Not if you poll Catholics that go to Mass weekly. IOW, real Catholics.

Not if you poll Catholics that go to Mass weekly. IOW, real Catholics.

And this type of statement is why your religion is disappearing.

I used to have genuine respect for McCain, but that seems like such a long time ago now. Has he gone off the rails as severely as I think he has?

You've forgotten about Palin already, Steve?

I suppose the GOP has one advantage - the evangelicals and Christianists certainly won't be going Democratic.

This is something that the Republicans have to realize, that no matter what happens, they aren't going to lose that portion of the constituents, so other than lip service, there is no reason to bow down completely to them. The Democrats treat their crazies as outsiders, and don't allow them to push policy, knowing full and well, that they aren't going to lose them. The Repulicans allow them to speak at their convention and set policy. (again as always I point to the percentage of republicans who actively refuse to acknowledge the existence of science, in an attempt to appeal to moronic design gullible)

I look forward to the extended elephant walk in the wilderness, with Joe K and others arguing against things like policy changes for immigration and other things every step of the way.

If the Republicans are going to win another national election, they are going to either have to succeed in suppressing the vote in battle ground states or make some concessions to immigration reform.

It's funny that it's always the GOP — and only the GOP — that's destined for the wilderness, especially when it comes to immigration. The idea that working-class Democrats will remain loyal to the Dem party ad infinitum, despite stagnant wages, a stagnant if not declining standard of living, and a less-than-booming job market for their debt-ridden, college-educated kids, seems overly optimistic, if not irrational.

The first party to look into making it legal to get rid of your student loans through bankruptcy(or other means) is going to get a fair amount of popularity. But neither side is willing to do something like that. You are right, the Dems could lose people, but in order for them to lose people, the Repubs have to do something that the people want to see. People are voting for who they are voting for, until someone does a better job(in their eyes). The Repubs aren't doing a single thing to win over the people who didn't vote for them, and in fact seem to actively deride the people that they can bring over.

Or start importing natural Republicans, via a skills-based immigration system rather than the current disaster of an immigration system. (With unemployment north of 8 percent, why in the hell are we issuing visas to McDonald's workers?)

You can't seriously think that there is enough people out there wanting to come to America to be American citizens who fit that bill to make a difference can you? That would counter 200+ years of immigration history. Those who have the skills, are making a decent living where they are at now, it's the ones who have been denied a chance to develop skills that are coming to America, along with the poor, downtrodden etc.

Really? Muslims started voting for Dems because of a few isolated incidents like the one mentioned above, and not because the U.S. declared war on radical Islam in general and two Islamic countries in particular?

I hope you really aren't that dense. You are right Christians are mocked here more, because you have people of Christian faith using their faith as a weapon and defense of their opinions. There aren't that many muslims on here talking about the great allah, or who's political party is actively supported by hate groups like the 700 club. Christians are mocked because they act like their religion is the official religion of the U.S. and get upset when you proceed to remind them of the first amendment, history etc. Christians are mocked because they have way more power on the political process than they should. They are mocked because of the hypocrisy of their religion is so massive that it's takes a legal moron to accept any of their arguments for morality. When Muslims start using sharia law(or whatever it is) and gets a political party to put their recommendations as part of their party platform, I can assure you that plenty of "liberals" are going to be out in force to mock that. They are mocked because they have a sense of superiority and like to whitewash their own history and crimes committed in the name of christianity.


As to Christians not flying a plane into a place of work.... I guess since he used a truck, that Tim McVeigh doesn't count? I mean it's not like the Ku Klux Klan was a Christian organization or anything, how many people did they kill and intimidate in the name of god?

And as Lassus(post 475) pointed out, the people defending the Muslims is much smaller than the people bashing the muslims and the opposite is true in regards to christians.

Yes, I made an assertion — not an offer. I have no real interest in re-reading the last 24 hours' worth of posts here so I can bring examples back to you — examples you know damn well exist. (

I'll defend you here, yes you are right, there is going to be more anti-christians arguments on a board made up of primarily christians and children of christians, than there is going to be of muslims. I think anyone who is arguing against you on that particular point is being somewhat delusional. But often times the argument is in a defense against muslims by pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of christianity and those who attack one group based upon religious history, while ignoring their own groups religious history.

If we get a group of muslims on here, who started to talk about how muslim was the first religion to give women power or other such garbage that they are proud of, I guarantee you the liberals who were defending muslims against the christians would be the first to attack such comments.

No. As a matter of fact, he's greatly respected in the local community by both muslims and non-muslims alike. In fact, some came to his defense.Jewish and Christian religious leaders

I gotta admoire the unalloyed bigotry encapsulated in your unwarranted assumption, Joe. You usually do a better job of disguising it.

Typical lefty: Goes straight to the "bigotry" card without doing five seconds of research.

The link you posted was from 2010. Here's an update.

And this type of statement is why your religion is disappearing.

The rules are that you have to go to Mass every Sunday. If you can't be bothered
to follow what is more or less Rule Number One as member of the Church, you're not an Observant Catholic.
You've dropped out. You're not a real Catholic. You used to be a Catholic. You're still "culturally Catholic" perhaps,
but that doesn't really mean anything anymore.

It is difficult to describe somebody who can't be bothered to watch a Reds game more than twice a year as a real Reds fan,
as an analogy.

And the Church will never dissapear. Much to your regret, I imagine. You know why? Because Jesus of Nazareth, its Founder, He Himself, promised so.
It was here 2000 years ago, and will still be here if we all last another 2000.

Mock away if you like. But be careful, it might be a bit of a "bridge-jumper" bet. ;-)

The rules are that you have to go to Mass every Sunday. If you can't be bothered
to follow what is more or less Rule Number One as member of the Church,

And that is why your religion is dying out. I figured that rule number one for nearly all religions was "be good", the rest is just window dressing.

And that is why your religion is dying out. I figured that rule number one for nearly all religions was "be good", the rest is just window dressing.

Doesn't Islam have much more stringent rules about worship? They don't seem to be hurting Islam's growth or popularity.

Doesn't Islam have much more stringent rules about worship? They don't seem to be hurting Islam's growth or popularity.

I'm not really sure that Catholicism is actually dying to be honest, just that it's losing some of it's relevance in the U.S. A growing number of people in the U.S. aren't really into the mood to be tied down to a weekly commitment to faith, that requires them to leave their computers and Iphones for a couple of hours a week.

I figured that rule number one for nearly all religions was "be good

The Church has always been a Hospital for Sinners, not a Museum for Saints. Christ said he came for sinners. Chesterton was asked
why he converted to Catholcism. He replied, "To get my sins forgiven, Why else?"

