Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

The place to go for debate on politics, religion, sex, and other tasty topics!
Post Reply
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=8804058

basically, it found that her husband was right. she had severe irreversable brain damage that prevented her from forming cognitive thought. her brain weighed half what a normal brain would. it also showed she was blind, proving that many of the video tapes were flukes, wishful thinking, careful editing, or a bit of all of the above. it also showed that there were no signs of abuse.

will it make her parents and the fundies shut up? doubtful...
idsunki
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 3:05 am
Title: NARC!!!!!
Location: united states
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by idsunki »

I know it won't. I saw a letter pass across my boss's desk the other day. He's quite the conservative (not that there's anything wrong with that), and he gets a lot of religious and political stuff from different mailing lists.

One of them had a very patriotic flag and such with "Terri Schiavo, " on it. It was probably a letter calling for political action and donations so they can continue fighting the good fight.

Fucking disgusting.

-idsunki, could find no better words.
You always know where the X-Men have been
Image
because it's always on fire.
User avatar
BamfChyck
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 257
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:58 pm
Location: At work. Again.

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by BamfChyck »

I don't think her parents will shut up until they are able to work through their anger and grief. From what I've seen, they don't seem too willing to try and do that. It can take a conscious commitment for ever moment to focus on healing, and they just don't seem that interested.

I suspect they have taken all their anger that was from Terri being so badly hurt and placed it on their (former?) son-in-law. It's not like they could blame Terri, and fighting with him gave them some focus for the anger.

But I suspect, eventually, the fundies will let go of this as their "darling" and focus on something else just as (IMO) useless. Terri's dead, she's finally with Jesus, right? Now maybe the fundies can work on eliminating some more of my civil rights.

But in general,? No, I don't think the fundies will ever shut up.

I work in a pretty conservative field and my boss gets mail from some pretty conservative places. The last one that made me laugh was four old white men in suits standing in front of a Ten Commandments monument, which they had apparently donated to their state courthouse building. The monument was in danger of being removed. It was their expressions that made me laugh. I think they were supposed to look serious, but they just looked constipated. Really, really constipated.
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

Sadly, no. I'd definitly have to agree. they will eventually move on from Schiavo, but only when they have something else to crusade against.

the ten commandments thing... I just don't get how they can't see that it is a violation of the seperation of church and state. this is government owned property. If it was in someone's yard, infront of a privately owned business, or, of course, a church, there would be no problem. but this is the government we are talking about. I'd also concede it would be ok if they were inclusive to any religion that wanted their moral code displayed, and they displayed a minimum of, say, 4. preferably more if they spoke up and asked for it. but lets say Christianity, Judaism (slightly different commandments) Buddhism, and.... Wiccan rede i guess (though it would be very short compared to the others) would be a good start I'd also suggest Muslim as one of the defaults, but i know the government would not go for that right now. so that it is inclusive to everyone who wants in instead of just the christians.

same thing goes for 'in god we trust' and 'one nation under god' in the pledge and on the currency. especially because in both those cases it was (wrongfully, in my opinion) changed in the 50's. "One nation under God" used to be "One nation, indivisible" and "In God we trust" used to be "E Pluribus Unum" ("out of many, [come] one") and the argument that it doesn't necessarily refer to the Christian god is frankly absolute bullshit.

so it's not like it was even the original, historical version they are fighting for. (well. it's the ones who want it changed back who are fighting, technically... but you know) which, if that were the case, even if it had 'God' in it, i could understand it to an extent.
User avatar
Maelstrom
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: California, USA

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Maelstrom »

On TV last night, I saw the Schiavo's lawyer (Jesus, they still have their lawyer there?) repeating the same story: that the family saw emotive responses, that Terri communicated, that she shouldn't have been "murdered", etc., etc. The fact that poor Terri was pretty much brain dead and utterly incapable of any responses short of blinking makes no difference.

The sad thing is that it's not just the fundies who have been up in arms over this. It is with much consternation that I saw the printed P.O.V. of the Orthodox Church of America (OCA). According to "official doctrine" (which I do not agree with), no matter what, since a feeding tube had been inserted into Terri, it was from then on incumbent upon everyone to take care of her until she died of natural causes, and refusing food or drink was considered murder. (There's that word again.) If they had simply not taken the extreme measure of inserting that tube when she became unable to swallow, things would have been different, and her death would have been considered a tragedy, but natural.

(Or would it? I have to consider the outcry of those who would still scream "murderer", knowing a gastric tube was available, cheap, and safe to insert. At what point can people simply allow a brain-dead individual to die with peace and dignity? This seriously sounds like a Catch-22 to me....)

I know that life is meant to be preserved and cherished at all points, but, seriously, this poor woman was only existing. You notice the parents weren't making a big deal about the fact she was simply alive, but instead bolstering their claims with "she's alive and she's conscious"? Even they seemed to be skirting the issue of life for life's sake, adding value to that life to be saved. Even if certain (even most) Christian sects would have similar viewpoints of "never end life, in any circumstance, for any reason", the parents weren't so "religious" that they wanted her alive for that reason.

I repeat: I hate custody battles.

-------------------------------------------

On the 10 commandments thing, I checked out Snopes.com for some background. I remembered hearing/seeing a (badly flawed and misinterpreted) missive about how Moses had been included on the front of the Supreme Court, CLEARLY holding onto the tablets displaying the 10 Commandments, with other sculptures turning to HIM as THE LAWGIVER, so how DARE those hypocrites exclude the 10 commandments, yatta, yatta, yatta....

