Bill Donohue says we should all convert to Catholicism and then everything would be fine.
In an ideal world, Muslims who interpret the Koran to justify violence would convert to Catholicism, and artists who think they have an absolute right to insult people of faith would follow suit. If both did, we would have peace and civility.
Catholicism teaches that it is immoral to intentionally kill innocent persons, beginning with life in the womb. It is not a pacifistic religion—it believes in just wars—though it naturally inclines towards non-violence. It most certainly does not counsel violence as a right remedy to insolent behavior. Muslims who say it is morally justified to kill obscene artists, citing the Koran as their impetus, would do us all a favor if they converted to Catholicism.
Oh really? Catholicism naturally inclines towards non-violence? Catholicism does not counsel violence as a right remedy to insolent behavior? What was all that about the Inquisition then? What were all those burnings for? What were the crusades for? Why were church-run prisons for children in Ireland so rife with sadism?
What a bullshitter Donohue is.
Catholicism teaches that freedom is the right to do what you ought to do. As such, it is always tied to duty, and to individual responsibility. Once that understanding breaks down—as it has in the West—trouble follows.
Oh yes? What was and is all that about the rapey priests then? What was all that about shielding the priests and sending them to new parishes instead of reporting their rapes to the police? If that’s what Catholicism teaches, why is it so grotesquely bad at acting accordingly? Unless of course you simply define “what you ought to do” as obedience to stupid Catholic rules as opposed to respect for the rights of other people.
Unfortunately, many artists interpret their rights as a solo exercise, disconnected from duty or responsibility. But autonomy can never be a sturdy guide to morality: it devolves into relativism and to a wholesale disrespect for the rights of others. Narcissistic artists who associate obscenity with creativity would do us all a favor if they converted to Catholicism.
Ah so you are talking about the rights of others. But then why is church history so full of cruelty and exploitation? Why is its copybook so stained with blood and tears? Why has it been so horrible for so long?
The central problem with Muslim extremists and irresponsible artists is that neither embodies the virtue of restraint. If they did, they would not act as the barbarians and libertines that they are. Catholicism is the answer.
What a terrible human being he is.
“Catholicism teaches that it is immoral to intentionally kill innocent persons….”
Islam teaches the exact same thing, and has the exact same definition of “innocent person”: someone who is fanatically obedient to the teachings we espouse, and none other. Everyone else is guilty, making it “saving their immortal soul” rather than murder.
I don’t know how you managed that, Ophelia; for me Donohue has reached the point of “too stupid to criticise”.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/918637641488031/?type=1&theater
If Donahue is an example of a “responsible” Catholic then I’m not buying. He’s not a good advertisement for the brand.
lol christianity
Yes, why have Bozo Haram rape young girls when you can have catholic priests rape young boys?
And “peaceful”? Donahue’s is the religion of the crusades, the inquisition, the reconquista, the conquistadors, and the burning times.
Torturing and burning witches and heretics cleanses their souls so they can go to heaven instead of hell. It only looks violent. It’s for their own good.
(I say it sarcastically, but it’s how it was justified).
I’ve heard that one in a number of variations from Catholics over the years. It’s not only Donahue’s idiocy. For me, that idea is at the root of what’s wrong with the Catholic church and why I mistrust the church’s dedication to the values of modern democratic society!
And what you ought to do is to obey god. And the church is god’s representative on earth.
Explain, how is this any different from the ideology of Big Brother?
Far be it from me to defend Bill Donahue. If everyone were a Catholic like him (and he is a Catholic), then we’d be at each other’s throats, because one thing you can say about Donahue: he doesn’t take anything lying down. It’s always fight, fight, fight with him!
However, let me just remind you of a thing or two. First of all, the Inquisition in Spain, bad as it was, was a spin-off from the liberation of Spain (the reconquista) from its Muslim overlords (that it included Jews was, of course, a result of the intrinsic anti-Semitism of Christian scriptures, which explains why anti-Semitism is more serious in France and elsewhere in the West than so-called “Islamophobia,” because Islam is anti-Jewish too).