Again, Catholicism will never die out. Much to you chagrin I suppose.

Again, Catholicism will never die out. Much to you chagrin I suppose.

I don't think it's going to die out for a long time, not during my lifetime, or my grandchildren's grandchildrens lifetime. But it would be great to see "The Jedi" religion being as popular in 100 years as Mormonism is now. (hopefully at the expense of Mormonism and Scientology)

I just hope that it(Catholicism, Christianity, and Muslims among others) fixes itself before it continues to do the massive damage that it has done worldwide. It would be great if religions became a force for good.

I'm not really sure that Catholicism is actually dying to be honest, just that it's losing some of it's relevance in the U.S. A growing number of people in the U.S. aren't really into the mood to be tied down to a weekly commitment to faith, that requires them to leave their computers and Iphones for a couple of hours a week.

Actually, Catholicism is very much alive and flourishing--in third world countries. Here, in the US, the brand of Catholicism is a lot different. In fact, what most American Catholics practice can hardly be called Catholic.

The Church has always been a Hospital for Sinners, not a Museum for Saints. Christ said he came for sinners. Chesterton was asked
why he converted to Catholism. He replied, "To get my sins forgiven, Why else?"

Again, Catholicism will never die out. Much to you chagrin I suppose.

That is so freaky retro and passe, it's hard to credence that educated people can actually spout dumb #### like this with a straight face. Goes to show you that you can be educated beyond your capacity to think.

I suppose the GOP has one advantage - the evangelicals and Christianists certainly won't be going Democratic.



This is something that the Republicans have to realize, that no matter what happens, they aren't going to lose that portion of the constituents, so other than lip service, there is no reason to bow down completely to them. The Democrats treat their crazies as outsiders, and don't allow them to push policy, knowing full and well, that they aren't going to lose them. The Repulicans allow them to speak at their convention and set policy. (again as always I point to the percentage of republicans who actively refuse to acknowledge the existence of science, in an attempt to appeal to moronic design gullible)

Oh sure - but they could stay home or splinter off to a 3rd party... that's the risk...

The rules are that you have to go to Mass every Sunday. If you can't be bothered
to follow what is more or less Rule Number One as member of the Church, you're not an Observant Catholic.
You've dropped out. You're not a real Catholic. You used to be a Catholic. You're still "culturally Catholic" perhaps,
but that doesn't really mean anything anymore.

It is difficult to describe somebody who can't be bothered to watch a Reds game more than twice a year as a real Reds fan,
as an analogy.

And the Church will never dissapear. Much to your regret, I imagine. You know why? Because Jesus of Nazareth, its Founder, He Himself, promised so.
It was here 2000 years ago, and will still be here if we all last another 2000.

Mock away if you like. But be careful, it might be a bit of a "bridge-jumper" bet. ;-)

See?

This is why there's hope yet for me to return to the fold... The Vatican has apparently evolved on the matter whether pride is sinful or not... If they get around to looking the other way on gluttony and lust, there's every chance I'll dust off the rosary.

Actually, Catholicism is very much alive and flourishing--in third world countries. Here, in the US, the brand of Catholicism is a lot different. In fact, what most American Catholics practice can hardly be called Catholic.

Yep, I had did a quick research on growth of Catholicism before I posted that comment to be sure that I wasn't mistaken. It's experiencing tremendous growth in Africa, and part of that is because of their positive contributions such as building of schools(mind you, I'm afraid to look at their curriculum, but any education is probably better than no education) Along with their charities, they are doing a lot of good in some places.

All religions die out. There have been thousands of religions in our history going back to prehistoric times, and they all died out. Catholicism/Islam/Judaism/Buddhism--you name it, all their days are numbered. First, though, they become zombie caricatures, and after taking as many with them as they can, they transmogrify into a new religion.

Mock away if you like

Where was the mockery? My grandmother didn't bother with this every week crap, she went to mass every day. There is a clear difference between mockery and criticism.


Again, Catholicism will never die out.

"Never" is a damned big word, and while you're probably right, the church population shrinks away. I've been singing in mass every week for 35+ years (for a different reason than you the last 20), and there are less and less people every year. I have no figures, so perhaps like Yankee fans, my eyes are lying. However, performers notice the size of their audience pretty well - it's OUR religion.

Typical lefty: Goes straight to the "bigotry" card

Don't be too hard on them, Joe. When arguing on the merits, they have so few plays in their playbook.

For example:

Let's say X (voter fraud; welfare cheats; perpetual welfare recipients; illegal immigrants draining state resources; etc.) is a problem. Their playbook:

1. Deny the existence of X.
2. Start talking about Y.
3. Call the people pointing out X racists and bigots.
4. Attack "rich people."
5. Blame it on corporations.
6. Accept high fives.

All religions die out. There have been thousands of religions in our history going back to prehistoric times, and they all died out. Catholicism/Islam/Judaism/Buddhism--you name it, all their days are numbered.

Blasphemy. The Church of Baseball will never die out.

Catholics are the most fervent believers in Social Justice, especially among the Clergy. That's put it squarely against the core tenets of Republican belief. Catholics in the coming years have to choose their socially Conservative beliefs and their fairly fiscal liberal beliefs..

So far, especially for the clergy, their socially conservative beliefs have won out, but to be honest, I'm not sure how long that last. Eventually, the more liberal wing of the clergy is going to be mad to speak out even against their more Conservative brethren.

Ha ha. The funny thing is, when I'm not here, he asks people where I am.

Forewarned is forearmed. You're like the gross uncle who shows up at family gatherings, drunk and loud, who embarrasses the grownups and makes the kids cry, then stumbles off to take a piss in the closet, returning having forgotten to zip his pants.

As the world contemplates the possibility that an African could be chosen as the next pope, the leading candidate, Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, upset many observers, particularly in the West, when he suggested in an interview that homosexual priests were the cause of the church sex scandal, and such a scandal is not a problem in Africa because homosexuality is not allowed on the continent.

“African traditional systems kind of protect or have protected its population against this tendency,” Turkson said during an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN. “Because in several communities, in several cultures in Africa, homosexuality or for that matter any affair between two sexes of the same kind, are not countenanced in our society.

“So that cultural taboo, that tradition has been there,” said Turkson, 64, who is the head of a major Vatican department, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. “It has served to keep it out.”

Turkson is given 5/2 odds of being selected next month by the College of Cardinals, just below the leading odds-on candidate, Italian Cardinal Angelo Scola, the Archbishop of Milan, who is given 9/4 odds.

But Turkson probably didn’t help his chances with comments that many in the U.S. and Europe will find outrageous — that there is a link between child molestation and homosexuality, and that homosexuality can be controlled if there are laws and societal pressures against it.