Interestingly enough, the back of the Supreme Court building does indeed have Moses on it, along with other sculptures, but that's where the similarities end. Here's an exerpt:

[quote]The sculpture was intended to be a symbolic representation of three of the Eastern civilizations from which our laws were derived, personified by the figures of three great lawgivers: Moses, Confucius, and Solon (surrounded by several allegorical figures representing a variety of legal themes).

Note also that the two other lawgiver figures (Confucius and Solon) are not "facing [the] one in the middle" (i.e., Moses) as claimed here — all three of the lawgivers are depicted in full frontral views, facing forward. (The allegorical figures who flank the lawgivers are facing towards the middle, but they are looking in the direction of all three men, not just Moses.) And although many viewers might assume Moses is holding a copy of the Ten Commandments in this depiction, the two tablets in his arms are actually blank.[/quote]


I think this is the subtle distinction the fundies just can't grasp. Moses was included, alongside Confucius and Solon, because of the influence he, and they, had on our present system of laws, *not* because of specific, particular works. I notice we don't have exerpts from Confucius' Book The Lun Yu, or any of Solon's poetry, anywhere on the court's grounds either....

For anyone who hasn't read the Snopes article, here's the link. It's a fascinating, and well-balanced, read.

National Capitol
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into the intake of a jet engine..... :evil
Saint Kurt
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2151
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 3:43 am
Title: Derelict Landlord
Location: Watch out for that cow pie!

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Saint Kurt »

I had the weirdest conversation the other day - this gets on topic I swear...

I'm kind of like the black sheep at my church (but in a good way I think... I hope... I don't know. Whatever, I'm not going to change...). I came to the church as a Jew, wanted to practice Catholicism, but also didn't want to give up my Jewish heritage. Nothing in Catholicism negates anything in Judaism so this is completely okay (and has even been done before - those Apostle guys did it, so did Jesus, and then lots of people after them) but I think people still find it a bit odd. The other thing that people seem to find odd about me is that I refuse to vote in any kind of "religious" manner - that is it is my belief that this country (I'm using the U.S. because that's where I vote, but any country with voting and freedom of religion will do) has all sorts of people in it and who am I to say that all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists etc. have to live in a country governed by what I believe. To me the government should be for interstate highways and collecting taxes and all the other things that have nothing to do with religion - we should let the churches, synagogues, and temples (wherever you may put them) take care of the spiritual stuff. Regardless of how I choose to spend my Sundays or Saturdays, I believe in absolute separation of church and state.

The odd conversation I had was with a seminary student named Lucas who is spending the summer with the Church. He had this to say about my conversion*: He was glad that I had been delivered to the church and now believed in the correct religion - the one that everyone should believe in. I had to crank my jaw off the floor. I have never actually heard anyone say "my version of God is right, everyone else's is wrong". I thought maybe I misunderstood and asked him to explain, but nope it was exactly what it sounded like: all Catholics were 100% correct in their beliefs and everyone else was going to burn in hell for praying to the wrong diety in the wrong way. Krikey! I can only hope that by the time he becomes a priest someone has let him in on reality. He scares me.

He and several others were quite upset at me that I said it was wrong for both Terry Schiavo's family to turn their personal tragedy into a media clusterfuck and the government to react way that they did - attempting to establish a moral "what's right and what's wrong" battle over her case. To me the real tragedy is the way she was and continues to be used as a pawn in furthering various government and religious groups' agenda.

But I realized that's the funny thing about my separation of church and state view point - this was exactly the same thing I said before these autopsy results were released. As I watch many fundamentalist senators back pedalling from their statements made during the heat of battle - I see the merit of my outlook.

-e




*I hate the term conversion because it implies that I stopped believing in one thing and started believing in another. I find it hard to imagine that someone could change their beliefs like they were changing shoes or something and just "convert" to a new set. It took me like 10 years to make this decision and it was less of a conversion and more of a "hey, these guys think about God like I do".
Image
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

I wish to clarify for anyone reading that when I (and I presume others) use the term 'fundie' it is our way of seperating the fanatical zealots out from the nice reasonable followers of the religion... it is usually in regards to fundamental literalist Christians, but I feel any belief system taken to extremes can be bad. Just to make sure we are all on the same page, and so you realize I am not saying anything about moderate Christians of the world... just the Jack Chicks and Fred Phelps* fanatical nutjobs of the world. the ones like Emily described that theink they're 100% right and everyone else absolutley is 100% wrong.

*(don't click the Phelps link unless you're ready to be offended)

to address a few points...

the Supreme Court statue - see, because Confucious and Solon were included, I think that statue is ok. one or two more figures could be added to the mix, but as it stands, it's fine.

The thing is though.... Moses is famous for recieving the commandments, and I will admit the 10 commandments had some influence. But aside from 'thou shalt not kill' and 'thou shalt not steal' possibly 'bear false witness' what really is incorporated into our laws? coveting? we're capitalist, our society DEPENDS on us coveting our nighbours shit. adultery certianly is bad, but it's not illegal, though it can be grounds for divorce. honor thy father and mother? it's a nice moral code, but not really a solid law. keep the sabath holy? well, if you're Christian, but not everyone. graven images? again, have to be Christain. no other gods? again, Christian. take the name of the lord in vain? Christian yet again... (and yes i know those are all out of order) that's 3 out of 10, and they're pretty common sense rules.

