• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Warning: and are NSFW. Threads may start of as text only but then pictures could be added as part of a discussion or to make some point. This is not for family viewing without a parent's consent and supervision. If you are under age 18, please do not use this section
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Pope flies to America: all TV News coverage Hijacked! Am I intolerent?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Popes no longer have armies that hold dominion over client states. Artists thoughout the Papal States in Italy no longer have to give their best paintings to the Vatican as a tax. The Vatican itself recognizes that other Churches are now Christian! That's impressive ecumenical progress. Hello? Why not this is the 21st Century? However, why the "Royal Head of State Treatment" for a Pontiff?

It's wonderful when religious leaders travel to dialog with other leaders. Who knows they might learn something from each other? Also out of respect to the feelings of millions of devotees and for security, a welcome is in order. But why the pomp and fuss? Surely the man that walked in Gallilee would be somewhat aghast?

What happens when the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Grand Imam from Turkey or the Chief Rabbi of Israel or the Head of the Armenian or other Orthodox Church or a Hindu spiritual leader lands here? (After all, in the latter case, there are 920 million Hindus!) Beyond security and some small welcoming committee, there's no fuss.

Have we gotten our priorities wrong encouraging the royalty of one or even any religious leader?

If we were to follow the words on the US Bank notes

2003.jpg
Source

In God We Trust​

Why not?

I for one believe that any God that's in the nature of the God of the Hebrew Bible, is not foolish enough to need or value any of this pomp. After all, don't we have more important jobs to do?

Now I do not blame the Pontiff for all this fuss. After all who doesn't like to be respected and held in high esteem. However, I do fault the media, drunk on a "Royalty Delusion" and a pandering to political correctness that has no place in the 21st Century.

Was there no missing child today? Did they stop driving up the price of food beyond the means of 100 million poor who now cannot afford basic grains diverted to "Green Fuel" and green dollar bills"?

I feel the same for Billy Graham or any other superhero figure with a jet plane and a radio station. At least with the earthly Batman TV heros or Madonna, we know they're just joking! However, princes who truly believe they alone have some special contact with divinity are different. They replace rational thought with the idea that "salvation" trumps the unique sufficient values of social and personal responsibility with freedom of thought. That's what's sad about this! It's one thing to show respect to a religious leader. It's another for that individual to be lauded and treated as above other people as if we still believed in royal divine rights!

I personally wish the Pontiff a great spiritual visit and insight. If the USA didn't seriously believe that they have a special God-guided mission and have the God' favor then I'd think this was totally just a rock-star event. However, this is a serious reaching out to spread the delusion of a heaven with just one front door and one key!

Asher

*Fact Sheets: Currency & Coins
HISTORY OF 'IN GOD WE TRUST'

The motto

"IN GOD WE TRUST"

was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:



Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.




As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:


Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.
You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition
.

Source

The symbols on the bank notes are equally interesting and from the same source:

The unfinished pyramid means that the United States will always grow, improve and build.

"All-Seeing Eye" In addition, the "All-Seeing Eye" located above the pyramid suggests the importance of divine guidance in favor of the American cause.

God Favors the USA: The inscription ANNUIT COEPTIS translates as "He (God) has favored our undertakings," and refers to the many instances of Divine Providence during our Government's formation.

NEW Order for The Ages: In addition, the inscription NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM translates as "A new order of the ages," and signifies a new American era.
 
Last edited:

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
He is a HEad of State...

The Vatican in Rome is considered to be a separate State/Country and the Pope it's leader.
If you have been the The Vatican State, you would see there are borders and you are leaving Rome and Entering The Vatican...protected by Swiss guards!
 

Shane Carter

New member
Geeze Asher...having a tough day? :) There are always reruns on any of the billion Turner networks, maybe even the OJ trial multi-mini-series that ran for what, six months? :)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Here in the USA, we're supposed to separate Church and State!

Head of State?

The Vatican is the remnant of the Papal States after the European Powers gave the O.K. to the Italian States to abolish the abusive imperial power of the Vatican once and for all. This left the Vatican City as the remaning fraction. It may be called a "State", but there's no Mosque, Lutheran Church or Temple, not even a red light district or a bowling alley or a MacDonalds so it's not exactly a real State!

Asher
 
But why the pomp and fuss?

Roughly 67 million people in the US are Catholic and this is the first time Pope Benedict has visited. Why wouldn't there be a big fuss? He's the singular spiritual leader of more than a billion people worldwide. There is no other religious leader that can make that claim.

However, this is a serious reaching out to spread the delusion of a heaven with just one front door and one key!

I believe that is the most ignorant things I've heard in a long time. You apparently know very little of Catholic doctrine and completely overlooked all of the gestures the Pope has made toward the Muslim and Jewish leaders. Since it seems like your mind is completely closed on the topic, I won't annoy you with my view. I think, however, this should move down to the Provocative Thoughts section, because I find this kind of intolerance pretty offensive.

-Colleen
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Roughly 67 million people in the US are Catholic and this is the first time Pope Benedict has visited. Why wouldn't there be a big fuss? He's the singular spiritual leader of more than a billion people worldwide. There is no other religious leader that can make that claim.

But close! The are 980 million Hindus. We don't treat their spiritual leaders with pomp and as royalty.

I believe that is the most ignorant things I've heard in a long time. You apparently know very little of Catholic doctrine and completely overlooked all of the gestures the Pope has made toward the Muslim and Jewish leaders.

