the pope and his respect

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
it was a long time ago and it would be impossible to dig up the link, i used an old example. it is true, although you dont need to take my word for it.

And I don't. For the Pope to say that God ordained the destruction of an American city would be explosive news. A google of "Katrina Pope" would reveal a trail of sites quoting such comments. But all I find is news of the Pope exhorting Catholics to help relief programmes and denouncing doomsday prophesies that Katrina heralds the end of the world.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. They did not occur in the 20th century.

How convenient.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How convenient.

How so?

Originally posted by Conrau K
How so?

Because you're (or the Pope is, or whoever actually said what you wrote) dismissing anything from before the 20th century. He's sarcastically criticizing your choice of "within the 20th century" in the post he replied to because it sweeps under the rug the things the Catholics did.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Because you're (or the Pope is, or whoever actually said what you wrote) dismissing anything from before the 20th century. He's sarcastically criticizing your choice of "within the 20th century" in the post he replied to because it sweeps under the rug the things the Catholics did.

I am not dismissing anything. The Pope's intention was not to provide a comprehensive explanation of every single conflict to have occurred in world history. He was simply making an ad hoc comment about how many of the 20th century ideologies, which to him are a substitute for theism, have led to violence. He is not saying that atheism is the ultimate source of conflict nor that religion is blameless. I do not see why, in commenting on atrocities in the 20th century, he must then acknowledge the inquisitions and crusades and the like - which I am sure he is aware of and hardly relevant to the point he is discussing.

Perhaps if you, DoctorScribbles or Scottishinnz, had actually read Spe Salvi, you might see that the Pope actually commends atheism in part. He sees the movement towards atheism as motivated primarily by a protest against injustice:

The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is—in its origins and aims—a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history.

Hardly seeking to sweep things under the rug, he acknowledges injustices in the past and sees atheism as altruistic.

Regarding ideologies that replace religion -- it's true that 20th century personality cults replicate the structure of messianic cults, whether on a small scale (Jim Jones) or large (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Quite what this means, I'm not sure, but there's usually a sticky end involved.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I am not dismissing anything. The Pope's intention was not to provide a comprehensive explanation of every single conflict to have occurred in world history. He was simply making an ad hoc comment about how many of the 20th century ideologies, which to him are a substitute for theism, have led to violence. He is not saying that atheism is the ultimate sourc ...[text shortened]... ep things under the rug, he acknowledges injustices in the past and sees atheism as altruistic.

Well, I had read Spe Salvi when it came out. I agree that he was not specifically condemning atheism, my reading of it was that he was saying:
Well, if you don't have theism, man seems to have a tendency to replace it with something else, and that something else tends to lead to mass murders and terrible crimes.
This is in my opinion, true (but note it's a tendency, not a certainty), the conclusions he seems to draw from this are not...
So if it's a big bad scary unknown whether you're going to have a secular dictator eating your babies, stick with what you know, theism, you can't be moral without it, despite the atheists making a jolly good show of attempting it.

Of course, I paraphrase, but no matter how you read it, Spe Salvi was an encyclical which claimed a secular state would lead to disaster and that religion was required as a tempering and guiding influence when it came to moral matters. I notice that such a tempering influence was not present during Hitlers little escapades. (I do not blame the church for Hitlers misdeeds, but rather see it as a bit rich for the current pope to claim that religion is a way of preventing atrocities, when his predecessors did nothing of the sort, and yes, that was in the 20th Century).
Ultimately this latest encyclical was a bogeyman report... don't give up on theism kids, or Stalin will rise from the grave! Don't give up on theism kids, it is mans natural state to be immoral without religion!
Two equally ridiculous claims.

Incidentally, to answer the original poster, I think the reason the pope is not ridiculed to the same extent as evangelical christianity in the states is two fold...
1: It would be pointing out the obvious.
2: Catholicism, while slow at doing so, has at least acknowledged things like evolutionary theory, gravity etc, while the evangelicals tend to look on anything with "theory" in front of it with derision, demonstrating a woeful misunderstanding of the philosophy of science; at least the pope asks for expert advice before he says things like "No, it just looks like stars are far away, god is actually slowing the light down!"... but since he never said that, he is consequently less of a target for criticism than the evangelical christians who do.
As an atheist who was "born" a catholic in Ireland, let me tell you, the various popes records on condoms and homosexuality as well as womens rights has led to a lot of heated debate and criticism, so don't think for a second that you can get away with the schoolboy "Waaaagh, why are they bullying my religion and not HIS! waaaaaagh"...
Catholicism is being discussed and debated as much as any religion, it's just that evangelical christianity in the states gives rational people so much more chaff to shoot down. (Examples include their misinterpretations of the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, expansion theory, paleontology, geology... the list is as long as your patience)

Originally posted by agryson
Well, I had read Spe Salvi when it came out. I agree that he was not specifically condemning atheism, my reading of it was that he was saying:
Well, if you don't have theism, man seems to have a tendency to replace it with something else, and that something else tends to lead to mass murders and terrible crimes.
This is in my opinion, true (but note ...[text shortened]... xpansion theory, paleontology, geology... the list is as long as your patience)

I think that is an accurate summary. Although I disagree that the Pope implies that the secular state is doomed to failure without religion. His argument is that a world without God will never achieve full justice, meaning that it will never accomplish full reparation for every injustice that has occurred in the past (because, he argues, only God could do that, in the Last Judgement.) So while a secular state might be a moral and good, it would never be a complete utopia because it will never amend the sum of injustices in the past (I disagree with his thought here. And I expect so do many atheists.)

In summary, he does not say that a secular society will be unjust, only that it will never attain full justice. And while atheists and theists might commit grave immoral acts in the future, it is only the theist who can hope for justice, because only God can give that.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
why is it that theists are ridiculed publicly on television and the pope is not? this really confuses me; is it because the pope has a position of power that he is not considered a nut? or at least not called one to his face?

Because the pope is as much a part of the secular media as the rest of the humanist crowd. In spite of his rhetoric.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think that is an accurate summary. Although I disagree that the Pope implies that the secular state is doomed to failure without religion. His argument is that a world without God will never achieve full justice, meaning that it will never accomplish full reparation for every injustice that has occurred in the past (because, he argues, only God could do t ...[text shortened]... s in the future, it is only the theist who can hope for justice, because only God can give that.

Yeah, I can see that reading of it as being what was intended. (But as you also say, the claim still gets my goat!)