🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3ae78d44@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> 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.
>
> > Carman wrote:
> > To blame for what?
>
> He already said.

  Carman wrote:
  He said, "political correctness". Without definition the term is a
buzzword, meaning anything the user chooses to say it means.

>
> >> 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.

> > Carman wrote:
> > Why would you expect a religion, any religion, to pioneer major
> > social change?
>
> Coz thats what some of them attempt.

  Carman wrote:
  Please cite examples. The only ones I can think of involves one
religion  attempting to supplant another.

> > Carman wrote:
> > 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.

  Carman wrote:
  Please cite examples of your contention.

> > Carman wrote:
> > 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.

  Carman wrote:
  Please cite examples that are not small in comparison with, say,
Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism, Bhuddism, Islam, etc.

> > Carman wrote:
> > 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.

  Carman wrote:
  Need I point out that none of the major religions of the modern day
began large? They all started as small, localized movements usually
persecuted by the large, conservative religions of their day. This is
the normal progression of many kinds of human organization.

>
> >> 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.

  Carman wrote:
  I wonder if people actually get to "choose" their religions?
Religion is such an integral a part of Culture, that it's often
difficult to seperate the two.

>
> >> 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".
>
> |-)
>
>