...

A spokesman for the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests said, “We hear less about clergy sex crimes and cover-ups in Africa for the same reasons we do throughout the developing world — there tends to be lesser funding for law enforcement, less vigorous civil justice systems, less independent journalism, and an even greater power and wealth difference between church officials and their congregants.”

Link

Blasphemy. The Church of Baseball will never die out.

That is stomach-cramp inducing.

The link you posted was from 2010. Here's an update.

Don't want to wait to see if the lawsuit has merit, huh? Why am I not surprised?

Joe, here's a story about Deak's father being murdered:

Fatal Delusions: A shooting on Wall Street

His dad had a colorful and checkered past:

After the war, he helped launch an exchange firm in New York that rapidly expanded and eventually had 70 currency outlets throughout the world. In the gold-rush days of the late '70s, Deak & Co. was handling 20% of U.S. retail gold sales.

At the same time, however, Deak was running into trouble with the Government. In March 1978 Deak & Co. was convicted by a federal court and fined $20,000 on charges of failing to report $11 million in large currency transactions by two Philippine businessmen. Then in October 1984 the President's Commission on Organized Crime charged that the firm had been involved in a multimillion-dollar laundering operation for international drug dealers. Early this year the Treasury Department handed down a $572,000 civil penalty against a Deak subsidiary in connection with the drug-money case.

Deak representatives denied all the charges. R. Leslie Deak, then executive vice president of the firm and the founder's son, blamed the commission report for some of the company's financial problems.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074802,00.html#ixzz2MumSkDEm


Now, by no means does this mean that the sins of the father are also of the son. On the other hand, I think I'll wait for all the facts to arrive before I start jumping to conclusions like Joe did that the presence of a lawsuit is tantamount to guilt.

1. Deny the existence of X.
2. Start talking about Y.
3. Call the people pointing out X racists and bigots.
4. Attack "rich people."
5. Blame it on corporations.
6. Accept high fives.

Ray certainly knows small playbooks.

Forewarned is forearmed. You're like the gross uncle who shows up at family gatherings, drunk and loud, who embarrasses the grownups and makes the kids cry, then stumbles off to take a piss in the closet, returning having forgotten to zip his pants.

Yeah, nice try. No one goes looking for the "gross uncle" when he's not around. (And speaking of gross uncles, given your prior comments here on the topic of pedophiles, do you really want to go there?)

That is stomach-cramp inducing.

And now you don't like Bull Durham? What is wrong with you, Morty?

***

Don't want to wait to see if the lawsuit has merit, huh? Why am I not surprised?

Well, they collected millions and millions of dollars for the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, they don't have the mosque, and they apparently don't have the millions. I wonder what could have happened to it?

Catholics are the most fervent believers in Social Justice, especially among the Clergy. That's put it squarely against the core tenets of Republican belief. Catholics in the coming years have to choose their socially Conservative beliefs and their fairly fiscal liberal beliefs..

So far, especially for the clergy, their socially conservative beliefs have won out, but to be honest, I'm not sure how long that last. Eventually, the more liberal wing of the clergy is going to be mad to speak out even against their more Conservative brethren.

Not really. Republican belief is that the government isn't responsible for social justice, individuals can provide as much social justice as they want. I do think it's a potential problem with their party that they dehumanize those needing social justice, while trying to appeal to Catholics. As you pointed out it's a potential polarizing issue. But ultimately it boils down to which party is going to protect the Catholic and the church the most? And that is clearly the Republican party. The Republican party has no problem spitting on the Constitution(note: I'm just saying that because I'm upset with the portrayal of gun regulation by the conservative branch, that I figure, I might as well use their tactics) and allowing religion to interfere with government, while the liberals argue against that, so for now at least, the Catholic church is going to swing conservative.

Doesn't Islam have much more stringent rules about worship?

Much like Christianity, there is often a gap between the ideal and practice.

“African traditional systems kind of protect or have protected its population against this tendency,” Turkson said during an interview with Christiane Amanpour of CNN. “Because in several communities, in several cultures in Africa, homosexuality or for that matter any affair between two sexes of the same kind, are not countenanced in our society.

Kind of an interesting comment. It seems that the closer a culture is to its primitive tribal roots, the less tolerance it has for deviations from the heterosexual norm. Why would that be? Has to do with tribes needing members, I would think, and of course homosexual acts don't do that. I wonder if there is a test case in history of a society that went from tribal to more sophisticated, and thus more tolerant of homosexuality, and maybe other deviations from the norm, back to the more tribal and less tolerance?

(Although one of my favorite novels, Berger's Little Big Man, is clear that the Indians tolerated homosexuality and bisexuality, at least among the males. And although it is a novel, it seems to have been meticulously researched. So I may be off on my premise. I don't know enough about tribal societies to be really definite either way. Interesting anyway, I think.)

The rules are that you have to go to Mass every Sunday. If you can't be bothered
to follow what is more or less Rule Number One as member of the Church, you're not an Observant Catholic.

I'm having a tough time with this one, t. Don't the pedophilia scandals bother you at all? Why would you support a religious institution that was so criminally culpable? Aren't the moral teachings of Christ a lot more important to being a good Catholic than the superficial ceremony? I'm pretty sure Jesus would not condone or abet child rape so why should modern Catholics? It seems to me the Catholics who are staying away from mass are the ones who are showing good conscious and being good christians.

(And speaking of gross uncles, given your prior comments here on the topic of pedophiles, do you really want to go there?)

Why, you feel the urge?

It seems that the closer a culture is to its primitive tribal roots, the less tolerance it has for deviations from the heterosexual norm.

???? Haven't studied much on the native americans viewpoint on that have you? They seem to (forgive the pun) go both ways in attitude, where the Aztecs would kill people for being gays, other tribes seemed to freely allow them to go about their business.

Is that supposed to have substance?

It's experiencing tremendous growth in Africa, and part of that is because of their positive contributions such as building of schools

They do this so they can indoctrinate the young minds before the curriculum matures to Darwinism.

I wonder what could have happened to it?

Ball hit deep to dead center!! Kehoskie's on his horse! Backpedaling. Backpedaling. Back. Back. Back...

531:

Well, like I said, one of my most beloved works, agrees with the "freely allow", so my impression certainly could be wrong, or in need of modification.

I'm having a tough time with this one, t. Don't the pedophilia scandals bother you at all? Why would you support a religious institution that was so criminally culpable? Aren't the moral teachings of Christ a lot more important to being a good Catholic than the superficial ceremony? I'm pretty sure Jesus would not condone or abet child rape so why should modern Catholics? It seems to me the Catholics who are staying away from mass are the ones who are showing good conscious and being good christians.

