Amen to this
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
“The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim,” he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that “the universe didn’t make itself and had a creator”.
And the fundies had such hopes for Pope Ratzo.
Haw!
Pope Ratzinger, not Ratzo. I guess you feel comfortable enough with him to make up your own names for him. Do you respect anybody?
This posts makes me wonder … why is it when the Pope, the Vatican, et al. says something you agree with, you trot them out there as some form of controlling authority? But, when they disagree with your positions, they are the right wing, fundies, blah, blah, blah …
That was my question.
Sorry, Quaker was the one “making up names” in your words. Need more caffeine before starting the day …
JD: “Pope Ratzinger, not Ratzo.”
Actually, it is Pope Benedict, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger. So Oliver is not the only one making up names.
Personally, I prefer “Pope Rat”. The Vatican might have backed off from the ID lunacy, but there are plenty of other issues (protecting sexual predators in the church, gay marriage, contraception, etc) on which he is still a right-wing nut.
I’ve never seen science and spirit as incompatible. They don’t occupy the same conceptual space at all. I wish we’d see more religious leaders acknowledging this.
Quit whining, JD–it’s unseemly.
I’m not sure this represents the Vatican’s POV necessarily. After all, several prominent Cardinals and Pope Ratzo (when he was a Cardinal) were pretty adamant in their views that evolution was pretty much hokum.
The idea that God kicked of the Creation process (whether it was by evolution or intelligent design) and that the Days of Creation were fiffering, long, periods of time goes back at least as far as my Catholic High School days (1959 – 1963)
Calling the Pope names is a juvenile way of saying, “Look at me! I’m super – dee – duper! I can call the Pope names! I’m special!”
Quaker, thanks for the link; I particularly enjoyed this part:
And:
I suspect this last quote may explain your lack of reverence for this latest pope and the church he represents?
If you cannot even have enough common courtesy to address the freaking Pope in a civil manner, then it should not surprise me that civil discourse is beyond the realm of possibility.
Religious Leaders who inject their influence into social/political debate must accept the bad with the good of it. He is a big boy who has weathered the political intrigue of the Vatican, He doesn’t need anyone to protect him from
‘blasphemous’ criticism
Well why not call him names? He’s a public political figure, just like any other.
If you’re going to put your hat (or mitre, as the case may be) into the political arena by making edicts on public policy, then expect to get it chewed up a bit.
“If you cannot even have enough common courtesy to address the freaking Pope in a civil manner, then it should not surprise me that civil discourse is beyond the realm of possibility. ”
I was born and raised Anglican. I’m not required to show the Catholic Pope anything but the utmost contempt. Contempt that is only fueled by his continuing sheltering of pedophile priests, opposition to contraception, etc. The previous Pope had his moments, but was only marginally better. This one is simply a political Rat who got the position by stacking the ranks of the cardinals with his own cronies.
Civil discourse is simply not possible when the person you are talking about (the Pope in this case) is a nutter. I will give the Vatican a few points for backing off from the Genesis fundies, but they’ve got a long way to go to earn respect from truly civil people. In this case, I feel it is best to call a Rat a Rat.
The Pope didn’t make the pronouncement. One of the Cardinals did. The Vatican has factions, just like the US congress.
The official Catholic line on evolution is that it does not change the fact that man was created deliberately and for a purpose. This was not stressed enough in the article.
OT I know, but in response to the follow observation —
Calling the Pope names is a juvenile way of saying, Look at me! I m super – dee – duper! I can call the Pope names! I m special! —
Does that apply to others besides the Pope, say, Pooty-Poot, Turd Blossom, Big Time or Brownie?
I wouldn’t know, buma, you’ll have to check with the source.
What I’m hearing here, is stupid and juvenile, a reflection of a thought process that suggests that the name caller is more important than the person being called names, an obvious impossibility.
People who engage in name-calling are “stupid and juvenile”?
Frank, when did you have your sense of irony removed?
Mouse: actually it’s the first quote you cited that resonates a bit more for me. The notion that any human is more favored of God than any other, or has a more direct communication with the divine, is inimical to Fox’s teachings.