I have not addressed that doctrine anywhere. Its belief is spirtual scaffolding and stength for many devout followers. That I respect.

Since it seems like your mind is completely closed on the topic, I won't annoy you with my view. I think, however, this should move down to the Provocative Thoughts section, because I find this kind of intolerance pretty offensive.

Colleen, you are right in that we don't want to show any intolerence. I cherish people's freedom to hold spirtual beliefs. I don't wish to see the USA State give preference and the New Media to ignore everything else. Respect and deference, yes, Royalty, no!

Asher
 
Last edited:

Andrew Rodney

New member
I'm with you Asher, big deal about nothing. Can you imagine the bill we get to pay for security? And this is the chap who went out of his way to hide the fact that there's all this sexual abuse in the church (now that's been a Catholic doctrine), meanwhile, the polygamists in Eldorado get all the heat.

The guy puts his pants on, one leg at a time like everyone else. I'm not impressed.
 

Ray West

New member
I think most 'religions' believe there is one heaven, and that they have the key. I think they are all right. If it was not so, surely some believers would have come back, and said - 'hey, they're telling us lies'.

It is understandable, the media hype. it is just an extension of the pop star thing, but in this case, I guess there is a bit more cash involved. What is it that sells the papers? What is the news that gets shown? On a lesser scale, is it the best artists that get the publicity? No its the ones with the best publicity agents. Too much concentration on the messengers, and not the messages.

But then, I'm in the UK, where it is more complicated, the head of the church here is the head of state, but both have little say in affairs of state. We owe a lot to Henry. ;-)

Best wishes,

Ray
 

Eric Hiss

Member
I'm with you Asher

Asher,
I'm in agreement with your sentiments. I personally don't see any good coming from this. But I don't watch TV at all - its banned from the house so don't care if its so and so Hollywood ho-ho getting married or the Pope because there's no real news on TV anyhow - at least American TV. It's all a big advertisement now. Instead I choose to read, something I implore more to do.
Eric
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Sienna Tones! Autumn, Thanksgiving, the earth's bounty: Post your best!

Hi Colleen,

You of all people I would not want to offend! My apologies if I have given you grief in this. I just believe we should separate Church from State. That means treating the progressive leaders of great religions with dignity, respect andlove. However they should not be feted as princes! That's the distinction a lot of people seek.

Further, as Andrew Rodney points out, we have highly selective outrage! We should not single out particular religions as sanctioned and respect. Fancy raiding a religious Mormon community and have a global unrestricted seizure of computers, private files and adults. At the same time thousands of others in the mainstream religions get a free pass!

Roughly 67 million people in the US are Catholic and this is the first time Pope Benedict has visited. Why wouldn't there be a big fuss? He's the singular spiritual leader of more than a billion people worldwide. There is no other religious leader that can make that claim.

I revisit this because I know you feel that I have slighted Catholics. That's not my intent. Even calling him "The Holy Father" to me is an issue even though that terminology and title is rightfully his as Prince of his own church. However, in the USA, we cannot call him that, because what does it mean for the head of the Armenian Orthodox Church, isn't he in the same rank? Or what about the head of the Sikh faith. So the struggle I am having is to particilpate in an aknowledment of a "fact" which is only pertinent to believers. So while I treasure peoples cultural identities and the tools they use towards being moral, I cannot go along with government and newsmedia singing in unison with the faithful as if the Pontiff somehow was "The Holy Father" for us all! My saying this is not a disrespect. If I had the responsibility of raising the child of a Sikh, Roman Catholic or Muslim in my home, I would provide as best as I could the religious inheritence that the parents would have wished. So I have no particular issue with Catholic v. Potestant, Baptist, or anything else.

I believe that is the most ignorant things I've heard in a long time. You apparently know very little of Catholic doctrine and completely overlooked all of the gestures the Pope has made toward the Muslim and Jewish leaders.

You might indeed by surprised that I am not totally ignorant of Catholic doctrine. But that's not the point. This is not about Catholic doctrine on my knowledge of it. While I do not know off by heart each encyclical, the recent ones, Nostre Aetate and Pacem in Terres did impress me.

This is not about his gestures towards other faiths. That is another worthy subject but has nothing to do with the doctrine that to go to heaven the path is through Jesus..and maybe Mary too.

Since it seems like your mind is completely closed on the topic,

The last thing someone can say of me is that I have a closed mind. On the contrary, my mind is open to a fault. It's just closed to the idea of the State supporting religion in the USA.

I won't annoy you with my view.

Your view would not annoy me. Even if it did, you are free to state it and who knows you may be right and I am in error. I'm certainly open to any ideas on fitting in religion with an imperative that others should be able to choose to be free of it.

I think, however, this should move down to the Provocative Thoughts section, because I find this kind of intolerance pretty offensive.
The fact that you strongly feel I expressed intolerence merits moving the thread as you suggest. However, on reflection, I think you'll agree that I have been not so egregious.

Look from my perspective. As I implied, it bothers me that we remove important issues from the front pages and TV news and that is a detriment to ur society.

The night before I discovered how our money-making schemes of making ethanol from corn has linked grains to the price of crude oil. As a driect result and for other reasons, rice prices have shot up 80% and so poor people, 100 million of them will not eat! Morally, that's my anguish, that this disaster has scant attention. Meanwhile we discuss at length the design of the Pope-mobile. That, I hope puts my frame of mind into perspective.