When on the other hand, Solon had created a basis for law for Athens, which was later expanded upon in in Rome. they had developed the basis for Democracy and courts complete with a jury of peers, and a concise set of laws similar to our own in many respects long before Christianity. Really, the government is based on classical Greek and Roman laws more than anything else. And as such, the statue included of Solon is quite fitting. but it seems the fundies see Moses in the middle there and kinda blank out the other two. :\

As for Emily's encounter with the Seminary student, that's one thing i never understood, especially when presented with the classic Pascal's Wager argument. Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed in many ways, but one in particular is that there AREN'T only 2 choices. Assuming there was a god and he/she/it would provide you with everlasting happiness if you believed... Pascal himself could have been believing in the wrong god, as there are THOUSANDS of gods described in many cultures world wide. If this wager was presented to a person by a dozen people from a dozen different religions, how are they to decide who to believe? How should a person know which is right, and which is wrong? They can't. If I gave into his wager and chose to become religious, I could be choosing the 'wrong' god. I could become Christian, die, and come face to face with an angry Kali. In my opinion, a reasonable god (and not all of them are, to be sure) would be more understanding of someone being skeptical and undecided or even non believing due to lack of evidence, over fanatical devoition to the 'wrong' god for selfish reasons (ie. they chose to believe to avoid the off chance of going to Hell and nothing more). Though I don't believe any of them are wrong to follow, exactly... just wrong for me. But that's just me. :p I know people have faith that their god is 'the' god. But I am coming from a perspective where I lack that, and I need someone to give a solid argument as to why one should be followed above the others.

speaking of fanatical nutjobs...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm

O.O

and you've all heard about that lttle girl in England who was beaten and tortured by her aunt and 2 others because they were convinced she was a witch?

and that the authorities suspect that wasn't an isolated incident?

crazy.
User avatar
Maelstrom
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: California, USA

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Maelstrom »

Originally posted by Bamfette
I wish to clarify for anyone reading that when I (and I presume others) use the term 'fundie' it is our way of seperating the fanatical zealots out from the nice reasonable followers of the religion... it is usually in regards to fundamental literalist Christians, but I feel any belief system taken to extremes can be bad.
It's the exact same usage I have for the word as well. Kind of an "intolerace catch-all" term. Thank you for putting the idea behind it into clear and concise words, Jill. :)
Originally posted by Bamfette

speaking of fanatical nutjobs...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm

O.O
I'd heard about the poor girl who was beaten half to death by her family for "being a witch", but that link....

:shocked

Yeowch! I have to assume that the convent in which that happened was from one the of the many flavors of Orthodox Christianity, judging by the picture of the priest in question, and the fact that the Slavic countries tend towards Eastern Orthodox instead of Roman Catholicism. I'm pretty sure that the rest of the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy will come down on them like a ton of bricks for that. I'm going to watch that news story closely from my side. I've never seen the heirarchy deal with such an egregious act, especially one that has hit the airwaves. Without more information, I'm not sure whether to attribute that to fundamentalist zeal (Screw modern science and psychology! We know what we're doing!), or extreme, cloistered ignorance (Science? Psychology? What are those?). Not that either are acceptable....

There's something very telling about fanatics. They're highly visible in the major, politically powerful religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism. However they're still just as present elsewhere: in the scientific community as one-theory-fits-all nutcases, in Silicon Valley as those "work all day, sleep in your cube, sneer at all those 'slackers' who have lives" nerds, in the military as "security conscious" individuals who see everyone as an enemy and act accordingly.... They're practically everywhere. They're people who are into extremes, and no matter where they go, or what beliefs they adhere to, they adhere to them 100%, dammit, and anyone who doesn't is a bloody idiot/heretic/Puritan/wastrel/slacker/what have you. And since they're so very, very right, and the world is so very, very wrong, the ends invariably justify the means for them.

It's just there's something especially grating about seeing fanatics in religious venues. If you get a sports fan who has Atlanta Braves gear down to his underwear, spends all their time playing fantasty Baseball, rails against anyone who wants to change the team's (politically distasteful) name, and makes nasty posts about rival fans being "luzrs that suk", it's irksome, but you can ignore him. You know people are people, and the other Atlanta Braves fans are reasonable individuals.

But when someone claims to belong to a religion, and screams hateful, venemous, intolerant rhetoric in the name of said religion, there's this cognitive dissonance that's like claws on a blackboard. Once you get down to their core, religions, organized or not, are about ways to love and accept. Even the wierdest, most dangerous cults, or the most heretical sects of larger established faiths, will still tout the "so-and-so loves you and so will we" angle during recruitment drives. No one uses the "Wrathful God" stick on its own; it's always countered by, or couched in, the concept of mercy, love, and acceptance by a greater community.

But the fundies of the world just can't live by acceptance alone. They're different, you see. They're RIGHT. And for them to be RIGHT, others have to be WRONG. When things are WRONG, they have to be fixed; when people are WRONG, they have to be punished. A true fundie has a persecution complex and a paranoid streak a mile wide. You can't agree with them on some points, you have to agree completely, or you're an enemy with the rest of the world. At very least, you'll be horribly punished along the way, while only they will be in good shape.

