Catholic & I
Originally I was going to name this post "Religion & I", but since I hardly know all the religions under the sun, I really should stick with what I know and want to talk about.
Many years ago I read this book (it was so long time ago and I do not remember the name or the author's name of it), and the author said in it, "If I believe in something that does not exist, that would make me superstitious; if I don't believe in something that exists, that would also make me superstitious." For the longest time, that's always what I live by.
I was raised a Catholic, but I chose to be an atheist instead. How I come to dislike being a Catholic, I'll save that for a different post. Right now, I think of religion as a "crutch" for many people. People who does not know why they are put on earth and cannot go on without thinking there's a "deeper meaning" in life, so they choose to believe there are more after life. Which is fine, whatever keeps them going. I use "atheism" in the same way. I guess you can all that my "religion." I found the idea of "heaven" and "hell" and "eternity" very disturbing, so I choose not to believe. In the end, it's all the same. There's got to be SOMETHING at the beginning, let that be "God" or the "universe" or "some matter." Use the terms interchangeably if you want, in the end, we don't know what and when and how it all started until "after life."
Because of that belief, I consider "religion," specifically Catholic, sort of like a hobby, or a lifestyle, or a set of guidelines to a lifestyle. It, in my opinion, is kind of like BDSM--there's no need to be ashame of it, nor is there a need to advocate it. It's what goes on behind close doors and it should stay there and should by no means interfere with your daily life.
Imagine my surprise--what an understatement--when I read this article titled Colo. bishop broadens ban on Communion by Laurie Goodstein published on Thursday, May 14, in San Diego Union Tribune.
My first response was literally stunt beyond words. I had all these ideas in my head but I was unable to organize and formulate them into sensible words.
Check this out:
The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs has issued a pastoral letter saying that Catholic Americans should not receive Communion if they vote for politicians who defy church teachings by supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, euthanasia or stem-cell research.
Several U.S. bishops have warned that they will deny Communion to Catholic politicians who fail to stand with the church, but Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs is believed to be the first to say he would extend the ban to Catholic voters.
This whole discussion about whether the Roman Catholic should allow Kerry to take Holy Communion (link), I mean, is that even right? Is it not like the church is wanting to have their power/influence over politics? I suppose when we say "separation of church and state" that only means the state is not allow to mingle with the church, it by no means prevent the church from trying to assert their influences over politics. Is that not a blackmail of sort to threaten not allowing a certain individual of choosing their own stances on current issues, especially when the said individual is a presidential candidate?
I have also learned a new term from this article--"cafeteria Catholics"--allegedly those who "pick and choose the doctrines they agree with." Those have traditionally been the individuals that I was able to tolerate. These are individuals who are, and God forbid, capable of intellectual/analytical thinking and be able to decide for themselves what to believe in and what not to. Apparently that makes you a bad Catholic. So really, why do Catholics even bother going to college, if individual thinkings are deterred? That typically comes with education, you know?
I have always enjoyed discussions with "cafeteria reglious folks," they are the ones that you feel comfortable to ask questions. I was, by no means, obnoxious or offensive about their religions, I am merely curious. I've always hope that, someday, some SENSIBLE religious individual can enlight me into why they believe in what they believe. But according to Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan, there should be "no room for wiggle room when it comes to the basic moral teachings of the church."
This brings me to another question of mine, also another reason I detest religion/Roman Catholic. When a person commits an earthly crime, say he killed another individual, we have a trial and a group of jury to look at the situation under which the crime is committed. Sometimes people are acquitted due to the circumstances they were in. There are room for reasonings and such, and this is us human that we are talking about. ANYONE will agree with the statement that we are far from perfect, but yet we allow room for others to make mistakes. So my question is, why is everything so cut and dry and black and white when it comes to God/Bible? If you commit certain crime(s), you are doomed, no questions asked. The situation is irrelevant--thou shall not kill, even in self-defense. Does anyone ever question that? Oh, my bad, Catholics are deterred from their own intellectual analysis, apparently not. Don't most folks living in the Bible belt own guns? Why own a gun when you should just let others rob you clean and kill your entire family when they break into your house to be compliant with your religion? Or are they all "cafeteria Catholics"? In which case, none of their souls will attain salvation, so why bothered?
Read the following quote on Bishop Sheridan's view point on "cafeteria Catholics":
"I pray for them, but it could very well mean they're going to go their own way," he said. "You never like to see it, but it happens."
