My quest for Excommunication

[Princess Marzipan]

That is terrible. You have my sympathies.

[Radical_Initiator]

Oh sweet, and I just got to experience a twist on this - friend who has not really spoken to me in a great many years, like, since I used to wish to enter the ministry, asked me on facebook "What does God say about cancer?" Like, oh dear, we're asking me for religiously themed comfort in a time of immediate personal difficult?

I am gonna try to make my diplomacy check here.

My first thought when I read this was that you should remain silent, and if your friend asks something along the lines of "Hello? Did you read what I said?", you could reply along the lines of "I was just repeating what God says about everything." But I routinely fail at diplomacy.

[cphite]

Your experience is nowhere even fucking close to encapsulating the entirety of the human condition.

Neither is yours.

But then, in my day to day life I am not interacting with the entirety of the human race. I am interacting with the people around me. My experience with the people around me tells me pretty convincingly that they (the people around me) feel a certain way about this sort of thing. The fact that my experience has been fairly consistent over thirty-something years and across a fairly wide array of places tells me that, while it may not encompass the entirety of the human condition, it's a pretty reasonable thing for me in my own life.

Other people are giving you a window into their experiences and your response is "I don't care that it might make someone feel shitty, I'm going to keep declaring prayers on others' behalf when they're experiencing hardship!"

Actually, my response is more along the lines of "Really?" because it's so very different than what I've experienced in my daily life. I'm not discounting your experience; I'm saying that mine is totally different.

So just to be clear; my position is not that I don't care that it might make someone feel shitty. My position is that, aside from hearing it from a handful of people on an internet forum that is, shall we say generally less than favorable towards religion in the first place, I have personally no reason to believe that it actually makes people feel shitty. I have always gotten the impression that it was welcome and appreciated for what it was. If I had any reason to believe it would not be appreciated by someone specific, I would of course refrain from saying anything that might offend them.

Maybe your experience is WILDLY different than mine. Fine. So far your reaction has ranged from calling me a liar to accusing me of deliberately offending people; and then in the same breath bleating about MY not keeping things civil.

That's why I can't take it as generic well-wishes, by the way - because with people like you (who would rather state they'd pray for someone than state something unambiguously supportive), it's more important that you're praying than that you're easing any hardship. (In the business, we call this 'irony'.)

The fact that we've arrived at the "people like you" stage of the discussion is all the more reason to simply end it.

[Princess Marzipan]

Your experience is nowhere even fucking close to encapsulating the entirety of the human condition.

Neither is yours.

I am not seeking to nullify your experience. I am seeking to expand upon your knowledge by describing my own.

I don't doubt, nor have I ever doubted, the existence of people who welcome unrequested or spontaneous declarations of prayer. I'M not the one saying "In my experience..." as if it's a legitimate rebuttal or counter to others' experiences. When you add all these experiences and viewpoints together, you end up with some people who appreciate "I'll pray for you" and some who don't, who in fact are angered or upset by it! Given this knowledge, you choose to stick with the path of least resistance and change for yourself, which incurs a risk of alienating others.

But then, in my day to day life I am not interacting with the entirety of the human race. I am interacting with the people around me. My experience with the people around me tells me pretty convincingly that they (the people around me) feel a certain way about this sort of thing. The fact that my experience has been fairly consistent over thirty-something years and across a fairly wide array of places tells me that, while it may not encompass the entirety of the human condition, it's a pretty reasonable thing for me in my own life.

But what about the lives of others? As gmalivuk reiterated earlier: You are obstinately refusing to consider that maybe some of the people who appreciated your declaration of prayer only SAID they appreciated it. You can't know. I can't know for sure either, but I'm not claiming to. You are.

So just to be clear; my position is not that I don't care that it might make someone feel shitty. My position is that, aside from hearing it from a handful of people on an internet forum that is, shall we say generally less than favorable towards religion in the first place, I have personally no reason to believe that it actually makes people feel shitty. I have always gotten the impression that it was welcome and appreciated for what it was. If I had any reason to believe it would not be appreciated by someone specific, I would of course refrain from saying anything that might offend them.

YOU HAVE PLENTY OF REASON TO BELIEVE IT WOULD NOT BE APPRECIATED BY SOMEONE. Why, why, WHY do you insist on forcing the situation to a place where you have to make someone uncomfortable first before they ask you not to do it anymore? Can you not see how this makes me think you actually don't really give a fuck how your declarations of prayer affect other people?
When I was in high school I had a group of friends amongst whom it was considered friendly to punch each other in the arm as hard you damn well could. Does it make sense to do that to everybody? After all, my intent isn't to cause pain, it's to show my friendship. But because I'm not an idiot, I don't assume that everybody is going to appreciate things that one particular in-group is really fond of. Just because the in-group in your case happens to be really big doesn't make it any less of an in-group.

