For those of you who aren't Catholics, or for those Catholics who don't care, Lent has already started. In fact, it started last Wednesday. I suppose standard procedure would have been to post it then, but I had someone post a link I wanted to respond to, and I needed a few days for my blood pressure to come down.
So, what is Lent? Lent is a part of the Catholic calender that is, essentially, a forty-day warm up to Easter. I've already started living on yogurt and berries.
As part of my Lenten series of sort-of religious blog posts, here are some FAQs about Lent.
UPDATE Most of those questions originally in this post have been moved to my new job at Examiner.com -- in short, I get paid. :)
However, the below question wouldn't fit ... if only because the comment stream below.
Enjoy.
Q: Why do you make children participate in Lent? They're Children, they know nothing of sacrifice! They can't understand! This is child abuse!
A: Honest to God, I've seen this argument, I can't make it up. I must thank Matt for this one. He posted a link on his Facebook page, and I followed it through.
Now, while this guy brought up some excellent points about Vatican II (which was administered by abject morons, and as well-timed as a pork roast at a bar mitzva), he shows about as much thought to the concept of religion and children as Richard Dawkins, whom he cites.....
I read the article. I found it a lovely piece of evidence that, while Catholic education is great for teaching reading and writing, they suck on teaching things like, oh, BEING CATHOLIC. I know, I went, and I had to look up everything myself.
The article author talks about fish not being meat [Again: Carne (meat) meant "having guts." I've seen the internal organs of shellfish, they look less like guts and more like mush. Therefore they're "not meat." And other fish are gutted]
Also, the article itself is a little confusing. At the start of the article, his ten-year-old-self seems to understand everything about Lent, and does it quite well. By the end, he's whining that "no ten year old can understand" the concept of sacrifice; yet, at 13, he seemed to want a MORE stringent guideline. Someone should have told him that no one was going to stop him. He could have even gone to a pre-Vatican II church, Mel Gibson's father is part of one.
I liked how he seemed to have grasped the basics, until "Oh No! It's Vatican II!" Suddenly, he can't understand any of it, because "Vatican II radically changed the way Catholics practiced".....
Um, no, not really. That may have been the way it was filtered down to this guy, but congratulations, it means that you're doing mass in English. You don't have to learn Latin, and the Vatican figured out that, gee, you don't have to fast every day of Lent anymore, since half of the planet is no longer in starvation mode by the end of winter -- the Church changed the bare minimum, that's all.
Vatican II (V2: Repentance Day) was supposed to have the church address the "modern world," instead of this guy's thought that we were losing members. The irony is that Rome hemorrhaged members AFTER V2, not before. There were enough internal memos that made it to the public, V2 looked like Obama's foreign policy during Egypt, for much the same reason. The Pope who called V2 wanted the church to keep up and adapt to the world. The argument the article gives is that nothing in the Bible, or Jesus, or any text, had changed, is true -- but the entire world had.
And so, V2, "Oh, we're going to bring the laity into the decision-making process." Thanks, I've been through that process. I'd sooner take the nuns.
The parts of Lent modified by V2 turned religious duties into mandatory minimums, since they were no longer harsh realities for half the planet.
After reading this twit's suddenly inability to comprehend, I wonder ... Does that mean I was a very bright eight-year-old, or does that make him a really dumb thirty-year-old? I understood Lent while growing up, and so did he -- but, sometime between the start and the end of the article, he got confused, and fell down.
To actually answer this nitwit, I would like to direct him to my answer to the second FAQ. I used a specific phrase: the modern real world reason for the west. Because, guess what, this isn't all about him. Screaming "child abuse" doesn't work, when you consider that the original, practical reasons for stringent fasting still apply to parts of the world he wouldn't be caught dead in.
Now, I don't know if that makes him a provincial, small minded, "ugly American," or if that makes him a cranky Catholic who no one explained stuff to. And, considering that half the kids in America are butterballs, taking away their junk food for forty days might, just MIGHT, be a good idea.
Not to mention that, oh, dear, Michelle Obama is also trying to make kids sacrifice food ... all year round .... I must have missed his article when he screamed that the First Lady was abusing our children.
