Jump to content

Notre Dame on Fire


matty40s

Featured Posts

I suspect, if one did the analysis, that a large proportion of malign dictators (and more importantly, their lieutenants) are/were atheists/agnostics - mainly the latter. Does his mean that no atheist or agnostic should be allowed into a position of power?

 

However, it is certainly true that too many - even one is too many - clergy from various denominations - have committed crimes in the past, some of them, but far from all, sexual in nature. Despite the fact that the Church of England, amongst others, spends millions each year trying to prevent such cases and dealing with the effects of those that have occurred, new cases still happen. Sitting through public debates survivors is a harrowing experience - and I have not as yet had to be involved at an individual level, thankfully.  But if we have learnt anything it is that abuse, in its widest sense, seems almost inherent in the human condition and eradicating it is much harder than tabloid media, and others, imagine.

 

Sexual abuse, adult or child, is a subset of the wider categories of abuse, especially abuse of power. Society only survives, it seems, if we accept that some people, whether by birth or achievement, have disproportionate powers. Arguably, this is necessary for the effective and efficient operation of societies - and we are all, probably, better off by being able to live together with other people, loneliness is a terrible disease, but how those powers are used is what matters, more than that some people have them. Whilst, at least in this country, we are gradually coming to a better place with regard to sexual abuse, we are far from having a shared set of values with regard to the wider concept. Even within religious institutions, the notion of 'spiritual abuse' is being resisted by some, often those who come closest to behaving in ways which we now, but once did not, consider unacceptable.

 

Theologians - mostly - would work with the concept that sin is somehow (and there are different ways of looking at this) inherent in the human psyche. If one believes in a creator God then one's theology must somehow cope with that statement. What is much more important, however, is looking at how society deals with its existence. Do we, for instance, impose horrendous penalties on some crimes whilst letting others, arguably more damaging, to get off lightly.

 

Two current cases - and I will avoid comment on either - challenge civilised norms: a young lady who regrets her under-age actions in joining extremists is denied her very existence, let alone the possibility of atonement or forgiveness - a man who challenges power by releasing data that is an embarrassment to those in power but which endangers the lives of others iss een to have (allegedly) committed a bigger crime than abusing a number of women in his power.

 

It was once said, "Let anyone who is without sin, throw the first stone" - not that I would suggest . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The C of E vicar who came into the school where I used to work is one of those who 'went to Rome' a few years back. The final straw for him was the ordination of female bishops, he said he couldn't accept that authority from a woman.

 

I had a long and interesting conversation with him about transubstantiation, he said few RCs believed in this these days, and papal infalability of which he said the pope isn't always infalable.

 

It gave me the vision of the pope saying "When I'm wearing this hat I'm infalable and when I'm wearing that one I'm not"

(And in Latin, of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All religions depress me. The need for an imaginary friend upstairs comes with a balancing need for an imaginary enemy downstairs, and the whole thing is predicated on a system of control of “the people” by a ruling elite. 

Quote “The history of religion is the history of the State”.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Philip said:

I'm not defending those who you're implying are 'dubious characters'.

I'm aware that this church institution means a lot to you but...... I can not see only the men who touched inappropriately as the only men in the wrong. 

 

I wrote a thing and I deleted the thing - let's leave it at that.  

 

I appreciate the your views are very much the polar opposite to mine and that we will find no common ground to meet on. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I suspect, if one did the analysis, that a large proportion of malign dictators (and more importantly, their lieutenants) are/were atheists/agnostics - . . 

I think the same could be said about religious leaders who act more like ideological extremists than benign spiritual teachers. 

Many dictators espoused atheism whilst exploiting the neo-religious power they could exert through the cult of personality. 

It is a fine line between religious zealotry and political extremism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Athy said:

I don't think so. To most people, vicar = good, humane person, even if that vicar isn't their spiritual leader.

 

I agree, most vicars are good people, with honourable intentions. That doesn't stop them being an irrelevance though. I'd suggest a vicar is respected at the same level as any other good honourable person in the street, apart from within his or her congregation, and probably the wider faith. Again though, this a minority, an ever diminishing minority. 

2 minutes ago, carlt said:

I think the same could be said about religious leaders who act more like ideological extremists than benign spiritual teachers. 

Many dictators espoused atheism whilst exploiting the neo-religious power they could exert through the cult of personality. 

It is a fine line between religious zealotry and political extremism. 

It's a fine line between religious zealotry and belief in modern so called progressive politics, much of which is based on the opinion of the extremist; Marx.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

That doesn't stop them being an irrelevance though.

That bit isn't entirely true, they are relevant to their congregation, but even for people who don't go to church every Sunday they still want christenings, weddings and funerals, and there will always be those who like the country tradition of harvest festivals and church fates. 

 

Vicars may not be in the demand that they once were but they are far from irrelevant. Other options are available but some like the tradition of a vicar. 

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

But no, the poor and gullible will be manipulated into funding it again, I predict. 

 

 

I doubt if the 100,000,000 Euros already promised by one family is from the poor or gullible.   Difficult to accumulate and keep that sort of spare cash if you are gullible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

 

It's a fine line between religious zealotry and belief in modern so called progressive politics, much of which is based on the opinion of the extremist; Marx.  

 

I would draw the same comparison with the ideological zealotry of the likes of Rees mogg and the way he and his cohorts are dragging the tories to the far right of the political spectrum. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

I would draw the same comparison with the ideological zealotry of the likes of Rees mogg and the way he and his cohorts are dragging the tories to the far right of the political spectrum. 

 

We could agree on this. As long as we know that it's perfectly reasonable to question the ambitions of so called progressives, them being based on left wing extremism, that's good enough for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I suspect, if one did the analysis, that a large proportion of malign dictators (and more importantly, their lieutenants) are/were atheists/agnostics - mainly the latter. Does his mean that no atheist or agnostic should be allowed into a position of power?