Maybe your experience is WILDLY different than mine. Fine. So far your reaction has ranged from calling me a liar to accusing me of deliberately offending people; and then in the same breath bleating about MY not keeping things civil.

I am commenting on your conduct and your actions. I am pointing out that what you think makes you a nice person makes you seem like a raging asshole to some people. This is a rather far cry from throwing out diminutive labels that are typically used to denigrate and devalue females. Every label I've applied to you is based on arguments you've made and conclusions you hold. Not your gender, not your religion, not your age. Stop equating things that aren't equatable.

That's why I can't take it as generic well-wishes, by the way - because with people like you (who would rather state they'd pray for someone than state something unambiguously supportive), it's more important that you're praying than that you're easing any hardship. (In the business, we call this 'irony'.)

The fact that we've arrived at the "people like you" stage of the discussion is all the more reason to simply end it.

So did you stop reading immediately, and miss the bit in parentheses where I specify EXACTLY what I mean by that phrase, or do you feel that "[someone] who would rather state they'd pray for someone than state something unambiguously supportive" is not an accurate description of you? Orrr are you just looking for a convenient excuse to take your ball and go home?

edit: numerous phrasing and formatting fixes because I should spent more time proofreading via the preview button

[gmalivuk]

When I was 11 years old my mother died. The ONLY thing I remember about her memorial service was my great aunt telling me that she was in a better place and was watching over me.

I wanted to tell her to shut up, I wanted to tell her not to tell me such horrible lies, I wanted to tell her to leave me alone. Instead I just kind of nodded my head and moved away from her as soon as I could do so politely.

She took from me any positive memories I could have had about the memorial service. I still get angry about some 40 something years later.

I'm sorry you had to deal with that.

I know about one overtly religious comment made about my mom's service, but at least the fundamentalist asshole who said it had the decency to tell my uncle (dad's brother, who is a minister himself) instead of one of the immediate family.

There was a woman who stopped by our house the day before and made some kind of "better place" comment, but I didn't let that one bother me because she'd just delivered a fresh-made blueberry pie.

[LaserGuy]

So just to be clear; my position is not that I don't care that it might make someone feel shitty. My position is that, aside from hearing it from a handful of people on an internet forum that is, shall we say generally less than favorable towards religion in the first place, I have personally no reason to believe that it actually makes people feel shitty. I have always gotten the impression that it was welcome and appreciated for what it was. If I had any reason to believe it would not be appreciated by someone specific, I would of course refrain from saying anything that might offend them.

Maybe your experience is WILDLY different than mine. Fine. So far your reaction has ranged from calling me a liar to accusing me of deliberately offending people; and then in the same breath bleating about MY not keeping things civil.

Okay, let me try this from a slightly different angle.

You are part of a privileged class of people. Specifically, you are part of the class of people called "Christians" who enjoy not only a numerical majority in terms of population, but also enjoy a wide swath of particular advantages ranging from state recognition of your national holidays, to people in your religion having privileged access to (or being) political leaders and lawmakers. Many of the nation's laws and symbols implicitly acknowledge your class' values and beliefs, even if those laws are to the detriment of others who do not share them. You generally can assume that your beliefs are the default, because of your numerical and social majority. There are few places where your religious beliefs are going to be a handicap to you in terms of finding employment, or making/retaining friends, finding a place to live, etc.

This might be hard for you to see or believe, but that is mostly because you are part of that culture. It's hard to objectively look at what the system looks like to an outsider.

In many respects, atheists (other faith groups as well, to varying degrees) are pretty much the opposite. They're a small minority population. They have virtually no access or representation in government*, and in many cases their beliefs and values are actively demonized by the powerful religious lobbies. They may be discriminated against in law, but are certainly discriminated against in society. There are plenty of places where you can lose your job, or get evicted from a rental property or whatever, for coming out atheist. Given the high levels of distrust of atheists by religious folk, it's probably a major handicap in getting or keeping a job. I have heard many examples of people who were effectively disowned by their Christian friends and family after admitting that they're atheist. I'm sure you could probably find some examples of this in Dear SB if you cared to look.

What does this all have to do with you saying (or not) "I'll pray for you" to someone? It reinforces the cultural memes that Christianity is dominant, and anyone who is not Christian is less valued in society. It reinforces the idea that Christianity is the default, and that everyone ought to conform to their standards of behaviour.

Why don't people say anything to you? Could be for a variety of reasons. It could be that they don't want to pick a fight with you. If an atheist tried to correct every instance of Christian privilege they encountered in their lives, they'd probably have no time left for anything else. It's also possible that they have had experiences with Christians causing problems in their lives when they revealed that they were atheist, and would rather not have to deal with that situation again. It certainly could be that they're so used to it by now that they just don't care.

[*]As I noted earlier, in some states, atheists are outright forbidden from holding public office. In addition, I linked to a survey that noted that more than half of Americans would not vote for an atheist under any circumstance.