Oh, and, again, giving up stuff is a surface sign of faith, and is not the main point-- modifying behavior for the better, enhancing faith, is the point, and that is where the emphasis lies; maybe that's what he didn't, and doesn't, understand.
I also like the assumptions inherent there. "I don't understand something, so why should I be expected to do it?" Little kids sometimes don't understand the concept of "don't steal" (have you ever seen one with toy bins in Kindergarten?), or don't lie, or "don't touch the burner on the stove," or "don't stick that up your nose," "your face will freeze like that," and "Look both ways before crossing the street." We expect them to do all that, though. This guy wants to cry abuse at "inflicting Lent on children." Hey, Michelle Obama wants to legislate what they serve kids in public school, maybe he wants to bitch about that, too.
The complaint seems less a matter of "Lent is stupid" and more a matter of "Lent should be harder." Someone should have told him that he could make it as hard on himself as he likes.
Unfortunately, I can't even blame this moron for his ignorance. Did I say he made excellent points about Vatican 2? Sorry, I meant to say he's a perfect example of what went wrong with Vatican 2. Welcome to post-V2 Catholic education by the laity: "Just do this, we won't even attempt to explain it to you, because we don't believe it or understand it ourselves .... assuming we tell it to you in the first place."
I think this article and his author are great examples of arguing for more, better Catholic education.
And, for Lent, I'm going on a variation of his stringent fasting. I'm going to survive on fish, veggies, and yogurt. Since I'm overweight to start with, how's that for making a religious duty out of a practical necessity?
UPDATE:
As my friend Jason has pointed out, Jews + Fasting = Yom Kippur and Passover. Catholics also took the same religious traditional definitions of fish and meat from Kosher laws. Hmm, maybe the twit from that article wants to talk about Kosher as child abuse too. Hmm...
So, what is Lent? Lent is a part of the Catholic calender that is, essentially, a forty-day warm up to Easter. I've already started living on yogurt and berries.
As part of my Lenten series of sort-of religious blog posts, here are some FAQs about Lent.
UPDATE Most of those questions originally in this post have been moved to my new job at Examiner.com -- in short, I get paid. :)
However, the below question wouldn't fit ... if only because the comment stream below.
Enjoy.
Q: Why do you make children participate in Lent? They're Children, they know nothing of sacrifice! They can't understand! This is child abuse!
A: Honest to God, I've seen this argument, I can't make it up. I must thank Matt for this one. He posted a link on his Facebook page, and I followed it through.
Now, while this guy brought up some excellent points about Vatican II (which was administered by abject morons, and as well-timed as a pork roast at a bar mitzva), he shows about as much thought to the concept of religion and children as Richard Dawkins, whom he cites.....
I read the article. I found it a lovely piece of evidence that, while Catholic education is great for teaching reading and writing, they suck on teaching things like, oh, BEING CATHOLIC. I know, I went, and I had to look up everything myself.
The article author talks about fish not being meat [Again: Carne (meat) meant "having guts." I've seen the internal organs of shellfish, they look less like guts and more like mush. Therefore they're "not meat." And other fish are gutted]
Also, the article itself is a little confusing. At the start of the article, his ten-year-old-self seems to understand everything about Lent, and does it quite well. By the end, he's whining that "no ten year old can understand" the concept of sacrifice; yet, at 13, he seemed to want a MORE stringent guideline. Someone should have told him that no one was going to stop him. He could have even gone to a pre-Vatican II church, Mel Gibson's father is part of one.
I liked how he seemed to have grasped the basics, until "Oh No! It's Vatican II!" Suddenly, he can't understand any of it, because "Vatican II radically changed the way Catholics practiced".....
Um, no, not really. That may have been the way it was filtered down to this guy, but congratulations, it means that you're doing mass in English. You don't have to learn Latin, and the Vatican figured out that, gee, you don't have to fast every day of Lent anymore, since half of the planet is no longer in starvation mode by the end of winter -- the Church changed the bare minimum, that's all.
Vatican II (V2: Repentance Day) was supposed to have the church address the "modern world," instead of this guy's thought that we were losing members. The irony is that Rome hemorrhaged members AFTER V2, not before. There were enough internal memos that made it to the public, V2 looked like Obama's foreign policy during Egypt, for much the same reason. The Pope who called V2 wanted the church to keep up and adapt to the world. The argument the article gives is that nothing in the Bible, or Jesus, or any text, had changed, is true -- but the entire world had.
