Ah, and thank you for that, Dandelion! The way you have this set up, anyone who is not interested can easily ignore the religion or politics threads, and just focus on news directly related to Bradbury.
I suppose there isn't much else to say on the situation in Ireland, but this article, from a UK paper, shows why I am utterly disgusted with the church:
The following post is taken from another message board. I cannot verify the truthfulness of said post, but I can say that this account is typical of many of the stories that are surfacing, in regards to the scandal in Ireland:
My mother is from county Donegal and always said that Catholicism was beaten out of her at an early age by the nuns. My uncles were sexually abused by the monks, and my aunt was shunned by the community because she got pregnant by a black man when living in London - my grandparents were told the only way to help her was to put her in a nunnery until she gave birth and then give the boy up for adoption. Once she was in the nunnery a Catholic bishop began extorting huge sums of money from my grandfather by threatening to tell his medical colleague in Dublin (he was a surgeon) about this unwanted pregancy - which back then would have destroyed his reputation and work.
I love my Irish heritage, but I hate the Catholic church in Ireland for all the pain and suffering it caused my family. My mother raised me in Canada and always said she baptised me in the kitchen sink so that I could find God in my own way and would never have to grow up in the shadow of the catholic church. I am VERY thankful for that.This message has been edited. Last edited by: theoctobercountry,
The problem, october, is that Bradbury's works are mostly religious. Surely a secular type of religious writing mixed with conservative and historic religious writing. Complicated. And so to ignore that is to ignore his works.
I have to agree with both Dandelion and Embroiderer here: (a) Bradbury deplores censorhip, (b) Bradbury's writings are very much about religion and spirituality.
I deplore the name-calling that sometimes occurs, and the straw man arguments where we over-simplify someone else's viewpoint and then attack that. We also are big in some of these threads in making overly broad statements (all religion is stupid, etc.). We could do better.
In a rare moment, I think I'm different than Nard on the question of the board being conducive to reflection. As (I think it was) Octobercountry said, we have time to research and reflect before posting here. There's no cause for mistating others' points of view and for reacting in a huff. Think before you type.
Octobercountry there is a WAR going on in Ireland! Between the Catholics and the Protestants. Yes, there was the long sexual abuse of a certain segment of Catholic Priests, but in Ireland, there is a WAR going on. Not for the last year, or the last 100 years, but HUNDREDS of years of fighting. They hate each other. And the mess of abuse just is more fuel to an ongoing wild fire. It's not a war between religion as it is a war between social classes. It's a war over taxes, land grab, etc. Not religion. The media, whoever is controlling it for whatever particular agenda, hates the other side.
Nunnery is a good word.
And in one astonishing bit of religious news, I actually agreed with something James Dobson said---heh, heh...
A couple of weeks ago, while decrying the state of the US, he said in part "I want to tell you up front that we're not going to ask you to do anything, to make a phone call or to write a letter or anything.....And so what you can do is pray, pray for this great nation... As I see it, there is no other answer. There's no other answer, short term."
I believe he was talking about hate-crimes legislation in particular ---complete text and many, many comments can be read here: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/go...tical-surrender.html
My opinion is, hey, go for it---pray for this country non-stop, no problem. Just don't try to turn the US into a theocracy, and have your own particular brand of Christianity written into law. One of the problems I've had with Dobson is his disdain for the concept of separation of church and state. As I've stated before, I've always been for a complete division of the church and the government; I think that idea is one of the things that is pretty unique about this country, and one of the things that makes this country great. (WooHoo, go America!) I'm really surprised that some people don't seem to grasp the notion that if the central government and the church become intertwined, they may find themselves out of luck if a government comes into power that doesn't reflect their own religious viewpoints.
Mostly hooey, theoctobercountry! Particular brand of Christianity? Ha ha! You are funny! Like a particular brand of Ray Bradbury? Ha!
October, it sounds like some folks want this type of government to come into power that doesn't reflect their own religious viewpoints.
When we say we want a COMPLETE separation of church and state, I presume we mean we want a separation of any particular ecclesiastical organization backed by government power? Are we claiming we want any and all moral codes seperated from our legislative agenda? We need to be careful when we toss slogans about that we define our terms and meanings.
Yes, what I am referring to is a separation of any of the myriad versions of Christianity that exist in the US today from the workings of the government.
This has nothing to do with a separation of moral codes from the government, as morality and religion are two different things. It is certainly possible to have a strong moral code without subscribing to any religion at all. (For instance, the idea that it is not acceptable for the ordinary citizen to go about murdering people certainly is not attached to any one religion.)
I've often thought that at least 90% of human conflict could be avoided if all people simply applied the Golden Rule to every action and aspect of their lives. In other words, just don't do anything to anyone else that you would not wish them to do to you. Pretty simple, really, but it's a logical formula for a happy life.This message has been edited. Last edited by: theoctobercountry,
While it is true enough to say that religion and morals are two different things--there are "religious" people who aren't very moral, and there are moral people who don't appear to be very religious. But I think it is important to recall that most of our moral code is derived from the judeo-christian moral codes propogated within the context of religion. The idea that they are completely separate, just because they are different, seems incomplete and inaccurate.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with that statement. After all, there is a basic definition of morality that exists throughout the human race (don't commit murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't mess about with someone else's spouse, etc., etc.).
This fundamental set of moral principles developed long before the advent of Christianity, and in all peoples throughout the globe. One has to keep in mind that only about 33% of the earth's population is Christian, and it would be inaccurate to state that the remaining 67% is entirely without moral guidelines.
A sickness known as hate; not a virus, not a microbe, not a germ, but a sickness nonetheless. Highly contagious, deadly in its effects. Don't look for it in the Twilight Zone. Look for it in a mirror. Look for it before the light goes out altogether.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ... 125|