I know about one overtly religious comment made about my mom's service, but at least the fundamentalist asshole who said it had the decency to tell my uncle (dad's brother, who is a minister himself) instead of one of the immediate family.

Apparently the pastor who was officiating my great-grandmother's funeral said, during the funeral that she was in hell because she had converted from Catholicism to, I think it was Methodist or something. My grandfather ended the service early by slugging the guy.

[gmalivuk]

My grandfather ended the service early by slugging the guy.

Awesome. I mean, obviously not that the guy gave him cause to slug him, but awesome that your grandfather didn't just let it go.

My mom's service itself was great, as it wasn't too religious and the religious bits themselves were taken from multiple faiths. (This is what led the jerk to approach my uncle with something like, "After that service, I'm worried about [gmal's family]'s souls." To which my uncle replied, "Well I'm not." He's a somewhat more liberal minister than the guy was hoping for, I guess.)

[cphite]

That's why I can't take it as generic well-wishes, by the way - because with people like you (who would rather state they'd pray for someone than state something unambiguously supportive), it's more important that you're praying than that you're easing any hardship. (In the business, we call this 'irony'.)

The fact that we've arrived at the "people like you" stage of the discussion is all the more reason to simply end it.

So did you stop reading immediately, and miss the bit in parentheses where I specify EXACTLY what I mean by that phrase, or do you feel that "[someone] who would rather state they'd pray for someone than state something unambiguously supportive" is not an accurate description of you? Orrr are you just looking for a convenient excuse to take your ball and go home?

I don't see any reason to continue throwing the same arguments back and forth at one another.

[cphite]

So just to be clear; my position is not that I don't care that it might make someone feel shitty. My position is that, aside from hearing it from a handful of people on an internet forum that is, shall we say generally less than favorable towards religion in the first place, I have personally no reason to believe that it actually makes people feel shitty. I have always gotten the impression that it was welcome and appreciated for what it was. If I had any reason to believe it would not be appreciated by someone specific, I would of course refrain from saying anything that might offend them.

Maybe your experience is WILDLY different than mine. Fine. So far your reaction has ranged from calling me a liar to accusing me of deliberately offending people; and then in the same breath bleating about MY not keeping things civil.

Okay, let me try this from a slightly different angle.

You are part of a privileged class of people. Specifically, you are part of the class of people called "Christians" who enjoy not only a numerical majority in terms of population, but also enjoy a wide swath of particular advantages ranging from state recognition of your national holidays, to people in your religion having privileged access to (or being) political leaders and lawmakers. Many of the nation's laws and symbols implicitly acknowledge your class' values and beliefs, even if those laws are to the detriment of others who do not share them. You generally can assume that your beliefs are the default, because of your numerical and social majority. There are few places where your religious beliefs are going to be a handicap to you in terms of finding employment, or making/retaining friends, finding a place to live, etc.

This might be hard for you to see or believe, but that is mostly because you are part of that culture. It's hard to objectively look at what the system looks like to an outsider.

In many respects, atheists (other faith groups as well, to varying degrees) are pretty much the opposite. They're a small minority population. They have virtually no access or representation in government*, and in many cases their beliefs and values are actively demonized by the powerful religious lobbies. They may be discriminated against in law, but are certainly discriminated against in society. There are plenty of places where you can lose your job, or get evicted from a rental property or whatever, for coming out atheist. Given the high levels of distrust of atheists by religious folk, it's probably a major handicap in getting or keeping a job. I have heard many examples of people who were effectively disowned by their Christian friends and family after admitting that they're atheist. I'm sure you could probably find some examples of this in Dear SB if you cared to look.

What does this all have to do with you saying (or not) "I'll pray for you" to someone? It reinforces the cultural memes that Christianity is dominant, and anyone who is not Christian is less valued in society. It reinforces the idea that Christianity is the default, and that everyone ought to conform to their standards of behaviour.

Why don't people say anything to you? Could be for a variety of reasons. It could be that they don't want to pick a fight with you. If an atheist tried to correct every instance of Christian privilege they encountered in their lives, they'd probably have no time left for anything else. It's also possible that they have had experiences with Christians causing problems in their lives when they revealed that they were atheist, and would rather not have to deal with that situation again. It certainly could be that they're so used to it by now that they just don't care.

[*]As I noted earlier, in some states, atheists are outright forbidden from holding public office. In addition, I linked to a survey that noted that more than half of Americans would not vote for an atheist under any circumstance.

I can certainly see your point about why non-Christians might feel overwhelmed and outnumbered.

It still seems strange to me based on my own experience... But you do make a good point - certainly something to consider.

[mosc]

And there are plenty of non-christian religious folks in the world too. More of them than Christians. They tend to more often be personal and family based religions which do not proselytize. Not saying all Christians proselytize, just that it's built into the culture of the religion. "Share the love of Jesus Christ" is not a common philosophy amongst most of the world's other religions.