 

You miss the point by miles. Malign dictators were/are not acting evilly in support of their agnosticism/atheism, or even because of it -- in many cases they were substituting a cult figure or hero-worship in the place of longer=established religions. Example: look at the regime in the PRK and tell me its not a religion? 

 

The problem with the Catholic clergy (and others) is that these people set themselves up as paragons of virtue and clearly were not. This means that as well as the natural nastiness of kiddy-fiddling (or whatever you want to call it -- it's still exploitation of the weak and defenceless) there were blatant hypocrisy, betrayal of people's trust, and criminal acts. There are no excuses, and the usual 'special pleading' allowed to the religious is utterly inappropriate.   

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I doubt if the 100,000,000 Euros already promised by one family is from the poor or gullible.   Difficult to accumulate and keep that sort of spare cash if you are gullible.

 

The disgust I felt that somebody could stump up such a vast sum whilst knowing that millions of people are starving can hardly be expressed. What sort of christian is he?

20 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I'd suggest a vicar is respected at the same level as any other good honourable person in the street, apart from within his or her congregation, and probably the wider faith.

 

My family knew a priest personally, and always considered him a good honourable person. He conducted my daughter's marriage.

He is currently in Strangeways.

Enough said.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

We could agree on this. As long as we know that it's perfectly reasonable to question the ambitions of so called progressives, them being based on left wing extremism, that's good enough for me. 

I believe that there is a massive gulf between democratic socialism and communism. Just as there is a gulf between right wing conservatism and fascism. 

I question the ambitions of all politicians but especially the ones in the centre whose ideology can change entirely depending on what will get them the best chance of a bit of power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of people using this thread to air their religious prejudices or allegiances, most of which have little to do with the destruction of an important medieval building, and it's possible restoration. Can we assume that the Administrators have waived the rule which forbids this?

 

"Posting any material, anywhere on the site, that is deemed to have a primarily political theme that is not strictly related to inland waterways and/or boating is prohibited. In addition, content containing a religious theme, or content that makes commentary on religious issues, is not permitted. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances with prior approval of the Site Administration."

 

 

Edited by David Schweizer
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, David Schweizer said:

There are a number of people using this thread to air their religious prejudices or allegiances, most of which have little to do with the destruction of an important medieval building, and it's possible restoration. Can we assume that the Administrators have waived the rule which forbids this?

 

"Posting any material, anywhere on the site, that is deemed to have a primarily political theme that is not strictly related to inland waterways and/or boating is prohibited. In addition, content containing a religious theme, or content that makes commentary on religious issues, is not permitted. Exceptions to this rule may be made in special circumstances with prior approval of the Site Administration."

I'm wondering why you go to the trouble of posting this, do you feel offended?

 

Notre Dame is (was?) a religious building which is going to need a serious amount of spending if it's ever to be the building it was prior to the fire. Unless this money all comes from the church, others, non religious people, are more than likely going to be required to stump up. This is politics, this is religion, the thread can't run properly without commenting on these. 

7 minutes ago, carlt said:

 

I question the ambitions of all politicians but especially the ones in the centre whose ideology can change entirely depending on what will get them the best chance of a bit of power. 

I know the type, the majors of London and Manchester are a perfect fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

There are a number of people using this thread to air their religious prejudices or allegiances, most of which have little to do with the destruction of an important medieval building, and it's possible restoration. Can we assume that the Administrators have waived the rule which forbids this?

 

I think we can, given a moderator has already joined in the religious discussion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

 

 

The disgust I felt that somebody could stump up such a vast sum whilst knowing that millions of people are starving can hardly be expressed.

Are you being serious?

People have every right to spend their money in the way that they think fit. How do you know that this family has not also made a donation to Oxfam, or its French equivalent (Boeuf-faim?)

The family might also feel disgust that people criticise their generous, selfless and charitable action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

 

I know the type, the majors of London and Manchester are a perfect fit.

Not as perfect as the former mayor of London who swung from europhile to Brextremist when he thought it suited his career path. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Welsh Cruiser said:

We can also agree on that. Him being p.m. doesn't bear thinking about.

If there is a second referendum I wonder what odds I can get on Boris joining the remainiacs if they tell him he can have their vote in the leadership election. 

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

Great.

 

Politics and religion all in one thread, with a mod knee deep in the argument.

 

The Rules really have gone to the wall here haven't they??!

 

As it has all been been good natured I don't see the harm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Athy said:

Are you being serious?

People have every right to spend their money in the way that they think fit. How do you know that this family has not also made a donation to Oxfam, or its French equivalent (Boeuf-faim?)

The family might also feel disgust that people criticise their generous, selfless and charitable action.

 

Yes, I am.

 

€100m spent on a building is €100m that is not benefiting starving people regardless of how much he has already given them. Nobody needs billions in personal wealth , nobody.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think we can, given a moderator has already joined in the religious discussion. 

 

 

One moddy - myself, in fact - has joined in a discussion about the biggest news story of the day. As a cathedral is at the centre of that story, it would be hard not to make some mention of religion when referring to it. But I haven't noticed a moddy joining in a religious discussion: who would that be?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

There are a number of people using this thread to air their religious prejudices or allegiances, most of which have little to do with the destruction of an important medieval building, and it's possible restoration

 

Where public money is being discussed in the context of rebuilding a religious building, it is not a religious thread. As a cultural consideration, I would support public spending on rebuilding Notre Dame provided that the religious users also paid their share. I would feel the same if it were York Minster or the Basilica San Marco we were discussing.

1 minute ago, carlt said:

I'm a glass half full type myself.

 

If the glass is half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.