This does not stop me from admiring beauty within the Catholic Church. However, my opinions were not of what is right with the Church. I really an not concerned with the doctrine! I am thinking beyond the internal needs of one religion. Toleration and consideration should not expand to give the appearance of recognizing and respecting any religion's claims of divinity or relevence in the public arena. That is for the faithfull to do for themselves. Everyone else should not be hindered or expensed.

What is my passion here? It's the way our Government and press acts as if Goerge Washington himself has returned as a gift to the 21st century. That's a great internal sentiment for the Catholic Church not for our major systems of state and information.

Asher
 

Shane Carter

New member
I'm trying to figure out why this rant is on a photography forum. Maybe I missed the point of OPF. It is not in any single way remotely related to photography. At first it seemed to be another ‘why the hell does America think is important when there is blah, blah, blah some on’ somewhat light-hearted post…railing about wasting time with things like soap operas, the OJ trial, People magazine, 95% of TV in general, etc., which I can get behind.

But it is not apparently. And Asher, this does have a feeling of venom and intolerance which I don’t find appealing on any level and from any crowd. And I’m not Catholic or even “religious” in any traditional sense. The intolerance of the anti-religious crowd here in the US is worse in my opinion than that of the extreme religious due to its blatant hypocrisy and seeping hate…claiming to be tolerant while clearly not at all. Anti-religious folks don’t just live and let-live, they attack, and usually unprovoked…this behavior is distasteful at best. This particular brand of sermon is preaching to choir and will do one of two things: gets nods of heads from other like minded people and make the rest of us wonder what the heck, I come to discuss photography and now what appears to be a sincere attack on the Pope and those that are paying attention to his visit, huh?

I’ve recommended OPF to a number of people and it never occurred to me that this board should be described as discussions about photography and political “discussions” (really this is somewhere between a rant and diatribe) that has nothing to do with photography. This post just seems to come out of nowhere and what is the point? I can think of a million things in this country that are worth fussing about and this is somewhere between ‘not on the list’ to ‘way down my list’ and hardly worth a second thought.

OK, well, I actually did real-life photography last night…shot a play: Enchanted April. Maybe I’ll post some photos for C&C but half of the play is set in Italy and the set has a God forbid, a Catholic cross in the garden near where the lady’s congregate for all of the second and last act…hmmm, maybe better not, would not want to cause a ruckus as sensitive as the issue of religion seems to be here.

Oh well, now I’m railing too so time to let this go…back to post work, need to finish up a lot of post-processing.
 

Ray West

New member
Hi Shane,

I agree with you, wrt what you say. But, this particular section, is where such things can be said. I expect, because some of us are involved in 'the media', and some have religious beliefs, then it is of interest. I am from a different part of the world, but I can not see anything wrong with what Asher has said, in this particular place - and believe me, I would tell him so - and I think we should use it as a discussion point, if we so wish, or not, if we so wish.

I have no problems with publicity being given to individuals. However I have real big problems, that a country that wields as much power as the USA thinks it does, does not publicise fully, such that every citizen, is aware of situations in the rest of the world - for example- East Africa. (see another thread on opf, and draw your own conclusions.) There is a hidden agenda, as you must know (but it may not be that hidden), in the way that 'news' is presented, and what is considered 'news'. We as the public have to be able to filter it, to get it into some perspective for us, read between the lines, or turn off, if necessary.

Changing tack slightly, (and I apologise in advance, if you fail to see the link), to where the so called reporting/media is heading, and I can only report second hand, as what I know, wrt my feelings at the time, in the sticks, in UK.

A few years ago, I was involved in video, was a member of a small forum, mainly experienced news folk from USA, etc. One guy was embedded, I think is the term, in Vietnam', some years before. Towards the end, there was so much control over what he could report, it was all being skewed, he was glad to get back. He was asked to cover the 'first gulf war', which he refused, because the news controls were even more restrictive. He and others were saying how the armed services in USA were talking to Holliwood, on how to present 'war' to the public, or similar, you know the editing, the 'excitement of the rocket being released, the building being demolished a few miles away', but no flying limbs, blood, guts, whatever of the enemy, nothing to relate to that these victims were human.

A year after this discussion. my wife phoned me from work - she said 'turn on the tele' I asked what channel' she said 'any, it doesn't matter, bbc1, 2, ITV'' I turned on, to see this action movie/war theme, a demo of the holliwood thing, of some planes flying into a tower block. I phoned her back, to ask why I should watch that film, it wasn't that interesting, they kept repeating the same clip. There was nothing to indicate it was real (sort of reversal of 'war of the worlds' broadcast). And since then, we've had the cover ups, the stories, suppressed truths or otherwise. So, 'the media', has its arc of intent, its ideas of how to present the 'facts'.

I think Asher was just pointing out that 'the media' was going against 'the constitution, or the currency or whatever' - (not sure of the detail of American political history, because I watch the wrong news programs, I guess, skewed towards Europe, Asia and Africa.)

Best wishes,

Ray

PS, at least he isn't picking on the UK's national health service this time ;-)
 

Eric Hiss

Member
What I like about OPF

One of the things I like most about OPF is that all ideas/views are open here to be discussed. Photography is all about people and being able to present the whole of people, their differences of opinion included, really helps us discuss and share the process of image making. Compelling imagery is the result of much thinking and not necessarily the equipment. Whether you realize it or not this kind of discourse is fodder for good image making.