[LaserGuy]

I can certainly see your point about why non-Christians might feel overwhelmed and outnumbered.

It still seems strange to me based on my own experience... But you do make a good point - certainly something to consider.

If I may give an example to help illustrate the point...

Looking at media is a great way to see these sorts of things, because a lot of our biases are subconscious. While we might not personally think we have a problem with X, we might be part of a society where X is still marginalized, and contribute unknowingly to that system without knowing it. For example, I think you'd probably be hard-pressed to find someone who would admit to having a problem with interracial marriage, or interracial dating these days. And you'd probably be hard-pressed to find someone who would admit that they wouldn't go see a movie that had an interracial couple in it. Now name me one movie that has a black man dating or married to a white woman that isn't about racism. You might have to think awhile. Now, for a white guy like myself, unless it was directly pointed out to me, I wouldn't normally give this sort of thing any thought; the idea that there was a problem would probably not cross my mind. But I would venture that black guys get the message loud and clear, because they are much more sensitive to white privilege than I am. But why don't we see those kinds of movies? Because people won't pay to watch them; they'll be flops, every time. Even though it's hard to find anyone who would admit that is the problem, somehow, collectively, white society is willing to pay a lot more money for a movie starring a white man and a white woman than a movie starring a black man and a white woman. Or, for that matter, a black man and a black woman. We enforce our privilege with our wallets. And again, if you're an insider like me, unless you are consciously thinking about these sorts of things, you'll probably miss them. But if you're black, I'm sure you're aware of this. Especially if you have any aspirations of going into acting.

[Pjotr]

Wow, this thread is surely touching on a lot of subject matter. I haven't read each and every post but I'd like to share my opinions on some of it anyway.

Disclaimer: Everything below here is to be considered prefaced by giant flaming letters spelling out "In my opinion", even if those words are not explicitly rendered. I do not wish to impose any of my beliefs and/or opinions on anyone; this entire post is just to share my point of view, for all of you to take from what you will.

First, the OP's quest for excommunication. Clearly, this is important to you and since it does not impact me in any way, go for it.

Second, why this quest seems to be hardly worth it. According to the Wikipedia article on the sacraments:

The Church teaches that the effect of the sacraments comes ex opere operato, by the very fact of being administered ... However ... a recipient's own lack of proper disposition to receive the grace conveyed can block a sacrament's effectiveness in that person.

So, in effect, your baptism is already null and void because you no longer have the "proper disposition to receive its grace". The fact that your name may or may not still be on a list somewhere is a mere point of administration.

Third, since I mentioned it above, the meaning and intent of baptism. What I'm writing here may or may not reflect the general consensus meaning of a baptism (if such a consensus exists at all) ; it is rather a description of what my baptism means to me.
My parents had me baptized because they were part of the church, and wished for me to become so as well. Naturally, as a newborn, I could not make that choice, but by participating in the baptism ceremony my parents pledged to instill in me their beliefs and morals, hoping that at some point I would follow in their footsteps and join the church out of my own free will (by undergoing the sacraments of Confirmation and Communion).
It had nothing to do with original sin or saving me from damnation, it was my parent's promise to me to try and raise me right and giving me the opportunity to join the church if I so chose. I can only thank them for doing what they felt was right at the time.

Fourth, to those people having issues with being told they will be prayed for and such. I would remind you of the enlightened words of Surak : "There is no insult where none is taken." This means that whenever you feel insulted, it's primarily your concern. As for ways to deal with an insult, The Caring Rationalist has this to say:

An insult may be truth or untrue.
- The simplest response comes from the untrue insult. If there is no validity to the insult then nothing further needs to be done. It can simply be accepted as the person making the insults opinion. An opinion is a mental awareness of an issue that is based solely on personal experience and tends to be filtered through someone's previous mental programming.
If the insult is based on some fact it has to be analyzed using two criteria.
- The fact is true but something that you cannot, or will not, change. Insults based on facts that cannot be changed tend to follow the general direction of a natural characteristic. A person might insult your skin color, your sexuality, your gender and related areas. These issues are unchangeable and aren't actually a problem. The onus of change is placed on the person who perceives this as an insult and a problem.
- The fact is true but something that you can, and are willing to, change. The response to these insults is simple. Correct it. A typical insult from this area might directed towards your ignorance of a subject.

Note that I don't claim to have personally mastered this. It's very easy to feel offended, but I do strive towards responding in accordance with this notion, and I feel the world would be a better place if everybody did.

Fifth, to atheists in general. Do remember the difference between belief and religion. If you don't know the difference, watch the excellent comedy Dogma. Ask yourself whether you're actually against believing in God or against any religious practice in particular.