JD:
Are you suggesting that the Pope gets his “freak” on? Tsk.
All:
For the record, the man’s name (before being named Pope) was Ratzinger. I’m not the first, nor will I be the last, who shortens that. Doing so does not reflect the reverence with which some hold His Holiness, but neither is it an attack on his character. It’s the verbal equivilent of refusing to take off my hat. Calm down.
George Fox was a terrible trouble-maker in his day. He and his followers would barge into traditional church services and disrupt them.
People who call the Pope names, Quaker, people who make up names like “Rethug” call Bush Chimp (I have no idea where that one comes from) “Chimperor”, Dubya, JadeGold calling me “Frankie”, these are all attempts to “control by diminutive.”
You can call referring to the Pope as Ratz anything you want, but it shows little or no respect for the people who believe he represents Christ’s will on earth.
When you catch me making fun of a leader of one of the world’s great religions, let me know.
As for George Fox, how much time would you spend in prison for your religion, as millions of Catholics have done since the death of Christ?
Well, just let us know which men are fair game and which ones are off limits, Frank.
Religious leaders? Off limits.
Democrats? Fair game.
President Bush? Off limits.
Hugo Chavez? Fair game.
I promise I’ll give your rules the deference they deserve.
As for this:
You don’t know much about Quakers, do you?
Quaker in a basement-
Many a religious fanatic has been “a terrible trouble-maker in his day”. In itself this doesn’t speak to the validity or invalidity of their revelation or we’d follow Joseph Smith as easily as George Fox.
Would Fox have supported US intervention in Iraq? Would they themselves have gone to Iraq to protect Iraqi civilians from US bombs? How many Quakers were in Iraq before March 2003 protecting Iraqi civilians from Saddam’s army & secret police? I admire the Friends because they are egalitarian and use the Gospel as their catechism, but I do not admire them for their pacifism. It seems too facile and too self-serving.
Religious leaders? Off limits.
Democrats? Fair game.
President Bush? Off limits.
Hugo Chavez? Fair game.
I didn’t say any of these people were “off limits”. In the first place, I haven’t got the power to do anything about it.
I was attempting, rather casually, I might add, to characterize people who make up names.
If, for example, Chavez was a dwarf in a wheel chair. it would say one thing about me if I called him a “tinhorn dictator”, and another thing about me, if I called him a “crippled midget.”
Calling Bush a lousy President is one thing, calling him a “chimp” is another.
Calling the Pope a corrupt defender of child molesters is one thing; calling him Cardinal Ratzo is another.
And I for one, don’t even call Clinton “Bill” let alone something like “the Chimperor.”
I do occasionally call him President “How did that get in my hand?” Clinton, but that’s an insult, not a “diminutive of control.”
Heh
How much time would you spend in prison for your religion, as millions of Catholics have done since the death of Christ?
This question wasn’t about all Quakers; it was about you.
And, as such, it was probably unnecessary and venal. I apologize
Comparing me to “millions of Catholics”? That hardly seems fair. If we’re going to talk about millions of Catholics, shouldn’t I get at least hundreds of Quakers on my side?
In answer to your question, I have not been tested. If that time comes, I hope I’ll have the courage that so many others before me have shown.
In the years between World War I and World War II, the Quakers brought humanitarian relief to the people of Europe left homeless or hungry. The goodwill they earned allowed them to remain in Germany during the rise of Naziism and to help bring thousands of Jewish immigrants to safety.
During World War II, Quaker conscientious objectors accepted assignment to work camps instead of combat assignments. Some of the men volunteered for starvation experiments to help develop medical treatments for prisoners of war and the victims of Nazi atrocities.
Quakers from George Fox until the present day have been imprisoned for their beliefs and for their resistance to war.
Now: what was that about “facile and self-serving”?
Very well. Now maybe we can take up the next task at hand: characterizing (rather casually, natch) people who instruct others to G-F-Y.
If I’ve followed your parallelisms correctly, you’re saying that the latter is worse than the former?