The bishop wrote that Catholics who vote contrary to church teachings "jeopardize their salvation." He said they would be denied Communion "until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance."
Translation: If you vote against our doctrines, buddy, you are not going to heaven. Classy, and yet so typical. This is just the kind of classiness I'd expect from a Catholic Bishop. Does that just sound manipulative, or is it just me?
Mind you, I do not dislike God or the belief, I don't know Him. But I strongly dislike the way He is portrayed/interpreted by the earthly humans. I believe the origin of religions are meant to be good, to teach people to love each other, to provide a set of guidelines for people to live by. I had this Muslim co-worker, and everytime we went to a restaurant together he'd make sure absolutely nothing he orders has pork in it. One day I told him my viewpoint that their doctrine probably just say "no pork" because back then it was easy for people to get sick from eating pork, and it's easier to put it in the doctrine than trying to educate the individuals. While he agreed with the viewpoint, he chose to respect his religion and continue to avoid pork, and I respect that. Afterall, it doesn't hurt anyone from him not eating pork. I have a friend who doesn't eat beef. I don't eat a lot of healthy food myself. But I hate to see people using their religions, namely Roman Catholic, as free pass to harm anyone who differs from them.
Taking homosexuals as a example. Does homosexuals getting married harm Catholics in any way? No. (I still fail to see how that hurts the "integrity of marriage," let's first target those heterosexuals who get married some five plus times, shall we?) Yet Catholics feel that they are free to tremple all over gays, saying that their feelings and love for each other are less than that of heterosexual couples. Are they hurting homosexual couples by strongly objecting to their unions? Yes. Do they feel any guilt associated with that? No. Why? Because being Catholic is a free pass to hurt anyone non Catholic or do not fit into to their rosy pictures of how the world (United States in this case) should be.
I've always believe that the ultimate purpose of religions is to encourage people to love each other. Little did I know that, according to a lot of (mostly Bible-related) religions out there, "each other" refer solely to other who belong in the same religion. The world just might be a better place without these so-called religions.
In the interview, the bishop said his aim was to clarify the standards for Catholic voters and hope they apply them in their choice of candidates.
When your religion is telling you what and who you should vote for, do we still have true democracy?
Many years ago I read this book (it was so long time ago and I do not remember the name or the author's name of it), and the author said in it, "If I believe in something that does not exist, that would make me superstitious; if I don't believe in something that exists, that would also make me superstitious." For the longest time, that's always what I live by.
I was raised a Catholic, but I chose to be an atheist instead. How I come to dislike being a Catholic, I'll save that for a different post. Right now, I think of religion as a "crutch" for many people. People who does not know why they are put on earth and cannot go on without thinking there's a "deeper meaning" in life, so they choose to believe there are more after life. Which is fine, whatever keeps them going. I use "atheism" in the same way. I guess you can all that my "religion." I found the idea of "heaven" and "hell" and "eternity" very disturbing, so I choose not to believe. In the end, it's all the same. There's got to be SOMETHING at the beginning, let that be "God" or the "universe" or "some matter." Use the terms interchangeably if you want, in the end, we don't know what and when and how it all started until "after life."
Because of that belief, I consider "religion," specifically Catholic, sort of like a hobby, or a lifestyle, or a set of guidelines to a lifestyle. It, in my opinion, is kind of like BDSM--there's no need to be ashame of it, nor is there a need to advocate it. It's what goes on behind close doors and it should stay there and should by no means interfere with your daily life.
Imagine my surprise--what an understatement--when I read this article titled Colo. bishop broadens ban on Communion by Laurie Goodstein published on Thursday, May 14, in San Diego Union Tribune.
My first response was literally stunt beyond words. I had all these ideas in my head but I was unable to organize and formulate them into sensible words.
Check this out:
The Roman Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs has issued a pastoral letter saying that Catholic Americans should not receive Communion if they vote for politicians who defy church teachings by supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, euthanasia or stem-cell research.
Several U.S. bishops have warned that they will deny Communion to Catholic politicians who fail to stand with the church, but Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs is believed to be the first to say he would extend the ban to Catholic voters.
This whole discussion about whether the Roman Catholic should allow Kerry to take Holy Communion (link), I mean, is that even right? Is it not like the church is wanting to have their power/influence over politics? I suppose when we say "separation of church and state" that only means the state is not allow to mingle with the church, it by no means prevent the church from trying to assert their influences over politics. Is that not a blackmail of sort to threaten not allowing a certain individual of choosing their own stances on current issues, especially when the said individual is a presidential candidate?