Every noticed that Chick tracts features people who are either completely converted, therefore saved, or completely hostile, therefore damned? In the rare case of someone thinking they're doing the right thing, maybe even doing a few of the right things, but in a non-approved manner, they go to Hell with the rest. That's the binary world of a fundie.

And while we're talking about fundies, the new Harry Potter book is due out on July 16th. Brace yourselves! :naughty
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into the intake of a jet engine..... :evil
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

yes, what happened to that little girl is horrible too... and they say the practice may be more widespread than most would currently think. so much so that they've formed a special task force in the police department to deal with investigating crimes committed due to religious beliefs. I'd have to dig up the article, but the numbers were pretty horrific, and mostly African children, recently smuggled into Europe, possibly just for the purpose of serving as a sacrafice. most of it is speculation though, and i think i would need to see some more proof to fully believe it.

anyway... a follow up on the crucified nun: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4112568.stm

and yes, it does say that they were Orthodox, and that the church 'condemned' it and suspended him... but that he has refused to leave the convent.

a few questions though. he fully admits to what he did, so why just a suspension?

4 were charged, but surely a convent would have more than 3 nuns. NO ONE thought to call the police?

and another article, written from a more personal slant.. http://tinyurl.com/9f3g9

apparently the priest who was responsible for her death spoke at her funeral...
User avatar
Maelstrom
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: California, USA

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Maelstrom »

Originally posted by Bamfette
a few questions though. he fully admits to what he did, so why just a suspension?
I think the reason for just a suspension (for now) is that the church is dealing with this in a grindingly thorough manner, and there are strict proceedures for disciplining a priest (let alone defrocking). It's very similar to due process: even when the guy has a record a mile long, has admitted to a crime, and there are witnesses and irrefutable evidence, the police have to do a whole bunch of follow-up work to make sure the right thing is being done.

And I hate to add gas to the fire, here, but even though the Church Elders are considering excommunication for Father Corogeanu, that isn't that bad for the Orthodox Church. (I'd be much more impressed if they were considering anathema.) In many other Christian sects, excommunication means the priest snuffs the candle, rings the bell, closes the book, and suddenly you're cast utterly and completely out of the Church (and presumedly the sight of God) forever and ever, Amen. For Eastern Orthodox, it's a more minor term. Here's a concise, but thorough, explanation from an on-line encyclopedia:

In the Orthodox Church, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the Church. This can happen due to minor reasons like not having confessed within that year or be imposed as part of a penitential period. The Orthodox Church does have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepetant heresy. Even in that case, the individual is not "damned" by the Church but is instead left to his own devices.

According to Father Leo, you even be considered excommunicated by not attending church three times in a row (assuming you don't have a pressing reason). This doesn't mean it's really easy to get on the OCA's bad side, but rather that the word excommunication refers to a wide range of behaviors, from minor infractions to major sins.

As infuriating as it may be, I think that the Church would probably rather punish said priest but find a way to forgive him and keep him in the Church proper (even if he's been defrocked, and spends the rest of his life in prison) so that he has his lifetime to repent and be forgiven. That is, allow Corogeanu to be part of the Church as a laymember, even if he never has authority, nor is he allowed to be in any position where he can harm anyone again. One thing about "Forgiveness": it ain't a "get out of punishment free" card. Even serial killers can be forgiven (assuming they're actually repentent), but forgiveness doesn't mean you're off the hook. It just means you can now pay your debt with a clear conscience, and never do that crime again.

To be honest, I'm not sure of the nuts+bolts of disciplinary procedures. I'm going to print out these two articles and speak with Father Leo at length on Sunday, so that I can get a better idea of what kind of machinery has been set into motion. Personally, I think that if Father Corogeanu keeps insisting he was in the right, that counts as being unrepentent, and that can, and should, get him an anathema listing.
4 were charged, but surely a convent would have more than 3 nuns. NO ONE thought to call the police?
That's a mess, for sure. If something is wrong, a nun, monk, or priest is supposed to stop it by whatever means possible. If that means breaking the "code of silence" and going to the police, leading a demonstration in a country run by a ruthless dictatorship, or otherwise putting yourself in harm's way, you do it.

Here's a few of my suppositions. It could be that the rest of the nuns....

1) Believed Father Corogeanu was in the right, that Sister Irina was indeed possessed, and that this was the only chance for her soul.

2) Were somewhat unconvinced that Sister Irina was possessed, but the church doctrine (and local cultural structure) clearly places (male) monks and priests in control, and they bowed to Father Corogeanu's authority. (It could also be that they might have been a bit afraid to cross Father Corogeanu, for reasons that had nothing to do with Church doctrine.)

3) Were terrified of Sister Irina's bizarre, threatening behavior, and were willing do anything, including looking the other way, to solve it. (Boy, is that a distasteful thought, but I can't discount it out of hand. Especially from the way they were all stone-faced at her funeral.... :urg)

4) Didn't know about how bad it had gotten. Believe it or not, this is possible. Despite what seems to be their calm, detatched way of life, Monastaries and Convents are really busy places: the idea is to keep yourself occupied with work or prayer at all times, and you have practically no free time to yourselves. It could be they just thought Sister Irina was being restrained and lectured by Corogeanu. After all, only four nuns were in direct contact with the whole affair. It would be interesting to know how many schitzophrenic outbursts poor Sister Irina had up until that point. Restraining her might have been S.O.P by then.