As for the Crusades, for all their brutality, the crusades were also defensive, originally a response to Muslim repression of Christians in the Middle East, and the threatened defeat of the last bastion of Christendom, Constantinople, and what remained of the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. The idea that the crusades were simply pointless anti-Muslim violence and colonialism — an idea that is the result of a lot of historical revisionism — scarcely stands up to the evidence. Islam was making constant incursions into Europe: Spain and Sicily were ruled by Muslims, and Italy was plundered. Muslim forces threatened France, but they were defeated; and eventually, after the fall of Byzantium, Muslims overran the Balkans (remember that Byron fought for Greek independence from the Ottomans), and enslaved the best Christian young men who became Janissaries, the most fearful of Muslim troops). Slave hunting expeditions by Muslim raiders occurred as far West as Iceland (one village in Ireland was left without any inhabitants, after they were taken from their beds to be sold in the slave markets in Algiers). The crusades were a response to Muslim violence and the danger of Muslim conquest. And don’t forget, Muslim forces continued to attempt the conquest of Europe, being repulsed twice at the gates of Vienna. Holding Christians (or Christianity) responsible for the crusades is Muslim revisionism, pure and simple.
As for torturing and burning witches, Protestants were as guilty (remember the witch trials in New England) of the witch-craze as Catholics.
And, before I finish, can someone please explain how to get a space between paragraphs? I can’t find any html codes that will accomplish that, and obviously others know the secret.
Eric: As you may have figured out by now, the preview shows no space between paragraphs, but it does show up in the posted result.
Hmm I dont know. People like Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jerry Coyne all tell me that there is something specially dangerous about Islam , and it ranks number one on the all time list of evil things (closely beating out SJWs)- so shouldn’t mass conversion of Muslims to Catholicism make the world a better place than it is now?
dshetty@11: Don’t know about Muslims, but I converted out of Catholicism (and Christianity) and it definitely made my world a better place. 😉
dshetty. Perhaps that is why Ayaan Hirsi Ali had a meeting with the pope (Benedict), urging him to set up missions to Muslims in Europe. The basic idea, as I understand it, was, that if they couldn’t do without religion, Muslims in the West would be better of being Catholic than continuing to be Muslims.
Mordred’s experience aside, of course!
What the hell. I don’t even know where to start with this. I’m going to have to take a break from the internet for a bit.
All you need is a slight knowledge of European history and you can see that Catholicism does not lead to peace.
1066- Catholic William invades Catholic England; later on him and his men will murder tens of thousands of people in the north of England, of all ages and both genders.
11th to 16th centuries – many bloody invasions of Ireland (Catholic) by English forces (Catholic)
14-15th century Italy – many invasions by various armies commanded by French King (Catholic) or Spanish King (Catholic), also the rise of mercenaries (Catholic), accompanied by atrocities against civilians.
I’m sure more can be added, but the only reason I haven’t put more recent ones in is because it turned into a 2 or 3 sided fight, so no longer just Catholic on Cathlic violence.
Eric MacDonald @9
The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) didn’t come near any Muslim controlled territory. Instead the crusaders sacked Constantinople.
Agreed, the Crusades were a disorderly rabble, and hard to control at the best of times. The first crusade (I believe) went on an anti-Jewish pogrom through Germany. And, as you say, the fourth crusade sacked Constantinople, whose effect was doubtless to weaken what they were supposed to defend. This does not, however, detract from the fact that in intention the crusades were aimed at the Muslim threat.
Eric #18 – I would say they’re good evidence that Catholicism didn’t do anything towards this not killing innocents thing.
Even my 1950s, very conservative, wary of controversy, history curriculum at a small school in the back of beyond taught that the Crusades were proxy wars to keep the warrior class from ravaging Europe and toppling kings.
Not much later I learned that they were a brilliant way of reducing the numbers of the peasant and serf classes, to harass religious dissidents and Jews and also to increase the influence of the church. The “holy war” thing was propaganda.
Under early Muslim rule both Jews and Christians were protected if somewhat disadvantaged. Any bets on the extent to which the Crusades put paid to that ability to coexist?