Lastly, the apparent paradox of a merciful God vs. the notion of hell/eternal damnation.
Do keep in mind that we have free will. If we choose to go against all we know is good and just, we should be prepared to take the consequences.
Also note that while certain actions are always wrong (e.g. killing someone), it may be that those very actions become necessary (or at least morally defensible) under certain circumstances. While I personally think I'd be unable to kill a person ever, I do not oppose the idea that doing so may be morally defensible in some cases (e.g. self-defense). Fortunately I've never been in a position where I needed to make that judgement.
The same applies to eternal damnation. It may be unjust to doom a soul to hell, but there may be instances where it is warranted nonetheless. Since God is classically endowed with omniscience and infallibility, I would deem Him qualified to make that call.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Perhaps Surak was wrong.

[Pjotr]

Perhaps Surak was wrong.

Heresy!
But seriously, are you saying that you do not subscribe to the notion? If so, I wonder why.

[doogly]

Fifth, to atheists in general. Do remember the difference between belief and religion. If you don't know the difference, watch the excellent comedy Dogma. Ask yourself whether you're actually against believing in God or against any religious practice in particular.

Lack of belief in any sort of god is precisely what atheists are on about.
There are also those who are anti-theists, who feel that on average the notion of a god does more harm than good to society. The continued presence of religion is a net detriment. We will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest, etc.

Lastly, the apparent paradox of a merciful God vs. the notion of hell/eternal damnation.
Do keep in mind that we have free will.

Do simply assert this wild and baseless claim as if it were self evident.

[Technical Ben]

Not necessarily self evident, but required by the framework of the questions.

If we are presented a choice (such as Mike-I) to believe and worship, or not believe and not worship, then do we not require a mechanism of "choice"?
The person asking for a choice (either a third party or ones own self), is the one assuming that some form of will is able to make such a choice.

Is it too large an assumption to assume that someone can choose freely by them selves? We have already asked a for a choice with two outcomes. So have we not already assumed there is a method of choice? Bare in mind the entire thread is about Mike-I having both the ability and rightful claim to be able to make a choice in this regard. Plus the need of the Church to respect it. I agree they have that right and believe they are able to make choices.

So in asking "choose to do good or do bad" the assumption is we have a method of choice and are not forced to act bad by God.

[Angua]

So, in effect, your baptism is already null and void because you no longer have the "proper disposition to receive its grace". The fact that your name may or may not still be on a list somewhere is a mere point of administration.

Yes, and the whole reason that the OP wants their name off the list is so that the Church can't point to it and say that they have lots of followers in society, therefore should be afforded _______ privileges. Which is administration, but arguably not so mere.

[Pjotr]

Lack of belief in any sort of god is precisely what atheists are on about.
There are also those who are anti-theists, who feel that on average the notion of a god does more harm than good to society. The continued presence of religion is a net detriment. We will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest, etc.

Then I feel sad for anti-theists; it must be horrible knowing you'll never be truly free. The point I was trying to make, however, is that there is a difference between believing (in 'God' or whatever you choose to call your deity/deities) and being part of an (organised) religion. Too often have I seen atheists confusing the two, so it's always good to point it out.

Do simply assert this wild and baseless claim as if it were self evident.

Already answered by Technical Ben, so I need not repeat his point. However, I should perhaps have been more clear in saying that this was the underlying assumption of my reply (and indeed this entire thread). Thanks for bringing up the point!

Yes, and the whole reason that the OP wants their name off the list is so that the Church can't point to it and say that they have lots of followers in society, therefore should be afforded _______ privileges. Which is administration, but arguably not so mere.

First off, one name more or less isn't going to make a difference. And yes, I do realize that attitude can be seen as a form of social loafing. However, believing otherwise (that "one name does make a difference, I can make the world a better place by having my name removed") can as easily be seen as a form of hubris. Note that I'm not accusing the OP here, I'm merely offering a different viewpoint.
Second, and addressing one of the main reasons the OP states for his quest, yes, I'm aware that a whole bunch of terrible things are being done by people in religious office. But to hold the church as a whole responsible for that is a gross generalization; and generalizations are almost always wrong. Saying "the Catholic church is an organizations which condones pedophilia" is just as wrong as saying "all black people are thieves" or "all gays are immoral sex-crazed degenerates".
It is my belief that most parishes expressly condemn all of the behavior the church has been taking flak for and in fact do a whole lot of good for their congregation; so if a few extra bucks from a single name on a list can help them, where's the harm in that?
Note that I'm not in any way trying to protect the perpetrators of the heinous acts some priests (among others) have perpetrated or in any way belittle the severity of that; I just don't think it's fair to place the guilt on all priests equally. That notion should be as wrong in the OP's eyes as the concept of original sin.

[el matematico]

Saying "the Catholic church is an organizations which condones pedophilia" is just as wrong as saying "all black people are thieves" or "all gays are immoral sex-crazed degenerates".