I have also learned a new term from this article--"cafeteria Catholics"--allegedly those who "pick and choose the doctrines they agree with." Those have traditionally been the individuals that I was able to tolerate. These are individuals who are, and God forbid, capable of intellectual/analytical thinking and be able to decide for themselves what to believe in and what not to. Apparently that makes you a bad Catholic. So really, why do Catholics even bother going to college, if individual thinkings are deterred? That typically comes with education, you know?
I have always enjoyed discussions with "cafeteria reglious folks," they are the ones that you feel comfortable to ask questions. I was, by no means, obnoxious or offensive about their religions, I am merely curious. I've always hope that, someday, some SENSIBLE religious individual can enlight me into why they believe in what they believe. But according to Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan, there should be "no room for wiggle room when it comes to the basic moral teachings of the church."
This brings me to another question of mine, also another reason I detest religion/Roman Catholic. When a person commits an earthly crime, say he killed another individual, we have a trial and a group of jury to look at the situation under which the crime is committed. Sometimes people are acquitted due to the circumstances they were in. There are room for reasonings and such, and this is us human that we are talking about. ANYONE will agree with the statement that we are far from perfect, but yet we allow room for others to make mistakes. So my question is, why is everything so cut and dry and black and white when it comes to God/Bible? If you commit certain crime(s), you are doomed, no questions asked. The situation is irrelevant--thou shall not kill, even in self-defense. Does anyone ever question that? Oh, my bad, Catholics are deterred from their own intellectual analysis, apparently not. Don't most folks living in the Bible belt own guns? Why own a gun when you should just let others rob you clean and kill your entire family when they break into your house to be compliant with your religion? Or are they all "cafeteria Catholics"? In which case, none of their souls will attain salvation, so why bothered?
Read the following quote on Bishop Sheridan's view point on "cafeteria Catholics":
"I pray for them, but it could very well mean they're going to go their own way," he said. "You never like to see it, but it happens."
The bishop wrote that Catholics who vote contrary to church teachings "jeopardize their salvation." He said they would be denied Communion "until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance."
Translation: If you vote against our doctrines, buddy, you are not going to heaven. Classy, and yet so typical. This is just the kind of classiness I'd expect from a Catholic Bishop. Does that just sound manipulative, or is it just me?
Mind you, I do not dislike God or the belief, I don't know Him. But I strongly dislike the way He is portrayed/interpreted by the earthly humans. I believe the origin of religions are meant to be good, to teach people to love each other, to provide a set of guidelines for people to live by. I had this Muslim co-worker, and everytime we went to a restaurant together he'd make sure absolutely nothing he orders has pork in it. One day I told him my viewpoint that their doctrine probably just say "no pork" because back then it was easy for people to get sick from eating pork, and it's easier to put it in the doctrine than trying to educate the individuals. While he agreed with the viewpoint, he chose to respect his religion and continue to avoid pork, and I respect that. Afterall, it doesn't hurt anyone from him not eating pork. I have a friend who doesn't eat beef. I don't eat a lot of healthy food myself. But I hate to see people using their religions, namely Roman Catholic, as free pass to harm anyone who differs from them.
Taking homosexuals as a example. Does homosexuals getting married harm Catholics in any way? No. (I still fail to see how that hurts the "integrity of marriage," let's first target those heterosexuals who get married some five plus times, shall we?) Yet Catholics feel that they are free to tremple all over gays, saying that their feelings and love for each other are less than that of heterosexual couples. Are they hurting homosexual couples by strongly objecting to their unions? Yes. Do they feel any guilt associated with that? No. Why? Because being Catholic is a free pass to hurt anyone non Catholic or do not fit into to their rosy pictures of how the world (United States in this case) should be.
I've always believe that the ultimate purpose of religions is to encourage people to love each other. Little did I know that, according to a lot of (mostly Bible-related) religions out there, "each other" refer solely to other who belong in the same religion. The world just might be a better place without these so-called religions.
In the interview, the bishop said his aim was to clarify the standards for Catholic voters and hope they apply them in their choice of candidates.
When your religion is telling you what and who you should vote for, do we still have true democracy?
posted by cahalan @ 20:24
|
<< Home