You know, I came to this blog, because it had a cool name. Then I found out it was full of liberals. But that wasn’t a serious problem. I had just come from Plastic.com, and there were a bunch of liberals there, too.
I had been reading right wing blogs for a while, and never did I see (back then) such outrageous behavior on right wing blogs, as there was on this one.
People were decidedly uncivil, and made no bones about the fact that they were going to continue to be be rude and crude, and, if I didn’t like it, I could leave. I vowed to stay away until November, when I assured everyone that I would return to gloat over Bush’s victory.
I returned, instead, in October or November, when the lefties here were sure that Bush had “stolen “Ohio”, and generally, crazed over the idea that Bush had bested them once again.
I paid heavily for their discontent. The rudeness and crudeness escalated; I retaliated. I finally reached a point where I grew as disgusted with myself as I was with all of them. And you. I left, but then returned again.
Four of the most disgusting creatures I have ever encountered are JadeGold, frameone, Semanticleo, and neoconsrloopy, in decending order of obnoxious dissembling and rude, crude and obnoxious behavior. I no longer even attempt any kind of discourse with frameone, and I engage in nearly no discourse with JadeGold. My contact with Semanticleo, if you have noticed, has become most rancorous. Neo seems to have departed for blogs unknown, or changed names.
So, that’s why I ask frameone to perform unnatural acts with himself.
I see.
If that’s your way of coping, so be it. What interests me is how you’re able to do this at the very same time that you’re scolding others for their incivility.
I’m not asking you to do anything about it, Frank. I just like to point these things out.
Quaker in a basement wrote: ‘Now: what was that about facile and self-serving ?’
‘Facile” in the sense that it is too easy for a pacifist to say ‘a pox on all your houses!’ and so avoid making the very difficult moral choice to use violence to enforce the principle of justice.
And self-serving in that while a Friend may believe that he avoids some stain on his soul by refusing to engage combat, the poor wretch who goes in his place suffers morally.
My ancestors were Friends. I think I’ve exchanged ideas with you before, Q. Before Oliver switched to Word Press & I had to change my registration my moniker was ‘Terry’.
The not choosing violence isn’t the same as not making a decision. Some people consciously choose the path of nonviolence.
I don’t know of any Quakers who believe either part of that. There is that of God in all men and women. We do what we can. Some Quakers have made the decision to join the armed forces in both combat and non-combat positions. Nobody thinks they suffer morally for that decision.
stick, I guess that must mean that all those Yellow Elephants who support the war yet refuse to sign up must be pacifist Quakers, then? Glad we cleared that up. I was operating under the mistaken impression that they were simply cowards. Which Quakers certainly are not – they are willing to go to jail for peace. That takes real guts.
Stick, I disagree. While I don’t see pacifism as a valid position (that’s because I believe in “just war”), I don’t see it as either facile or self – serving.
It certainly can be either or both, but let’s assume good intentions on the part of the believer in pacifism. It’s not up to the believer to determine what happens to the non – believer. This is not a zero – sum game. If, for example, there were a draft, and there were a “draft quota” of 50 males for a small town, and there were 50 males of draft age, but one was a Quaker, that would be a problem for the authorities, not for the Quaker.
And, if I were one of “the 49″, I certainly wouldn’t bank on the strength of a “Hey, why isn’t he going?” argument. I would expect the answer to be, “Don’t worry about why he isn’t, you are!”
Again, I rely on good intentions. If I were a Quaker, I would avoid a “stain on my soul” by avoiding direct military service. If I chose to be some other kind of conscientious objector, it would be important to me that I not kill, or not take a role in combat missions, for example, and that would satisfy my conscience. I don’t decide who goes to hell or heaven, but I am certain about the existence of a conscience (except, perhaps, in cases of severe mental illness or retardation — and God will judge those people). People who violate the dictates of their own consciences will suffer here on earth (temporal punishment) and in the afterlife (eternal punishment).
God will judge whether your decision to not participate in a war was facile or self – serving.
Then the fellow who taught us “love your enemies” was self-serving too?