I pray that the last option, being out of the loop, was what happened here. It isn't an excuse, and it sure as hell doesn't absolve everyone of all blame, but it's a lot more palatable than the other three.

That poor, poor woman. She clearly belonged in a professional care facility, not a monastary. :cry
and another article, written from a more personal slant.. http://tinyurl.com/9f3g9

apparently the priest who was responsible for her death spoke at her funeral...
*shudder*

Why am I reminded of witch hunters of the 1600s when I read Father Corogeanu's words?

One thing that got to me: why were only the nuns ond one monk there for the funeral? Didn't Sister Irina have any family or friends besides that one person she visited up there? Did Irina's family use the monastary as a "dumping ground" for their unstable daughter, and didn't care about her enough to even see her off?

Or did they have the funeral so fast they didn't allow anyone else time to travel there?

Or, more disturbing, did the fact that Father Corogeanu was known to be there scare everyone away?
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into the intake of a jet engine..... :evil
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

some good points... as for the last one, it was stated in the first artile that she was an orphan. she had no family....

I just wanted to share something i found yesterday... it is VERY long, i bet she could publish it as a book. but well worth the read, i think. It is the personal story of someone losing their faith, and what went into that happening, and the effects it had on her life... she want from fundamentalist, literalist, missionary type Christian, to an athiest with lesbian leanings... quite an about face. and the ironic thing is, it all started becuase she was trying to strengthen her faith, and she fought against it every step of the way, trying to be a 'good Christian' and many turning points are happening at places like a pilgramage to Jerusalem, and a Christian couple's retreat... i'm kinda just hoping it will help some people understand the other side... that it's not about someone choosing to be rebelious for the hell of it. and it's jsut interesting. or at least i think so.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72552

as an aside related to the whole 'fundie' thing, I doubt she would have had her 'de-conversion' if she had been with a more liberal church from the start. in my mind it's like, the more rules imposed, the more likely one will rub you the wrong way, the more your knowledge is restricted (in this case only to Church teachings, completely ignoring 'worldly' influences) the more likely new information will shatter the beliefs you have. which aslo explains the impenetrable wall some of them erect against evidence such as that for evolution. Most Christians, even the Vatican, accept evolution. they saw the proof, accpeted it (though it took a while) and found a way to make it mesh with their beliefs (that at some point a soul was infused into early humans, is the most common, i think) and that's it. but fundies are so rigid in their beliefs, that it is the absolute literal interpertation that is the truth, that if one piece is removed, the whole thing crumbles, because they've been taking it so literally. so it is not so it's kind of another way fundamentalism is bad in my mind. though some people seem to want to have their lives controlled :-/ i mean obvioulsy some people stay with a fundamentalist church their entire lives. some do the opposite of what she did and convert TO fundamental literallist Christianity... so the rigid rules seem to be ok with them. maybe they are jsut the type of person who needs an extreme ammount of 'structure' to their lives. i dunno.
User avatar
Maelstrom
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: California, USA

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Maelstrom »

Originally posted by Bamfette
some good points... as for the last one, it was stated in the first artile that she was an orphan. she had no family....
Whoops! I managed to miss that bit. Thanks, Jill.
I just wanted to share something i found yesterday... it is VERY long, i bet she could publish it as a book. but well worth the read, i think. It is the personal story of someone losing their faith, and what when into that happening, and the effects it had on her life... she want from fundamentalist, literalist, missionary type Christian, to an athiest with lesbian leanings... quite an about face. and the ironic thing is, it all started becuase she was trying to strengthen her faith, and she fought against it every step of the way, trying to be a 'good Christian' and many turning points are happening at places like a pilgramage to Jerusalem, and a Christian couple's retreat... i'm kinda just hoping it will help some people understand the other side... that it's not about someone choosing to be rebelious for the hell of it. and it's jsut interesting. or at least i think so.
Wow.....

Just... wow.....

It took me quite some time to read all the way through that link, Jill. It was a very good read. The writer really knows what she's doing. I wish that those posts would be turned into a book. Her story definitely deserves to be heard.

As I read through it, I was struck by the paralells between her deconversion and the basic process of growing up. At first we're happy and cozy in our world, knowing that we're taken care of every step of the way, but at some point we begin to question, chafe under restrictions, and realize that the cozy coccoon just doesn't fit anymore. And no matter how fondly we may remember our childhood (or, at least, certain parts of it), we know there's just no way to go back. We've experienced too much. We're no longer children to be molded. I think that's the crux of any cultist's mindset; the need to regress to childhood, when all decisions were made for them, and everything was simple. Some people don't want to be free. Freedom to think also brings the responsibility to deal with your mistakes, and that can scare the crap out of people. Isn't it easier to know with certainty that you're right, because the decision has been made for you? No responsibility there, no chance of failure.

With that in mind, the children of fundamentalists have never had the choice to give up their freedom; they just grew up knowing no other path. When they grow up and see the rest of the world, it can be an unpleasant awakening. These are the ones that deconvert so often, I think, because they never really "bought into" the restrictions in the first place. In fact, in the book Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith , I was struck by the way that the author (Peter E Gillquist) spoke about his and his friends' evangelical upbringing. At one point, he talked to a buddy about how he felt like he was losing faith, and that buddy said (basically) "Pete, I'm one step from atheist myself." You have to step back and wonder; in an evangelical society that so emphasized God and Jesus in their everyday lives, how this could happen? And it happens every day.