As to the Pope and world religion - I have my own strong views ... ones that when I express them openly get me beaten down like a bad dog by the very people who profess to have been taught by their religion to be open-minded and love and accept everyone. From my experience those that have been "taught" acceptance are the least tolerant. YMMV It's really important for people to recognize that there are others who differ in opinion or faith and that would not happen without forums like this where anything can be posted.

For these reasons I applaud Asher for taking the lead and starting posts about potentially difficult subjects rather than avoiding them or banning posters who start topics like this one as I have seen in other forums. We all are to benefit from such open discussion. Please follow Asher's lead and post what's on your mind!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Shane,

I was worried that my post might be mistaken for a rant of intolerance. The last thing I want to do is alienate you and others and do the very thing I despise. I went to school under police escort in London to protect us from real and frightening, not theoretical, religious intolerance. Decades later, when I saw on TV little Irish Catholic schoolgirls, aged maybe 7 or 8, having to go through an hostile gauntlet of angry Protestant (Orange) Catholic-haters screaming at them, I rewound my history and I knew how they felt.

I am a student of hatred and prejudice. My main work is on the 1914-1918 war and the loss of life by some one million Armenians. I have travelled to the area with Armenian, Kurd and Turkish guides so I am really serious about my work. I am a great admirer by the way of the Turkish Nationalist Mustafa Kamel Atturturk. (However, his legacy of not allowing fundamentalists to control the country, is challenged with the rise of militant Islam. This has lead to an amazing anachronism on the fight for the "Headscarf", a seemingly innocent, but powerful symbol of the rebirth of Sharia as the system of law. The silk of the scarf, like the bread offered by missionaries, is at the other end of powerful religious creed that devalues all other ways of thinking or belief. A moment with this video , will show you how awful a subject this is for modern Turkey to come to terms with. How can you not feel for the religious women? But as in Iraq, "democracy" will lead to theocracy, a paradox).

I'm concerned about selective reporting which leads to selective outrage. The initiators of OPF left the robgalbraith forum, one of the very best, because of no capability for people to express views on current events of real importance outside of direct relationship to making pictures. Speculation on new cameras was not allowed and no mention could be made of certain taboo subjects such as sex and religion. One of the key instigators of mass exodus appears to have been a question, "What camera would J.C. have chosen?" That led to immediate banning, with that extending to people who protested. Perhaps the very best forum on Photography seemed to implode.

OPF's goal is to use the camera to make the photographs of what's in you mind and heart and to earn a living but also to act as a lantern to see ourselves and our precious planet.

Hmm, is that a sermon, or what? Yes, at times I do get preachy! That may be partly personality and the rest my professorial and physician background, but your voice is no less important than mine. In OPF we provide a way for the extra head of steam to be released and that is, only here, in this section, Provocative Thoughts and Images. This was to circumvent having people exposed to material they thought offensive. In other fora, the dpreview.com is a great example, there has been a continual deletion of posts and even entire threads and banning. Still, dpreview is the most encyclopedic place to get specifications on 100's of digicams!

Here in OPF, by contrast, we are about expression and nurturing of that. We try to accommodate variations in photographic style and also speech so as to learn! That's a two way street. We all need, at times, to reevaluate our stances and check how we came to a particular style or opinion we hold like a shield to our chest.

Growth in a full range of real photography is fed by and feeds new images and open speech. OPF did not come with a users manual. We learn as we go along. This forum is meant to be dynamic, looking at cameras critically. The light goes in the camera but the photographs shine a light on our families, clients, work and our planet.

I treasure the photographs you have posted, working your way to bring out the love and relationship you have for your subject. That's how Nicolas and I feel for OPF.

Your feedback on my "rant" I take seriously.

I'm trying to figure out why this rant is on a photography forum. Maybe I missed the point of OPF. It is not in any single way remotely related to photography.

To allow us, as photographers, to put on light in places that we would not consider looking. If you read other threads in this section, you will see that we cover a lot of ground outside of choosing lenses. Maybe we should state this better in the intro to OPF. We are after all about imaging and this section is about expanding our "studio".

At first it seemed to be another ‘why the hell does America think is important when there is blah, blah, blah..
Rather it reveals (and much I didn't have any idea of) what is on the bureau of the Treasury home page and explanation of the symbols on the dollar bill Source. I realized, then, how we are a "God driven and favored nation with an special status and purpose" as a an assumed "fact". That really surprised me. It also explained to me, in part, the devotion of importance to the Pontiff's visit beyond what would be accorded to the leading Buddhist, Sikh or Hindu or religious figure.

But it is not apparently. And Asher, this does have a feeling of venom and intolerance which I don’t find appealing on any level and from any crowd. And I’m not Catholic or even “religious” in any traditional sense. The intolerance of the anti-religious crowd here in the US is worse in my opinion than that of the extreme religious due to its blatant hypocrisy and seeping hate…claiming to be tolerant while clearly not at all. Anti-religious folks don’t just live and let-live, they attack, and usually unprovoked…this behavior is distasteful at best.

I am religious but also not! I straddle the world of spirituality and hope and that of reality and fear. As a physician I have held the hand of dying patients and said "The Lord's Prayer" with them to their last breath.

This particular brand of sermon is preaching to choir and will do one of two things: gets nods of heads from other like minded people and make the rest of us wonder what the heck, I come to discuss photography and now what appears to be a sincere attack on the Pope and those that are paying attention to his visit, huh?

