h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

And further...how very arrogant of the Pope to believe his odd tidings of Jesus are of the least interest to the poor and disenfranchised of South America. What he's saying is that their suffering is of little consequence, weighed against the compensation of Christianity. Well...he never asked *them* what they want. The poor are entitled to throw his obscene, uncaring, self-satisfied message back in his face. Journalists with their interests at heart are entitled to savage him, even if it means misrepresentation: "By any means necessary."

(cf The Ghoul of Calcutta and her hypocritical sermonising about "embracing poverty.")

Why is she hypocritical? She believes it. Surely the root problem is unveiled in your previous post:

QUOTE
>>would agree, for instance, that to have Jesus outweighs anything else.
How very odd.
UNQUOTE

I find BAMN odd, for instance, and even utterly amoral (it actually ignores morals); but not intrinsically hyocritical unless hypocrisy itself is one of the means employed.

By the way, by BAMN I mean the slogan "by any means necessary", not any organisation with that name.

If it were a general principle, I'd agree. But here it's your turn to take someone out of context. .

I was applying it (for purposes of provocation) only to the case of a pope who wishes to impose an oppressive and spurious 'divinely-ordained' hierarchy whereby, yes, we all get his Jesus, but some of us get more material comfort than others. My revulsion for him cannot be expressed highly enough. Selective quotation of his obfuscatory speech is a minor price for him to pay, compared with the conditions he seems happy to see maintained in the third world.

Now - over to you Opus Deites. *Why*, in the name of human decency, is Jesus sufficient? It's a sop. Worse, it's a quasi-moral smokescreen to belittle the legitimate grievances of those who oppose the anti-democratic order that your shameful cabal promotes. Forget comfort. Forget not having to struggle from day to day. Forget the possibility of seeing your children grow up in security. Embrace Jesus and be happy that the world is as it is.

And speaking of hypocrisy...the greatest hypocrisy is for the pope to pretend moral superiority while spouting such guff.

I can't speak for Edward, of course, but he and I have discussed the Ghoul of Calcutta (what an accurate title there, Edward!) before and I think what made her a hypocrite is that she didn't believe in embracing poverty at all. What she believed was that *other people* should embrace poverty while she herself lived comfortably off the donations she received- including use of a private jet- rather than invest those donations in providing decent services. "Pray harder" and other such wothless platitudes were all she had to offer those who put their very lives in her hands.

For example- a dirty crook and embezzler named Charles Keating donated over a million dollars in pilfered funds to Mother Teresa. After he was arrested and put on trial for his crimes, Mother Teresa wrote a letter to the judge asking him to "look into his heart, and do what Jesus would do".

The judge wrote her back and admonished her to do the same- look into her heart, do "what Jesus would do", and return the ill-gotten funds to their rightful owners.

The bitch never wrote back, and the money was never returned. If that isn't hypocrisy, what would you call it?

But the point appears to be that 'to have Jesus' is the most important thing. Surely we can see that all manner of monstrosity can be hidden behind this?

Getting back to the Pope's speech - it occurs to me that its (properly reported) text is the best possible argument for atheist humanism. One way to live our lives is to try and do the best we are able for other members of humanity. Another way is to make a fetishistic idol of Jesus: human concerns are subservient to the worship of Jesus. Now, I'll accept that the teachings of Jesus have led some towards humane deeds. I'll also accept that well meaning-humanists may do inadvertent harm. But human good is far more likely to result if we have it in mind as a first-order goal.

I agree. I have family members who won't speak to me because I use medication for my asthma. Their mentality is that illness is god's way of moving us on from this life to "his eternal kingdom" and using medication to treat illness is defying "his will". It seems a common perception among many christians that this life is worthless anyway, so there's no point in trying to make life pleasant- or even bearable, for that matter- for anyone other than one's self. If that. At least among humanists I've found it more common to accept that we only have one life, and we have to get it right. There aren't any "do overs".

Oof, I hit "post" instead of "preview".

I'd wanted to add that if there are people out there whose beliefs in Jesus or whatever all else have convinced them that "having Jesus" is more important than having one's basic human needs met, then I think it's fine for them to neglect their own needs. However to expect other to do so, or to impose such neglect upon one's children, one's constituents, or one's faithful followers, is asinine.

Sometimes I wish there were a hell, reserved specially for people like Mother Teresa and the Pope, where they could experience the suffering and misery they expect others to endure.

I should butt back out again...

<>

I thought it was a principle, so I'm happy - and relieved - to be put right, although still not convinced that it is good practice at any time. But at any rate my intended point was that although someone might be wrong, he or she need not be hypocritical. Hypocrisy resides in the will, not in the intellect; if there is no intent it's just another name to label those with whom one disagrees.

Here this means, seemingly, the Pope and Mother Teresa. I never met Mother Teresa, but I have seen her nuns working in London, doing the same things that she did, and I have occasionally helped at the soup kitchens. It beats me how anyone could label her as a hypocrite.