Black and gay people are not structured organizations, and don't have a leader that condones theft or "inmorality".

[doogly]

In order to functionally make choices, you need an operating will. The mind as an emergent phenomenon needs to grapple with input in a way that looks like deliberation, engage in persuasion, all sorts of things that are abundantly clear.

But if you want an ontological free will, you need to claim that the laws of physics are wrong, that there places where they do not apply. At the very least you need to believe in some sort of mind body dualism.

People who do not believe in a supernatural free will are no more barred from talking about choice than people who deny a universal ethic are barred from constructing a system of values.

[Fantastic Idea]

Lack of belief in any sort of god is precisely what atheists are on about.
There are also those who are anti-theists, who feel that on average the notion of a god does more harm than good to society. The continued presence of religion is a net detriment. We will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest, etc.

Then I feel sad for anti-theists; it must be horrible knowing you'll never be truly free. The point I was trying to make, however, is that there is a difference between believing (in 'God' or whatever you choose to call your deity/deities) and being part of an (organised) religion. Too often have I seen atheists confusing the two, so it's always good to point it out.

Do simply assert this wild and baseless claim as if it were self evident.

Already answered by Technical Ben, so I need not repeat his point. However, I should perhaps have been more clear in saying that this was the underlying assumption of my reply (and indeed this entire thread). Thanks for bringing up the point!

Yes, and the whole reason that the OP wants their name off the list is so that the Church can't point to it and say that they have lots of followers in society, therefore should be afforded _______ privileges. Which is administration, but arguably not so mere.

First off, one name more or less isn't going to make a difference. And yes, I do realize that attitude can be seen as a form of social loafing. However, believing otherwise (that "one name does make a difference, I can make the world a better place by having my name removed") can as easily be seen as a form of hubris. Note that I'm not accusing the OP here, I'm merely offering a different viewpoint.
Second, and addressing one of the main reasons the OP states for his quest, yes, I'm aware that a whole bunch of terrible things are being done by people in religious office. But to hold the church as a whole responsible for that is a gross generalization; and generalizations are almost always wrong. Saying "the Catholic church is an organizations which condones pedophilia" is just as wrong as saying "all black people are thieves" or "all gays are immoral sex-crazed degenerates".
It is my belief that most parishes expressly condemn all of the behavior the church has been taking flak for and in fact do a whole lot of good for their congregation; so if a few extra bucks from a single name on a list can help them, where's the harm in that?
Note that I'm not in any way trying to protect the perpetrators of the heinous acts some priests (among others) have perpetrated or in any way belittle the severity of that; I just don't think it's fair to place the guilt on all priests equally. That notion should be as wrong in the OP's eyes as the concept of original sin.

Do you mean to be as condescending as this post is? That you're sad for the people who have a certain belief structure? That the OP is asking for a solution to something you are presenting as really not a problem, as thought you've totally missed the point of his position? What's another name on the rolls? Well it's *his* name. And i really don't see the point of the statement about the Catholic church- replace 'condone' with 'hide/cover up/deny' thenyou've got a pretty true statement, actually. Is it a gross generalization when one is speaking about a specific entity that is the hierarchy of a church? Yes, it's made up of a lot of different people but they are part of the organization and you can express an overarching statement about an organization without it being a generalized statement about all the members. That's not putting guilt on priests directly that wasn't already there because they've bought into the system of the church. Your beliefs about the positive or negative impacts of the church are completely irrelevant, just like your pity for anti-theists.
I mean, I feel sad for people who believe in god because they're just going around wrong all the time and basing their lives off lies, but it has no bearing on this conversation, does it?

[Azrael]

Yes, and the whole reason that the OP wants their name off the list is so that the Church can't point to it and say that they have lots of followers in society, therefore should be afforded _______ privileges. Which is administration, but arguably not so mere.

First off, one name more or less isn't going to make a difference. And yes, I do realize that attitude can be seen as a form of social loafing. However, believing otherwise (that "one name does make a difference, I can make the world a better place by having my name removed") can as easily be seen as a form of hubris.

Second, and addressing one of the main reasons the OP states for his quest, yes, I'm aware that a whole bunch of terrible things are being done by people in religious office. But to hold the church as a whole responsible for that is a gross generalization; and generalizations are almost always wrong. Saying "the Catholic church is an organizations which condones pedophilia" is just as wrong as saying "all black people are thieves" or "all gays are immoral sex-crazed degenerates".

It is my belief that most parishes expressly condemn all of the behavior the church has been taking flak for and in fact do a whole lot of good for their congregation; so if a few extra bucks from a single name on a list can help them, where's the harm in that? Note that I'm not in any way trying to protect the perpetrators of the heinous acts some priests (among others) have perpetrated or in any way belittle the severity of that; I just don't think it's fair to place the guilt on all priests equally. That notion should be as wrong in the OP's eyes as the concept of original sin.