And so, V2, "Oh, we're going to bring the laity into the decision-making process." Thanks, I've been through that process. I'd sooner take the nuns.
The parts of Lent modified by V2 turned religious duties into mandatory minimums, since they were no longer harsh realities for half the planet.
After reading this twit's suddenly inability to comprehend, I wonder ... Does that mean I was a very bright eight-year-old, or does that make him a really dumb thirty-year-old? I understood Lent while growing up, and so did he -- but, sometime between the start and the end of the article, he got confused, and fell down.
To actually answer this nitwit, I would like to direct him to my answer to the second FAQ. I used a specific phrase: the modern real world reason for the west. Because, guess what, this isn't all about him. Screaming "child abuse" doesn't work, when you consider that the original, practical reasons for stringent fasting still apply to parts of the world he wouldn't be caught dead in.
Now, I don't know if that makes him a provincial, small minded, "ugly American," or if that makes him a cranky Catholic who no one explained stuff to. And, considering that half the kids in America are butterballs, taking away their junk food for forty days might, just MIGHT, be a good idea.
Not to mention that, oh, dear, Michelle Obama is also trying to make kids sacrifice food ... all year round .... I must have missed his article when he screamed that the First Lady was abusing our children.
Oh, and, again, giving up stuff is a surface sign of faith, and is not the main point-- modifying behavior for the better, enhancing faith, is the point, and that is where the emphasis lies; maybe that's what he didn't, and doesn't, understand.
I also like the assumptions inherent there. "I don't understand something, so why should I be expected to do it?" Little kids sometimes don't understand the concept of "don't steal" (have you ever seen one with toy bins in Kindergarten?), or don't lie, or "don't touch the burner on the stove," or "don't stick that up your nose," "your face will freeze like that," and "Look both ways before crossing the street." We expect them to do all that, though. This guy wants to cry abuse at "inflicting Lent on children." Hey, Michelle Obama wants to legislate what they serve kids in public school, maybe he wants to bitch about that, too.
The complaint seems less a matter of "Lent is stupid" and more a matter of "Lent should be harder." Someone should have told him that he could make it as hard on himself as he likes.
Unfortunately, I can't even blame this moron for his ignorance. Did I say he made excellent points about Vatican 2? Sorry, I meant to say he's a perfect example of what went wrong with Vatican 2. Welcome to post-V2 Catholic education by the laity: "Just do this, we won't even attempt to explain it to you, because we don't believe it or understand it ourselves .... assuming we tell it to you in the first place."
I think this article and his author are great examples of arguing for more, better Catholic education.
And, for Lent, I'm going on a variation of his stringent fasting. I'm going to survive on fish, veggies, and yogurt. Since I'm overweight to start with, how's that for making a religious duty out of a practical necessity?
UPDATE:
As my friend Jason has pointed out, Jews + Fasting = Yom Kippur and Passover. Catholics also took the same religious traditional definitions of fish and meat from Kosher laws. Hmm, maybe the twit from that article wants to talk about Kosher as child abuse too. Hmm...
1. If you would have read carefully, which you didn't, then you would have noticed that I did not say Lent in and of itself is child abuse. Having religious dietary standards for children, or imposing voluntary fasting on children for mystical or spectral reasons, is stupid (and yes, eating Kosher or Halal is included here). But no. I do not believe it to be child abuse. I said that what Dawkins said about religion and child abuse was right. Check out what he said. I even included a link for you, which you must have ignored.
ReplyDeleteSo all of your comparisons to Michelle Obama are pretty much useless in addition to them being politically ignorant.
(The government runs the schools, and so the government chooses what it feeds the children anyway. Michelle Obama wants the government to choose healthier food than it already does. We can, as humans, differentiate between healthy and unhealthy food. She wants the government, which already chooses the food it serves, to provide healthier food for the children of America. That’s it. End of story. If she wants to take this doctrine and apply it to private schools, then you’ve got a point about how she’s “legislating food.” And I don’t think the government should be able to tell people what to eat in private schools. It has a right to serve the food it wants in schools IT ALREADY RUNS.)