A misreading shane. My "rant" as you frame it, was directed principally to the assumption that it was correct to treat the Pontiff as Royalty. I feel the same way when we call kings "Your highness". However, with the Saudis, we still need their oil!

OK, well, I actually did real-life photography last night…shot a play: Enchanted April. Maybe I’ll post some photos for C&C but half of the play is set in Italy and the set has a God forbid, a Catholic cross in the garden near where the lady’s congregate for all of the second and last act…hmmm, maybe better not, would not want to cause a ruckus as sensitive as the issue of religion seems to be here.

Have no fear, I wouldn't dare, LOL! I hope you might find a way of reconciling your astonishment with my outburst with the intent of OPF to be a vigorous place to stimulate the imagination and and do better photography.

Asher
 
Last edited:
But close! The are 980 million Hindus. We don't treat their spiritual leaders with pomp and as royalty.

I didn't say "a spiritual leader of a billion people" I said "the spiritual leader". There are far more Muslims in the world than Catholics or Hindus, but you can not point to one person that guides them. What would be an acceptable welcome for the Pope as a head of state and I would argue the most influential individual on the face of the planet?

Colleen, you are right in that we don't want to show any intolerence. I cherish people's freedom to hold spirtual beliefs. I don't wish to see the USA State give preference and the New Media to ignore everything else. Respect and deference, yes, Royalty, no!

We don't have a state run media. How they chose to cover something, and what they chose to cover is their choice and is dictated by what they think most people want to see. Apparently Pope Benedict's ratings are comparable to tornadoes, polygamist compound raids, and political sex scandals so you're going to be stuck with a lot coverage for a couple of weeks. You might have to listen to sentiments like this one from Pope Benedict's White House speech
The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one's deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate.

The Pope is also addressing the UN on the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe we should write the media and tell them that it would be inappropriate for them to show us that nonsense when there are much more important things to cover like which rock star is supporting which candidate this week and what dirt the candidates have managed to dig up on each other in the last 20 minutes. Or are we really going to delude ourselves into thinking that if the resources weren't being spent on the Pope's visit they would be spent on something worthwhile? It' more likely that Senator Rangel would confiscate it and use it to have another building named to honor him for being so generous with my tax money.

I see the Pope's visit as something that can lift public debate out of the current sewer of presidential primaries and refocus it on what's important. How many people would remember that this was the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if there wasn't a fuss being made over the Pope's visit? If he has the power to hijack the media and make it pay attention to things like world peace and human rights, how is that a bad thing?

-Colleen
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I didn't say "a spiritual leader of a billion people" I said "the spiritual leader". There are far more Muslims in the world than Catholics or Hindus, but you can not point to one person that guides them. What would be an acceptable welcome for the Pope as a head of state and I would argue the most influential individual on the face of the planet?

Colleen,

I would argue that for many Christians the Pope is the most important person on the planet. The other faiths might see it differently.

You might have to listen to sentiments like this one from Pope Benedict's White House speech


I try to read all the Papal letters that are published, this too. I happen to read widely, especially of people who leverage power and influence.

The Pope is also addressing the UN on the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ...............

I see the Pope's visit as something that can lift public debate out of the current sewer of presidential primaries and refocus it on what's important. How many people would remember that this was the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights if there wasn't a fuss being made over the Pope's visit? If he has the power to hijack the media and make it pay attention to things like world peace and human rights, how is that a bad thing?

We'd all value that. However, the practical implications are difficult. What do the rights cover? I'm sure that 90 percent of what the Pontiff would say I'd laud.

However the last 10% might be a challenge. What rights are more complex and dangerous to handle well? I'm conflicted! After all free elections put in power intolerant repressive regimes in Italy, Germany in the last century and in places you can come up with more recently!

Is it right to allow headscarves when they are in fact a symbol for resurgence of fundamentalism which wishes to sweep away open choice? Is it right to for political or religious fundamentalists to use needed bread and health services to convert poor desperate people to their ideology, eradicating thousands of years of indigenous culture, poems, metaphors, songs and tradition?

My mind will be open to what the Pope says. The Pope is a man of influence among so many millions of people. So for sure, I'd value learning any progressive contributions that are fully explained and openly implemented.

Still, I must admit to you, I always look for the Bible at the other end of the piece of bread! In sp[ite pf that apparent limitation in my openness, I will not allow cynicism to blot out what's good in the Pontiff's address. We need real progress in human rights and penitence and restitution, as I view them. Without that, words are just words, however eloquent.

The remarkable new chapters in the history of the Catholic Church opened by Pope John in Pacem in Terres gives me some encouragement. That unfortunately took 2 millinea to happen! However, we still have a long way to go.

People of different cultures need to be respected as equals, as they are to each cherished. What does that mean? We must not violate or intrude on to the imperatives of other ways of free thought.

"Love"

Loving fellow man cannot give us license. It cannot be an excuse or reason for expanding and overrunning less powerful cultures. Whole continents have been culturally decimated! Is that really moral, or is it perhaps selfish. Memories have been erased and that is wrong.

We must protect the inherent dignity of all cultures. That, above all is the key human right, to be free of leverage by powers on the open expression and development of human ideas and imagination and their expression. When any religion or political doctrine preaches, promotes and pastures exclusion of others, I'm disturbed. If they inspire and spread conviction of it's unique true way to heaven, righteousness, enlightenment and or salvation as the only way sanctioned, that devalues the rest of us!

So let's see what happens. I'm interested.