Quaker in a basement-
Many Quakers have enlisted & fought in wars. I have a great-great grand-uncle who went into the Union army as a paid substute for a draftee — after April 1865 when there was no chance he’d have to shoot or get shot at. That fine Quaker gentleman probably hated slavery yet he wouldn’t commit violence to end it. If a few million more Yankees were Quakers there might still be slavery in sovereign confederacy; evil flourishes when good men refuse to take up arms to fight it. This is a common critique of pacifist movements in general, I don’t think that Quakers are any more immune from this criticism than Buddist pacifists.
We do what we can.
Your best post ever, Frank.
Thanks.
Frank_D-
There is no draft, and, inshallah, there shall be none. Ithink the difference between your position and mine is that I do not assume good intentions on the part of pacifists, or at least not sincerity. It’s facile to say that using violence is unacceptable when you know people with no such lofty principles are willing to fight and die to keep you safe. It becomes self-serving when you take such a stance to be a sign of your greater adherence to the will of God.
Men–and women–may resist evil by other means. Arms aren’t the only way.
Quaker;
I believe the sword-wielder was the impulsive Peter. He reacted instinctively to protect Jesus, but forgot all His teachings in the process. Sounds like a lot of us.
47While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him.” 49Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed him.
50Jesus replied, “Friend, do what you came for.”[d]
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
Stick, either you are being sarcastic or you misunderstand me.
I don’t think that pacifism is a “lofty” principle. Nor do I think it is a cynical manipulation.
If you believe in just war, you are duty bound to enlist, actually, in a war, should one occur. There are certainly circumstances which might keep you home (a family to support, competing your education or training, a loved one to care for), but your conscience in no way prevents you from entering the service.
And, as I said above, not serving in the military is not answering a greater call from God. Don’t Chaplains serve in the military, even in the Rangers and the Green Berets?
And, I don’t know why you “do not assume good intentions on the part of pacifists, or at least not sincerity,” but I can’t help that. When it comes to judging people’s motives, we have to start somewhere.
Frank_D-
I didn’t mean to be sarcastic so perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. I’m not trying to start a fight with you, (a word fight only! I promise!) but if pacifism is neither the upholding of a lofty priniple nor a cynical manipulation, what is it, exactly? A hobby like collecting match books? Just war does not require that I enlist, it requires that I do what I can to have the war goals accepted as public policy. There is more to winning a war than stuffing bodies in uniform.
I do think that people who are pacifists should not be obligated, morally or legally, to fight or support the fighting in any way, but their pacifism should be blanket pacifism. A principled objection to warfare, which the Friends claim, should apply equally in the Civil War, WW2, the Balkans, or Iraq. You can’t claim pacifism when the only wars you oppose are the wars supported by your political opponents.
Your statement “And, I don t know why you do not assume good intentions on the part of pacifists, or at least not sincerity, but I can t help that. When it comes to judging people s motives, we have to start somewhere.” mystifies me, and I don’t mean that as criticism, I literally don’t know where what you mean. “Meaning well” is meaningless in public policy. Regardless of a person’s motives the effect is sometimes good, sometimes awful. I can’t definitively determine the goodness or badness of a person’s motives, but I can definitively judge the results. The Quakers who opposed using the military to respond to Pearl Harbor may have had wonderfull motives, but if they had the effect they wanted to have the Pacific basin would have become only a source of material, human and otherwise, for the Japanese war machine.
Quaker in a basement-
“Men and women may resist evil by other means. Arms aren t the only way.”
No and it should never be the first resort. But what is the last resort? sever mocking? UN sanctions? Pacifism in a democracy can prevent justice (or injustice) from being done. It will no effect on a totalarian dictaor.
You are right when you say belief in a just war doesn’t require enlisting, so I guess I wasn’t careful enough in my answer.
But what I meant by “starting somewhere” was in the process of judging people. You cannot, in my opinion, judge people’s behavior by beginning at the point their motives are insincere. Then what do what we say about those whose motives are sincere?
It’s like looking around a neighborhood for a person who might know directions — sometimes you have to ask the next person you come across.