2. I said that I "understood" Lent until I really started thinking about it. The point was that once I started to question how we can really know if anything is true (including religions), I started to question why I should believe in something which could not be proven. So, my understanding of Lent had not changed, but my understanding of proof, evidence, and rational thought had. If Lent, or religions in general, could be changed or modified by "people" in power, and those "people" are prone to errors, then why believe it at all? Why believe in religions if it’s so apparent that error-prone human beings are the ones running them?
THAT's the point of the whole piece.
3. You keep talking about my lack of "Catholic education," but the only support for my question about fish is that the guts look different? That's what passes for rational thought with you? God doesn't mind that we eat fish during Lent because their guts look different from "carne?"
This is the level of Catholic education I should aspire to?
Again, what I said in my original piece is that I had been given no *acceptable* answer to this question about the difference between fish and "meat,” and yours is FAR from acceptable. All it does is point out how man-made the religion is.
God must know that fish do indeed have guts. If God is making the distinction simply because of the way they look, then I'd like to see in the Bible where God said that. If humans are making the distinction, then why should I listen to them if they're just making it up?
4. As to whether Lent should be harder, again, that's besides the point. The point was that Lent, and the inane changes to it made by the Church, made it easier for me to drop my faith altogether. My point about Lent being more stringent was that it made more sense to me AT THE TIME, BEFORE I started thinking about religious belief and its complete lack of evidence.
People can, and often do, have epiphanic moments of clarity. My experience with Lent provided me with one concerning the legitimacy of all religions, any religions. So while I still understand the reasons for Lent, I reject the original premise: Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and God. Thus, making Lent fucking stupid.
Hope this clears things up for you.
So Keane, you think we should have no restrictions on children's diets? You do realize that these "strange and mystical" dietary ideas actually came from........common sense? Catholic fasting came from Judaic Kashrut/Kosher Laws (so did Islam). Why? Because it MADE SENSE BACK THEN.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, alot of animals were unclean, and the cooking methods they had back then sucked (and they knew it). Also, as Mr. K pointed out, they generally fasted inbetween seasons, which fit with harvesting and storage timeframes all the way into the 20th Century. Welcome to the real world.
Also, fasting has a value as a commitment to ideals, and also to oneself. It shows loyalty to a cause that is far greater than oneself.
Now, I'm not suprised that you can't understand this, Keane. Why? Because in your entire post to Mr. K, you rant at him. Yell at him. It's all about you. And not about Lent, or anything else.
Also, Keane, you want to limit choices for schoolchildren because Michelle Obama wants.......healty choices? How does this not fit under your concept of "child abuse"?
ReplyDeleteOh wait! It's done by the government! And not by the Big And Evil Church And Mystical People.
Also, Keane. I notice that there's alot of "I" in what you're saying. "I" noticed this about Lent; "I" questioned this; What "I" said; "I" reject, etc, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteDoes "I" speak for all? Your entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to say you're a self-righteous jackass. Your entire conception about rationality is nothing more than transference of your own awesomeness, and not about anything more than that. It doesn't really speak for anyone else, or about anything else, other than YOU.
Grow up. See the world. It's pretty awesome. Stop wallowing in hate and fake protestation.
And in all this, I'm Jewish. I don't have a real bone to pick in the Catholic debate. But I dislike people who have self-righteous athiest (for lack of a better term) viewpoints that are nothing more than a reflection of their own shitty self-esteem.
I'm with Jason on this. If Mr. Keane had said that "this is all me" to start with, fine, that's his opinion. But, no, he decided to inflict his ignorance on everyone.
ReplyDeleteAnd, I've noticed that everyone who starts with "you obviously didn't read my article" sometimes mean "I'm going to pretend you didn't read it, so that I can invoke Absolute Moral Authority, and fling rhetorical boogers at you."
I thought it was just me. Then Jason jumped in. So, maybe it's not just me.
So, thank you, Mr. Keane; you, like Dr. Dawkins, has tried to make religious bigotry acceptable.
And, for the record, I'm going to do a post on V2, so Mr. Keane may want to keep an eye out for it.... if he thinks he hates it, he should look at my opinion.