Maureen Brian. Where on earth do you get this bit of potted history from? Christians were not protected. They paid a head price, so, as the saying goes, they could wear their heads for another year. Many couldn’t pay, and sold themselves into slavery. There were repeated “razzias” (where Muslims went into a killing frenzy, and any non-Muslim life was forfeit). Christians and Jews were not protected. That’s why there were so few by the time the Muslims had done their work. It continues still, and the numbers of Christians and Jews in Muslim lands are very very few indeed. As for the crusades, no doubt all sorts of people ended up losing out. They were disorganised. They attracted the lowest of the low. And, and of course, to respond to Guthrie Stewart, of course there was no control over protecting the innocent. It may have been a “Christian” army, but it was an army, with a ragtag group of camp followers hoping to make their fortune. They were as much like a plague of locusts as Muslim hordes. But their aims were limited to liberating the “Holy Land”. They made no effort to conquer other territory, and crusader states only developed on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean, protecting the route to the “Holy Land” as well as the return. But the crusaders were an undisciplined rabble. And, even so, the first crusade was a qualified success. But as for being a well-thought out attempt to reduce the number of peasants: that is simply nonsense. It may have had that effect. I don’t know. Wars tend to increase population in the end, however, rather than reduce it overall.
Look no further than wikipedia, Eric, and note that the taxes were specifically explained as being in place of the religious obligation of zakat.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book#In_the_Qur.27an)
Then add the remarkably mixed community when Baghdad was the world capital of science, the flourishing mixed communities of El Andalus and, even, the remarkable career of Moses Maimonides (1135 -1204 CE) born in Cordoba, lived in various parts of the Muslim world, wrote in both Hebrew and Arabic, personal physician to Saladin when he was sultan of Egypt and Syria, etc.
The ethnic cleansing came later, then resumed after 2003.
You’ll need 3 hours for this one but it is excellent.
Well, I wouldn’t depend on the authority of Wikipedia, as your sole source for your claims Maureen. Zakat is the tax paid by Muslims, commonly lower than the jizya or protection tax, and completely unrelated to it, though apologetics for the jizya commonly try to link them, as though there was an equality of treatment between Muslims and kufaar. There wasn’t. The contract between Muslims and Dhimmis was not so much a contract as a way of dominating the Dhimmis and reminding them of their low estate in the scheme of things. People paying the jizya were often humiliated in the process, forced to approach on their knees, wearing distinctive clothing, being hit about the head and ears, and other humiliations, and besides many people could not pay, since there was no set amount for the jizya (as we have seen recently in the Islamic state). Muhammad practiced this protection racket from the beginning, and unbelievers had three choices: they could covert, they could pay jizya, or they could die. Simple as that. Many could not pay the jizya, which could amount to a large part of a year’s earnings. Many were forced to sell themselves into slavery, which was equivalent to being converted, since most slave owners would not own non-Muslim slaves. There was nothing beneficent about Muslim rule, and if you think there was, you must read more widely than Wikipedia. Remember that Wikipedia, as a public internet resource is not only open to revision, but is not likely to spell things out as they really were if they want to be read.
As for Islam and science. No doubt there was a degree of scientific sophistication amongst Muslims, but it must be remembered that Muslims conquered already great civilisations which had accomplished many things which were simply adopted by the Muslim. Arabic numbers, for instance, are really Indian numbers. And Indian mathematics made use of zero long before the Muslims learned to do so. Much of the technical work and scholarship done by Muslim civilisation was simply adopted from the civilisations that the Muslims conquered. I always have a question in my mind as to what is to be attributed to Islam and what to the Christians, Jews and Hindus who became subject to the Muslim hordes who swept out of the Arabian peninsula. I have watched Al Khalili on Islam and science before, but my questions still remain. I haven’t done much to answer them, however, since time is limited, especially as you get to be my age.