It's no wonder that fundamentalists the world over have this deconversion process more often than more moderate, tolerant faiths. That circular reasoning can insulate you from any hard decisions, make life simple and happy. But once you start to question, the whole thing comes down. A moderate worldview handily holds up to questions. In fact, a moderate priest, rabbi, imam, monk, or other man/woman of faith will encourage you to dig deeper, to ask the difficult questions, even if they don't know the answers. They believe that once you do the research yourself and come to your own conclusions, it will just prove the soundness of their faith. (It's incredible how often they're right, too....)

Man, you try to do that with a fundlet, and watch how you get smacked down. They know that just one question they can't answer sends you someplace they can't control, and that scares the bejeezus out of them. Not just because they're terrified for the safety of your immortal soul... but because inside they're worried that you might find something that they don't want to hear....
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into the intake of a jet engine..... :evil
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

what i found most interesting, probably because it was something ihad not much experience with, was the reaction of her family, (aside form her gandparents who seemed like fine people) and even her own reaction to her sister's deconversion before she started down that road herself. it was jsut so... cult like. absolute realms of black and white and a total aversion to anything, anything at all, that could in any way lead to them questioning their faith. her husband would not even CONSIDER marriage counceling outside the church out of fear of secular influences. and the way they spouted little pre-packaged bits of 'wisdom' usually in the form of circular reasoning. and just plain not being able to have any empathy or understanding at all for anyone not exactly like them. and the cluelessness that their attitudes were at best annoying and at worst hurtful. they jsut didn't understand at all, even if they were once non Christian themselves. it was like they were brainwashed.
LadyErin
Butt Monkey
Butt Monkey
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:05 am
Location: Limbo
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by LadyErin »

Brainwashing is correct. I look back at some of the things I was taught, and I shudder. I can clearly remember my pastor making jokes (very mean spirited ones) about people of other christain faiths-with members of those faiths in the church to attent service. In nearly ten years of at least once a week services this happened. I remember many times going to the church leaders with questions about something and being given a run around on many things. One time I went to a lady I had grown up with with questions about what the church taught and some things my professor was teaching (it was a religion class, after all) and being told that I shouldn't have even taken the class! (it was a required class-which everyone knew) When I stated that I had to take the class, I was then informed that I should have had a talk with my Pastor so that he could told me which class to take. Lovely eh?
http://lady_erin.livejournal.com
:magneto
What do you mean, you "don't believe in homosexuality?" It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary. ~~Lea DeLaria
Want to IM me? U2U me for the screenname.
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

yeah... the more fundamentalist churches do not meet all the requirements of a true cult, but they do come closer than most...

oh, and i jsut wanted to say that though i am ranting about fundamemtalist christians there are 'militant atheists' that i can not stand, either.... though they do not have a central organizing factor like a church, they've come to this all (or nearly all) on their own individually, some some of them can take their beliefs to extremes just as bad as the fundies... I read on the atheism LiveJournal today one guy who believed it was right to kill a baby up to one year of age, for instance. a HEALTHY baby. he saw them as a waste of resources, and he couldn't understand why people were disagreeing with him becuase he saw his logic as flawless. he came right out and said: "I think I've found the only airtight philosophy." after saying this. though their problems come from OVER thinking things, where as the fundies problem comes from them letting other people tell them what to think. a militant atheist will, from what i have seen, tend to rely on hard logic so much that they leave out little things like human emotion, and will have outright contempt for anyone who relys on emotion to make any decision as being 'weak minded'.

the sad thing is, we are such a small percentage of the population that while people realize the fundies are not the norm for Christians, few people realize it is the same for atheists, and since the militant ones tend to be the most vocal...
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

just a note that Canada is now the third country in the world to recognize gay marriages country wide: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632229.stm

though, it was already accepted in all but two of the provinces before this, but this makes it legal throughout the country.
taekwondodo
Deck Swabber
Deck Swabber
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:55 pm
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by taekwondodo »

Go Canada! *sigh* Sometimes I wish my folks hadn't moved...
User avatar
Maelstrom
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: California, USA

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Maelstrom »

We have a bit of good news over here, in California, as well. The 9th circuit is often known for handing down some truly bone-headed decisions, but in this case they've finally done something right:
California domestic partner law intact

Without comment, the justices Wednesday unanimously declined to review lower-court rulings that said the law does not conflict with a voter-approved measure against gay marriage.
It's not as good as Vermont or Massachusetts, but on the other hand it sidesteps a lot of legal chicanery. Here's the full link:

California domestic partner law intact

Jill, I'm curious. You mentioned that same sex marriage was already accepted in all but two of the provinces before the decision. How divisive is the issue in Canada? I have a theory that it's the fundlets that cause most of the "outrage" over here, and perhaps your lack of them has led to a much calmer environment. Unless you have the same "GOD HATES xxx" people up there, too, and we just haven't head about them in the states....
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into the intake of a jet engine..... :evil
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

Alberta's leaders are very much opposed to it, overall. Ralph Klein has threatened in the past to enact the 'notwithstanding clause' which would in effect make Albeta immune to the new legistlation, but later it was revealed that would not actually work. But he remains very vocally oppossed. Alberta is Canada's Texas. :p It's full of farming, ranching and oil. along with that, it has many many small rural communities that have a high fundie population in comparison to the rest of Canada. in the big 2 cities in Alberta, Calagary and Edmonton, i'd suspect over half were in favor of the legislation. maybe not as many as in the rest of Canada percentage wise, but i don't think it would be widely opposed. it's the rural communities that are most opposed.

