🚀 go-pugleaf

Carman <cael77@surfbest.net> wrote in message news:9c7vdr$edt$1@news.chatlink.com...
> Chris <c_lumb@one.net.au> wrote

>> Yes,  they are to blame.

> To blame for what?

He already said.

>> Someone tell me when Catholics last pioneered major social
>> change, eg contraception, equality of women, tolerance of gays,
>> acceptance and suggestion of solutions for the drug problem.

> Why would you expect a religion, any
> religion, to pioneer major social change?

Coz thats what some of them attempt.

> Religions are about stability, community, and exemplify
> the conservatism that actively resists change.

Bullshit, plenty of them have been about a hell of a lot more than that.

> There are some quite small exceptions to this
> general rule, (the Society of Friends, comes to mind),

There are a hell of a lot more than that, most obviously with the loonys.

> but among the major religions, all of them are very conservative.

They might be currently, but plenty of them werent when they started.

In fact hardly any of them were when they started.

>> We have now a college of cardinals all hand picked
>> by "His Holiness". So the chances of the RC church
>> pulling itself out of the 18th century are nil.

> Probably of interest to Catholics who dislike the direction their Church
> is going, but as far as I know there are no "democratic" religions.

There is in the sense that there are plenty to choose from.

>> Talk about lack of vision: John Paul 2 has
>> set his church up for fading into irrelevance.

> If you dislike Catholicism one would think you'd approve.

>> Buddhism looks awfully attractive to me!

> So be a Buddhist! But do tell me when the Buddhists, "...last pioneered
> major social change, eg contraception, equality of women, tolerance
> of gays, acceptance and suggestion of solutions for the drug problem".

|-)