In which Pjotr accidentally argues that no one should ever vote. Because it doesn't do any good, and trying is arrogant.

And while you're not voting, make sure you don't judge political parties by the actions of their current leadership.

The distinction that you're trying to make (but missing the mark) is that one cannot judge an individual member by the actions of the leadership -- and point that I'm fairly certain has both been made here already, and is widely understood. The bit about not judging the institution by the actions of the institutions leadership is utter crap; a point I know has already been made quite thoroughly.

[mike-l]

Second, and addressing one of the main reasons the OP states for his quest, yes, I'm aware that a whole bunch of terrible things are being done by people in religious office. But to hold the church as a whole responsible for that is a gross generalization; and generalizations are almost always wrong. Saying "the Catholic church is an organizations which condones pedophilia" is just as wrong as saying "all black people are thieves" or "all gays are immoral sex-crazed degenerates".

Did you read my original post, like at all? I didn't even mention the incidents of priests committing child rape and the cover up committed by bishops and a certain former cardinal bishop who's now the pope. I mentioned 3 specific incidents that occurred with public Vatican backing - The excommunication of a mother who agreed to a life saving abortion for her 9 year old daughter who was the victim of years of child rape, the vocal opposition to the ACA, and the pope himself saying that condoms make the problem of HIV in Africa worse. These are not isolated incidents that aren't representative of the RCC as an organization.

[Pjotr]

Do you mean to be as condescending as this post is?

Is it condescending? If you feel it to be so, let me clarify by saying that no, that was completely unintentional.

That you're sad for the people who have a certain belief structure?

You have a point, I shouldn't have said that. Anti-theism has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make (as I said) and I should not have commented on doogly bringing in that term.

That the OP is asking for a solution to something you are presenting as really not a problem, as thought you've totally missed the point of his position? What's another name on the rolls? Well it's *his* name.

Note the disclaimer in my first post. It's all just my opinion. I don't see it as a big problem, but that does not change the fact that the OP does. I'm not trying to convince him he should let it go.

And i really don't see the point of the statement about the Catholic church- replace 'condone' with 'hide/cover up/deny' then you've got a pretty true statement, actually. Is it a gross generalization when one is speaking about a specific entity that is the hierarchy of a church? Yes, it's made up of a lot of different people but they are part of the organization and you can express an overarching statement about an organization without it being a generalized statement about all the members. That's not putting guilt on priests directly that wasn't already there because they've bought into the system of the church.

But an organization carrying guilt is a rather abstract notion. To put blame on an organization means, in most cases, to put blame on its individual members, which is almost never warranted. Unless one specifically points out those individuals who are demonstrably to blame.
As for 'buying into the system', there are many church officials who do not share the church's official stance on abortion, use of condoms and the like. Does that automatically mean that they should just quit? Of course not. For the vast majority of priests, their current position is not just a job, but a calling. They may, at this point in time, be unable to change the official position of the church they belong to, but they do believe that they can do more good by staying where they are. This does not in any way imply that they support any and all official statements, and to up and quit over such things (however grave they may be) is at best an empty gesture and at worst a denial of what their very core (heart/soul) tells them they should be doing.

Your beliefs about the positive or negative impacts of the church are completely irrelevant ...

My belief is relevant in that it is an explanation for my stance on the subject.

I mean, I feel sad for people who believe in god because they're just going around wrong all the time and basing their lives off lies, but it has no bearing on this conversation, does it?

No, it doesn't. I admit to being tempted to write a rebuttal, but that would be falling into the same trap you pointed out to me in your post.

[Pjotr]

Did you read my original post, like at all? I didn't even mention the incidents of priests committing child rape and the cover up committed by bishops and a certain former arch bishop who's now the pope. I mentioned 3 specific incidents that occurred with public Vatican backing - The excommunication of a mother who agreed to a life saving abortion for her 9 year old daughter who was the victim of years of child rape, the vocal opposition to the ACA, and the pope himself saying that condoms make the problem of HIV in Africa worse. These are not isolated incidents that aren't representative of the RCC as an organization.

Yes, of course I read your post; I'm very sorry to have given the wrong impression. I realize that you didn't mention child abuse, that was just an example that popped into my head. In retrospect, I should have picked another issue such as abortion or condom use. As an explanation, I can only offer that I wrote that post with the false clarity of someone who's beyond sleep, so it's not strange that some errors of judgement slipped in there. Heck, I'm surprised I didn't make a typo in every other sentence..

[Pjotr]

But if you want an ontological free will, you need to claim that the laws of physics are wrong, that there places where they do not apply. At the very least you need to believe in some sort of mind body dualism.

Could you explain this a little? I think I know what you mean by 'ontological free will', but I'd like to be more sure...

