🚀 go-pugleaf

Carman <cael77@surfbest.net> wrote in message
news:9cainv$q24$1@news.chatlink.com...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Carman <cael77@surfbest.net> wrote
>>> Chris <c_lumb@one.net.au> wrote

>>>> Yes,  they are to blame.

>>> To blame for what?

>> He already said.

> He said, "political correctness".

Chris didnt.

> Without definition the term is a buzzword, meaning
> anything the user chooses to say it means.

Bullshit, even with that. Its obvious what most mean by that.

>>>> 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.

> Please cite examples.

All the major ones have attempted that.

> The only ones I can think of involves one
> religion attempting to supplant another.

Oh bullshit. Almost all the major religions have substantial social
policy positions where they differ, often quite dramatically, from
whats commonly accepted when they are started.

You can certainly make a case that much of the policy
doesnt make any sense, but there is usually some that
does, or more strictly did at the time that religion got started.

Much of its way past its useby date, most obviously the
ban on borrowing or lending money, or particuar dietary rules,
and quite a bit of its utterly obscene, like stoning people to
death for various transgressions etc, but its silly to claim that
most of the major religions havent attempt major social change.

Tho its also true that its much more likely to be a change to a
more conservative approach rather than a more liberal approach.
There's always been a lot more about banning particular things
than actually encouraging what would make society work better.
Not all tho, most obviously the 'love thy neighbour' line and pointing
out that there is more to life than the accumulation of wealth.

>>> 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.

> Please cite examples of your contention.

All the major religions, particularly when they were
getting started. The early christian church actively
advocated change. Pretty radical change for its era too.

>>> 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.

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

All of those, particularly when they were getting started.

Protestantism in spades. Nothing remotely resembling 'exemplify
the conservatism that actively resists change', extremely radical
change for the time in fact, make an obscene gesture in the general
direction of a completely corrupt establishment and go for the rather
radical concept for its time that adherents got to decide the basics
for themselves, without the established church getting any say at all.

Some didnt even have any professional religious at all, just the congregation.

>>> 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.

>   Need I point out that none of the major religions of the modern day
> began large?

Its to obvious to bother mentioning. Got nothing to do
with your claim about 'all of them are very conservative',
most of them werent when they got started. Nothing like 'very
conservative' in fact. Plenty were extremely radical for their time.

> They all started as small, localized movements usually
> persecuted by the large, conservative religions of their day.

Thats overstated too on the persecuted. Some were, many werent.

> This is the normal progression of many kinds of human organization.

Still means your 'all of them are very conservative' is just
plain wrong, particularly when they were getting started.

Just as true today with the newest cults.

>>>> 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.

> I wonder if people actually get to "choose" their religions?

Most do today.

> Religion is such an integral a part of Culture,
> that it's often difficult to seperate the two.

Yes, but with the modern separation of church and
state, plenty shop around for a crutch that suits them.

Not many get burnt at the stake or stoned to death for it now either.

>>>> 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".

>> |-)