Wait, so I'm the bad guy for putting two and two together with regards to the Ground Zero Mosque fraud, but now you apparently believe Catholics should assume that all priests are pedophiles and/or enablers of pedophiles? (And if not, why should Catholics avoid going to Mass?)

Ball hit deep to dead center!! Kehoskie's on his horse! Backpedaling. Backpedaling. Back. Back. Back...

Backpedaling? What are you talking about? The closing question in #525 was rhetorical, which I thought was obvious.

They do this so they can indoctrinate the young minds before the curriculum matures to Darwinism.

I don't doubt it, but it's still ultimately a good thing, even with the ulterior motives involved.

Is that supposed to have substance?

Just pointing out that the generalization posted above isn't true with Native American tribes. Many tribes accepted gay men as part of the tribe.

Joe, do you ever answer a question with something other than a question?

Yes.

Joe, it's like shopping at a store where they sell goods made from slave labor. Now, maybe the store supervisor doesn't employ slave labor. But he works for one that does.

Same with the Catholic Church. Even the recently departed Pope was in on the cover-up. Bernard Law would be doing 10-15 years in prison if he was not sequestered somewhere away by the church hierarchy. When it came time to come clean with the faithful, they whitewashed it away, blaming secular society instead of themselves.

And whenever you go th church and drop a nickel in the poor box, you are de facto supporting the status quo, the rotten center.

Just pointing out that the generalization posted above isn't true with Native American tribes. Many tribes accepted gay men as part of the tribe.

Yeah, I thought I brought that up myself in my concluding comments. However, what about women? Would they allow strict homosexual relationships, being tribes encourage procreation?

Wait, so I'm the bad guy for putting two and two together with regards to the Ground Zero Mosque fraud

You didn't put anything together. You cited what's most likely a frivolous lawsuit (or more likely, a mafia-style shakedown) to support your bigotry.

Joe, it's like shopping at a store where they sell goods made from slave labor. Now, maybe the store supervisor doesn't employ slave labor. But he works for one that does.

Same with the Catholic Church. Even the recently departed Pope was in on the cover-up. Bernard Law would be doing 10-15 years in prison if he was not seqestered somewhere away by the church hierarchy. When it came time to come clean with the faithful, they whitewashed it away, blaming secular society instead of themselves.

And whenever you go th church and drop a nickel in the poor box, you are de facto supporting the status quo, the rotten center.

Interesting. By this logic, no one with an ounce of decency could remain (or donate money to) Democrats, what with the rampant corruption in Chicago, New Orleans, etc.

Not if you poll Catholics that go to Mass weekly. IOW, real Catholics.

The rules are that you have to go to Mass every Sunday. If you can't be bothered
to follow what is more or less Rule Number One as member of the Church, you're not an Observant Catholic.
You've dropped out. You're not a real Catholic. You used to be a Catholic. You're still "culturally Catholic" perhaps,
but that doesn't really mean anything anymore.

So what do y'alls call the fallen ones these days? Romans In Name Only? I think you could make that into a pretty spiffy acronym.

---------------------------------------------

But ultimately it boils down to which party is going to protect the Catholic and the church the most? And that is clearly the Republican party.

That's probably the view of the American Catholic hierarchy, which is obsessed with a handful of social issues. The nuns and the laity are fast becoming another story.

The door you want is on the LEFT, Kehoskie. The LEFT!

Interesting. By this logic, no one with an ounce of decency could remain (or donate money to) Democrats, what with the rampant corruption in Chicago, New Orleans, etc.

You cannot say with a straight face that the Republican party has no history of corruption in Chicago or New Orleans.

Nucky Johnson, come on down!

You didn't put anything together. You cited what's most likely a frivolous lawsuit (or more likely, a mafia-style shakedown) to support your bigotry.

Wait a minute — In #523, you wanted to wait to see "if the lawsuit has merit"; now you seem quite sure it's "frivolous" or even a "mafia-style shakedown." Things sure change quickly around here.

The guy you seem to think is so virtuous apparently reported $0 in income for three consecutive years and then a salary of $58,000 the fourth, but somehow he has a nice home in one of the most expensive cities on the planet, a "luxury sports car," and took expensive vacations — with his mistress. Meanwhile, his "charity" supposedly raked in millions of dollars that are now missing, and he abruptly left the Ground Zero Mosque project within days after the alleged fraud was exposed. But I'm sure it's all on the up and up.

Joe, I grew up in a working class Catholic neighborhood. The Monsignor who ran the local parish drove a black Mercedes convertible with red leather interior that he had imported from Stuttgart on a personal trip he took there. He had a special house built on parish grounds to shelter his alcoholic priest brother. He had a membership to the most exclusive country club in the vicinity.

Joe, I grew up in a working class Catholic neighborhood. The Monsignor who ran the local parish drove a black Mercedes convertible with red leather interior that he had imported from Stuttgart on a personal trip he took there.

European delivery, man. Knocks a big chunk off the sticker price.

But anyway, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you implying the Monsignor was crooked, or are you saying that it's somehow possible for people who claim $0, $0, $0, and $58,000 in income over a four-year period to live a life of luxury, and do so totally on the up and up?

Time to spice this thread up with some Madeleine Albright. Warning: NSFW

Obviously the Imam saw the behavior of all the evangelical megachurch pastors and just assumed that was how things are supposed to me.

Seriously though, I don't know anything about this specific guy but it certainly shouldn't surprise anyone that Muslim leaders can be just as corrupt as Christian leaders (or non-profit executives). You're basically giving these people authority and a bunch of money just because they say they're standing for a noble cause or whatever and there's always going to be bad apples who would rather enrich themselves than actually do things that benefit others like they're supposed to.

Catholicism is not easily pinned down in American politics.

JPII and Benedict XVI were pretty far to the right of most of the Republican party on social issues and to the left of Bernie Sanders on economic issues.

Some Catholics place more emphasis on one than the other. Tfbg9 obviously places more emphasis on the social issues. Traditionally, the Catholic vote has swung to Democrats, but it moves around a fair bit depending on what issues are more pronounced.

Oh, and that blog post by Rany is really excellent. Highly recommended reading.

Not particular to anything, but my former college debate partner, a friend for 20 years, a lifelong Republican and one-time low-level grunt for Darrell Issa, told me over beers last week that he's officially no longer a member of the Republican Party. He's white, late 40s, college-educated, single, a gun owner, not particularly religious. He feels the politics of the GOP are driven by religion and not by any desire for smaller government or free market principles.