Canada also differs from the States in terms of religion in how it's split up. in the States, most people are Protistant of some form or another, and Roman Catholic is in second place, in Canada, Roman Catholocism is the primary religion, except, for some reason, they don't tend to be as strict (or maybe it's just not as pushy) about the rules as in other palces. so that has something to do with it. the Roman Catholic church is big here, it has many members, but it tends to keep it's rules and beliefs WITHIN the Church, not try to force them into law for the country as a whole.

That's not to say some religious fundies haven't tried to force their rules into Canadian law.... recently, a Muslim lawyer tried to enact 'Sharia' into Canadian law so that Islamic religious law would take precident over Canadian law. Infact, it was already in place in Ontario since 1991. However, not only was it rejected, if it was even enacted, it would have only had any power over thsoe who professed to be Muslim themselves, the laws would have remained the same for everyone else, and it would be over a limited number of things, mosty family disputes. but still. someone was actually trying to make it legal to have women stoned to death for adultery. :\ it was actually MUSLIMS mostly opposed to the law... Sharia is extremely sexist. a woman is considered to be worth oughly half what a man is, and they have no rights. there were several Muslim women in Canada on refugee status expressly to ESCAPE Sharia in other countries, and they were vocally opposed. Though Canada does allow religious communities to handle their own civil disputes, most notably in the Jewish community, Canada rejected Sharia because it conflicted with what we consider basic human rights...
User avatar
Maelstrom
Lookout
Lookout
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:41 pm
Location: California, USA

Update on "Crucified nun" case....

Post by Maelstrom »

I went looking for more information on this, as a week or so had passed without much notice. Most of the sites I saw were Romanian, so they weren't much help to me. In fact, Father Leo recieved an (unsolicited) email in Romanian about this act, though he hasn't gotten anything from the OCA heirarchy in particular. There doesn't seem to be a coordinated response to this, as it seems to be a single incident as opposed to something like the wide ranging pedophilia scandal of a few years ago. Here's the link itself:

Romania Stunned by Nun's Death in Exorcism

This is a brief article, and doesn't say anything "new" about the case in matters of strict, chronological time. That is, nothing has really happened since June 20th on the matter. (Not surprising, considering how carefully and delberately both civil and ecumenical wheels turn.) But there is a fair amount of previously unpublished information in it. Here's a base breakdown of some of the more interesting tidbits:

1) Poor Maricica Irina Cornici believed the devil spoke to her, as opposed to just acting out in a generic violent or "might be possessed" manner. (Hearing the devil speak to you is a classic symptom of schitzophrenia, probably because the devil is such a common, deeply engrained belief in western culture. It's so easy for the subconscious to "filter" episodes into that mode.)

2) Many of the rural poor and orphans in Romania come to monastaries for food, shelter, and "spiritual aid". Unsurprisingly, in a country with comparatively few resources and a history of ruthless suppression and dictatorship, the Orthodox Church is one of the most trusted authorities there is, if not THE most trusted.

(If the first fact made it sound more understandable that the nuns would believe Irina to be posessed, this second one should blow that out of the water: they should be used to the idea of the mentally ill coming to them for aid.)

3) This last bit is very interesting to me, and I'm lifting it directly from the article:
Cornici's death and the revelation that Corogeanu was ordained as a priest without having finished his theological studies have prompted the church to impose stricter rules for entering monasteries, including psychological tests.
At first this shocked me, because I know that priests have to go through 10+ years of seminary studies before being consecrated into the clergy. But then I thought some more and realized that there isn't as strict a "control mechanism" to become a monk or a nun. (I think you get a year's worth of "training period", to see if you can adapt to a strict monastic lifestyle; a far cry from 10 years of study.) It looks like Corogeanu found a way to take a "back door" in; apparently restrictions for a monk being ordained as a priest are much more relaxed than those for a layman.

Considering Corogeanu's INCREDIBLE arrogance (refusing to stop serving as a priest, being certain he did the right thing about Sister Irina, etc.), this guy should never have even been considered for the priesthood. Hell, I don't see how someone that proud and unwilling to submit to authority could have made it as a monk. The whole idea of monastic life is bowing to authority and humbling yourself before God.

Curiouser and curiouser....
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into the intake of a jet engine..... :evil
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

I know we preach tolerance here at NS... but in this one instance, i think i can make an exception.... anyone who connects homosexuality with Hitler and Satanism loses their right to respect, imho. so.

Pat Robertson is evil. plain and simple, straight up evil.
"[The] feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Fundraising letter from Pat Robertson that was an in- kind contribution to the Iowa Committee to Stop ERA, as reported in The Washington Post, August 23, 1993

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that sanctifies the separation of church and state."