[Angua]

Yes, and the whole reason that the OP wants their name off the list is so that the Church can't point to it and say that they have lots of followers in society, therefore should be afforded _______ privileges. Which is administration, but arguably not so mere.

First off, one name more or less isn't going to make a difference. And yes, I do realize that attitude can be seen as a form of social loafing. However, believing otherwise (that "one name does make a difference, I can make the world a better place by having my name removed") can as easily be seen as a form of hubris.

Second, and addressing one of the main reasons the OP states for his quest, yes, I'm aware that a whole bunch of terrible things are being done by people in religious office. But to hold the church as a whole responsible for that is a gross generalization; and generalizations are almost always wrong. Saying "the Catholic church is an organizations which condones pedophilia" is just as wrong as saying "all black people are thieves" or "all gays are immoral sex-crazed degenerates".

It is my belief that most parishes expressly condemn all of the behavior the church has been taking flak for and in fact do a whole lot of good for their congregation; so if a few extra bucks from a single name on a list can help them, where's the harm in that? Note that I'm not in any way trying to protect the perpetrators of the heinous acts some priests (among others) have perpetrated or in any way belittle the severity of that; I just don't think it's fair to place the guilt on all priests equally. That notion should be as wrong in the OP's eyes as the concept of original sin.

In which Pjotr accidentally argues that no one should ever vote. Because it doesn't do any good, and trying is arrogant.

And while you're not voting, make sure you don't judge political parties by the actions of their current leadership.

The distinction that you're trying to make (but missing the mark) is that one cannot judge an individual member by the actions of the leadership -- and point that I'm fairly certain has both been made here already, and is widely understood. The bit about not judging the institution by the actions of the institutions leadership is utter crap; a point I know has already been made quite thoroughly.

Everything Azrael said.

Also, consider the fact that while one name may not sound like much, if they do that to loads of people, then it's much more of a problem. The OP is actually trying to change something, rather than just sit and complain about it, which is commendable. As for whether or not the name gets the parish extra money - if they're claiming money on behalf of someone who isn't benefitting, how much money/for how many people does it have to be to constitute fraud (especially if the money, or indeed, just the inlfuence of saing you have that many people behind you, is coming from non-church places, like the government).

[Azrael]

But if you want an ontological free will, you need to claim that the laws of physics are wrong, that there places where they do not apply. At the very least you need to believe in some sort of mind body dualism.

Could you explain this a little? I think I know what you mean by 'ontological free will', but I'd like to be more sure...

No. This will get dragged off topic to become yet another disaster of a 'discussion' about free will.

[LaserGuy]

But an organization carrying guilt is a rather abstract notion. To put blame on an organization means, in most cases, to put blame on its individual members, which is almost never warranted. Unless one specifically points out those individuals who are demonstrably to blame.

As for 'buying into the system', there are many church officials who do not share the church's official stance on abortion, use of condoms and the like. Does that automatically mean that they should just quit? Of course not. For the vast majority of priests, their current position is not just a job, but a calling. They may, at this point in time, be unable to change the official position of the church they belong to, but they do believe that they can do more good by staying where they are. This does not in any way imply that they support any and all official statements, and to up and quit over such things (however grave they may be) is at best an empty gesture and at worst a denial of what their very core (heart/soul) tells them they should be doing.

By retaining membership, assisting the Church financially, recruiting new members, etc., then you are tacitly supporting the official positions by supporting the organization as a whole. And seriously, you think if the Church had a wave of high profile defections over their stances on these sorts of issues that they would not be quick to revise them? You think if every Catholic who did not support these issues sent a letter like mike-l is doing, it would not have far more effect than doing nothing? Staying within the system and privately disagreeing with the official positions but remaining silent publicly is the coward's way out, and should be treated as such--it is this position that is the empty gesture. Taking a principled stand against oppression is not.

It's worth pointing out, the only reason that anybody gives a fuck about what the Catholic Church's position are on any issue is because they claim to speak for a billion Catholics. Nobody cares what the Church of Scientology's position on abortion is, because they simply don't have enough membership to be relevant to the discussion. All of those people who do not agree with the Church's position but refuse to make any effort to rectify the situation are still contributing to the Church's ability to influence policy on these issues, even if these issues are to the individual's detriment or against their values.

Already answered by Technical Ben, so I need not repeat his point. However, I should perhaps have been more clear in saying that this was the underlying assumption of my reply (and indeed this entire thread). Thanks for bringing up the point!

[edit]I'll PM you my response about the issue of free will since I was ninja'd by the mods.

[mike-l]

Besides, I've not seen anyone saying that 'Catholic person X is bad because the church did Y'. I'll come right out and say I have nothing against anyone just for being Catholic. I know plenty of wonderful Catholics (and plenty of asshole Catholics, but that's hardly unique to Catholicism). My problem is with the institution, and with people who vocally agree with that institution on the issues I've talked about.