He really has no idea what to do next. He's still a political junkie, and follows the news closely. He despises the Democrats, thinks Tea Party people are idiots, and believes libertarians are academic crazies. He's open to suggestions.

I had no idea what to tell him; I was honestly stunned. The whole thing came out of nowhere. However, I did pay for his beers. It was a big step for him.

I had no idea what to tell him; I was honestly stunned. The whole thing came out of nowhere. However, I did pay for his beers. It was a big step for him.

He'll still vote Republican. He's just disappointed with the party/tired of losing. Someone will come along and express the same tired ideology with minor changes in style and it will be a "game changer."

He'll still vote Republican.

Actually, he won't. He was pretty explicit about not voting for the GOP at all. That's why he's open to suggestions. He still wants to participate as a citizen, but going forward he will not vote for any GOP candidates. He's not voting Democrat or Libertarian, he still considers himself a strong conservative... Is he out of luck? I don't know any other parties he could vote for on the right. Neither does he.

Actually, he won't. He was pretty explicit about not voting for the GOP at all. That's why he's open to suggestions. He still wants to participate as a citizen, but going forward he will not vote for any GOP candidates. He's not voting Democrat or Libertarian, he still considers himself a strong conservative... Is he out of luck? I don't know any other parties he could vote for on the right. Neither does he.

run for office. if your friend actually cares about the direction of the country and the republican party, then his participation in the process shouldn't just be limited to writing a check and casting a ballot. people can talk all they want about the fact that the teabaggers are lunatics, but until people like your friend step up and actually challenge them from within the party, then it's a self-fulfilling prophecy that they'll have control of it.


besides, if your friend runs for office what's the worst that could happen? getting arrested for literally having a skeleton in his closet?

On the 'not enough mocking of Muslims' theme, Dara O'Briain covered this off pretty well in a show I saw. Paraphrasing:

"I don't have any religious material in this show. I used to do a lot of that kind of thing. Every time I did, after the show, I'd have someone come up to me and say:

'Oh, you'll do jokes about the Christians. You'll do jokes about the Jews. But you won't do jokes about the Muslims, will you?'

To which I used to reply, 'There's two reasons why I don't do jokes about Islam:

1. I don't know a fecking thing about Islam
2. Neither do you'."

Have you ever noticed Sunni Muslims ululate like this - "Looloolooloolooolooloo!" but Shiite Muslims ululate like this - "Yeeyeeyeeyeeyee!" Amirite?

Hilarity from the great Bush hope --

Folks may have read that Jeb shocked everyone this week when he actually came out with a nearly Tancredo-esque NO PATH TO CITIZENSHIP EVAH! -- based on upcoming book excerpts. This was surprising because Jeb was always among the most moderate in the GOP on immigration and he somehow planted himself to the right of even people like Marco Rubio on the matter.

Well, now we have the absolutely hilarious explanation -- in effect, what he "wrote" in his book was the most popular thing for a Republican say back when he wrote the book, but he now regrets 'writing' it!

Yeah... and this is the smart one, you say?

Well, now we have the absolutely hilarious explanation -- in effect, what he "wrote" in his book was the most popular thing for a Republican say back when he wrote the book, but he now regrets 'writing' it!

This is similar to what Clinton is now saying regarding his support of DOMA, which is basically that public opinion is changing on the issue so my position is changing to follow. For the record, I don't have a huge problem with this behavior, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about it being limited to one side of the aisle.

Not if you poll Catholics that go to Mass weekly. IOW, real Catholics.

And this type of statement is why your religion is disappearing.

As a Catholic who goes to Mass weekly, I would be fine with the Church becoming smaller if that is the tradeoff required for a higher degree of devotion to Catholic beliefs and practices among those who remain. Even if the tradeoff would include with less political clout going forward.

Jobs report day!

(I realize that no one cares now that there isn't an election)

236,000 in February, with weird revisions (up 23K in Dec, and down 37K in Jan).

U3 drops to 7.7%, with the LFPR staying mostly the same (going up a tiny amount).

This is a good, but not great report.

This is similar to what Clinton is now saying regarding his support of DOMA, which is basically that public opinion is changing on the issue so my position is changing to follow. For the record, I don't have a huge problem with this behavior, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about it being limited to one side of the aisle.

Oh sure... I just find the turnaround time and naked way it happened hilarious... I mean - Clinton signed DOMA nearly 20 years ago - and I think it's clear that public opinion on gay rights is in a FAR different place than it was 20 years ago.

In this case, hard for me to fathom that "public opinion" on immigration has changed that much in a year -- it's really more that recognition of a political reality within the GOP has evolved that much in a year.

FWIW, the author David Foster Wallace famously struggled with his perception of McCain, a man he once admired, over time.

555/557 - I have two friends with similar stories, though they were probably less political than your debate partner. One now votes Dem, pretty much only on anti-bigotry grounds, the other now sits out the political process and seems bummed about it.

Romans In Name Only was pretty funny.

I haven't looked into it at all, but it was always my impression that Canada has a skills-based system, and it's also been my impression that immigrants vote Liberal much more than Conservative.

Both true.

And - the federal Conservatives are making some inroads among immigrant communities by explicitly reaching out to them (but it's a lot easier for Canada's Conservatives, who've more or less totally disavowed interest in any social issue, except crime.) The provincial Progressive Conservatives (and equivalents, like the Sasketchewan party) haven't, and they aren't making the same inroads.

Fine, so if most people who call themselves Catholics aren't true Scotsmen Catholics, then that just further proves that a group that largely calls itself Catholic nonetheless can't be considered a "natural Republican consistency."

This is similar to what Clinton is now saying regarding his support of DOMA, which is basically that public opinion is changing on the issue so my position is changing to follow.

No, that would be spineless, but relatively logical. Clinton, however, has gone further: he doesn't just no longer support DOMA, he thinks it's unconstitutional. Surely DOMA wasn't constitutional because it was popular and now unconstitutional because it's less popular. I guess we have to read in the implication that Clinton was wrong 20 years ago about it being constitutional. I dunno. Not a shining moment for Bill, for sure.

Not sure where else to put this, but Buster Posey and Lincecum are doing AMA's on Reddit today.

Oy, if I didn't already have big problems with significant aspects of the Obama Administration's drone policy -- I think John Yoo defending them would sure create some...

This is similar to what Clinton is now saying regarding his support of DOMA, which is basically that public opinion is changing on the issue so my position is changing to follow.

No, that would be spineless, but relatively logical. Clinton, however, has gone further: he doesn't just no longer support DOMA, he thinks it's unconstitutional. Surely DOMA wasn't constitutional because it was popular and now unconstitutional because it's less popular. I guess we have to read in the implication that Clinton was wrong 20 years ago about it being constitutional. I dunno. Not a shining moment for Bill, for sure.