Asher
 
Last edited:
Atheist's know from observation that life ends. Religious people find such observation difficult to comprehend. So they speculate that life is a testing ground for entry into subsequent life - survival instinct taken to a supernatural plane. Different religions propose differences in the criteria used for testing. Not surprisingly, religious intolerance arises from differences in criteria and confusion occurs because tolerance is a criterion proposed by some religions. To an altruistic atheist, all the emotion and grief engendered seems rather silly.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Atheist's know from observation that life ends. Religious people find such observation difficult to comprehend. So they speculate that life is a testing ground for entry into subsequent life - survival instinct taken to a supernatural plane. Different religions propose differences in the criteria used for testing. Not surprisingly, religious intolerance arises from differences in criteria and confusion occurs because tolerance is a criterion proposed by some religions....
Well written from an objective point of view, but we have scaffolding of cultures in which to build societies and raise us above wild animals and primitive behaviors. We may need that need that to co-exist and flourish in large societies.

o an altruistic atheist, all the emotion and grief engendered seems rather silly.

Michael,

Yes, on the surface it's silly but the imperative to overwhelm other cultures becasue of this is one of the most destrcutive to humanity. Nothing except very rare natural disasters take such as toll on the branches of the human race.

It's not silly like "What song should I sing in the shower"? Or "Who finished their icecream first?

Dogma and it's driving infectious spread is destructive in so0me cases overwhelming the charity it chooses. Dogma is wrapped in greed. It's the cause of wars, persecutions, torture, humiliation. It has wiped out major successful cultures and with that, all the wisdom collected over thousands of years.

But even without that, we have the more mundane issue of freedom of thought and expression.

Some people like Shakespeare, others desire to polish their cars, and others stare at the stars and wonder the meaning of everything. Some people want to work things out for themselves, go bare-chested, have multiple wives or pray to the moon. Others feel they must spread their way of thinking and suppress any thing else. In totalitarian societies, be it Mao, dictonuts or funadmentalists, they do the latter.

I really don't care what scaffold one uses for building a society. Just don't hang people on it! I only want freedom from coercion and a willingness to see others fantasies or choices of style as their own choice. It so happens that many religious or political organizations have fine stated principles. The issue is often that the execution is very untransparent and disastrous since it cocoons itself from more useful ways of solving human issues and is seduced by greed and arrogance.

So the good the self-feeding dogmatic religions and societies do is often admirable. Nevertheless the price is sometimes steep. So we must continuously do the math. We must hold people to account.

To the Pontiff's visit! Have I been disrespectful and intolerant? Have my arguments been disingenuous? That's for others to judge.

I strongly feel that we should be courteous to all leaders where possible but hold them accountable. We should welcome leaders as representatives of constituencies but not as Royalty. We should not use terms or titles that show any support for their beliefs, rather respect for the people they represent.

The Pope's visit to the USA could be of such relevance beyond the pomp beyond the joy of the believers and those who follow his word. Should major issues be tackled boldly then this would be a major social advance for our societies respect for the sanctity of the individual's personal integrity.

Asher
 

Ray West

New member
Although, on the coins, the Americans have written 'In God we trust', where has God written, that he trusts the Americans? What is the definition of 'trust'. What was the definition 140 years ago? What motto would you put on your money these days?

The more I look at that statement, on the coins, the more hypocritical it seems, from its original times, to today. It actually is giving no indication of separating state from religion, in my opinion, in fact, quite the opposite.

Although it may be thought that the 'Pope' is an influential person, and should be sucked up to, unless there are untapped oil wells in the Vatican, it is all a puff of smoke. Of course. many Catholic countries are sources of another useful commodity, cheap labour, so there may be some reason, after all.

On the back of our 'tenner', we have a picture of Charles Darwin, and on the front, our Queen, the Anglican Church equivalence of the Pope, I guess - far more sensible.

Somehow, it just seems that everybody has lost their way.
 
Madness though invisible can still do harm

Asher: Human cultures evolve. Not so long ago in the lifespan of the species, polygyny was the norm, kings unquestioned rulers, colonialism and slavery morally sound, and aboriginals and women undeserving of the vote. We look back on those times and consider the reasons for those practices ignorant or mad, although they doubtless seemed sound at the time.

What could be more mad than presuming life is a testing ground for an afterlife? That delusion, which might seem a commonplace and harmless eccentricity at the personal level, gave rise to cultural dogma that you cited as destructive in example after example.

Doris Lessing - before getting her recent Nobel prize - wrote as follows:

"If a mad person is in a political setting, or a religious one, a lot of people won't even know he or she is mad."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
What's interesting is that in Rome, the Pope is more of an accepted part of a seminary, a guy doing his job. When he goes abroad the adulation and risk increase logarithmicly. People declare their life is given purpose!

Take a look here

If you are not a Times registrant, you might be able to register.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher: Human cultures evolve. Not so long ago in the lifespan of the species, polygyny was the norm, kings unquestioned rulers, colonialism and slavery morally sound, and aboriginals and women undeserving of the vote. We look back on those times and consider the reasons for those practices ignorant or mad, although they doubtless seemed sound at the time.

What could be more mad than presuming life is a testing ground for an afterlife? That delusion, which might seem a commonplace and harmless eccentricity at the personal level, gave rise to cultural dogma that you cited as destructive in example after example.

Trouble is that it's too slow and the apes have nuclear weapons, turn the place into a toilet and cover the best valleys with concrete!

