"Challenge Authority" - Pope-bashing goes with the authoritarian territory

It's easy (and most often wrong) to claim that anyone criticizing ("bashing"?) the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church is somehow biased. In my view, however, a global power structure that is openly and unapologetically authoritarian and dogmatic doesn't need my protection. "Bashing" goes with their territory.

Let's take it from a "logical" standpoint. An authoritarian rests on the presumption that the 'boss' (highest authority) is Right™ solely by virtue of their hierarchical role, irrespective of the other merits of their position. The Pope is regarded as 'infallible' when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, and all Catholics are expected to accept all such pronouncements on pain of excommunication. It's a posture of explicit messenger-centrism: if the messenger is an authority, the message is accepted irrespective of content.

Live by the sword; die by the sword. Turnabout is fair play.

A "basher" plays a game of refutation, taking the contradictory stance against the same argument structure. By obtaining agreement that one or more pronouncements of an Authority™ are not Right™, the one who Challenges Authority puts the authoritarian in an untenable position: they cannot logically accept both the authoritarian posture and their own disagreement with the pronouncement.

In my view, this is a Good Thing™ - since I'm in favor of stamping out authoritarianism in favor of self-determination.

It's absolutely natural for an authoritarian to feel discomfited. Think about it: a military authoritarian is 'uncomfortable' when presented with behavior on the part of the military that they agree is Wrong™. After all, when an authoritarian is presented with the conundrum of either rejecting their own opinion or that of someone they accept as an Authority, what happens?

So ... Challenge Authority. :evilgrin:

Me? I nominated this thread for the "Greatest" page and shall check back with interest.

Excellent point. And the reason why I am a "recovering" Catholic.

... who maintains good relations with my Catholic relatives, occasionally attends Catholic Church, taught in a Catholic (Salesian) high School, went to a Catholic (Jesuit) college, and repects John-Paul II as a highly-accomplished and intelligent human being.

I just won't buy into the obedient follower crap. The Jebbies at college and some of the Salesian faculty I taught with seemed to enjoy my company over beers nonetheless. :shrug:

.. and I no longer believe or practice, and..

.. I'm not recovering. I'm doing just fine, and..

.. I know how to think for myself and use critical thinking.


Sue

Thinking for yourself is important, and more people should try it!

:toast: Cheers to you!

because lotsa people like to live under all sortsa authority. Takes two to tango, and one tango partner always leads.

That doesn't refer to the 'boss' ... it refers more to the follower, imho. :shrug:

There's a substantial amount of people who enjoy knuckling under.

That's why I cheered Sinead O'Connor when she ripped up that picture on SNL.

but I did cheer the next week when Madonna ripped up a picture of Joey Buttafuco.

one would have to note that the Christian/Judaic/Muslem tradition(s) rely on a very similar authority: God and his purported Word.

If all authority rests with God as espoused by inviolate doctrine as captured in the scriptual texts of either the Bible or Q'uran, then it makes sense that those deemed most educated with those texts would be the authority(ies). As long as believers accept this tradition, it matters little who is the current authority in any one of these religious traditions.

Since women are deemed to be unworthy of being the authority, based on scriptures, there are few women authority figures in Christianity, Judiaism, or Islam. The authority of God descends directly through the male hierarchy. Since the Bible explicitly states that no woman should speak publicly on religious matters, there is no tradition for women to speak authoritatively on religious matters.

While I recognize that some sects of Protestism accept women theologans and ministers, it deviates from the male authority tradition. Once one goes against Biblical traditions to accept women ministers, all of the rest of the Bible is up for interpretation and selective belief.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that this is right, but rather that the relgious tradition that comes from the Middle East is both male authoritarian and anti-feminine leadership. It doesn't matter if it's the Pope of the Roman Catholic tradition or not. All of these traditions share the same texts to some degree.

