in perpetuity. Yet, here you are back at work? Really? If that were my step-son or anyone close to me and that's what I believed happened to those who weren't saved I'd quit my job and literally make it my life's work to prevent people from ever having to go to hell.
One of my biggest complaints about religion especially evangelical Christianity in particular is that 99% of adherents don't think their loved one are possibly in hell when they die. When my uncle passed away (and believe me, the man lived almost every day with some sort of filled alcohol container near by and I'm sure pills and illegal drugs of all kinds in his system) even some family members said that he was in heaven with Jesus. How can this be the case? If you believe what you say you do, then when someone dies that wasn't saved don't give me the platitudes that said person is in heaven now. Face the idea that they may be burning in a pit of eternal fire in agonizing pain. The logic of your faith dictates this very clearly. Because I get threatened with burning in hell on occasion as do many atheists around the world. If you can't bring yourself to even admit that as a Christian, your unsaved loved ones are burning in hell right now then you really don't believe what the central tenet of your faith is defined by. This is a cognitive dissonance that is very all too common amongst the faithful, replacing what your religion says with what makes you feel better even if it contradicts its own logic.
So, if you have to convince yourself that a dead unsaved loved one is in heaven when your religion says they aren't, then accept that you might not 100% believe what you say you do.
"The funeral was really nice and a lot of friends and family were there. It was quiet and nice, lots of memories and good times were shared, but there was a feeling of sadness the whole time because we all knew he wasn't saved when he died."
Which my reaction being a non-believer is one of consoling but it definitely wasn't a time to bring up my thoughts.
Every Christian I have ever encountered who has had someone close to them pass away always puts posts on Facebook, the newspaper, and tells others that they believe said person is in heaven with God and they are with the Father even if that person wasn't saved. It's like a cognitive dissonance to prevent yourself from thinking your loved one is in hell. Yet, my co-worker didn't. He pretty much admitted to me that he believes his step-son is now burning in hell for eternity. He is in a lake of fire skin roasting, being tortured in immense agonizing pain in perpetuity. Yet, here you are back at work? Really? If that were my step-son or anyone close to me and that's what I believed happened to those who weren't saved I'd quit my job and literally make it my life's work to prevent people from ever having to go to hell.
One of my biggest complaints about religion especially evangelical Christianity in particular is that 99% of adherents don't think their loved one are possibly in hell when they die. When my uncle passed away (and believe me, the man lived almost every day with some sort of filled alcohol container near by and I'm sure pills and illegal drugs of all kinds in his system) even some family members said that he was in heaven with Jesus. How can this be the case? If you believe what you say you do, then when someone dies that wasn't saved don't give me the platitudes that said person is in heaven now. Face the idea that they may be burning in a pit of eternal fire in agonizing pain. The logic of your faith dictates this very clearly. Because I get threatened with burning in hell on occasion as do many atheists around the world. If you can't bring yourself to even admit that as a Christian, your unsaved loved ones are burning in hell right now then you really don't believe what the central tenet of your faith is defined by. This is a cognitive dissonance that is very all too common amongst the faithful, replacing what your religion says with what makes you feel better even if it contradicts its own logic.
So, if you have to convince yourself that a dead unsaved loved one is in heaven when your religion says they aren't, then accept that you might not 100% believe what you say you do.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
An interesting experiment...
In honor of the Out Campaign, I was originally going to write a small version of this post as a Facebook status but it wouldn't fit. So, here is me rambling about something that I have been thinking about when it comes to the Bible and public schools.
Throughout the past 60 years or so in the US, and more so in the past 30 there has been a push by the religious right to push for the Bible to be taught in public schools. Even Republican politicians bring up bills to be voted on in state legislatures that would require teaching of the Bible in public school classrooms. Separation of church and state clearly makes this illegal and rightly so. Neil DeGrasse Tyson sums up my view on the topic: "I don't have an issue with what you do in the church, but I'm going to be up in your face if you're going to knock on my science classroom and tell me they've got to teach what you're teaching in your Sunday school. Because that's when we're going to fight."
This struck with me immediately. Yet, digging a little deeper most atheists like myself know there's a lot more to the Bible than just what gets taught in Sunday school. In 2010, the Pew Forum quizzed different groups with the same knowledge quiz of religious knowledge. Atheists/agnostics scored the highest above all other religious demographics on the quiz. While this came as little shock to the atheist/agnostic world (most people aren't born atheist/agnostic, they come to their conclusions after researching the religion they left as well as others they may have converted to or researched along the way) the mainstream media was amazed.
Yet, I know this is going to sound a little extreme coming from the atheist guy, but what if we taught the Bible in public schools? Now the bible can be taught in public schools as a work of literature (which most people don't know is legal) so if we teach it as such then what we should do is teach it from the beginning. Start at Genesis 1:1 and teach a chapter a week all the way through Revelation beginning with 6th grade through 12th grade an hour a day, no skipping verses. Let students discuss the multiple creation stories in Genesis. Let students try to comprehend how God killed every single mother, father, teenager, baby and elderly person along with a majority of earth's plants and animals. Shakespeare has nothing on the Bible as a book of death. If you think Tarantino movies are bad for kids, let them watch Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ starting at age 3 by themselves with no adult supervision. Then let's see which one scares them the most.
I guarantee that by the end of middle school we as a society would probably be rushing to get the bible out of society all together because our kids start learning skepticism at a young age (Santa & the Tooth Fairy, anyone). Then why do we as a society take a young child's skepticism and start beating it out of them by the time they are old enough to drive?
Throughout the past 60 years or so in the US, and more so in the past 30 there has been a push by the religious right to push for the Bible to be taught in public schools. Even Republican politicians bring up bills to be voted on in state legislatures that would require teaching of the Bible in public school classrooms. Separation of church and state clearly makes this illegal and rightly so. Neil DeGrasse Tyson sums up my view on the topic: "I don't have an issue with what you do in the church, but I'm going to be up in your face if you're going to knock on my science classroom and tell me they've got to teach what you're teaching in your Sunday school. Because that's when we're going to fight."
This struck with me immediately. Yet, digging a little deeper most atheists like myself know there's a lot more to the Bible than just what gets taught in Sunday school. In 2010, the Pew Forum quizzed different groups with the same knowledge quiz of religious knowledge. Atheists/agnostics scored the highest above all other religious demographics on the quiz. While this came as little shock to the atheist/agnostic world (most people aren't born atheist/agnostic, they come to their conclusions after researching the religion they left as well as others they may have converted to or researched along the way) the mainstream media was amazed.
Yet, I know this is going to sound a little extreme coming from the atheist guy, but what if we taught the Bible in public schools? Now the bible can be taught in public schools as a work of literature (which most people don't know is legal) so if we teach it as such then what we should do is teach it from the beginning. Start at Genesis 1:1 and teach a chapter a week all the way through Revelation beginning with 6th grade through 12th grade an hour a day, no skipping verses. Let students discuss the multiple creation stories in Genesis. Let students try to comprehend how God killed every single mother, father, teenager, baby and elderly person along with a majority of earth's plants and animals. Shakespeare has nothing on the Bible as a book of death. If you think Tarantino movies are bad for kids, let them watch Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ starting at age 3 by themselves with no adult supervision. Then let's see which one scares them the most.
I guarantee that by the end of middle school we as a society would probably be rushing to get the bible out of society all together because our kids start learning skepticism at a young age (Santa & the Tooth Fairy, anyone). Then why do we as a society take a young child's skepticism and start beating it out of them by the time they are old enough to drive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)