ReplyDeleteOh, and, by the way, Mr. Keane... Lent should be harder, but it's child abuse. So you want more child abuse? Interesting way to look at it.
Quick points (if I can manage to be quick in the presence of such unwillingness to listen to what I'm saying):
ReplyDelete1. "IT MADE SENSE BACK THEN."
Yes. But it doesn't make sense now. So there's no reason to do it now.
2. "Fasting shows a commitment to ideals."
I agree. But the ideals of Lent suck. They are to a non-existent god. We don't disagree about the commitment, though.
3. "It's all about you."
Um, he made it about me by posting a comment on my blog directing people to his site where he tries to make me seem like an idiot for things I didn’t even say. If he didn't mention me in his post about Lent, I wouldn't have said a word.
4. "Also, Keane, you want to limit choices for schoolchildren because Michelle Obama wants.......healty (sic) choices? How does this not fit under your concept of 'child abuse'?"
Did you even read what I said about child abuse? Did you go look at the link I posted? I agreed that limiting diets IS NOT child abuse. Can you read?
5. "Your (sic) entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to say you're a self-righteous jackass."
Agreed. You have a right to say that, and I have a right to say what I want. You have a right to be wrong. I won't argue with that.
6. "I'm with Jason on this. If Mr. Keane had said that 'this is all me' to start with, fine, that's his opinion. But, no, he decided to inflict his ignorance on everyone."
FUCK! All opinions are saying, "This is all me!" I shouldn’t need to announce it! It's implied! Your entire blog is a dedication to YOU---YOUR THOUGHTS. You think the current Catholic Church's views after Vatican II were composed by "idiots." You put yourself ABOVE the Catholic Church's hierarchy, and then you criticize ME for voicing an opinion without saying, "By the way, this is my opinion?" That's insanity!
7. "So, thank you, Mr. Keane; you, like Dr. Dawkins, has tried to make religious bigotry acceptable."
It's not bigotry to criticize ideas. The ideas of the Catholic Church (and Judaism) are shitty ideas with no evidence. It's not bigoted to think so. If I were to say, "All Catholics are stupid," or, “All Jews are bad people,” THAT would be bigoted. I'm not saying that. I'm saying these IDEAS are stupid. If we aren’t allowed to criticize ideas, then we aren’t allowed to think.
8. "Oh, and, by the way, Mr. Keane... Lent should be harder, but it's child abuse."
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT. I JUST SAID IN MY RESPONSE THAT LENT WAS NOT CHILD ABUSE. You clearly either responded without reading what I said (which disqualifies any argument you have), or you have no fucking reading skills whatsoever. READ. SLOWLY. FUCK.
Quick points (if I can manage to be quick in the presence of such unwillingness to listen to what I'm saying):
ReplyDelete1. "IT MADE SENSE BACK THEN."
Yes. But it doesn't make sense now. So there's no reason to do it now.
2. "Fasting shows a commitment to ideals."
I agree. But the ideals of Lent suck. They are to a non-existent god. We don't disagree about the commitment, though.
3. "It's all about you."
Um, he made it about me by posting a comment on my blog directing people to his site where he tries to make me seem like an idiot for things I didn’t even say. If he didn't mention me in his post about Lent, I wouldn't have said a word.
4. "Also, Keane, you want to limit choices for schoolchildren because Michelle Obama wants.......healty (sic) choices? How does this not fit under your concept of 'child abuse'?"
Did you even read what I said about child abuse? Did you go look at the link I posted? I agreed that limiting diets IS NOT child abuse. Can you read?
5. "Your (sic) entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to say you're a self-righteous jackass."
Agreed. You have a right to say that, and I have a right to say what I want. You have a right to be wrong. I won't argue with that.
6. "I'm with Jason on this. If Mr. Keane had said that 'this is all me' to start with, fine, that's his opinion. But, no, he decided to inflict his ignorance on everyone."
FUCK! All opinions are saying, "This is all me!" I shouldn’t need to announce it! It's implied! Your entire blog is a dedication to YOU---YOUR THOUGHTS. You think the current Catholic Church's views after Vatican II were composed by "idiots." You put yourself ABOVE the Catholic Church's hierarchy, and then you criticize ME for voicing an opinion without saying, "By the way, this is my opinion?" That's insanity!
