--- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marlon, > If the secular welfare state has become so > excessive, > then why are there still so many Christian social > service agencies all over the place, and nary an > atheist social service agency to be found anywhere? --- The government (in most modern democracies anyway) is a secular organization that far exceeds in size and scope than any religious organization. If my nation is attacked, it is the secular military I depend on. If there is a natural disaster and I need to be evacuated, who comes to my rescue? If I am unemployed or disabled or aged, it is big brother government to the rescue again. Secular government has taken over the role once played by the church or equivalent relgious institutions. Finally, note that atheism is just another form of belief or non belief. I am a secularist which is not necessarily the same as an atheist. I for one would actually prefer the secular government taking a backseat to private/religious/secular organizations in taking a more central role in many of these affairs. The secular government has become way too big and powerful for its own good - just was the case with the Church and Christendom one thousand years ago.
> Mario observes: > > > a) The consistency of the religious moral compass is > not determined by those who divert from it, but by > the > 99% who do not. > > > b) Throughout history slavery has been an economic > phenomenon, not a racial one, and thankfully it has > been abolished with rare exceptions in, of all > places, > Africa. > > > c) Apartheit was a diabolical system of white > supremacy that was condemned by the vast majority of > Christians, just like Nazism by allegedly > "Christian" > Germans and Fascism by allegedly "Christian" --- I do not recall branding all christians as evil, but you dont seem to have any problem branding atheists and secularists as lacking a moral compass. You clearly make my point that individuals are liable to commit evil whether they are part of an organized religion or not! > Mario responds: > Just for the record, what I had said, in answer to a > specific rhetorical question from Marlon, was that, > in > my never humble opinion, anyone who provided moral > support to Islamo-fascists could be described as an > Islamo-fascist sympathiser. In that sense Pope > JP-II > as well as the Vatican, did strenuously oppose the > regime change in Iraq, the most brutal and sadistic > Islamo-fascist regime in recent history, and, to > that > extent, provided immense moral support to that > regime ---- Mario, thank you for clearly restating your rather extreme and abhorrent views on the late Pope John Paul. If you disagreed with the Pope so much, why did you keep calling yourself a catholic? The policy of the catholic church is pretty straight forward: You are with us, or you are not. Why be a part of an institution you so vigorously disagree with?!! > Mario responds: > > > I really have no idea whether Hindu temples were > destroyed in Goa "in order to build Catholic > Churches" > as some have alleged. However, Goa did suffer > through > one of the heinous historical bouts of Christian > fascism, the Inquisition, and I would not put it > beyond the realm of possibility for those Christian > fascists to have done so. > > > Gilbert, I believe, is looking for some evidence > beyond some facile assertions, and would accept such > > evidence from a credible source. ---- Thank goodness for archives! This is what Gilbert said 2 years ago during a raging debate on the issue of churches being built on top of destroyed temples. This is despite being provided documented evidence from a variety of sources. Gilbert responds: "For intellectual Goans to make blanket statements that this occurred is both disingenuous and inflammatory or one is living in a make belief world of India. Now that the issue is placed on the table (wittingly or unwittingly), let's discus this rationally, logically and scientifically. And hope wild statements do not come up again and poison the atmosphere in Goa or on Goan cyberspace." Gilbert's basic position was that Christianity was not guilty of such crimes (regardless of the facts) and that the best way to deal with the then apparent rise of Hindu religious extremism (BJP was on a roll then) would be to stonewall on the truth. My (and the majority in the debate) belief was that it was better to admit past errors, for this would be the best way to ensure support and trust from the moderate Hindu majority. Gilbert seems to be from the old school, where it is better to cover up historical injustices and would probably have supported the church heirarchy in masking the on going child abuse issue that has severely dented its credibility. To learn more about the debate, check out: http://www.goanet.org/archivetype.php?name=News&list=goanet&info=2004-April/thread I would also look at the discussion threads +/- 2 months around April 2004. Ciao, Marlon _____________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)