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals--the two things seem to go together." "The 700 Club," 1/21/93, ADL report on Religious Right, page 131

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" "The New World Order," page 218

"A lasting peace will never be built upon man's efforts, because man is sinful, vicious, and wicked."

"If you go all the way back to the days just following creation, men lived nine hundred years or more."

"My personal feeling is that oral sex is against nature."

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation." New York Magazine, August 18, 1986
just a list of quotes i stumbled across... pretty hard to be taking those out of context, i'd say... and some of them aren't 'evil' just..... odd....
HoodedMan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:39 pm
Title: Lord Sarcasmo von Snarkypants

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by HoodedMan »

Originally posted by Bamfette
Pat Robertson is evil. plain and simple, straight up evil.
... who didn't know this? But I'll bet you these quotes rival those.

Just to note: I'm not pushing any particular agenda, but I am however a gay rights activist and a Michael Savage/Anne Coulter hater, and I'm afraid it shows. I would have posted a few from equally batsh*tcrazy Rick "Spreading" Santorum, but I didn't have any offhand.
From the August 3 nationally syndicated broadcast of Savage Nation:

[T]he San Francisco Human Rights Commission, hold your nose-- When you hear the words "Human Rights Commission," you know what you're dealing with. Think of the worst people in America, they're the ones who go on to human rights commissions. They're neo-fascists in the guise of human rights activists. They wanna tell you what you can think, what you can't think. Who you can listen to, who you can read -- they're stinkers. They're communist or Nazis or both. ... So they're attacking the San Francisco Police Officer's Association, because the San Francisco Police Officer's Association received free tickets to my event, Michael Savage Uncensored. ... Now I'm extremely popular, but the San Francisco Human Rights Commission thinks that their Nazi background gives them an opportunity to say that I'm a hateful person because they don't like what I say about homosexuals. ... When you hear "human rights," think gays. When you hear "human rights," think only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son. And you'll get it just right. OK, you got it, right? When you hear "human rights," think only someone who wants to molest your son, and send you to jail if you defend him. Write that down, make a note of it. So anyway, let's get back to the serious stuff here.
-- Michael Savage
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.
-- Ann Coulter
That's my advice to all homosexuals, whether they're in the Boy Scouts, or in the Army or in high school: Shut up, don't tell anybody what you do, your life will be a lot easier.
-- Bill O'Reilly
We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.
-- Ann Coulter
From the June 21 broadcast of the nationally syndicated Savage Nation:

Now listen to how they write it, these psychos. "Accustomed to neglect from much of the medical establishment, the lesbian community is assigning itself the task of assessing -- often bluntly -- its members' distinctive array of health problems"? What it is, lemme explain it to you -- they're jealous that they don't have an AIDS epidemic that they can cash in on -- so they came up with like, "Oh yeah, we have illnesses too, and we want money." What are the illnesses? "Well, we're fat and we smoke. And we clobber each other, so therefore we need money. Lotsa federal money for the lesbian community."
-- Michael Savage
Finally, the ACLU - we talked about this yesterday and I - and, you know, I have to pick on the ACLU because they're the most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now. There's by far. There's nobody even close to that. They're, like, second next to Al Qaeda.
-- Bill O'Reilly
You want to have two guys making out in front of your 4-year-old? It's OK with them. A guy smoking a joint, blowing the smoke into your little kid's face? OK with them. And I'm not exaggerating here. This is exactly what the secular movement stands for.
-- Bill O'Reilly
More posted two posts below.

[Edited on 14/3/2006 by HoodedMan]
ACHTUNG! Alles touristen und non-technischen looken peepers! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
Bamfette
Dread Pirate
Dread Pirate
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 9:41 pm
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by Bamfette »

I always knew... just stumbling across that list kinda just brought it forward in my mind... there are others that move in the same circles as him that i would also consider evil.... anyone who somehow justifies opressing women, gays, non-*insert religion here* etc....

looking forward to your list!

I should go find the Dr. Laura list i found a few weeks ago... I remember listening to her show at work with some like-minded people and mocking her...
HoodedMan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2335
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:39 pm
Title: Lord Sarcasmo von Snarkypants

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by HoodedMan »

Quotes posted. Here's the rest, so I didn't have a huge post.

Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties - provided we're only talking about criminals.
-- Ann Coulter
People can get out of the homosexual lifestyle; those people exist. I spoke at their convention just a few weeks ago. There were hundreds of them, now happily married, now with families of their own. I will encourage anybody I can to get out of a destructive lifestyle. And, I don't believe a healthy society can endorse it, subsidize it, or encourage it.
-- Gary Bauer
Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear thinking.
-- Ann Coulter
It's about time we all faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family.
-- Alan Keyes
Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.
-- Ann Coulter
Christianity stands for freedom, we don't want to impose our religion on everyone else. We just don't want secular humanist values or homosexual values to be forced upon us under the guise of anti-harassment laws, speech codes, hate crime laws, or sensitivity training.
-- David Limbaugh
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
-- Ann Coulter
When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.
-- Ann Coulter
ACHTUNG! Alles touristen und non-technischen looken peepers! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
eroz
Lubber
Lubber
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:51 pm

Schiavo autopsy finally released... (the new religion thread?)

Post by eroz »

Those quotes are scary!
I have heard most of the names you quote before but I don’t know how important they are in the political scene and the media.
Are these people considered crackpots by the general public, or are they taken seriously?
Post Reply