7. "So, thank you, Mr. Keane; you, like Dr. Dawkins, has tried to make religious bigotry acceptable."
It's not bigotry to criticize ideas. The ideas of the Catholic Church (and Judaism) are shitty ideas with no evidence. It's not bigoted to think so. If I were to say, "All Catholics are stupid," or, “All Jews are bad people,” THAT would be bigoted. I'm not saying that. I'm saying these IDEAS are stupid. If we aren’t allowed to criticize ideas, then we aren’t allowed to think.
8. "Oh, and, by the way, Mr. Keane... Lent should be harder, but it's child abuse."
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT. I JUST SAID IN MY RESPONSE THAT LENT WAS NOT CHILD ABUSE. You clearly either responded without reading what I said (which disqualifies any argument you have), or you have no fucking reading skills whatsoever. READ. SLOWLY. FUCK.
are you removing my posts, or have they not been confirmed? johnholmes0@gmail.com, let me know.
ReplyDeleteAn additional note on abstaining from meat:
ReplyDeleteWe abstain from mammal meat (for lack of a better term) because such food (beef and lamb in particular) was considered food of celebration, food for feasts, and food for special occasions.
Fish, by contrast, was common food, easier to obtain.
Lent is a time of penance. Friday, meanwhile, is always a penitential day. It is a day of remembrance of Christ's suffering in AND out of Lent. Friday is now and has always been a day of penance for Catholics, because Christ suffered and died on Friday for our sinfulness. Fridays in Lent are particularly penitential for this reason as well.
In any case, we abstain on Fridays from food that is considered "celebratory" or "rich" to remind ourselves of Christ's suffering and death on that very day.
Now, speaking of Vatican II--it was the common practice prior to Vatican II (in US) to abstain from meat *every* Friday, not just Fridays in Lent. However - Friday as a day of penance *did not change* post Vatican II. In fact, most other countries (via their diocese) *still* abstain from meat every Friday during the year. Here in the US, the bishops decided we could substitute another penance for not eating meat if we want. In Lent, that penance is specified as no meat.
How did this get communicated to the masses? "No more fish on Friday." No word that we STILL must do penance on Friday, regardless.
No fish on Friday was a lot easier. As a result, I have decided, as a post-Vatican II-raised Catholic, to abstain from meat *every* Friday regardless. At least it puts me more in line with the rest of the world and it is easy to remember.
As for Friday in Lent, I take some additional time at prayer. Makes those Fridays a little more special.
Apparently, Mr. Keane's reply was sent to spam. I think he hit the send key twice and gave my computer indigestion.
ReplyDelete>>>>>>>>>>>Quick points (if I can manage to be quick in the presence of such unwillingness to listen to what I'm saying):<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteYeah, like you bothered to listen in the first place. I got your attention, though, didn't I?
>>>>>>>1. "IT MADE SENSE BACK THEN." Yes. But it doesn't make sense now. So there's no reason to do it now. <<<<<<<<<<<
And now you've fallen for your logical falliacy. If Christianity and Judaism were shitty ideas, then how come they made sense back then? At some point, your arguement here falls apart. Either they're shitty, or make sense. You've turned it into a zero sum game, and thus, right into a wall.
>>>>>2. "Fasting shows a commitment to ideals."I agree. But the ideals of Lent suck. They are to a non-existent god. We don't disagree about the commitment, though.<<<<<
That's according to the Gospel of You. You don't determine what I, or anyone else thinks, or does. If you want to deny the existence of God, be my guest. You can. But you can't prove that, either. And if someone wants to believe in God, that's none of your concern, inasmuch as it doesn't affect you.
>>>>>>>3. "It's all about you."Um, he made it about me by posting a comment on my blog directing people to his site where he tries to make me seem like an idiot for things I didn’t even say. If he didn't mention me in his post about Lent, I wouldn't have said a word.<<<<
No, it's the way you came off. Nothing in your comments suggested that you ever took your ideas beyond your own nose. That's your problem: it IS all about you. In fact, your commentary here is generally of the "I'm right, goddamnit!" variety. You're convinced of that- and want others to be, too. You, of course, can proselytize your atheism. It's a free country, with free speech. But that also means that no one HAS to listen to you. And with the general reflection of your narcissism (for lack of a better term), I'm not sure anyone would want to. It's hard to relate to someone when it's all about them, with no real reach-ability.