When the man who signed the DOMA into law has a change of heart about it from A to Z, you can argue about the sincerity of the conversion, but you can't argue about its effect. In 1948 Lyndon Johnson was talking about "wetbacks" during his Senate campaign, and 16 years later he signed into law the most transformative bill of social legislation since the 19th amendment. The only people I see complaining about Clinton's current stand are the homophobes and a few professional Clinton haters, often occupying the same skin.

Although 1973 opened many doors for Hitchens, it was also the year of a terrible tragedy for the burgeoning journalist. This was the year that his beloved mother committed suicide. Yvonne Hitchens had been having an extramarital affair with a former member of the clergy, Timothy Bryan, for many years. On a fateful night in November, the couple swallowed a lethal dose of sleeping pills in a hotel in Athens. Hitchens was the one to identify the body of his mother and arrange the burials. Until his own death, Hitchens believed that Bryan had talked his mother into the suicide pact.

How many of you guys knew this?

As someone who is sometimes annoyed by Joe K's style (although more sympathetic to his politics than many posters here), I laughed out loud at 538/539.

In 1948 Lyndon Johnson was talking about "wetbacks" during his Senate campaign, and 16 years later he signed into law the most transformative bill of social legislation since the 19th amendment.

Johnson's public rhetoric is the anomaly in his story; he taught Mexican-Americans as a very young schoolteacher and was--by Caro's account--beloved in town. He always drew heavy votes from the Mexican-American precincts in the South Texas (supplemented by corrupt deals with local powerbrokers, as Caro also shows.) He could be crudely racist in his talk; he was essentially a crude person. But it's easier to see 1948 as simply a politician pandering to his supporters in an insanely close race. Not excusing but putting in context.

I think for the record that Jeb's book fits pretty much that storyline. He was pro-immigration, he will be pro-immigration; he spoke as anti-immigration at a moment when he thought it would be politically advantageous, producing comic results.

He also found out that his mother was Jewish, or partly Jewish, something which he both found amusing and took pride in.

Now:

Separate the message from the messenger.

How many of you guys know this?

He could be crudely racist in his talk; he was essentially a crude person. But it's easier to see 1948 as simply a politician pandering to his supporters in an insanely close race. Not excusing but putting in context.

Having lived all my life in the Deep South (although it's a unique part of the Deep South), I was exposed to what is described here quite often.

First, this is very natural. I'd bet all races and ethnicities and any distinguishing sub-groups (heterosexuals/homosexuals, males/females, adults/teens) do this.

Part of it, a lot of it maybe, has do with our mentalese, especially our ability to comprehend and express contradicting intentional stances (Daniel Dennett is good on this), and at any time to misapprehend someone else's (often intentionally if tacitly so, because we find it convenient to do so). I was thinking of that New Yorker cover of Obama and his wife in Muslim/Arab regalia. Remember? Some were upset because they took it as the old exploded canard that he was a Muslim, and maybe partly too that Muslims were being caricatured (see that, Joe). But, having been a reader and aficionado of the magazine for decades (not so much anymore), especially of its cartoons and caricatures, I took it as making fun of those who couldn't eradicate the Obama is a Muslim meme from their brain. And it can get a lot more complicated and subtle than that.

Joe, it's like shopping at a store where they sell goods made from slave labor. Now, maybe the store supervisor doesn't employ slave labor. But he works for one that does.

Speaking of slave labor (labor without choice; without consent), is anyone else bothered by resurrecting dead celebrities to flog commercial products? This seems like a really creepy practice and, if there's a line, where do you draw it? Is it okay for Audrey Hepburn's heirs to sell her walking, talking avatar to Dove in order to boost chocolate sales, but not put that avatar in a porn movie? Can the avatar kiss, but not ####?

All religions die out. There have been thousands of religions in our history going back to prehistoric times, and they all died out. Catholicism/Islam/Judaism/Buddhism--you name it, all their days are numbered. First, though, they become zombie caricatures, and after taking as many with them as they can, they transmogrify into a new religion.

I'd bet on Buddhism lasting the longest. It's by far the most flexible; some forms of it are very specifically adaptive without losing their shape and meaning, and it isn't contingent on the existence of deities, meaning it will survive our eventual outgrowing of that particular concept. In polite company I can pretend conventional beliefs in God aren't delusional, but hey, it's BTF.

Bigot.

Not particular to anything, but my former college debate partner, a friend for 20 years, a lifelong Republican and one-time low-level grunt for Darrell Issa, told me over beers last week that he's officially no longer a member of the Republican Party. He's white, late 40s, college-educated, single, a gun owner, not particularly religious. He feels the politics of the GOP are driven by religion and not by any desire for smaller government or free market principles.

He really has no idea what to do next. He's still a political junkie, and follows the news closely. He despises the Democrats, thinks Tea Party people are idiots, and believes libertarians are academic crazies. He's open to suggestions.

Based on his beliefs he'd probably be a decent fit as a libertarian, but IMO paleocon and/or reactionary are the next logical steps. That's where most of the really interesting non-lefty political thought is coming from these days

Basic political rule of thumb:

If there's great big pictures of the leader all over the place, its not gonna be such a good place to live, by world standards.

I'd bet on Buddhism lasting the longest. It's by far the most flexible; some forms of it are very specifically adaptive without losing their shape and meaning, and it isn't contingent on the existence of deities, meaning it will survive our eventual outgrowing of that particular concept. In polite company I can pretend conventional beliefs in God aren't delusional, but hey, it's BTF.

I was enamored with Buddhism and Zen Buddhism for a while there as a late teen, but it's too vague and indefinite. It's an anything goes concept. Reeks with passivity, too, so much it seems smug.

I actually think Christianity is a remarkable religion/myth. I was unlucky in that I was raised (reared) in a combination heavily Catholic, heavily fundamentalist protestant area of the Deep South (the triple whammy). But I was lucky in that I didn't go to Catholic school and I hardly ever listened in church--mostly because in my formative years you couldn't eat three hours before communion or something like that, so I was always thinking about food as a kid in church. But of what I do remember, I remember the priests up there in the pulpit mostly telling you to be kind and charitable, to cut others slack, to try to recognize your faults and work at correcting them. Not a bad start if it weren't just wrapped up in something that is wrong--absurdly untruthful.

Still, my atheism does not rest on thinking that religious people are this uniquely egregious category of people. It rests on not seeing how there can be a God--much less a God who intervenes in our lives, cares, and "forgives sins."