Doris Lessing - before getting her recent Nobel prize - wrote as follows:


"If a mad person is in a political setting, or a religious one, a lot of people won't even know he or she is mad."
Unfortunately, we live in what I call "The Grand Delusionorium" which covers my long term veiw of man's progress from the time of ancient scribes to modern infectious dogma machines in technical and technocratic societies.
 
For family reasons I have some deeper insights in this whole vatican scenario. Having said that, I cancelled my membership, which I did not apply for in the first hand, and left the church at the age of 17.

As far as the Pope is concerned, well, yeah "Papa Ratzi" <grins> has an interesting view on the world doesn't he?

I give him the same respect as I give any human being, and that's about it.

@Andrew, yeah and there is more to it. Years before those church abuse things came into the public mind, this very church took out an insurance policy for the eventual lawsuits in this matter against this institution. Interesting isn't it?

<cynical mode on>
Hey Asher, as you have Papa Ratzi now in the US. Can you please keep him there? <grins>
<cynical mode out>
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Georg,

I must admit, this whole hyperfocus on one religion above all others disturbs me almost more than any dogma. I'm even upset with myself for thinking about this so much. However, this story is in the News Headlines and actually represents what is essentially an tribalistic and archaic social weakness we have for infectious magical thinking and dogma. Today the largest religions are lauded as all honoring the supreme being, the small one's with no franchise are called sects (instead of the old term "heathens" or "heretics").

The Mormon offshoot (or true Mormons who disn't bow to Christian pressure to drop the multople wife thing) religious community of 10,000 souls around Texas, practice polygomy and a requirement for each man to marry at least 3 women*. Well the police authorities call these "old-fashioned" Mormons a "Sect". Now maybe the police have a special tephone number to "God" who tells them that thse Mormons are a "sect" while all the other religions are law-abiding and respectable!

In our modern societies (where marriages break down 50-75% of the time), people are sexually active from early teens, why do we pick on these underground mice with weird marriage habits and call them "rapists". I agree that the people are in the 5th Century, but if that was a criterion for allowing the police to break down doors, haul away private papers, computers and masses of women and kids on suspicon of pediophelia and rape, then there would have to be raids in every city, town, village in each parish in the USA! With over 4,400 documented priest pediophiles, not a single religious institution of any other denomination, except at Waco, has, TTBOMK, been raided!

Religious traditions can be beautiful and help teach some good values. I do not want to be against anyone but feel, "Hello guys, wake up, we've arrived! This is the 21st Century! Do we really believe in talking snakes, burning bushes, chariotts of fire, horseman of the Apocolypse, Stigmata, earth opening to resurrect the good Christians and swallowing the non-believers?"\

Made up stories are wondwerful!

"Old Mother Hubberd", Red Riding Hood" "Humpty Dumpty", "Gullivers Travels" or "Alice in Wonderland" are all clearly for entertainment and to teach values and raise questions about our own behaviors. They are all allegorical. Cultural religion, like St Patric's Parade, when everyone, Irish or not, wears green, is just wonderful and shows great spirit and connection with history.

Fundamentalist religions, however, are really serious, directly and indirectly indoctinating and so ultimately controling billions of people, who BTW have nuclear weapons!

We have, in fact evolved technology far to fast for our own social sophistication. Likely, what seals man's fate is clean water, antibiotics and the steam engine. These have fueled mechanization of baby production, sustainance and infestation of the planet with billions of people without any sense or purpose except growth!

Asher

*To get to 3 women for each adult male, they have an obvious mismatch! Not enough men are gay or die or else run away. So they get rid of excess young males by kicking them out as teenagers (to a world they have been told to shum, which in itself has to be frightening. These boys are toally unprepared with any schooling to fit in with the larger American society. So some take to drugs or whatever they can for solace for their confusion and total loss of bearings.
 
Last edited:

Ray West

New member
Hi Asher,

I thought the original reason for your posting this thread could be simply expressed as a question - re 'Is it right, that the USA, that has declared that State is separate from religion, should honour a head of religion in the same way as the head of state'.

But, instead, it seems to be just another platform for you to rail against others who are not of the same religious persuasion as yourself. Now, afaik, you left a previous forum, due to perceived religious persecution. I suspect others are not joining, or will be leaving opf for similar reasons.

Personally, I find this type of discussion irritating, since you never come to a conclusion, ignore things that involve too much rethinking, and usually you just drift off if you start losing an argument, to start another thread.

Now,

do you want to discuss, or preach???

Best wishes,
Ray
 
Hmm...

Personally I enjoy the exchange on such subjetcs, I just regrett, I have not much time at the moment for such endeavours.

Next winter again. ;)

P.S.

Ray, while I think Asher is what I would call "intense" in the best meaning of the word, I never found him to be indoctrinative, by no standards, on the contrary. I spoke numerous times with him, and yes, it is a matter close to his heart, so what?

For what its worth, I also share his points on the ridiculous royal treatment of Papa Ratzi in the US and in general, the bumper stickers mentality "I love the Pope", is something else.

I think he has raised valid points, and challenges to re think our own positions, this in itself is valueable, then again, as we all know, subjects such as this easily can become that wee bit touchy.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Asher,

I thought the original reason for your posting this thread could be simply expressed as a question - re 'Is it right, that the USA, that has declared that State is separate from religion, should honor a head of religion in the same way as the head of state'.
Ray, You are right being uncomfortable! So am I.