But again, the paragraph about Jesus/Christianity being a smokescreen shows a simlar problem. We cannot get very far unless we assume the other camp holds its opinions in good faith. I am a Christian, and I hope my life bears some witness to that. I am also convinced that democracy is a Good Thing, and there is no smokescreen, full-stop.

Christians should of course try to make the world a better place. The way is to love one's neighbour as oneself. I try to do to others as I would have them do unto me - not an exclusively Christian saying, although Jesus did teach it. The Kingdom of God, built up through Christian love of one's neighbour, is a foretaste of Heaven. Christians haven't always done well at this, admittedly, but others have also failed, some arguably quite a bit worse. At least you know that Christians believe in loving one's neighbour, and can appeal to the fact: not everyone on this planet regards it as central.

And Christians, as you know, believe that the world as we experience it isn't everything: there is an eternity to follow afterwards. But there are many other areas and I don't think I can cover everything.

I thought this might be pertinent to the discussion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6678753.stm

"An Italian politician has sparked a furore by urging state broadcaster Rai to block the transmission of a controversial BBC documentary.
The programme, aired in the UK in October, investigates the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church.
The programme, Sex Crimes and the Vatican, has been Google Italia's most popular online video choice since a version with translated subtitles was put online.

The Catholic newspaper Avvenire says that the bloggers who posted the documentary online have committed "wicked slander".

I thought the definition of slander was a spoken statement that damages a person's reputation and is untrue.

The screening of the documentary will certainly do the former, for those who hold the catholic church in high esteem.

The latter,they know not to be correct.

Any adult, who protects abusers,no matter who they may be, before the welfare and protection of children, is guilty of furthering that abuse.And has no right to call himself a man of god.

The edict in 1962 was shameful.They know that abuse thrives in secrecy.

Speculations on the source of morality:

"For most, the thought of killing an innocent prompts a visceral revulsion, no matter how many other lives weigh in the balance. But if your prefrontal cortex has been impaired in the same small way by stroke or surgery, you would feel no such compunction in sacrificing one life for the good of all. The six patients certainly felt none. Any moral inhibition, whether learned or hereditary, had lost its influence."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117884235401499300-search.html?KEYWORDS=hauser&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

Hi Andrew

I'm not going to debate the myth of Mother Theresa again but one of your comments did amuse me:

"I am also convinced that democracy is a Good Thing".

Why? What experience have you got of it? You certainly didn't get it here, nor in Europe nor the USA. 'Democracy' in most of the Western world is a myth, a bad joke at best.

To win a 'democratic' election in these states you need millions upon millions of pounds/euros/dollars. Thus those that stand have already sold their souls, their principles and their manifestos to those who would back them.

Once the people you elect are in power their promises are completely worthless. They only listen to their backers. This isn't cynicism, it is observable truth.

Democracy is as mythical as many of these leaders claim to faith or relgious conviction. Men who say they are christian, yet engineer and lead their countries into unnecessary wars to enrich their backers. If your God exists then I think that these men have a shock coming on judgement day.

On another tack - how can any Catholic say that democracy is a good thing? It defies the very bases of Church doctrine - faith and obedience to God. He isn't a democrat, He demands complete obedience to His laws, not to those of man. Democracy is the antithesis of God, as it proposes that the choices of man can over-rule the will of God.

For example, if you are a democrat, you must accept that a statute allowing abortion upon demand, if passed by the will of the majority, is lawful. How does a 'democratic catholic' (oxymoron alert) stand on the National Curriculum denying the teaching intelligent design or creationism. Or on the democratically legislated laws that prevent the stoning of adulterers?

What will you do when the British law on Blasphemy is democratically repealed, directly challenging God's commandment that you shall not take his name in vain.

You can't have it both ways...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Eddie

Just when you thought I was on your side...

"And further...how very arrogant of the Pope to believe his odd tidings of Jesus are of the least interest to the poor and disenfranchised of South America."

I think the turn-out to his processions and masses belies your little theory.

Faith is often strongest amongst those who live in the deepest misery and have the least reason to hope for better. It is often all they have, that last shred of humanity, the thing that keeps them climbing out of their shacks to slave another day for whatever American Corporation has bought their government this week.

I ain't saying it is right, just that it is so.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Ah, the usual Matholwch leap of logic.

Democracy is imperfect, THEREFORE it doesn't exist.

Crap, crap and a thousand times crap. There are many in the world who would dearly love to live with our levels of democratic freedom. That is not to say that we can be complacent, that we needn't fight to preserve and improve our precarious freedoms. But to suggest our freedoms are illusory...well, go live a while somewhere where people have less freedom and then come back and tell me that.

It's like your previous rant re The Human Rights Act: possibly well-intentioned but misinformed and utterly barmy.

btw...An interesting piece of trivia:
Q. When did the UK ratify the European Convention on Human Rights into law?
















A. 1966.
So well before we joined the EU, then.

Did he really say that?

No
As we speak,Matholwch is probably tearing his hair out!

They're both right,of course,but is either listening to the other?

>>Did he really say that?

The words I read were:
"'Democracy' in most of the Western world is a myth, a bad joke at best."

I'm not saying it's perfect. But it ain't mythical.