If Buddhism lasts longest, it's because it says and means the least, is sort of how I see it.

Basic political rule of thumb:

If there's great big pictures of the leader all over the place, its not gonna be such a good place to live, by world standards.

Probably true, and I wonder if that rule might apply to religions as well.

I was enamored with Buddhism and Zen Buddhism for a while there as a late teen, but it's too vague and indefinite. It's an anything goes concept. Reeks with passivity, too, so much it seems smug.

Could you elaborate on this? What do you mean by "anything goes"? And in relation to what? How is Buddhism passive in a way that, say Jainism or the Quakers are not?

Johnson's public rhetoric is the anomaly in his story; he taught Mexican-Americans as a very young schoolteacher and was--by Caro's account--beloved in town. He always drew heavy votes from the Mexican-American precincts in the South Texas (supplemented by corrupt deals with local powerbrokers, as Caro also shows.) He could be crudely racist in his talk; he was essentially a crude person. But it's easier to see 1948 as simply a politician pandering to his supporters in an insanely close race. Not excusing but putting in context.

I agree, but I think you can pretty much say the same thing about Clinton's turnaround on the DOMA. The idea that people have to keep clinging to a wrongheaded belief in order to demonstrate their "consistency" is little more than a prescription for keeping the world stuck in one place.

The idea that people have to keep clinging to a wrongheaded belief in order to demonstrate their "consistency" is little more than a prescription for keeping the world stuck in one place.

Yeah, and I've always found the "flip-flopper" charge in election rhetoric to be pretty weak. I was taught to understand that revising one's opinion based on new information is a good thing.

EDIT: So long as the revision is a genuine one based on new information, and not simply a revisionist history a la Mitt Romney.

I was thinking of that New Yorker cover of Obama and his wife in Muslim/Arab regalia. Remember? Some were upset because they took it as the old exploded canard that he was a Muslim, and maybe partly too that Muslims were being caricatured (see that, Joe). But, having been a reader and aficionado of the magazine for decades (not so much anymore), especially of its cartoons and caricatures, I took it as making fun of those who couldn't eradicate the Obama is a Muslim meme from their brain. And it can get a lot more complicated and subtle than that.

That sublime New Yorker cover was one of the better Rorschach tests I've ever seen for separating out the overly literalminded. How anyone could see it as an attack on either Obama or the Muslims is beyond me, even if you knew little or nothing about The New Yorker to begin with.

The rules are that you have to go to Mass every Sunday. If you can't be bothered
to follow what is more or less Rule Number One as member of the Church, you're not an Observant Catholic.
You've dropped out. You're not a real Catholic. You used to be a Catholic. You're still "culturally Catholic" perhaps,
but that doesn't really mean anything anymore.

If this is the case than any polling to find out where Catholics stand on any issue is meaningless, since "real Catholics" make up such a minuscule portion of the population that their opinion on issues as a group has no real impact anyway. But if you prefer to define yourself into obscurity, that's your business.

For the sub-atomic YR and the other haters:

The Pope’s efforts did not go unrecognized by Jewish authorities, even during the War. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: "The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."[17]

Other Jewish leaders chimed in also. Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, sent a note of thanks to the papal nuncio on April 7, 1944: "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews. . . . The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."[18]

The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli, also made a statement of thanks: "What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. . . . Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism."[19]

After the war, Zolli became a Catholic and, to honor the Pope for what he had done for the Jews and the role he had played in Zolli’s conversion, took the name "Eugenio"—the Pope’s given name—as his own baptismal name. Zolli stressed that his conversion was for theological reasons, which was certainly true, but the fact that the Pope had worked so hard on behalf of the Jews no doubt played a role in inspiring him to look at the truths of Christianity.

Lapide writes: "When Zolli accepted baptism in 1945 and adopted Pius’s Christian name of Eugene, most Roman Jews were convinced that his conversion was an act of gratitude for wartime succor to Jewish refugees and, repeated denials not withstanding, many are still of his opinion. Thus, Rabbi Barry Dov Schwartz wrote in the summer issue, 1964, of Conservative Judaism: ‘Many Jews were persuaded to convert after the war, as a sign of gratitude, to that institution which had saved their lives.’ "[20]

In Three Popes and the Jews Lapide estimated the total number of Jews that had been spared as a result of Pius XII’s throwing the Church’s weight into the clandestine struggle to save them. After totaling the numbers of Jews saved in different areas and deducting the numbers saved by other causes, such as the praiseworthy efforts of some European Protestants, "The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000."[21] This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

This fact continued to be recognized when Pius XII died in 1958. Lapide’s book records the eulogies of a number of Jewish leaders concerning the Pope, and far from agreeing with Jack Chick that he deserved death because of his "war crimes," Jewish leaders praised the man highly:[22]


That's 860,000 lives, or a hellva lot more than FDR.

just to highlight one more figure from my cut and paste above:


This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

One thing I wanted to add about my Hitchens post.

In 1987, a person very very close to me committed suicide, after two previous unsuccessful attempts. It was something that shattered my family, never to really be
gotten over. Anyway, this person was in the care of what I was told were the best shrinks money could pay for, and the shrinks advised us to not worry, the situation was under control, the treatments were working, etc.

Then it happened--a horrible, bloody suicide. To this day, I can't stand shrinks, I consider them as clutching at straws at best,or charlatons, at worse, I come off like A Scientologist. I know this. I hate the profession.

The same kind of thing happened with Hitchens and religion, especially organized religion. By all accounts, he deeply, deeply loved his mother above all other people in his life. This is at the bottom of why the man trashed Blessed Teresa, I think.

Unfortunately, it appears that individual priests did a lot of aiding & abetting of the likes of Eichmann & Mengeles in their successful quests to escape the Allies after the war. Which of course hardly puts that behavior at the doorstep of the Vatican per se, I suppose.

Unless, I guess, the priests in question were rewarded afterward; I have no idea if that's the case.

At the same time, I'm not aware that they ever received even a wrist-slap from on high for collaborating with people who were pretty much the definition of war criminals ... but certainly I could be wrong there.

If this is the case than any polling to find out where Catholics stand on any issue is meaningless, since "real Catholics" make up such a minuscule portion of the population that their opinion on issues as a group has no real impact anyway.

I agree, sort of. Too much is made of polling of Catholics' support of issue 'X'. But the faithful Catholics are not a miniscule portion of the population, in part because..

But if you prefer to define yourself into obscurity, that's your business.

higher fertility rates (compared to the rest of the population) due to lower rates of contraception will work to prevent a descent into obscurity.