Sorry Maureen, I was thinking mainly of British colonialism, and forgetting all about Italy and France and Spain and their colonies in Muslim parts of Africa. So of course there were some European colonies in Muslim parts of North Africa which I neglected to mention. Still, as those were Muslim colonies on formerly Christian lands, the tit for tat doesn’t seem to be so serious. When Muslims complain about colonialism they should remember that for centuries Islam ruled over lands once inhabited by Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews and Hindus (and many other religions), and should recognise that this is not a specifically European offence, but characterised a whole world in which wealth was accumulated by accumulating territory. This is no longer an accepted practice in international law, but Muslims should not forget that they were party to this process long before England or France, Italy or Spain became exponents or practitioners of imperialism.
What about the Alibgensain Crusade in the 13th century? No muslims involved, just a purge of people in France who thought they didn’t need the Catholic Church to talk with God. It’s where we got the phrase, “Kill them all, let God sort them out”. It also predates the Spanish Inquisition by over a century. How are you going to blame the muslims on that?
What about the Alibgensain Crusade in the 13th century?
In fairness, there are some pretty cool castles built in that period, including the splendid fortified cathedral at Albi…
Eric, I gave you that wikipedia extract not because I rely upon it or because I think you are stupid – I’ve a fair idea who you are – but because it’s easy to read, all in one place and you might not be the only one to read it.
I’ve read far more deeply than that. I’ve taken what I learned at school, done history of science at university and in some ways never gave that subject up. The idea that Muslims only ever had learning which they had filched from the peoples whose lands they ruled is, to be honest, laughable.
In the early centuries of the Common Era the Christians deliberately discarded the philosophical and early scientific work of the Greeks and the Jews were going through one of their anti-intellectual phases, perhaps because of the pressure they were under from the Romans. Once the library at Alexandria was destroyed – by deliberate arson? by neglect? no-one is sure but anyway it was gone – knowledge was being lost at an alarming rate. That knowledge, or much of it, was recovered and its recovery and translation were paid for by Muslims. They then built upon it. The historical records and the books they wrote still exist, can still be read.
Hell, Eric, watch the video. You don’t get megabucks from the BBC and the imprimatur of the British Museum if you’re going to take a full camera crew here there and everywhere only to talk bollocks for three hours.
Why do you need to believe so ill of Muslims? Perhaps I’ve been on this anti-racism kick for too long – since July of 1955 to be precise – but right now my warning lights are flashing.
I’m glad Alverant got to the Albigensian Crusade before I did but that simply confirms that there’s no evil thing done by Muslims, individually or collectively, that hasn’t been matched or bettered by Christians. Think only of the Holocaust.
I’ve only really known one Zoroastrian so I’m leaving them out of this.
[OT]
Eric MacDonald:
Yeah, that’s what I was taught in Spain in the 1960s as a child under the (then) exceedingly Catholic Falangist Government. La Reconquista was glorious.
I’ve done a bit more reading since then, and now I see it as actually being indistinguishable from a barbaric people conquering a civilised land — kinda like the Goths invading Hispania, but more prosperous (Al-Andalus).
—
Elsewhere:
The Roman Empire predating modern Italy, I suppose you’re technically right.
@Eric
Muslims in the West would be better of being Catholic than continuing to be Muslims.
Yeah – it marks the time I started disliking Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
John, I never said that the Reconquista was glorious, but it did entail throwing off the Muslim yoke, and to this extent was a good thing, since Christianity has undergone considerable reform, and it is not even clear that Islam can do so. Besides, the reform of Christianity has been, by and large, in the direction of pluralism, and, while Spain was a latecomer to liberalism and the toleration of differences, this is probably due to its having been a client state of the Vatican for so long (up to and including Franco).
dshetty. I had the same reservations about Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she made her appeal to the pope, but, on the other hand, given a choice between Islam and Roman Catholicism, I would choose the latter. But the idea that a mass conversion of Muslims to Roman Catholic Christianity was a possibility was a pipe dream from the beginning, in any event.