... if all 'bosses' got themselves killed for the sake of their 'followers' then we might not have such a problem with tyranny. :evilgrin:

:kick:

Well stated.

...Church is somehow biased"....

I don't think they're biased. I would use the term "classless" given the timing.

I'll never agree with Republicans, EVER, but I did NOT rub in any of my Republican friends' faces when Reagan died. They thought he was a good man, and misguided though they are, I will respect them enough not to spit on the cooling corpse of a man they admire. It's basic decorum, and just because you're posting on an internet forum doesn't give you the right to ignore that.

:wtf:

I'll tell you what. I'll ignore any-damned-thing I want to ignore and I'll defend the inalienable rights of others to do the same. I'm appalled that anyone purporting themselves to be a 'liberal' would ever challenge my human rights ... rights to do even the Wrong™©® things. What appalling, condescending, pretentious CRAP! :grr: (But I'd NEVER challenge anyone's right to spew it, even by inference.)

:thumbsup: I will not be silenced.!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I would take a second look at who is "feeling persecuted" here. the hysterical personal attacks might give a hint who...:)

All I was pointing out was the need for some common human respect. You don't have to agree with or even like the Pope; but to acknowledge the effect his passing will have on millions of people is simply respectful.

Apparently you'd rather get in a pissing war about this, for which I'm sorry.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

One has the right NOT to read and respond to something absurd written by an a-hole, and that's the part they control. They do not get to dictate to anyone else what they may or may not post. As long as there is a first amendment, one can post absurdity on a public internet site as long as it's in line with the TOS of that site... THAT is their right.

What you imply is that you have the right to play parent as if everyone is an 8 yr old and not old enough to determine for themselves how they express themselves. There are plenty of vulgar things posted here on DU, yet my right not to read it supercedes my right to tell you what you may or may not write, provided it falls within the limitations set up by the site in their TOS.

HAVING the right doesn't MAKE it right.

Common courtesy never killed anyone. Bosses or followers. :eyes:

-chef-

It is precisely the time to speak the truth. The blathering obeisance to the pandering media is beyond "classless",and into foolishness.

You always manage to say what I'm thinking in a far more eloquent manner than I could ever manage.

That is the crux of my problem with organized religion. What I can't wrap my brain around is that there are so many people who are not only willing, but eager to place themselves under the authority of hierarchal systems.

Whatever floats your boat, and all, but I'd rather look for my own answers. :shrug:

as the case may be.

I have never thought the Chirch was much good at answering much, if anything.

a discussion made all the more relevant in view of the way we have been subjected to a relentless onslaught of media spun 'history' such as the canonizing of Reagan etc.

I happen to have sympathy for. I lived behind the Iron curtain and let me tell you, he was a hero to many non-Catholics. That said, no one is perfect and there are major issues I have had with the people, but then again, that is what happens when politics and religion are mixed. If the Vatican had more to do with religion and less so with governing itself and making treaties with other countries, it might have been a different body.

I think he could have done more regarding the sexual abuse, but then again, he is an ocean away and what he knows, he knows from those who are filtering.

I have to say that for him I do have sympathy not only for his pain and suffering (seeing the Germans go into Poland would be enough), but also for the real Catholics that need a decent leader like him during the Christian-hate movement they are being pulled into. Just my 2 cents.

John Paul II's personal politics aren't the issue here. It's the way a man (and always a man) is automatically revered just because he was placed in (not even popularly elected to) a position of power. Usually liberals are anti-authoritarian, preferring to base their arguments on science and reason. That's why we're always pulling ahead and conservatives are trying to drag us back to the dark ages.

So the glorification of an unelected authority figure is puzzling.

Yes, this pope has done a lot of charitable things. But so have a lot of other people, most of whom die without any fanfare at all.

someone's got to do it. :-)

fight against their freedoms and call them evil
Real f'===n Christian of him
have fun in Hell JP2, Falwell called , said "save his seat"

challenging the authority of the POPE!

flamebait! flamebait!