>>>>>>>>4. "Also, Keane, you want to limit choices for schoolchildren because Michelle Obama wants.......healty (sic) choices? How does this not fit under your concept of 'child abuse'?"Did you even read what I said about child abuse? Did you go look at the link I posted? I agreed that limiting diets IS NOT child abuse. Can you read?<<<<<<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteAh, another logical fallacy. "I'll pretend the other side can't read! That makes me smart, and them untermensch. Fail, big time. You just walked into calling me subhuman, by proxy. Fail.
But ultimately, you are arguing that Lent is child abuse if it's put on kids. And Michelle Obama is doing roughly the same thing, but from a different angle. I might agree with her (although I hate cafeteria food).
>>>>>>>>>>5. "Your (sic) entitled to your opinion. I'm also entitled to say you're a self-righteous jackass."Agreed. You have a right to say that, and I have a right to say what I want. You have a right to be wrong. I won't argue with that.<<<<<<<<<<
Now, if you called me a jackass back, I'd have no problem with that. Schoolground name-calling is fun. Fat momma jokes work. But you don't go there- I'm Just Wrong. Of course, you're entitled to that. But that doesn't mean it's true. But you're spinning it as such. And that's a really weak straw man. You are convincing no one with that, other than yourself.
>>>>>>>>6. "I'm with Jason on this. If Mr. Keane had said that 'this is all me' to start with, fine, that's his opinion. But, no, he decided to inflict his ignorance on everyone."FUCK! All opinions are saying, "This is all me!" I shouldn’t need to announce it! It's implied! Your entire blog is a dedication to YOU---YOUR THOUGHTS. You think the current Catholic Church's views after Vatican II were composed by "idiots." You put yourself ABOVE the Catholic Church's hierarchy, and then you criticize ME for voicing an opinion without saying, "By the way, this is my opinion?" That's insanity!<<<<<<<<
Mr. K, and I, and others are presuming to speak for a larger group. And we recognize a greater polity out there. I don't think you do. You recognize your atheist viewpoints, and then find a chasm between that and everyone else. Doing a Mexican tap-dance from the other side of that chasm means shit. It just means you do crappy dance. And that's what an opinion is, unsupported
>>>>>>>7. "So, thank you, Mr. Keane; you, like Dr. Dawkins, has tried to make religious bigotry acceptable."It's not bigotry to criticize ideas. The ideas of the Catholic Church (and Judaism) are shitty ideas with no evidence. It's not bigoted to think so. If I were to say, "All Catholics are stupid," or, “All Jews are bad people,” THAT would be bigoted. I'm not saying that. I'm saying these IDEAS are stupid. If we aren’t allowed to criticize ideas, then we aren’t allowed to think.<<<<<
ReplyDeleteYou do realize that Catholicism and Judaism are comprised of people, right? And that by saying that the religions are shitty, the people within it are shitty, too? You're also calling Catholics and Jews stupid. Should we continue to have this conversation ein Deutsche? Or is that too much of a metaphorical hammer to the head?
At no point there, is that solely an idea. It's connected with a greater body of people. Religions denote ethnic, cultural, and racial uniqueness. What you're saying is that those people are dumb to follow the ideas that they cherish for cultural, religious, and personal reasons, and thus, you are better than them, because you have found The Greater Truth.
That’s religious bigotry, sir. You. Are. A. Bigot. You might be atheist, but your ideas beyond the basic premise as an atheist are that you don’t like others because of who they are- religious folks. And if you want to explain to you why the Age of Reason failed in the French Revolution- because it was godless- I will. But I’m not sure if anyone else here wants to be bored with a history lesson.
>>>>>>>>>>>.8. "Oh, and, by the way, Mr. Keane... Lent should be harder, but it's child abuse."