As for the Alibgensian Crusade. No rational person would defend this as a possible outcome of Christian doctrine. It was mainly due to the unfortunate fact that the pope had become a temporal as well as a spiritual ruler, and could command, and indeed, in some cases, did in fact lead, armies in the field. From early Christian pacifism to Inquisitions and crusades against “heretics” is a pretty big ideological leap to make. As for the Holocaust, Christian anti-Semitism, though deplorable, never became (except in Spain) a racial issue. The Holocaust was certainly dependent on Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism, but the Holocaust itself was as much a product of Darwinism and its spin-off in terms of eugenics than it was of Christian anti-Semitism. Without Christian anti-Semitism the Holocaust would doubtless not have occurred, because deep-seated anti-Semitism would not have been imported from Christianity. But without Darwinism and eugenics the Holocaust would not have taken the turn that it did. The Holocaust itself is not an expression of Christian anti-Semitism, though Christians must revise their own beliefs if they are to be credible in the light of the Holocaust, and that means that it must be hypercritical of their scriptures (and perhaps amend them in places) where anti-Jewish slanders are made or implied.
Maureen, I have watched the video (quite awhile ago), and it still raised the questions that I asked above. As for your claim that
much though I respect the BBC, I’m not quite sure that that’s altogether true. There has been a concerted effort by the BBC and other British agencies to make Islam more palatable to its citizens, and there is no reason that a programme on Islam and science should not be propagandistic. There was certainly an early period when Muslims gloried in the achievements of its newly subjugated citizens (indeed they were essential to the running of such a large empire). Some converted. Some merely remained in their accustomed roles in new governmental structures. Islam borrowed a lot from the cultures of those it conquered. How much is Islamic science, and how much is Greek, Babylonian, Persian or Indian science? Has anyone done an analysis of the sources and the debts of Islamic science? I don’t know, but it is unlikely that Islamic culture would have been so fertile in science, philosophy and mathematics, if it had not adopted much from the Greek, Christian, Persian and Indian civilisations which they conquered. I am not prepared, without more knowledge of what is owed to whom, to endorse Khalili’s glowing account of Islamic science.
As for “why I should believe so ill of Muslims”. I don’t. But I do believe so ill of Islam. There’s an important difference. Islam is an impossibly inhumane religion. Many Muslims may not be aware of this, and, in any case, are reasonably moderate. But the seeds of the immoderate are still there in the religion itself and its demands, just as, sadly, Christian anti-Semitism is baked into its scriptures. It troubles me that people are prepared to criticise their Christian roots, still dominant in Western culture, while at the same time waxing lyrical about Islam. Neither religion deserves to be looked at as unproblematic, though, in my estimation, Islam is the far more destructive of the two. This says nothing at all about individual Muslims, towards whom I bear no ill will.
Eric,
There is only one science – the sum total of human knowledge about how things are and how they came to be that way. Different cultures at different times approach from their own angle, have contradictory notions, but trial and error eventually produces either a synthesis or the elimination of the ideas not supported by repeated experiment. The facts have no nationalist or religious allegiance. They are facts.
Are you prepared to say to Jim Al-Khalili’s face that that he is engaged in politically-driven propaganda with little basis in fact? Right, then don’t say it to me – not without some hard evidence.
Btw, Dr Jago Cooper has been doing an excellent series of programmes on the pre-Conquest civilisations of South America. We didn’t used to know much about those, either. We didn’t used to have the technology or the knowledge to make such programmes. Is that a plot, too?
Remember the Catholic Church has form – as do others – for pretending that its servants occupied a wasteland and no, of course, it did not ever crush a sophisticated civilisation or destroy the evidence. No, sirreee!
Eric MacDonald:
I don’t think this is a literal claim, given Islam exists, but more to the point, I recall you stated @9 that:
So, to that extent, it was a bad thing (right?). There are other extents to consider.
I presume you refer to the Alhambra Decree, which formalised the process.
(Those were the days, when being a Dhimmi at least let you keep your own religion, unlike Christianity!)
—
Maureen,
We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.Eric above:
On the contrary, I think no rational person would defend this was not an actual outcome of Christian doctrine; it is a prevarication to claim the Pope himself acted contrary to doctrine (Catholicism makes much of its continuity with the Apostles) given that definitionally by their very own codified doctrine the Pope’s pronunciations ex cathedra are infallible doctrine.
—
You think I am being Jesuitical? Perhaps I am, given I spent years being taught Catholicism at Jesuit boarding schools.