Imagine a balloon under pressure because of many issues needing to be addressed. The treating of one leader as Royalty and adopting a veneration, joy and the terminology of devout believers also bringing up the issue of separation of Church and State. The meaning of the writings on the reverse side of the notes, which I learned then for the first time, showed me more firmly the real connection between deep religious belief and the position of America as the God-favored nation to lead the world.

But, instead, it seems to be just another platform for you to rail against others who are not of the same religious persuasion as yourself. Now, afaik, you left a previous forum, due to perceived religious persecution. I suspect others are not joining, or will be leaving opf for similar reasons.
You need to be disarmed of your own position. It's not even an exaggeration of my own motivation, as it simply does not exist in any fiber of my own position or thrust of my "rant" as you eloquently frame my opinion.

1. No one, as far as has been disclosed, left RobGalbraith's forum protesting religious intolerance, because of religious intolerance towards anyone! Rob and Mike were all well mannered and courteous. No one was insulted! Just the mood changed with a burst of bannings that removed confidence and comfort.

2. I am absolutely tolerant to and even have joy in other people's faith. It's part of the cultural fabric of our many societies. I simply object to the State getting involved to put a seal of support for religion, as many of the Dogmas are incompatible with the inherent dignity of other religions.

3. The worst manifestation of this selective recognition and selective outrage for religious groups occurred concurrently. This naturally made be observe that while no one forced one religion to give up the records of numerous thousands of abused boys and girls raped by their officiates and then recycled to new virgin communities, one small sect of 10,000 devout observers of their religion are raided disrupted, paraded to in the light of the press, ridiculed and criminalized. This boggles the mind!

While I personally find each religion, including my own, surprisingly beautiful, they are also just social anachronisms that we have not risen above. They confuse rational thought with magical thinking. At the worse they seek to suppress, control, devastate and erase other religious variants of culture and belief or non-belief.

Personally, I find this type of discussion irritating, since you never come to a conclusion,
I have come to a conclusion; that should be obvious! It's that USA's reckless support of one religion and intolerance and humiliation of another shows how disordered our thinking is. It shows the destructive consequence of such 11th Century imprisonment of our minds.

....ignore things that involve too much rethinking,
Exactly what part of what argument has been ignored?

and usually you just drift off if you start losing an argument, to start another thread.

That reflects you own cynicism rather than any reality.

Now, do you want to discuss, or preach???
I have discussed and presented dilemmas here in the USA; not answers. I have shown my respect for religion but taken on serious anachronistic aspects. Where's your contribution? For someone such as you, otherwise so helpful and on the mark to himself errupt in dimissive rant of cynicism, is puzzling. Worse, it borders on hubris. What have you contributed but disdain? Yes, I admit a preachy style. However, the content is well-reasoned providing a basis for counter arguments or a different perspective.

It's not my job to come to provide solutions. Two major events of consequence occurred together in remarkable contradiction, revealing how ridiculous our social behavior is set up here in the USA.

That is what stimulated my "rant", the blunt reality of how far away we are from sufficient maturity to deal with the power we have acquired. We in the USA are imprisoned in our own delusions, you by your cynicism.

Asher
 
Last edited:
I have come to a conclusion; that should be obvious! It's that USA's reckless support of one religion and intolerance and humiliation of another shows how disordered our thinking is. It shows the destructive consequence of such 11th Century imprisonment of our minds.

Pretty much nails it in my view Asher, and from a very personal experience perspective, there are parts in the US where you can not and will not succeed doing busines if you are not a selfproclaimed born again. <shrugs>

Happy to be in the digital outback of NW Irland. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray West

New member
Asher,

You imply that because the USA has on its money, that it says, 'in God we trust', that that signifies that state is divorced from religion, in your opening to this thread. Surely that is a religious statement of some sort? The State is saying that they 'trust in God'. I have to assume that somehow, the word God is linked with religion, and therefore it must be that the state, or the bank, is wanted to be linked to religion too. Therefore, I do not see that there is any reason that the State should treat a religious leader in any different way than it would treat other leaders. I do not follow the logic of the original part of your argument. If the currency had said 'we trust in wealth', then I would see no connection to religion. Generally, leaders get welcomed in some way, according to their wishes, too, afaik.

So, discuss that, why you think that the USA state, because of what it says on its money shows that the state is divorced from religion in some way. It says it was placed there because of 'increased religious sentiment in the civil war.' It has not been changed. In an earlier post, in this thread, I asked about that. I may have missed something here, but as far as I know, you never responded to my earlier post, so I just give you a poke, to get some response.

Perhaps we can start there, (the state religion thing) or stop here. The question you asked re the media reaction, is different, unless the state has control over the media.

I am quite prepared to explain my reasons for saying exactly what I have said, as always, and I could also have explained the much longer posting in detail, that I didn't post, but in reality it will not change much of anything, but, to me you miss the nub of your own argument, so to speak, in that you appear to think that the state is separate from religion, or it ever was, or it ever wanted to be. I have not seen anything of what you have said or quoted, that would make me think otherwise. Always, every government has had 'religion'. It controls the people. Always, the state and religion has controlled communication, it is dangerous to allow people to talk. Always people have wanted to extend 'their family', form groups, power in numbers, etc. I just wonder why you act so surprised. Perhaps the brain washing is more subtle in the 'God favoured nation' than we realised.

Best wishes
Ray

I looked up 'cynicism' in my dictionary. I agree with some of the definitions, but not all of them ;-)
 
Top