That's 860,000 lives, or a hellva lot more than FDR.

so really by assisting in winning the War itself, FDR can't be credited with saving any potential holocaust victims?

so really by assisting in winning the War itself, FDR can't be credited with saving any potential holocaust victims?

He can, but even so the U.S. government's policy of playing ostrich for years with regard to information about the concentration camps & other genocidal practices can't be characterized as anything less than appalling, IMHO.

I was enamored with Buddhism and Zen Buddhism for a while there as a late teen, but it's too vague and indefinite. It's an anything goes concept. Reeks with passivity, too, so much it seems smug.

Sounds like you may have had some awful teachers or found the wrong authors/interpreters. It's anything but the things you mentioned.

Still, my atheism does not rest on thinking that religious people are this uniquely egregious category of people. It rests on not seeing how there can be a God--much less a God who intervenes in our lives, cares, and "forgives sins."

Sure. Doesn't mean they're particularly awful in any sense (they're not, although their 'sins' vary from religion to religion), but it's impossible to observe that their cannot be a God, especially an active God, without describing the belief in same as delusional. That can also be said without contempt, intended only as a factual description.

A new poll from Quinnipiac University finds that support for same-sex marriages among American voters is up, at 47-43 percent, and is additionally up among Catholic voters, by a margin of 54-28 percent.
From the poll:

This compares to a 48 – 46 percent statistical tie among all voters on same-sex marriage December 5 and reverses the 55 – 36 percent opposition in a July, 2008, survey by the independent Quinnipiac University.

“Catholic voters are leading American voters toward support for same-sex marriage,” Peter A. Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, wrote in a statement.

Bah, I'm sure that this "Quinnipiac" poll is biased, since it doesn't restrict its polling to "real" Catholics.

For the sub-atomic YR and the other haters:

Well if it isn't the Pope's Footstool. Where's your citation? That reads like the sort of sanctimonious mewling you'd find at some lickspittle site like Catholic.com. You even reference footnotes, but none are forthcoming and of course you've omitted the original source.

I was enamored with Buddhism and Zen Buddhism for a while there as a late teen, but it's too vague and indefinite. It's an anything goes concept. Reeks with passivity, too, so much it seems smug.

I wanted to follow up a little as I'm wondering if you were learning and practicing through a specific school or orientation that was taught or explained or guided poorly. There's no shortage of smug Buddhists, but only in the sense that there's no shortage of smug Taoists (now there's a marvelous path whose time has yet to fully come), Catholics, Muslims,...

There's also nothing innately, necessarily passive about Buddhism or Zen Buddhism. Activist Buddhism is typically called "engaged Buddhism". "Buddhist Activism and Chinese Modernity", for instance, is an article (albeit a painfully academic one) on just that subject. It's a bit of a pain, but you can find it in v.10, through the menus at http://www.globalbuddhism.org

There's a more readable article at http://shindharmanet.com/studies/activism/ titled "Understanding Buddhist Activism". The focus in many forms of Buddhism on the self can make it seem like a path that emphasizes the inward rather than the outward, but at the same time there is a long history of quiet good works that are anything but passive.

Even the Wall Street Journal took notice of this particular cycle of engagement, in an article titled "How Buddhism Became Force for Political Activism: From China to Myanmar, Once-Quiescent Creed Spurs New Campaigns."

After evening prayers on Sept. 18, the abbot of a small monastery in Myanmar's largest city convened the roughly 30 Buddhist monks in his charge. The bonds between secular and religious authority had broken, the abbot said. Then he gave the monks his blessing to take to the streets in protest.

That meeting, one of many held in monasteries across Myanmar in mid-September, helped turn a sputtering campaign of dissent led by secular democracy activists into a mass movement led by Buddhist clergy. The country formerly known as Burma erupted in the biggest wave of antigovernment demonstrations in nearly 20 years.

"We wanted to stay out of politics," says U Zawtiga, a monk at the monastery in Yangon, formerly Rangoon. But "how can religion thrive when the country is so desperate?" Mr. Zawtiga, active in the protests, fled Yangon after the military started shooting protesters on Sept. 27. He is now in hiding along Myanmar's border with Thailand. His abbot, he says, has been arrested.

The vanguard role of monks in the Burmese protests underscores a curious turn for a creed often associated with quiet contemplation. Unlike Islam and Christianity, Buddhism offers no clear scriptural mandate for revolt against unjust rulers. Rooted in nonviolence, a belief in rebirth and a conviction that salvation lies in the conquest of worldly desires, it has no tradition of crusades or jihad in service of an almighty God.

It's possible to read a certain kind of political disengagement into that last paragraph, but it isn't passivity. At a personal level most of the buddhists I know are very active, engaged people.

For what it's worth.


edit: just came across an article, "Buddhists Stand Up" in the NYT, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/opinion/01iht-edweiner.1.11587836.html?_r=0

It's fairly basic, but there's some good stuff nonetheless:

"In fact, there is a healthy tradition of Buddhist activism. Often called "engaged Buddhism," a term coined by Thich Nhant Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk, it encourages a Buddhist critique of governmental and economic structures and other efforts to alleviate social suffering.

In Sri Lanka, the Sarvodaya Movement works in over a thousand villages to empower the poor. Maha Ghosanand, a revered Cambodian Buddhist monk, led thousands in peaceful walks through the "killing fields" to seek reconciliation with the Khmer Rouge. Nhant Hanh himself called on both North and South Vietnam to stop their bloodshed.

In Thailand, the "Forest Monk" Prachak "ordained" trees in the forest by wrapping monks' robes around them to save them from loggers. The Taiwan-based Tzu-Chi movement has thousands of volunteers who respond to natural and man-made disasters.

The Reverend Nakagaki of the New York Buddhist Church holds an annual service on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. After 9/11, he recalled America's use of internment camps in World War II and called on all Buddhists to help Muslim citizens. Nakagaki is fond of showing an image of the Buddha who is standing up.

He says that Buddhism is about having a peaceful mind, but not just sitting there.

Buddhist activists cite Buddhist scriptures to argue that they say they are simply following what the Buddha taught. In one, the Buddha confronts a murderer who was on the verge of killing his mother; in another, he stopped a war between two tribes.

A third example is the idea of the Bodhisattva: a being who works tirelessly to save all other beings from suffering.

One source of the Western misunderstanding of Buddhism is our fascination with meditation. While meditation is as critical to Buddhism as prayer is to Christianty, Judaism and Islam, it does not preclude action, any more than prayer does."

Samurai were not very passive Buddhists and ancient Greece was both tribal and homo.

Although one historian I read credited the Greeks, particularly the Macedonians for taking warfare out of tribal tournaments and into wholesale slaughter.