People could just hold off til next week or so. After all, I'm sure the church will still be around at that time.

Reasoned criticisms are one thing, but those are few and far between. Expecting someone to answer for every sin committed by a catholic throughout the last 2000 years is quite another. I imagine most folks have enough difficulty answering for the things they actually have done.

I could ask for tact, but I've seen that rejected in this thread already. Thus, I will appeal to pragmatism. Even legitimate criticisms are going to be taken as attacks in the present because we are losing our unifying agent. It's because of the emotions involved. In a time of grief, it's not practical to appeal to reason because emotion will win out. I submit that it's better not to burn bridges while we are grieving. Please, let us do that in peace.

Be my guest. But one doesn't visit a boiler factory seeking quietude. :shrug:

Screaming "Shut up! Can't you see I'm mourning?" while running from noisy place to noisy place is likely to meet with little cooperation ... unless it's (specious) 'evidence' of such lack of cooperation one is collecting.

tactless and boorish comments made elsewhere on DU. However TahitiNut's post does not fall in that category. TahitiNut has not insulted or attacked the Holy Father, his comments are directed at the authoritarian nature of the RC Church. I know something of the dark side of authoritarianism and TahitiNut's remarks have been helpful to me on a very personal level.


But please know that you have my sincerest condolences for what is a tremendous loss to those who have a deep and abiding connection to the Church.

Nice read- thanks.

I recommended this thread, as I too am in favor of stamping out authoritarianism in favor of self-determination... I got my boots on, so look out! :D

TahitiNut's rants have always been top notch. Not much room for improvement there.

Don

:D

My latest:

Church and the Pope...the post also reflects a lack of understanding or knowledge about Church teachings....


It is totally inappropriate to post this here on DU tonight...the Catholic Pope has died this night...and some respect toward the grieving of many Catholic DUers would be appreciated....


maybe pull your posts tonight and wait a few days to begin such attacks later.....

Answer that before spewing lies. I'm sick of this bullshit.

When you say "this post," you can only be referring to your own.

"Anger"? "Hate"? "Lack of understanding or knowledge"?
Foo. Shit. Wear it. :shrug:

believe to be offensive?

Especially the Bible. I am sure I can find interesting stuff in The Bible that I could say condones and celebrates homosexuality and lesbians. Maybe it's time to publish a special lavendar letter Bible that underlines all phrases that could be interpreted as LGBT friendly. Let's do it!

When one has suffered all forms of gay bashing in his life like I have, I stop excusing people like the Pope and fight back. To ignore them is to die.

One thing I never understood is why many people are appalled by leaders in their secular lives creating authoritarian systems to control them with, yet in their spiritual lives, the exact same thing is not only tolerated, but, oddly enough, celebrated.

Start a thread bashing a head of an Orthodox Jewish synagogue then. What about an Islamic cleric? Of course you can start one bashing The Patriarch of Constantinople as well. Be consistent.

Thomas Jefferson:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again:
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Jefferson's word for the Bible?
Dunghill.

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

I can only say: YOU HATE YOURSELF.

You hate yourself so much.

Pope and or catholic bashing can lead to threats and violence against Catholics here in the US. I've had a cross burned on my lawn. While it might be cute on some level, some take it to different levels and meanings.

I'm also heartily sick of the slightest little criticism of anything to do with religion being labelled (and consequently ignored) as bashing by the reading-comprehension challenged.

Now is precisely the time for an objective view of the Pope's career because they're in the process of choosing another one and maybe, just maybe, they might actually listen to the millions of people currently marginalized by their institution who might be persuaded to rejoin if the church took a more responsible attitude towards gay rights, women's status in society and reproductive rights.

Of course those who don't really want to deal with these issues will use the convenience of the Pope's death to try to silence critics with their moral righteousness. That's how we end up with an even less progressive successor. Thank you for not letting them get away with it.