ReplyDeleteGOD FUCKING DAMN IT. I JUST SAID IN MY RESPONSE THAT LENT WAS NOT CHILD ABUSE. You clearly either responded without reading what I said (which disqualifies any argument you have), or you have no fucking reading skills whatsoever. READ. SLOWLY. FUCK. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Here’s from your own webpage: “(Richard Dawkins is brilliant in taking down this idea in this video [and others], and he rightly calls it child abuse in his book The God Delusion.)”
Yeah, you ultimately call religion child abuse. Maybe you should read your own fucking works, instead of asking us to translate it for you. And it’s nice to see you back off from calling Lent child abuse, if only to make yourself look good. That’s what we call backtracking, in a debate. One tries to walk back their statements in order to make them look good in the short-term. It sucks as an online tool though, because I can, well, read what you said. Seriously, reading from your own blog- and really, taking my time to read it- I still see you calling religious doctrine and concepts of suffering (such as it is) as child abuse.
And calling us illiterate once again is a great rhetorical ploy, just to make yourself Nietzsche’s ubermensch, once again. It’s so nice to be called stupid, illiterate, and a religious moron all in one shot. Remember what you were saying about not being a bigot towards Jews and Christians? I’m enjoying the numerous fallacies here. Now, I COULD take the low road here, and call you a National Socialist, but that’d require being pagan. Instead, I’ll call you for what you are: a cheap shot artist, who is so wrapped up in his own concepts of atheism that he has to denigrate others in order to sustain his concepts ad infinitum, for fear that somehow, they’ll fade without yelling at other people that they’re stupid religious people.
Oh, and one last thing: you ever hear of Schroedinger’s Cat? You make the mistake of thinking that it’s proven that God doesn’t exist. You actually have no proof that God does not exist. But then again, neither do people who believe in God. And thus, we are at Schroedinger’s Cat. You’re free to believe in your atheism, as I am in my belief of the Old Covenant. That doesn’t make you or I stupid. But, you’ve marked that territory out already.
>>>>>>>>>>>Quick points (if I can manage to be quick in the presence of such unwillingness to listen to what I'm saying):<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ReplyDeleteYeah, like you bothered to listen in the first place. I got your attention, though, didn't I?
>>>>>>>1. "IT MADE SENSE BACK THEN." Yes. But it doesn't make sense now. So there's no reason to do it now. <<<<<<<<<<<
And now you've fallen for your logical falliacy. If Christianity and Judaism were shitty ideas, then how come they made sense back then? At some point, your arguement here falls apart. Either they're shitty, or make sense. You've turned it into a zero sum game, and thus, right into a wall.
>>>>>2. "Fasting shows a commitment to ideals."I agree. But the ideals of Lent suck. They are to a non-existent god. We don't disagree about the commitment, though.<<<<<
That's according to the Gospel of You. You don't determine what I, or anyone else thinks, or does. If you want to deny the existence of God, be my guest. You can. But you can't prove that, either. And if someone wants to believe in God, that's none of your concern, inasmuch as it doesn't affect you.
>>>>>>>3. "It's all about you."Um, he made it about me by posting a comment on my blog directing people to his site where he tries to make me seem like an idiot for things I didn’t even say. If he didn't mention me in his post about Lent, I wouldn't have said a word.<<<<
No, it's the way you came off. Nothing in your comments suggested that you ever took your ideas beyond your own nose. That's your problem: it IS all about you. In fact, your commentary here is generally of the "I'm right, goddamnit!" variety. You're convinced of that- and want others to be, too. You, of course, can proselytize your atheism. It's a free country, with free speech. But that also means that no one HAS to listen to you. And with the general reflection of your narcissism (for lack of a better term), I'm not sure anyone would want to. It's hard to relate to someone when it's all about them, with no real reach-ability.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, I happen to think that has Keane some very valid points. Also as a Christian, however, I have no interest in getting involved in a shouting match with other people simply because they disagree with my beliefs. It is not bigotry to question or discredit ideas. It is the right, even the responsibilty, of every human to do so. Catholicism, down to the very foundation on which it was laid, is deeply and irretrievably flawed. Does that mean that Catholics are stupid? Not necessarily. Does that mean that God isn't using the institution of Catholicism for his own purpose and glory? Of course He is. It is certainly not for me to judge how God reveals Himself to people.
ReplyDelete...it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person but what comes out of the mouth...