This discussion has gone a long long way from its original emphasis. I am not suggesting that Christianity is somehow crystal pure in comparison with other religions. That a pope should believe it within his authority to permit the Portuguese and the Spaniards to explore, defeat, and hold in perpetual servitude any unbelievers they should find is obviously a distortion of anything that can be reasonably be called Christian. There is nothing in Christian scripture or early theology which licenses this sort of behaviour. Christians were called to bring the gospel to those who had not heard it, but there is nowhere where the killing of unbelievers of heretics is commanded. That is why I say that the Albigensian crusade was effectively anti-Christian in nature and exploitation. Indeed, the first Christians were pacifists, and it took quite a bit of twisting the original teachings to allow Christians to bear arms. That Christianity came to be related to imperial power from Constantine on, obviously changed the character of Christian teachings. The fact that popes still use the term ‘pontifex maximus’ to refer to themselves is a sign that the imperial character of Roman Catholicism is still alive and well. The Pontifex Maximus was originally the high priest of the Roman Religion, but eventually came to be applied to the Emperor, and popes often confused their spiritual role as head of the church (which early Bishops of Rome were not considered to be) with an imperial role which they too often arrogated to themselves. This confusion between spiritual and temporal power was the source of much harm done by the Christian church. It is still in evidence in Rome itself, but also in Russia, where the Russian Patriarch always had a quasi political role. It is not a contradiction to say that the pope acted contrary to Christian doctrine, whatever Vatican I might say, for there is nothing in classical Christian doctrine which allows for the infallibility of any church official. Vatican I’s acceptance of the pope’s infallible authority when speaking ex cathedra, was a crude attempt to stem to the tide of modernism, and is not part of normative Christian doctrine, whatever the Roman Church might claim. Besides, it is not clear what speaking ex cathedra means, and the conditions for such proclamations were never clearly defined.
That following the reconquista — that is the throwing off of the Muslim yoke from the people of Spain — paranoia should have set in is not a great surprise. That does not make the Inquisition a good thing, but it is not surprising. Any hint of a return would have to be suppressed with great vigour, especially as Muslim powers across the straits were always prepared to make a comeback, if possible, Spain having become, through conquest, part of the Muslim waqf. That is why Islamists to this day insist that they will one day conquer Spain and return it to Muslim suzerainty.
Maureen, I am not making any claims about Islamic science. Having grown up in India, and played as a child amongst some of the huge instruments in the Janter Manter built by Indian astronomers, and having learned about the advances in mathematics made by Indian mathematicians, including the introduction of zero, the discovery of algebra, and many of the astronomical observations made later by Muslims, I simply do not know where the dividing line between Islamic science, and the science of conquered territories is to be drawn. There is no doubt that Muslim scientists made some advances. But which ones? Since we mistakenly call our number system Arabic, it raises the question what else is falsely attributed to Islamic science and mathematics, especially given the fact that Islamic science eventually just ran out into the sand. Since Islam is such a focus nowadays, there are all sorts of reasons to exaggerate Islamic achievements, upon which, we are to understand, European dominance in science depends. There are propagandistic elements to this. However, this is by no means my area of expertise, and I have only raised it as a question. I have not made any of the claims that you attribute to me.
Regarding Dhimmi status. This was always a very uncertain thing, and it could be withdrawn without warning. I am not defending Christian persecution of non-Christians, for which there is no defence. But the Islamic protection racket is not much better, and was very often revoked, when the jihadists felt they were losing out on their patrimony, and there were no more lands to be easily conquered. Unprovoked attacks on so-called protected peoples were common and endemic to the life of unbelievers in Muslim lands, as they still are. Recall that, being a Dhimmi, you not only paid protection money (and, despite claims to the contrary, there was no relationship between jizya and zakat), you were also required to stand in the presence of a Muslim, you could not pass a Muslim in the street, you could not bear arms, you could not ride a horse, you had to wear distinctive clothing, you could not build a new place of worship or repair an existing one, your word stood for nothing against a Muslim in court, and various other limitations were imposed upon you, including the possibility of unprovoked violence.